Moral objectivism is not much better than superstition... Nobody can objectively prove any particular moral. You can claim that a moral is objective, you can use logic or Reason to make a case that a moral should be objective. But logical coherence alone does not establish truth. Most moral objectivists simply hold that morality is objective because this is the pretext that allows them to accept a moral code from someone else. (Or from their religion) This is ultimately chosen for comfort and laziness. The relativist has to actually be responsible for thinking things through and developing his own moral understanding about all things. Whereas the religious person fancies himself a saint because he doesn't specifically break any of the ten commandments while being the most insufferable and cruel human imaginable. This pretty much entirely explains how evangelicals could morally justify supporting Donald Trump.

What a concise way to tell everyone that you have shitty taste in music.

Intent = Meaning ≠ Content

There are white Republican men all over America who literally can't find a problem with this, because it's too tangentially related to the clitoris.

Language cannot fully describe truth because truth is reality and reality is not made of language. We never touch reality with the intellect. We only touch the models we create in our head to represent reality. We INFER (not prove) truth about reality from our models. It goes: Reality -> fallible sensory detection -> subjective decoding of sensory input (labeling) -> conceptualization (modeling the sense input using memory) -> evaluations of the model's coherence to produce a desired outcome. The evaluation step is permanently separated from reality by many layers of noise. So we instead simply look for high statistical confidence that our model will work, rather than a declaration of "truth" in the binary sense.

Personally, Considering that all living things are the result of millions of generations of ancestors struggling for survival makes me value all life (rather than just humans) with extreme value and compassion that I haven't seen a Christian match. But in primitive dualistic "interpretive relativism" that masquerades as objectivism (Christianity), if you value all life more, it means you value humans less. What a vulgar thought process.

The conclusive evidence for evolution: Endogenous Retroviral DNA. A retrovirus is a virus that replicates by inserting itself into your DNA. That's why retroviruses (like HIV) are characteristically hard to cure. But because these viruses embed themselves in human DNA, they leave a precise fingerprint. The genome is so large that it is mathematically impossible for a virus to embed itself in exactly the same location in two different individuals. Therefore, if two people carry the same retrovirus DNA in the same location, we know that those two people descended from the same ancestor who was infected with that virus and then passed it on in their DNA. Well it turns out that all humans share certain sequences of retrovirus DNA with all Chimps and Bonobos. The only plausible explanation for this is that all three species share a common ancestor. Indeed, when we look through the genomes of other primates we find viral remnants that are shared between some species and not others. We have used these viral fingerprints to reconstruct the entire primate family tree. The result is 100% in line with the fossil record, molecular evidence, and phylogenetic trees based on morphological traits. When all of this is considered together, there is simply no alternate explanation that even comes close to explaining these empirical observations as well as evolution. ...Case closed.

If evolution did not really happen, then God went to unbelievably extreme lengths to make it appear that it did.

Me: "But the Bible doesn't fit the data." You: "That's because the Bible can be true regardless of what the data says, unlike evolution." Me: "Isn't that special pleading." You: "No stupid, that's a category error. I have defined God as special, so the pleading is ok, by definition." Yeah fuck all the way off with that.

If the number 2 concern of waffle House employees in Arkansas actually is sharia law, we are so goddamn fucked as a country. Best for someone to go ahead and nuke us so we can start over. There is no fixing this shit.

Equality-of-outcome across individuals is an Orwellian horror story. Equality-of-outcome across racial group aggregates is the null hypothesis to inherent racial superiority.

You mustn't forget... Jesus never instructed anyone to record his teachings, and it's very likely that the Gospels were not first-hand accounts. Sola Scriptura, and the Bible as "The Word of God" is the modern equivalent of the golden calf.

Creationism is like claiming that the Grand canyon had to have been carved by God because obviously water cannot cut through Rock.

Even if words could be objectively true, your interpretation of objectively true words will still always be subjective.

Reducing the subjectivity of morality to preference is a category error. If I ask you what you see right now the answer will be subjective, but there are absolutely true and false answers, and none of those answers are based on preference.

Solar + Storage will inevitably replace fossil fuels. Fossil fuel technology has no major advancements to make. And the greatest component of fuel cost is artificial constraints on supply to keep prices high. Meanwhile, the more we transition to renewables, the cheaper they become, because anyone can manufacture them. It's like being caught in the event horizon of a black hole. We are only going one way from here on out.

Dualism is brain rot.

DEI is a good thing, actually. The United States as a Republic with a representative democracy, and capitalist economy is built on the foundational principle that self-advocation for interests is the most effective basis for the distribution of resources in a society. No one can be trusted to look out for your interests as well as you can. For that reason, improving the representation of various demographics in government improves resource allocation. Eg. If politics are dominated by men then the political process will invariably over-allocate resources to men and under-allocate to women. It doesn't really matter if men are well-intentioned toward women or not. It's a latency issue. It's for the same reason that Central planning doesn't work well in socialist economies, regardless of how well-meaning the socialist government is. It's for the same reason republics outperform monarchies.

All of Christianity is sketchy. But the most sketchy part is how the prescribed attitude towards God is suspiciously similar to the way medieval kings demanded their subjects behave. Bowing, for instance, was practiced so that a paranoid King could see that someone wasn't carrying a sword.