I'm not arguing with you, I'm explaining why you're stupid

h/t House of Eratosthenes

You know that Atheism isn’t the BELIEF that no god exists, but the LOGICAL CONCLUSION that no god exists, right? Atheism is as much of a religion as off is a TV program.

And the response:

No wait, hold on. This is bull****.

Let’s take your metaphor and run with it. So in this metaphor, religion would be like a fandom (or Star Trek or Supernatural or Firefly etc) and fandom does all sorts of things like hold conventions and hang out at websites and clubs and read material related to the show (so all that would be faith conventions, websites, church, holy text etc). So atheism is like the “Off” tv ‘program’? But there’s conventions going on that are all dedicated to “Off”. One can find entire campus groups all devoted to “Off”, they even have buildings and incorporations. There’s countless websites devoted to “Off” and large amounts of fanfiction on it. That’s not even getting into the spokespeople that bill themselves as the biggest fans of “Off”.

Atheism is a religion. I've made that argument before as have many others. How could a non-religion have so many debaters and courtroom-crusaders? Whenever a debate happens with an Atheist about intelligent design, the Atheist is so completely and blithely certain of their own position that they don't even bother listening to what their debate counterpart is even saying. What you see every single time is a farcical mummers show featuring a blind man arguing with a deaf mute. What you watch is smug condescension and cheerful reminders that everything the other person is saying is wrong because that other person is a deluded fool. This is of course an asinine circular ad hominem argument. I.E. You are wrong because you're stupid, and if you weren't so stupid you'd know you were wrong. In addition my own position is correct because what I believe is true, and I know it is true because I am smart.

First argument of Atheism: if two religious beliefs contradict each other, then at least one of them must be wrong. If multiple religions contradict each other then at least all but one of them must be wrong. If a religion contains self-contradictory beliefs then it must be wrong. Every religion can be shown to contain self-contradictory beliefs. Therefore every religion must be wrong. ------ My rebuttal: we're not debating the question of whether any particular religion is or isn't true. We're debating the question of whether accidental and spontaneous generation of life is possible or was life designed? We're not asking whether God parted the Red Sea for Moses, we're asking where did this universe we live in come from? That's the debate. Don't read me phrases from some ancient scroll and ask me to defend them.

Second argument of Atheism: if there is an all-knowing, all-powerful God then he's an evil God because he allows so much suffering to happen in the world. Only random chance is benevolent enough to believe in. ------ My rebuttal: God didn't have to be all-knowing and all powerful to create the universe. He just has to be powerful enough and knowing enough to get us to where we are today. Furthermore, perhaps the random and sometimes brutal element of chance which shapes not only the lives of men, but of all life, is the most efficient method of perfecting his original imperfect creation.

Third argument of Atheism: there doesn't have to be a God to explain the existence of everything. It's an unnecessary, improvable, and pointless complication when a simpler explanation can explain everything. ------ My rebuttal: Great, please explain where the "Big Bang" came from. Also, please explain how a sterile ball of dirt and simple elements and compounds could spontaneously arrange itself "accidentally" into a life-form capable of reproducing itself. Mankind hasn't yet figured out a way to create life from scratch with all our science and super-computers, but it supposedly just happened by itself? Science hasn't succeeded in any way shape or form in explaining how we came to be here.

That's all they've got. All religions are logically incoherent and self-contradictory, life sucks too much to be an intelligent design, and science already explains the origin of everything. Except that a creator might not have or need a religion. A creator might not give two-shits what Richard Dawkins thinks about his design. Finally science hasn't explained anything regarding the beginning of the universe, or the beginning of life. None of the preceding however is the point of this blog post.

All these lengthy debates between apologists and Atheists are conducted and they all seem to go the same way. The apologist is on fire; he or she is passionate, intelligent, enthusiastic, and possesses a lengthy list of well-thought out debate points with which he or she plans to trip up the Atheist. The only problem with this plan is that the Atheist isn't going to respond to any of their debate points. He's simply going to sit back, smile condescendingly, and explain why the apologist is stupid. How can you debate a passive-aggressive a-hole who only wants to mock your beliefs and try to get a laugh out of the audience? These Atheists don't debate the apologists, they're too busy sucking up to the crowd, recycling the same tiresome jokes that only Atheists think are funny or insightful. The title of this blog post might as well be the Atheist's slogan. Why don't Atheists just get the tee-shirt? That way their debate counterparts would at least have some idea what they were dealing with.

UPDATE 02/13/2015 6:56 am cst

Wintery Knight has a great ... actually it's nearly perfect ... video that you simply cannot miss if you're at all interested in the origin of life. See it here.

How do we block these blockers?

There are blockers in the world. They consider blocking to be their prime directive. [Yes the blocking irony wrapped up in this Star Trek term has certainly occurred to me.] Consider...the light turns yellow and the driver in front of you stops. You are aware that not only could he have gone through the yellow, but you as well could also have gone through. But he stopped! Consider further...he actually slowed down as he approached the intersection. He was aware that the green light might turn yellow, and he wanted to be in a position where he could successfully and safely stop should the green light turn yellow. He approached the intersection with the intention of stopping if that possibility became actualized.

There is actually a term for these sorts of people. They're called marplots. Now we could spend years of time and forests of paper theorizing why they are the way they are and why they do what they do, but, honesty, I don't think that's necessary. All that is actually required to solve the problem they present, is first to accept that they do exist, and then come up with a workable plan to block their intransigent blocking.

Blockers are at their most self-evident while driving. That's their milieu. The rules of the road combined with it's inherent narrowness, combine to provide them with blocking power that is all out of proportion to their economic and/or political position. There are of course many other kinds of blockers. There are blockers who use their influence with the boss or with investors to sidetrack or veto every one of your great ideas. There are blockers who use their 'friend' status to sideline or overrule your amorous nightclub undertaking. (Cock-blockers) And then there are the ones who drive 50 mph in the left lane of a six lane highway during rush-hour.

I'll take the possibilities of stopping blockers in the order they first occur to me:

• Kill them. Shoot them, blow them up, stab them, strangle, suffocate, poison, lure into deep pits or horrific crushing deadfalls. The basic problem with all of these simplest of solutions is that enacting any one of them would—in all likelihood—see you in prison. If a blocker could block you with actual prison bars think how awesome that will make them feel! They will have achieved the proverbial acme of their otherwise absolutely pointless existence. You'll be in prison and will never again be in a position to win whatever race it is that you were competing in, complete whatever task you were trying to complete, or simply arrive at your destination on time. Career over. Marriage over, Parenthood over. Life over. They will have blocked you for good and all. Even if dead, the blocker will have won.
• Hire someone else to block them from blocking you. While this idea sound reasonable and workable, in most cases it's not possible. Take the driving on the road blockers for example. In order to employ blocker blockers, you'd first need to identify and research the history, lifestyle, schedule, and whereabouts of every blocker on the road that you normally travel on, both going to and coming from work. This isn't even remotely possible, although it does give me an idea...
• Join a consortium of those dedicated to blocking the blockers. I understand. It does seem self-contradictory and somewhat hypocritical to decide that someone's raison d'etre—i.e. blocking—should be systematically and ruthlessly foiled using the organizational power and funding of a large group of anti-blocker advocates. Nevertheless, I believe the ends justify the means.

It seems to me that the first order of business is a name for this club. I have an idea but I'm certainly open to suggestions. Have you ever heard the old saw about the irresistible force meeting the immovable object? Well, if what we're after is removing immovable objects from our path then the name of the club is inevitable. Welcome to Irresistible Force, a club devoted to sidetracking, stymieing, and stifling the blockers of the world. In a perfect world, all the blockers would be busy blocking each other in the far right lane, while traffic moved unimpeded to their left.

How will this club perform it's noteworthy task? Simply by dedicating themselves to blocking the blockers. Okay, here's where we separate the men from the boys as they say. There are men and then there are cowards. Which group will you sort into? Are you can do or no can do? The way to block the blockers will take teamwork and occationally require taking one for the team. The steps I've imagined are listed below but as with the organization name, I'm certainly open to suggestions. Additionally, if anybody likes this idea and wants to get it started, I'm all ears. Without further ado here are some steps to block the traffic blockers:

1. Identify a blocker.
2. Record the license plate, make, and model of his/her car.
3. Enter this information into a national blocker database.
4. Describe the method this blocker used to block and its effectiveness.
5. The elected board of blocker review will evaluate the information entered by members, and offer a bounty for sanctions provided. Blockers will have been noted by multiple group members with the number of similar entries used to evaluate the severity of the blocker as well as the severity of the required sanction.
6. Severity of sanction will be graduated and necessarily riskier. These might range from holding up a sign: "Idiot you're blocking traffic!" to following the blocker to his parking spot and letting all the air out of his tires.
7. Successful and powerful public relations are the key to success—just like in business. If the public is made aware that there is a countervailing force for good which is meant to combat the intransigent and completely unnecessary evil that these blockers represent, then the Irresistible Force Network could receive both donations and new membership. The larger we become, the more powerful we become. Facebook, Twitter, a webpage, a board of directors, a fundraising team, and a superpac are obvious just to start with.
8. I know this sounds like pie in the sky, moonbeans, and Big Rock Candy Mountain, but one day ... I envision a world where speed-limit minimums are enforced as assiduously as maximums. Where left lanes are reserved for passing, and where people are ticketed for stopping on yellow.

I want to end this post by describing some simple rules and observations that—if followed—would make driving both safer, and more enjoyable for everyone on the road. First and to my mind most important: Red light means stop. Green light means go. Yellow light means go very fast!

Second, the left lane is meant for passing. While that seems simple enough, the corollary to that rule is simply this: if somebody is tailgating you move right. If you're already in the rightmost lane and they're still tailgating, then the middle-finger salute is in order.

Finally, whether you were aware of it or not, it actually is possible to tell when the crossing lane traffic gets its yellow and then red light. Related directly to this fact, the following is a great tip ... When the crossing lane traffic light is red, YOUR OWN LIGHT IS ABOUT TO TURN GREEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd rather die standing than live on my knees.

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

George Orwell's doublethink idea in the book 1984 is obviously already in operation, especially in Obama's politically correct administration. Whenever a terrorist attack occurs, Obama shills move Heaven and Earth to avoid tying the atrocity to Islam. We saw that most evidently with the Al-Qaeda attack on Charlie Hebdo in France.


Also this Here.

The almost pathological reluctance to pair the words Islamic and terror together in government and also in the mainstream media is endemic and if I may coin a word, eloiesque. What's interesting to me, is that this propensity to play the ignorant ostrich with its head buried in the sand is causing some big-time liberal rank breaking. Bill Maher, one of the most disgusting and vulgar media figures conservatives love to hate, has indeed broken ranks with his liberal cohorts. He refuses to keep his head buried in the sand. Listen:


At the other end of the spectrum—in almost ironically diametric opposition to Atheist Bill Maher—we have the Catholic Church represented in the person of Catholic League president Bill Donahue.



As I sit here looking at this story and the bigger picture, the picture that we refuse to look at, I can't help but think that we're so lost in the dark that we can't even admit we are lost in the dark. We just keep blindly stumbling along, tripping over underbrush, falling, getting back to our feet, and stumbling again headlong, we know not where.

I have been lost in the woods in the dark. All alone, no light, no compass, no gingerbread house. It's scary. The first thing you have to do when you become lost is admit that you are lost. America hasn't done that yet. We keep doubling down on the certainty that the direction we're going will lead us back to civilization and prosperity when there's no earthly evidence that we're not heading deeper and deeper into ruin and desolation.

War has been declared and everybody is shoveling sand over their own heads. America, we are at war with Islam. It's not a traditional war with front-lines, tanks, and infantry. It's not a cold war like we had with the USSR, with spies, economic sanctions, and propaganda. It's a shadow war with enemies that appear and disappear at will. They lurk in the shadows and walk openly in broad daylight. They proclaim friendship and amity and then when we turn our back they bury the dagger in our backs.

The first thing that both Muslims and Eloi always do, is argue is that we can't blame all Muslims for the actions of a tiny minority. That's their only argument. Oh, you were finished? Well, allow me to retort!



Sometimes, in fact often, you can't tell who's to blame. The only thing you really do know, is that somebody is to blame, and somebody else knows damn well WHO THAT IS!!!

I have only one more video for you, but it's the money shot. Warning extreme profanity:


We don't have to find the terrorists. We have half the world to search, and a billion accomplices who help aid and abet them. It's not even remotely possible. The solution is a simple as what you saw in the Full Metal Jacket video. We have tried to teach them, but we have failed. We have failed because the Muslim world has not given these terrorists the proper motivation. So, from now on, we shouldn't bother trying to punish the magically disappearing terrorists, we should punish the Muslim world itself as a whole. How do we punish them? Well, maybe it's a little pompous to say, but we could start by not sending them any more Goddamn MONEY!!!

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

—Benjamin Franklin

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

—Patrick Henry

"Maybe it's a little pompous to say, but I'd rather die standing than live on my knees."

—Stephane Charbonnier

RACETY-RACE-RACE

I finally figured out what white-privilege really means! White-privilege is the innate ability of white-people to be offensive to black people, merely by virtue of our own existence. There are some actual privileges that come with the white skin though. The first one can be described thusly: Not having to walk around being a self-absorbed narcissistic umbrageous paranoid ass-hole 24/7.

Being white means we don't have to spend every moment of our lives, examining each and every interaction with every other person for possible racety-race-race overtones. No dog whistles, no code words, no side-eyes, no wondering if random strangers suspect us of being murderers, muggers, rapists, thieves, drug-dealers, gang-bangers, or panhandlers. Simply by being white we can go about our day not caring at all what complete strangers think about us.

On a side note, I know that many of you are fond of the term "RAAAAACISM," but I can never keep the number of 'A's straight, plus it seems as though every time I turn around they're adding more of them. So, at least for now, I going to use the Three R's "Racety-race-race." I like it because the open mockery of those consumed by racialism is blatant and undeniable within that short little hyphen connected five syllable refrain.

President and Michelle Obama personally identify with everyday experiences of racial bias in America that have underpinned recent protests across the country, they told People magazine in an interview to be released Friday.

"Barack Obama was a black man that lived on the South Side of Chicago, who had his share of troubles catching cabs," Michelle Obama told the magazine.

On one occasion, she said, her husband "was wearing a tuxedo at a black-tie dinner, and somebody asked him to get coffee."

President Obama said he's even been mistakenly treated as a valet. "There’s no black male my age, who’s a professional, who hasn't come out of a restaurant and is waiting for their car and somebody didn't hand them their car keys," he said, according to excerpts of the interview released today.

The first lady also described being mistreated at a Target store in suburban Washington, during a shopping trip she took in 2011. "Even as the first lady," she told the magazine, "during the wonderfully publicized trip I took to Target, not highly disguised, the only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf."

Tuesday Funny

If you enjoyed reading the voluminous trilogy known as The Lord of The Rings Trilogy, then perhaps you can spend a few moments reading about an alternative translation of the Red Book of Westmarch. Those of you who have followed my blog are perhaps aware that while reading Sci-fi and Fantasy has always been my raison d'être, my personal opinion of the much vaunted LOTR trilogy is ... meh. QED there must be more to this story, than I'd apprehended. In fact I'd tasted a recipe that was subtly flawed. Somebody had spiked the sauce, with some bit of nastiness and everybody proclaimed how the emperors invisible clothes were the absolute bees knees...or something. Yes it's a hopelessly mixed metaphor for my own less than whelming appreciation for Tolkein's excessively long-winded peregrination in formulaic fantasy. Therefore, I'm always on the lookout for somebody brave enough to mock Tolkein and then revel in the mocking.

No one who gets a postgraduate degree in Hobbit Studies ever imagines they’ll be sued by the Estate of J.R.R. Tolkien. I certainly didn’t expect to wind up in court against Christopher Tolkien and his lawyers, like Frodo Baggins facing down the Nazgûl on Weathertop. Little did I know I was heading into a legal and scholarly Midgewater when I wrote and published The Lord of the Rings: A New English Translation.

Lèse-majesté and Emperor Obama

Lèse-majesté /ˌliːz ˈmædʒɨsti/[1] (French: lèse-majesté [lɛz maʒɛste]; Law French, from the Latin laesa maiestas, "injured majesty"; in English, also lese-majesty, lese majesty or leze majesty) is the crime of violating majesty, an offence against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state.

This behavior was first classified as a criminal offence against the dignity of the Roman Republic of Ancient Rome. In the Dominate, or Late Empire period the emperors eliminated the Republican trappings of their predecessors and began to identify the state with their person.[2] Although legally the princeps civitatis (his official title, meaning, roughly, 'first citizen') could never become a sovereign because the republic was never officially abolished, emperors were deified as divus, first posthumously but by the Dominate period while reigning. Deified emperors enjoyed the same legal protection that was accorded to the divinities of the state cult; by the time it was replaced by Christianity, what was in all but name a monarchical tradition had already become well established.

This definition requires a little explanation. In a nutshell, Emperors were regarded as having the mandate of God. To impugn His Majesty, was not only a crime but actual sacrilege. I.E. you'll be executed and excommunicated. To insult the King is to go straight to Hell; do not pass Go; do not collect $200.00.

A GOP staffer has been forced to resign after launching a verbal assault on Malia and Sasha Obama in the wake of their appearance at their father’s annual turkey pardoning ceremony at the White House.

Elizabeth Lauten, who served as a communications director for Rep. Stephen Fincher, criticized the two girls in a Facebook rant which eventually went viral. “Act like being in the White House matters to you. Dress like you deserve respect, not a spot at a bar. And certainly don’t make faces during televised, public events,” wrote Lauten.

She went on the call the first children, who largely stay out of the limelight, “classless.”

Many have argued Malia and Sasha were behaving like typical teenagers at the event. They appeared unamused by President Obama’s corny jokes and at one point Malia declined to pet the Thanksgiving turkey by simply saying, “Nah.”

Lauten has since apologized for her post, admitting, “When I first posted on Facebook I reacted to an article and I quickly judged the two young ladies in a way that I would never have wanted to be judged myself as a teenager.” Lauten’s name became a trending topic amid the controversy, with over 22,000 mentions in 24 hours. Now, her resignation is “in the works.”

There is an understanding in the broadcast world, that for more than six years has gripped their hearts and minds. That understanding can be summed up as Obama is taboo. You don't make jokes about Obama. You don't criticize the Obama Family. You back away. If you can't say anything complimentary, ask for help from your editor. Even comedians who have historically joked about anything and everything, tread very lightly when they consider mocking The One.

If you're on the government payroll, obviously, criticizing the President is still the fastest way to the unemployment line. But perhaps we've turned a corner. For six dry unfunny and stilted seasons, Saturday Night Live felt constrained, straight-jacketed, hemmed in, stymied, etc., in their humor, because for the entire history of this storied comedy show, they've mercilessly raked Presidents across the coals with humor. We haven't seen that with Obama.



But until now, Obama has gotten a pass. Was it the massive and shocking Republican wave election that repudiated the Obama regime and its policies? Was it the tone deaf response of Obama—after this humiliating defeat—to double down on the same misguided and unpopular policies?

The question of "WHO LET THE DOGS OUT" will no doubt resonate down through the ages as it intrigues the legions of historians who will dedicate careers and author innumerable dissertations studying this, the downfall of our once great republic. But today is different. A worm has turned.

I know that to most people nothing seems different. I know that to Elizabeth Lauten—who must wonder how could a Republican making a criticism of a Democrat first family be railroaded so effectively so massively, so thoroughly—the reality of Lèse-majesté fully confirmed and active has never been more apparent.

Even though a Republican appointed staffer has been shamefully forced out of a career because the mainstream media and Democrats at large collectively threw themselves to the floor squalling and beating their fists and shrieking histrionically like hysterical would-be prom queens actually jilted the day of the prom, still it's hard to see ... but things really are different. I know because I saw this SNL skit:



It's a small thing, but in effect and as a symbol it's a BIG thing. It says that maybe—in spite of Ms. Lauten—that freedom of speech just might be making a comeback—a strictly limited late-night make jokes while its still legal—comeback.

Seeking Sanity Saturday

TURN OFF THE CHRISTMAS MUSIC!

Rage against the playing of the Christmas jingles.
Do not go gentle into that Department Store.
Rage, rage against the buying of the crap.

What's the matter with people? Here's a fun thought experiment. Take a walk through your house. Catalogue in your mind the possessions you see, and try to remember the approximate expense of those items. Keep a running total. Now imagine a lifetime of those purchases from cradle to grave. The average person will spend a thousand dollars this season for a pile of useless crap. When you think about total lifetime non-essential purchases, I'm not talking about food or rent or heat, I'm talking about cassette tapes, compact disks, DVDs, Blue Rays, Amazon, board games, bric-a-brac, and sundries, plastic picture frames, sunglasses, boats, fake ceramic fruit, and on and on. That's a lot of stuff! A great deal of that stuff will be given away at Christmas, and in return you'll be given a like amount of stuff that somebody else picked out for you.

Imagine the sound of a garbage truck dumping its load of broken crap in a landfill. That compacted mass of crap represents every pointless and ultimately worthless item of questionable utility, ornamentation, and entertainment you ever plunked down a paycheck for. So my friends, here's a little Christmas Zen for you: What is the sound of a million dollars worth of junk slowly turning into dust over a thousand years?

I hope you all had the chance to spend time with family and friends on Thursday and were properly thankful for what you have, where you are, and properly realize how truly lucky you are compared to the billions today and in the past who had so much less. If after proper reflection and gratitude you decided to camp out in front of a department store or rampage through a Best Buy or Wal-Mart then I'm sorry for you. You're an idiot and there's no hope for you. I hope your dearly bought possessions bring you joy, even though I know they won't. Maybe you think they were great deals and not dearly bought at all, but you've forgotten to factor in opportunity cost. You got some stuff and lost a little of your own humanity. You could have spent more time with family and friends but instead you went out to do battle in a war for whom the winner received only the chance to purchase more useless crap. Congratulations on your pyrrhic victory.

And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing to trade all that useless stuff and all those wasted hours shopping, between this day and that, for another day, just one more perfect day with your family? In the end, do you suppose you might regret all those wasted dollars and all those wasted hours rummaging feverishly through aisles full of useless crap? Between Black Friday and Cyber Monday we need a day of sanity. A day devoted to cobbling together the shreds of our own self-respect, a day spent wandering through our own homes taking stock of what we have and why we bought it, and finally a day spent scraping up the remaining broken shards of our own sanity.

Philosophers are famous for asking "Why Are We Here?" The day after Black Friday is a good day to ask When is Enough, Enough? How much more crap can you balance on overloaded shelves, stuff into packed closets, and cram into overflowing toy chests?

Now I know what you're thinking. After all this unhealthy railing against commercialism and greed, you're probably expecting me to offer up the typical high-minded holiday reminder about what Christmas is all about. Will it be donate to the needy? Reach out to the neglected? Invite a neighbor for dinner, like the horrible old lady who lets Cujo the Pomeranian crap under your azalea bushes every morning?

Nope. Don't do any of that stuff just because it's Christmas. If philanthropy is your kick, then why not pick some day in the middle of July? Seek out a couple of smelly vagrants and invite them inside for a few hours of central air-conditioning and a sandwich. Or hey, why not be generous in February? There's not much going on for the down-and-out in the month of amore. You could even ask a bum to be your valentine.

My advice this Christmas season is to engage in open rebellion against the status quo. Have fun this Christmas by doing the opposite of the herd. Go get a tan. Have steak and French-fries for Christmas dinner. Most important, turn off the Christmas music. That music—which is only played this time of year—has totally brainwashed you over the years, to the point where you might as well be a zombie with a Macy's Card. It's exactly like Pavlov ringing his bell and you salivating. Snap out of it!