Search This Blog

Thursday, January 22, 2015

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.

Monday, January 19, 2015

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Saturday, January 10, 2015

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