Mark Walock , The Advocate Atheism When it comes to solving the national debt and deficit, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and his tea party Republicans are completely delusional.
Jul
31
via QualiaSoup. This is part two in a three part series. Part 1 is Morality: God Without Gods. We'll post the third one when it is released.
.
Jul
31
Ethan Hein's answer to Atheism: When atheists think about why the Big Bang happened, what do they think? Do they just not think in terms of why or do they have theories as to the why? The physicist Lee Smolin wrote a ...
Jul
31
I don't like to blog about myself or pretend to think that other people care what is going on with me. However, considering recent posts on the military and what I perceive to be an ongoing problem, I thought I'd share some slightly more personal thoughts.
I have spent the last few days in Indiana with my parents, who are both diagnosed with terminal illnesses. My father has lung cancer which has metastasized to his brain, and when his gall bladder was recently removed for an unrelated problem, they found cancer there as well. My mother has been living with amyloidosis for about 9 years now, was given a kidney by her sister this year in order to delay the need for constant kidney dialysis, and is basically always sick and taking dozens of meds just to stay alive.
They are very normal people, so normal that I would wonder if I was adopted if I didn't look so much like them. They are typical in that they don't discuss politics or religion, while these two things are the primary topic of conversation for me, both on my blog and when speaking with others. They would rather discuss the weather and sports.
I've been more or less told that I am intolerable to speak with. This doesn't bother me, because I have always placed my ideas ahead of personal things like family or my own reputation. I would rather say my opinion than be liked, and I would rather tell someone they are wrong than just politely smile. I have never had a shortage of people to discuss these matters with, even though I have turned many people off from wanting to ever talk to me again.
In fact, it has been my experience that my manner has pushed away the most boring and weak people in my life, while simultaneously drawing some of the most interesting and strong willed people into my closest circles. My wife is the smartest and most stubborn person I have ever met, and I am immeasurably happy that I have managed to fool her into believing I deserve to be with her. I know she could have done better, but I'm glad she didn't.
This weekend reminded me of the day me and my current wife told my parents that we were engaged. We went out to a nice seafood restaurant, and at some point in the meal we told them we have an announcement to make. My mother was the first to react to the news. I'll never forget... she turned to my then-fiancée and asked, "Are you sure?"
I think most people would have been insulted, but I knew what she meant. I am a tough pill to swallow, and my mother was just being my mother and looking out for me in the only logical way she knew how. The three little words that formed that question were loaded with the weight of having dealt with me and my antics for 18 years under her roof and several years of me half-assing my way through college. I'm fairly certain it was not intended as an insult, but rather as an act of protection for my benefit.
What she was really asking was, "My son is a very difficult person, do you know what you're getting into?"
I think you, the readers of my blog, have had to ask yourself a similar question from time to time. Is it worth it to read this blog when each line brings with it the possibility of reading a hurtful, callous, or downright cruel statement? I'm glad so many people have felt the answer to be, "Yes," and I don't take that lightly. I know that what I write is not for everyone, and sometimes seems to be for the benefit of no one but myself and my inflated ego.
Whether I'm suggesting that killing your own baby is not a crime or telling people in the military that I hope they kill themselves, there are those moments when I assume any sane and rational person would simply stop reading a post, or the entire blog altogether. I know there are also times (not very long ago, even) where the vitriol of my replies turned people off from commenting completely.
I think that maybe, and I could be wrong here, but just maybe the reason people do continue to read my posts, despite all of this, is because my message is usually sound, even when my methods are not. Maybe, but I could be wrong.
I have posted about this before, but in light of recent posts, I feel that perhaps I should explain myself for the benefit of those who are not long-time readers. This is and is not an act. In many ways, what I write is not who I am, but in a few significant ways, it is.
I learned early in my life that if you want something, you can't try to achieve it; you must try to achieve more. Out of pure necessity, I have honed what I sometimes see as an almost chilling persona that I can adopt effortlessly for the purposes of getting my way. That persona works on a very simple principle: if I want X, I forcefully demand twice X.
Using an example stated above, I argued in a post that women should be allowed to kill their children. Do I honestly think women should be allowed to kill their children? No. So why on Earth would I suggest such a stupid, ludicrous idea? Because defining the debate is more important than most people realize, and to move the line in the direction of infanticide puts the idea of banning just simple abortion completely off the table.
Republicans are masters of this technique. They demand the entire sky, when all they really wanted was the sun and the moon. When it comes time to negotiate, they hold firm to their insane demands until the last possible instant, and then they "concede" and "compromise" to receive what it is they had wanted from the very beginning. If you doubt me, look no further than the current debt ceiling "debate."
In essence, I see my techniques as being directly borrowed from the current conservative movement, while the ideas I apply them to are purely liberal. I fear my tactics have failed, and I have usually blamed this on other liberals, who I see as spineless wimps who are afraid to get their hands dirty in the trenches of what is truly a war of ideas.
It is liberals, after all, who tend to heap the most anger on me when I attempt such measures. This disgusts me, because when conservatives are confronted with the more extreme vision of their ideal, they largely embrace it without criticism. As it turns out, I cannot count on liberals being so generous with their approval.
It's not rocket science as to why this is. The kinds of people who find this method of pseudo-extremism to be attractive simply are not liberals, they are conservatives. I am forced to see my methods as being fundamentally flawed, tantamount to trying to cook a big, juicy steak to impress a vegetarian.
While it may surprise some, I have little problem in admitting when I am wrong. In fact, I am actually eager to admit when I am wrong if I realize that I am clearly incorrect. Like I imagine so many others are, I think it is more important to be correct in the end than to be correct from the beginning.
So what does all of this rambling amount to? What is the final summation?
I was wrong to suggest that all military personnel should kill themselves, though I have yet to see a comment or e-mail that adequately encapsulates why I feel this to be the case.
What is my reasoning for recanting such a comment? There are kids who should not grow up without their mom or dad. There are spouses and parents who don't deserve to lose a loved one. There are friends and co-workers who should be free from the grief of losing someone close to them. In short, I lost sight of the most important principle that I cherish in liberalism, which is the idea that we are all connected, regardless of the choices we make or the anger we may harbor.
I still think the military is fundamentally wrong. I still believe it is foolish to enlist. I still believe that America and the rest of the world would be better off without the US military industrial complex. But none of these ideas can negate the fact that every soldier is a human being worthy of my tolerance, from the medic whose sole job is saving lives to the criminals who ran Abu Ghraib.
For losing sight of that, I express regret, and I thank all of you who continue to read my blog for tolerating me. I don't seek forgiveness or approval in making this statement, I just think you all deserve an explanation for what I've written.
Thank you for reading.
I have spent the last few days in Indiana with my parents, who are both diagnosed with terminal illnesses. My father has lung cancer which has metastasized to his brain, and when his gall bladder was recently removed for an unrelated problem, they found cancer there as well. My mother has been living with amyloidosis for about 9 years now, was given a kidney by her sister this year in order to delay the need for constant kidney dialysis, and is basically always sick and taking dozens of meds just to stay alive.
They are very normal people, so normal that I would wonder if I was adopted if I didn't look so much like them. They are typical in that they don't discuss politics or religion, while these two things are the primary topic of conversation for me, both on my blog and when speaking with others. They would rather discuss the weather and sports.
I've been more or less told that I am intolerable to speak with. This doesn't bother me, because I have always placed my ideas ahead of personal things like family or my own reputation. I would rather say my opinion than be liked, and I would rather tell someone they are wrong than just politely smile. I have never had a shortage of people to discuss these matters with, even though I have turned many people off from wanting to ever talk to me again.
In fact, it has been my experience that my manner has pushed away the most boring and weak people in my life, while simultaneously drawing some of the most interesting and strong willed people into my closest circles. My wife is the smartest and most stubborn person I have ever met, and I am immeasurably happy that I have managed to fool her into believing I deserve to be with her. I know she could have done better, but I'm glad she didn't.
This weekend reminded me of the day me and my current wife told my parents that we were engaged. We went out to a nice seafood restaurant, and at some point in the meal we told them we have an announcement to make. My mother was the first to react to the news. I'll never forget... she turned to my then-fiancée and asked, "Are you sure?"
I think most people would have been insulted, but I knew what she meant. I am a tough pill to swallow, and my mother was just being my mother and looking out for me in the only logical way she knew how. The three little words that formed that question were loaded with the weight of having dealt with me and my antics for 18 years under her roof and several years of me half-assing my way through college. I'm fairly certain it was not intended as an insult, but rather as an act of protection for my benefit.
What she was really asking was, "My son is a very difficult person, do you know what you're getting into?"
I think you, the readers of my blog, have had to ask yourself a similar question from time to time. Is it worth it to read this blog when each line brings with it the possibility of reading a hurtful, callous, or downright cruel statement? I'm glad so many people have felt the answer to be, "Yes," and I don't take that lightly. I know that what I write is not for everyone, and sometimes seems to be for the benefit of no one but myself and my inflated ego.
Whether I'm suggesting that killing your own baby is not a crime or telling people in the military that I hope they kill themselves, there are those moments when I assume any sane and rational person would simply stop reading a post, or the entire blog altogether. I know there are also times (not very long ago, even) where the vitriol of my replies turned people off from commenting completely.
I think that maybe, and I could be wrong here, but just maybe the reason people do continue to read my posts, despite all of this, is because my message is usually sound, even when my methods are not. Maybe, but I could be wrong.
I have posted about this before, but in light of recent posts, I feel that perhaps I should explain myself for the benefit of those who are not long-time readers. This is and is not an act. In many ways, what I write is not who I am, but in a few significant ways, it is.
I learned early in my life that if you want something, you can't try to achieve it; you must try to achieve more. Out of pure necessity, I have honed what I sometimes see as an almost chilling persona that I can adopt effortlessly for the purposes of getting my way. That persona works on a very simple principle: if I want X, I forcefully demand twice X.
Using an example stated above, I argued in a post that women should be allowed to kill their children. Do I honestly think women should be allowed to kill their children? No. So why on Earth would I suggest such a stupid, ludicrous idea? Because defining the debate is more important than most people realize, and to move the line in the direction of infanticide puts the idea of banning just simple abortion completely off the table.
Republicans are masters of this technique. They demand the entire sky, when all they really wanted was the sun and the moon. When it comes time to negotiate, they hold firm to their insane demands until the last possible instant, and then they "concede" and "compromise" to receive what it is they had wanted from the very beginning. If you doubt me, look no further than the current debt ceiling "debate."
In essence, I see my techniques as being directly borrowed from the current conservative movement, while the ideas I apply them to are purely liberal. I fear my tactics have failed, and I have usually blamed this on other liberals, who I see as spineless wimps who are afraid to get their hands dirty in the trenches of what is truly a war of ideas.
It is liberals, after all, who tend to heap the most anger on me when I attempt such measures. This disgusts me, because when conservatives are confronted with the more extreme vision of their ideal, they largely embrace it without criticism. As it turns out, I cannot count on liberals being so generous with their approval.
It's not rocket science as to why this is. The kinds of people who find this method of pseudo-extremism to be attractive simply are not liberals, they are conservatives. I am forced to see my methods as being fundamentally flawed, tantamount to trying to cook a big, juicy steak to impress a vegetarian.
While it may surprise some, I have little problem in admitting when I am wrong. In fact, I am actually eager to admit when I am wrong if I realize that I am clearly incorrect. Like I imagine so many others are, I think it is more important to be correct in the end than to be correct from the beginning.
So what does all of this rambling amount to? What is the final summation?
I was wrong to suggest that all military personnel should kill themselves, though I have yet to see a comment or e-mail that adequately encapsulates why I feel this to be the case.
What is my reasoning for recanting such a comment? There are kids who should not grow up without their mom or dad. There are spouses and parents who don't deserve to lose a loved one. There are friends and co-workers who should be free from the grief of losing someone close to them. In short, I lost sight of the most important principle that I cherish in liberalism, which is the idea that we are all connected, regardless of the choices we make or the anger we may harbor.
I still think the military is fundamentally wrong. I still believe it is foolish to enlist. I still believe that America and the rest of the world would be better off without the US military industrial complex. But none of these ideas can negate the fact that every soldier is a human being worthy of my tolerance, from the medic whose sole job is saving lives to the criminals who ran Abu Ghraib.
For losing sight of that, I express regret, and I thank all of you who continue to read my blog for tolerating me. I don't seek forgiveness or approval in making this statement, I just think you all deserve an explanation for what I've written.
Thank you for reading.
Jul
31
I know what you're thinking: yet another atheist crying faul over a few unkind words from some upset Christians� you know, we are overreacting, we're a bunch of drama queens, right? Whatever. ...
Jul
31
After hearing from those believe in God, The New Statesman asked various public figures why they chose atheism.
Jul
31
Atheists want people of faith to not discriminate against us and not push their religion (whichever religion it may be) into our faces or into our laws or public schools, etc. We want to keep the nation secular (as it ...
Jul
31
This is taken from the Wikipedia article "Species": In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche.
For our purposes, the second sentence is probably enough. We could get picky and point out that, say, fish, living isolated in a lake somewhere are actually NOT capable of interbreeding with other fish in another isolated lake.
Another important thing to remember about the identification of a 'species' is that this is a purely human concept used for classification and description so that scientists can talk about this or that 'species' and know which biological form they are discussing. Nothing actually happens to the group of organisms being described when human taxonomists decide that this or that group should now be regarded, not as a variety or sub-species, but as a separate species in it's own right.
Another important thing to remember about the identification of a 'species' is that this is a purely human concept used for classification and description so that scientists can talk about this or that 'species' and know which biological form they are discussing. Nothing actually happens to the group of organisms being described when human taxonomists decide that this or that group should now be regarded, not as a variety or sub-species, but as a separate species in it's own right.
When Creationists claim that evolution can only occur at the 'micro' level, i.e., within a species, but not at the 'macro' level, they, to be charitable, have not grasped this essential piece of basic biology: that classification is a human concept; nature does not read the rule book and is not bound by our conventions.
Now to dispel a common misconception about speciation. Speciation is a result of evolution but it is not the purpose of it. Evolution has no purpose and no pre-determined goals. The scientific Theory of Evolution (TOE) explains speciation but it does not require it to occur and nothing ‘intends’ a new species to arise.
So why does speciation occur at all?
Eventually these difference may build up in each population so that, if ever they DO come back into contact again the two populations’ genetic make-up will be such that they physically can’t interbreed successfully to produce fertile offspring, even if they can still successfully mate. This is the case with donkeys and horses, lions and tigers and many species of plant.
In this model speciation is merely a passive, incidental result of gradual evolution. There is another model however, in which speciation is itself driven by evolutionary selections. (I’ll use European finches to illustrate this but I could equally have chosen almost anything else; insects, reptiles, plants, fish or frogs, etc.)
Consider Europe either side of the last ice age. Northern Europe, the Alps to the north of Italy and the Pyrenees between Spain and France were all heavily glaciated, driving many species south into Spain, Italy and the Balkans and effectively isolating them there with impassable ice sheets.
Now take a species of finch, adapted to live in Northern Europe with a generalised bill for eating a variety of seeds. This would have been pushed south to form several isolated populations. Each would have evolved and adapted to best use the evolving and changing plant population.
One species in, say, Spain, may have evolved slender bills for picking seeds from thistles and other wild flowers, the more successful ones passing these bills on to their offspring. The other population in, say, Italy, may have evolved stouter bills for cracking harder seeds, also passing these on to their descendants. The two populations would be diversifying according to local conditions.
Now move on to the end of the ice age when the Alps and Pyrenees became free enough of ice for the finches to return, together with their food plants, into an increasingly temperate Europe as the ice retreated:
Suppose these finches had not been isolated for long enough to make interbreeding impossible. What type of bill would their offspring inherit? They would probably inherit an intermediate bill, but an intermediate bill which was no use for either of the favoured food plants of its parents. To all intents and purposes they would be handicapped and incapable of feeding or capable of feeding only with difficulty.
These would be rapidly removed from the gene-pool. Interbreeding would be hugely wasteful as the result of all that effort would be a lost brood, or, at best, a brood of individuals with a greatly reduced chance of themselves producing offspring. Anything which favoured non-interbreeding between the two forms would now be highly favourable. Changes in plumage combined with display mating rituals, territorial and mating song, and, especially, female sex selection would all be favoured.
Gene-pool isolation would be reinforced now, not by geography but by any other means available. A process of speciation which began casually and incidentally in, and because of, isolation, would now be accelerated paradoxically by a lack of the very isolation which initiated it.
And so we have lots of different finches in Europe, each with its own plumage, song, mating rituals and food plants, many of which are actually STILL capable of interbreeding successfully, and do so in captivity, but which rarely do in the wild.
Speciation has occurred because it was in the ‘interests’ of both gene-pools to do so. An incidental yet inevitable result of speciation and an undirected, yet highly directional, process of natural selection acting as though it were driven by the needs of genes to replicate through time.
If you've enjoyed my blog please show your appreciation
by giving to a great cause - Oxfam http://bit.ly/9VsjZU
Be Humankind. Feed the world.
Jul
31
Jul
31
Atheism is STUPID This video is mainly directed towards Atheists, because I hate Atheism. I included Theism in this video because I knew Atheists who commented would bring it up. This video does not pertain to Antitheism ...
Jul
31
You've probably noticed the targeted ads that show up on blogs and social networking sites, that are selected by keyword-recognition software. In fact, a while back I posted on this phenomenon, particularly on the tendency of the software to pick up on words like "Astrology..." while conveniently missing critical words like "... is bullshit," and thereby plastering ads for horoscopes all over a blog that ridicules the practice as pseudoscientific nonsense.
This software is getting increasingly sophisticated, keeping track of the number of times that keywords are used, what the past history of the site was, and so on. Which is why the ad that showed up on Skeptophilia yesterday is so screamingly funny.
Recent posts have been about (1) alien abductions, (2) religious fanatics, (3) demonic possession, (4) psychotherapeutic techniques based in wishful thinking, and (5) sites that sound like they are serious but whose content makes you think they must be a prank. What would be the ideal ad to target for my blog, if you took keywords from not just one, but all five of those?
Yes, here we have it, folks: an ad for PAAPSI, which is an evangelical Christian ministry founded to counsel people who have been abducted by aliens or are being pursued by demons, and whose website made me keep looking in vain for a little message that said, "Site sponsored by The Onion."
PAAPSI stands for "Paranormal and Alien Problem Solvers International." They were originally called AACOA, "Alien Abduction Crisis Centers of America." Their mission statement says:
"That gives you an idea of the spirits that my dad unknowingly invited into our house," Ruffino says, in all apparent seriousness.
He then goes on to describe how he became involved with using drugs, and had visions of the evil aliens trying to steal his soul, but then found religion and gave up Star Trek and cocaine all in one fell swoop, and now wants to help other folks to do the same.
My general reaction is that he might have wanted to give up the drugs before crafting his worldview.
While all of this seems pretty far out there, the scary thing is, I know that there are a lot of people out there who think like this. I remember being cautioned by one of my high school teachers about reading horror fiction, because reading that stuff is a "stepping stone for powers that are trying to influence you." I was tempted to remind her what the definition of the word "fiction" was, but I thought that might be imprudent at best, so for once I held my tongue.
Now, I know that there are cases where obsession with violent books and movies has been correlated with a person becoming violent in real life; but that's a far cry from claiming that watching Star Trek will open your soul to demonic possession. (I have to admit, however, that some of the scenes where Captain Kirk gets his shirt ripped off have resulted in my having persistent nightmares, so maybe there's something to this after all.)
I think what bothers me most about all of this is how convinced people like this are that their worldview is unequivocally correct. Those of us who disbelieve in Satan and demons and the whole shebang are ourselves being deluded by Satan -- that's why we disbelieve. If we demand proof -- what, besides your own anecdotal reports of demonic and angelic visions, do you have as evidence that all this is true? -- we're quoted passages from the bible, and told that we only doubt because mankind's nature is inherently sinful. With that kind of evidence-free circular reasoning, there's no possibility of arguing. Their criteria for what constitutes a reasonable proposition is so drastically different than mine that there doesn't even seem to be any point in discussion.
So, anyhow, there you have it; the result of targeted-ad software taking my last months' posts, and putting them in a blender. Perusing the PAAPSI website in preparation for writing this post left me feeling more than a little dazed, probably because of the repeated facepalms I kept doing while reading it. But that's okay; what are a few thousand valuable brain cells as compared to the importance of bringing this kind of thing to the attention of my readers? If it weren't for me, you wouldn't be aware that watching Star Trek is providing a gateway for Satan into your soul, and I just couldn't have forgiven myself if I'd chosen not to post this, and then you'd become possessed after watching "The Trouble with Tribbles."
This software is getting increasingly sophisticated, keeping track of the number of times that keywords are used, what the past history of the site was, and so on. Which is why the ad that showed up on Skeptophilia yesterday is so screamingly funny.
Recent posts have been about (1) alien abductions, (2) religious fanatics, (3) demonic possession, (4) psychotherapeutic techniques based in wishful thinking, and (5) sites that sound like they are serious but whose content makes you think they must be a prank. What would be the ideal ad to target for my blog, if you took keywords from not just one, but all five of those?
Yes, here we have it, folks: an ad for PAAPSI, which is an evangelical Christian ministry founded to counsel people who have been abducted by aliens or are being pursued by demons, and whose website made me keep looking in vain for a little message that said, "Site sponsored by The Onion."
PAAPSI stands for "Paranormal and Alien Problem Solvers International." They were originally called AACOA, "Alien Abduction Crisis Centers of America." Their mission statement says:
We recognize that alien abduction is real, and while some question whether it is the action of actual physical manifestations of demonic or angelic beings, or some sort of mind manipulation by demonic forces the equation in this matter is that it is evil and Satanic. We recognize that in these Last Days there is a great battle for the souls and spirits of all of mankind... Even while the enemy is inundating our minds with images of aliens, flying saucers and a host of other paranormal things, the Holy Spirit is telling people that their abductions have been the workings of not supposed space brothers, but of insidious beings that are really the fallen angels and demons known of by so many past generations... We have freely been given the gift of deliverance from aliens and demons and paranormal bondage, and now we offer that gift to you.PAAPSI was founded by three evangelical Christians, Joe Jordan, Dave Ruffino, and Jim Wilhelmsen, after they met at the Ancient of Days Conference in Roswell, New Mexico. They offer their counseling services to anyone who has been abducted by aliens, hoping to gain them "freedom from oppression" by the evil aliens. Ruffino seems to believe that even fiction about aliens is evil; he relates growing up with a father who was a devotee of science fiction, and how the kids in the family were forbidden to speak when Star Trek was on.
"That gives you an idea of the spirits that my dad unknowingly invited into our house," Ruffino says, in all apparent seriousness.
He then goes on to describe how he became involved with using drugs, and had visions of the evil aliens trying to steal his soul, but then found religion and gave up Star Trek and cocaine all in one fell swoop, and now wants to help other folks to do the same.
My general reaction is that he might have wanted to give up the drugs before crafting his worldview.
While all of this seems pretty far out there, the scary thing is, I know that there are a lot of people out there who think like this. I remember being cautioned by one of my high school teachers about reading horror fiction, because reading that stuff is a "stepping stone for powers that are trying to influence you." I was tempted to remind her what the definition of the word "fiction" was, but I thought that might be imprudent at best, so for once I held my tongue.
Now, I know that there are cases where obsession with violent books and movies has been correlated with a person becoming violent in real life; but that's a far cry from claiming that watching Star Trek will open your soul to demonic possession. (I have to admit, however, that some of the scenes where Captain Kirk gets his shirt ripped off have resulted in my having persistent nightmares, so maybe there's something to this after all.)
I think what bothers me most about all of this is how convinced people like this are that their worldview is unequivocally correct. Those of us who disbelieve in Satan and demons and the whole shebang are ourselves being deluded by Satan -- that's why we disbelieve. If we demand proof -- what, besides your own anecdotal reports of demonic and angelic visions, do you have as evidence that all this is true? -- we're quoted passages from the bible, and told that we only doubt because mankind's nature is inherently sinful. With that kind of evidence-free circular reasoning, there's no possibility of arguing. Their criteria for what constitutes a reasonable proposition is so drastically different than mine that there doesn't even seem to be any point in discussion.
So, anyhow, there you have it; the result of targeted-ad software taking my last months' posts, and putting them in a blender. Perusing the PAAPSI website in preparation for writing this post left me feeling more than a little dazed, probably because of the repeated facepalms I kept doing while reading it. But that's okay; what are a few thousand valuable brain cells as compared to the importance of bringing this kind of thing to the attention of my readers? If it weren't for me, you wouldn't be aware that watching Star Trek is providing a gateway for Satan into your soul, and I just couldn't have forgiven myself if I'd chosen not to post this, and then you'd become possessed after watching "The Trouble with Tribbles."
Jul
31
Here’s a nice little compilation of SMH all-stars who happen to support Gov. Perry’s Aug 6th rally of prayer and fasting. The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s lawsuit arguing that Perry’s involvement in the rally was a violation of the 1st Amendment’s establishment clause was dismissed by a Houston judge. Perry is “considering” a run for president.
.
Jul
31
Of course, atheism, the idea of rejecting God's existence, has always existed from ancient times. But the rise of this idea actually began in the 18th century in Europe with the spread and political effect of the ...
Jul
31
For Atheists to attempt to claim neutrality, in reference to God, is a complete lie and disingenuous intellectually. They have in fact picked a...
Jul
31
Yesterday I watched 50 renowned academics speaking about God, a collage of documentary fragments of renowned scientists and philosophers who talk about their personal views on God. The film opens with the following ...
Jul
31
Stolen from The Commentator and maybe I'll have better luck getting an answer here (if traffic counts for anything). Oh, and I could have predicted no one would respond to his post. Does that answer the question? Naturally, I'm a determinist (the only sane, rational position on the "free will" question) so in theory, of course people are predictable (I predict right now that the next time I write a pro-Confederacy post, Bret will leave a comment saying I'm pro-slavery).
We're just so ignorant that on a practical basis it's difficult to impossible to predict human behavior when it comes to very specific actions. On a broader level, it's frighteningly easy to know in advance what most dumbass humans are likely to do.
We're just so ignorant that on a practical basis it's difficult to impossible to predict human behavior when it comes to very specific actions. On a broader level, it's frighteningly easy to know in advance what most dumbass humans are likely to do.
Jul
31
The ignorant tend to be clueless about nutrition. Food to them is all about filling their bellies, nothing more. If five bucks at Taco Bell will satisfy and fill you up, why bother spending time at the supermarket actually shopping for fresh food that takes time to prepare, when instead you can stay seated on your fat ass in your car at the drive-thru? Knowledge is power! Educate yourself! It's really not that hard.
