Who hasn't heard the popular quote that suggests a dismissal of religion as "the opium of the people". A quote made by the coauthor of the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx. However, in a discussion of Hegel, the word "opium" is much less simplistic in it's meaning as religious leaders would have one believe. Let's take a look at this quote in it's proper context.
"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in emrbyo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower."
For those that have not yet shaken off the chain, return to first principles. Why do you believe what you believe? Is your holy book moral? Is consolation enough to justify such beliefs? If your god is good...based on the lack of evidence for his existence, why would he care whether you believe or not? I mean, if he loves you, why would he punish you for something so illogical? We criticize to help you pluck these imaginary flowers off the chain, to recognize it's cold grip upon you, weighing you down, preventing you from living life; this life. The real halo is doing good without the belief in anyone watching you; without the desire for ultimate reward for such actions.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Who Needs Objective Morals?
You know, something I always hear from theists is the claim that without god, there could be no objective moral standard. Why be good if Big Brother isn't watching? The question is why not be good anyways?
Today, after returning from my morning lecture, I parked in the pay lot to go up to my lab. The lot has an honor box where each space has a slot with the corresponding parking number. As I went up to pay, I noticed, as I often do, that one of the slots has the corner of two rolled up one dollar bills sticking out. Enough so that if I wanted to, I could have pulled them out, and used them to pay for my space. I immediately recognized, as anyone would, that this is a viable option. However, I was not compelled to do so. Why not? Was I worried that I would break a commandment, even though I might want to save $2? No.
As with all morality, I simply thought to myself as I walked away after paying for my space and pushing the other person's money safely in their slot, what if I had taken the money and that person's car had been towed? What if that was my money that had slid out after I was well into my day? I did what I did because I would hope that someone else would do the same for me. I wouldn't want that person to come out to find their car gone....I've been through that hassle myself. Once we realize that other people share the same experienced, the same pain, the same pleasure we do, morality should be obvious. Be good, for goodness' sake!
Today, after returning from my morning lecture, I parked in the pay lot to go up to my lab. The lot has an honor box where each space has a slot with the corresponding parking number. As I went up to pay, I noticed, as I often do, that one of the slots has the corner of two rolled up one dollar bills sticking out. Enough so that if I wanted to, I could have pulled them out, and used them to pay for my space. I immediately recognized, as anyone would, that this is a viable option. However, I was not compelled to do so. Why not? Was I worried that I would break a commandment, even though I might want to save $2? No.
As with all morality, I simply thought to myself as I walked away after paying for my space and pushing the other person's money safely in their slot, what if I had taken the money and that person's car had been towed? What if that was my money that had slid out after I was well into my day? I did what I did because I would hope that someone else would do the same for me. I wouldn't want that person to come out to find their car gone....I've been through that hassle myself. Once we realize that other people share the same experienced, the same pain, the same pleasure we do, morality should be obvious. Be good, for goodness' sake!
Twenty First Century Religion
I think as humanists we are far more likely to succeed as religion reformers, or religion modernizers if you will, than we are to succeed as religion exterminators.
Religion is an idea born of the human experience. Like any really successful idea, religion has outlived its various creators. Religious ideas have taken on a life of their own. But the human origins of ideas like God, don't make these ideas worthless and invalid. There are lots of other human ideas, the value of which none of us would question. Ideas like democracy, freedom, equality, fairness-----none of these things exist in nature. You can't pluck democracy off a tree, mine freedom from the earth, or spy equality among the stars. They are all human inventions, all human ideas, of such importance that they have taken on a life of their own. They live and evolve through human culture. Right alongside the ideas of religion.
Western democracy was born in ancient Greece and nourished in ancient Rome, but we would hardly recognize what they considered democracy to be. The idea has evolved. So too have ideas about God. God's evolution has been from an external sky God to an internal abstraction. But the idea, the human idea of God, has not ceased to be important in the progress of human culture or in the lives of individual human beings. When I think about the concept of God as something that sits within us, I am referring to love, to order, to beauty, to those characteristics of nature that inspire us to our best selves. I don't mean a sky God. Certainly, there are some who still think in terms of a sky God, and who will go on doing so. But let's be honest, many of them are the same people who don't know Einstein or Darwin, who haven't heard Bach or Coltrane, and who haven't a clue how to make use of a parable.
Humanists are apt to say when it is time to move on. Recognizing the human origins of all human ideas, humanists are apt to say when an idea's time has come and gone. When it is time for an idea to evolve.
Though I am pessimistic about ever ridding humankind of religion, and indeed I am quite dubious about the value of doing so, I am sanguine about the possibility of humanists and naturalists being able to help in the evolution of traditional religion in the direction of something capable of making sense in the modern world. I think we have a far greater chance of success and a far greater opportunity to impact human civilization for the good if we take up the challenge of modernizing religion rather than banishing it to the scrap pile of history.
Americans in Europe
Since Ray's latest trip to Paris seemed such a parody of an American tourist, I can't resist to rub some salt into the wound.
Maybe this was Ray's only chance to get to Paris and if I was in his shoes I'd probably want to see all the things that are famous there, but this just doesn't make sense. Louvre, Eiffel tower, Notre Dame and only some hours in the Museum of Natural History... That's only a really small part of Paris and since he didn't even spend time there (Hey, both Notre Dame and the Louvre are worth at least a full day) it was mainly "Look, I've been to Paris" (Hey Ray, there are such tools as photoshop, if you want a picture of yourself in front of the Eiffel tower you don't have to travel to France)
Especially, I hate those Europe round trips (Cover all of Europe in less than ten days, or how do they advertise for them?) Japanese people usually make it in less than a week, but that's another story.
London, Paris, Rome, Heidelberg, Madrid, and enough time for shopping? Or, with a focus on Germany: Berlin, Heidelberg (what else?), Rothenburg op der Tauber, Nürnberg, Neuschwanstein, Munich? And then those open minded tourists come home and claim they have seen Europe or Germany? Believe me, there is more in Germany than mountains, beer and Disneyland castles.
Is that how Americans see Europe? Lovely little villages, marvelous old buildings, amazing castles,...
Don't misunderstand me. I like sightseeing, but it takes time. It takes time to see the small things that can tell you something about the town or the country. Notre Dame is wonderful but I like the view from the toiletts of the "Samaritaine", the Louvre is magnificent but I somehow prefer the "Musee d'Orsay", I have my personal picture of Paris. It's not perfect and objective but at least I learned some things about Paris that I can't see in documentaries. I don't think it makes sense to go to exact the same spot where every tourist in Paris takes pictures of the Eiffel tower.
I've seen a lot in Europe, even the popular sights, but I really prefer the small castles in France, the unknown ruins somewhere in Germany, the 'not easy to reach' waterfalls in Norway, the unknown churches in Rome and all those small towns all over Europe where you're usually the only foreign tourist. Even if they don't speak English there...
So, please, if you want to see all amazing buildings in Europe, watch a documentary. Spend time at one place when you're on a sightseeing tour. Find your own treasures. And don't go to the Louvre just to see the 'Mona Lisa'.
Don't behave like Ray.
And next time I see pink haired old ladies blocking the bikeway and shouting "lovely" or "marvelous" at some buildings that have been there for several hundred years and won't vanish if they take the time to look for the sidewalk, I simply don't stop...
Maybe this was Ray's only chance to get to Paris and if I was in his shoes I'd probably want to see all the things that are famous there, but this just doesn't make sense. Louvre, Eiffel tower, Notre Dame and only some hours in the Museum of Natural History... That's only a really small part of Paris and since he didn't even spend time there (Hey, both Notre Dame and the Louvre are worth at least a full day) it was mainly "Look, I've been to Paris" (Hey Ray, there are such tools as photoshop, if you want a picture of yourself in front of the Eiffel tower you don't have to travel to France)
Especially, I hate those Europe round trips (Cover all of Europe in less than ten days, or how do they advertise for them?) Japanese people usually make it in less than a week, but that's another story.
London, Paris, Rome, Heidelberg, Madrid, and enough time for shopping? Or, with a focus on Germany: Berlin, Heidelberg (what else?), Rothenburg op der Tauber, Nürnberg, Neuschwanstein, Munich? And then those open minded tourists come home and claim they have seen Europe or Germany? Believe me, there is more in Germany than mountains, beer and Disneyland castles.
Is that how Americans see Europe? Lovely little villages, marvelous old buildings, amazing castles,...
Don't misunderstand me. I like sightseeing, but it takes time. It takes time to see the small things that can tell you something about the town or the country. Notre Dame is wonderful but I like the view from the toiletts of the "Samaritaine", the Louvre is magnificent but I somehow prefer the "Musee d'Orsay", I have my personal picture of Paris. It's not perfect and objective but at least I learned some things about Paris that I can't see in documentaries. I don't think it makes sense to go to exact the same spot where every tourist in Paris takes pictures of the Eiffel tower.
I've seen a lot in Europe, even the popular sights, but I really prefer the small castles in France, the unknown ruins somewhere in Germany, the 'not easy to reach' waterfalls in Norway, the unknown churches in Rome and all those small towns all over Europe where you're usually the only foreign tourist. Even if they don't speak English there...
So, please, if you want to see all amazing buildings in Europe, watch a documentary. Spend time at one place when you're on a sightseeing tour. Find your own treasures. And don't go to the Louvre just to see the 'Mona Lisa'.
Don't behave like Ray.
And next time I see pink haired old ladies blocking the bikeway and shouting "lovely" or "marvelous" at some buildings that have been there for several hundred years and won't vanish if they take the time to look for the sidewalk, I simply don't stop...
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Lucy
Over at the swamp, several of Ray's followers finally did the "research" (read: 2 second google search) to prove that the Australopithecus afarensis speciment "Lucy" has been discredited.
Let's take a look at some of the claims made:
ThreeTimesHoly quoted AiG's John Morris:
The features which suggest upright posture to Johanson are primarily the hip and knee joints, but numerous studies on the hip have shown otherwise. Oxnard, in his 1987 book, Fossils, Teeth and Sex (which contains an excellent summary of these various studies), claims that, "These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes than do these living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique" (p. 227). Evidently they could walk somewhat upright, as pygmy chimps do today, but not in the human manner at all. Furthermore, Johanson seldom reminds us that he found the knee joint—the strongest evidence for upright stance—in a location some two to three kilometers away, and in a layer of rock some 200 feet lower. Clearly, the knee does not belong with the rests, but even if they do go together, the knee is not diagnostically upright, and; points more specifically to tree-climbing abilities, according to Oxnard and other authorities.
Several investigators, including Richard Leakey, have now concluded that two or perhaps three species have been wrongly combined in "Lucy." She was not a human ancestor. At best, she was a form of extinct ape; at worst, she was a mosaic, yet she is still touted as the best "evidence" for human evolution.
Jim Foley (1997) wrote:
In 1987, creationist Tom Willis accused Donald Johanson of fraud, claiming that the skeleton known as "Lucy" consisted of bones that had been found at two sites about 2.5 km (1.5 miles) apart. Willis had actually confused two separate finds which belong to the same species. (This was in spite of the fact that a best-selling book (Johanson and Edey 1981) has photos of both fossils: AL 129-1 is a right knee, while Lucy has a right femur and a left tibia.) This was a spectacular error which could hardly have been made by anyone who had done the most elementary research, but that didn't stop many other creationists from picking up the claim and repeating it. For a full history of this claim, read the talk.origins knee-joint FAQ file (Lippard 1997)
Melanie, quoting Dave Scot, wrote:
Another icon of evolution, the world famous fossil “Lucy” was found to not be in the modern human lineage at all. The interesting part of this is that this is extremely newsworthy but because it casts a very unflattering light on so many scientists who, uncritically it seems, placed Lucy in the modern human line of descent, you won’t find it widely reported except in the Darwin-denier blogs and websites.
Judy Siegel-Itzkovich (in the article Dave Scot is responding to) wrote:
Rak and colleagues studied 146 mature primate bone specimens, including those from modern humans, gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans and found that the “ramus element” of the mandible connecting the lower jaw to the skull is like that of the robust forms, therefore eliminating the possibility that Lucy and her kind are Man’s direct ancestors. They should therefore, the Israeli researchers said, “be placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.”
Qu clarifies:
In other words, Lucy is a very close (in evolutionary terms) decendant of the common ancestor between humans and apes, and is an ancestor of Australopithecus robustus.
PS: We're getting close to 1000 posts! Are we going to have some sort of big party when we hit 1000? I vote we invite Ray, get him drunk, and shave off his mustache! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAGGGGHHH!!!
Let's take a look at some of the claims made:
ThreeTimesHoly quoted AiG's John Morris:
The features which suggest upright posture to Johanson are primarily the hip and knee joints, but numerous studies on the hip have shown otherwise. Oxnard, in his 1987 book, Fossils, Teeth and Sex (which contains an excellent summary of these various studies), claims that, "These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes than do these living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique" (p. 227). Evidently they could walk somewhat upright, as pygmy chimps do today, but not in the human manner at all. Furthermore, Johanson seldom reminds us that he found the knee joint—the strongest evidence for upright stance—in a location some two to three kilometers away, and in a layer of rock some 200 feet lower. Clearly, the knee does not belong with the rests, but even if they do go together, the knee is not diagnostically upright, and; points more specifically to tree-climbing abilities, according to Oxnard and other authorities.
Jim Foley (1997) wrote:
Charles Oxnard (1975), in a paper that is widely cited by creationists, claimed, based on his multivariate analyses, that australopithecines are no more closely related, or more similar, to humans than modern apes are. Howell et al.(1978) criticized this conclusion on a number of grounds. Oxnard's results were based on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually fragmentary and often poorly preserved. The measurements did not describe the complex shape of some bones, and did not distinguish between aspects which are important for understanding locomotion from those which were not. Finally, there is "an overwhelming body of evidence", based on the work of nearly 30 scientists, which contradicts Oxnard's work. These studies used a variety of techniques, including those used by Oxnard, and were based on many different body parts and joint complexes. They overwhelmingly indicate that australopithecines resemble humans more closely than the living apes.
...
Less controversially, Oxnard also claims that, while probably bipedal, australopithecines did not walk identically to modern humans. Creationists sometimes quote this conclusion in a highly misleading manner, saying Oxnard proved that australopithecines did not walk upright, and then adding, as an afterthought (or in Willis' (1987) case, not at all) "at least, not in the human manner".
Qu Adds:
Note that Jim Foley, unlike John Morris, references actual scientific articles when making his claims.
(Source)
ThreeTimesHoly quoted AiG's John Morris:Several investigators, including Richard Leakey, have now concluded that two or perhaps three species have been wrongly combined in "Lucy." She was not a human ancestor. At best, she was a form of extinct ape; at worst, she was a mosaic, yet she is still touted as the best "evidence" for human evolution.
Jim Foley (1997) wrote:
In 1987, creationist Tom Willis accused Donald Johanson of fraud, claiming that the skeleton known as "Lucy" consisted of bones that had been found at two sites about 2.5 km (1.5 miles) apart. Willis had actually confused two separate finds which belong to the same species. (This was in spite of the fact that a best-selling book (Johanson and Edey 1981) has photos of both fossils: AL 129-1 is a right knee, while Lucy has a right femur and a left tibia.) This was a spectacular error which could hardly have been made by anyone who had done the most elementary research, but that didn't stop many other creationists from picking up the claim and repeating it. For a full history of this claim, read the talk.origins knee-joint FAQ file (Lippard 1997)
Melanie, quoting Dave Scot, wrote:
Another icon of evolution, the world famous fossil “Lucy” was found to not be in the modern human lineage at all. The interesting part of this is that this is extremely newsworthy but because it casts a very unflattering light on so many scientists who, uncritically it seems, placed Lucy in the modern human line of descent, you won’t find it widely reported except in the Darwin-denier blogs and websites.
Judy Siegel-Itzkovich (in the article Dave Scot is responding to) wrote:
Rak and colleagues studied 146 mature primate bone specimens, including those from modern humans, gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans and found that the “ramus element” of the mandible connecting the lower jaw to the skull is like that of the robust forms, therefore eliminating the possibility that Lucy and her kind are Man’s direct ancestors. They should therefore, the Israeli researchers said, “be placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.”
Qu clarifies:
In other words, Lucy is a very close (in evolutionary terms) decendant of the common ancestor between humans and apes, and is an ancestor of Australopithecus robustus.
PS: We're getting close to 1000 posts! Are we going to have some sort of big party when we hit 1000? I vote we invite Ray, get him drunk, and shave off his mustache! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAGGGGHHH!!!
I Feel Ashamed to be an Atheist
I just watched this Fox News Interview with Bill Donahue about the new atheist bus campaign in D.C.
I felt like I was getting talked down to. I didn't know my beliefs would hurt our entire society. I just thought there wasn't any god.
I felt like I was getting talked down to. I didn't know my beliefs would hurt our entire society. I just thought there wasn't any god.
Unless, of course, the Rapture comes.
Maybe then -- with all the Christians gone to their reward and the rest of us left behind folks doing battle with the Antichrist -- maybe then we'll have an openly Atheist US president. Even then, not fucking likely. I imagine it would be a long shot to have an Atheist county supervisor even here in Portland.
There's an article at Slate today on the likelihood of other minorities making it to the highest office in the land. Here's the money quote:
When the lion lies down with the lamb, when the president is a Republican Muslim and the Democratic speaker of the House is a vegan Mormon lesbian, when the secretary of defense is a Jain pacifist from the Green Party, they will all agree on one thing: atheists need not apply. A 2007 Gallup poll found that 53 percent of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president. (By contrast, only 43 percent wouldn't vote for a homosexual, and only 24 percent wouldn't vote for a Mormon.) As Ronald Lindsay, executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism, told me in an e-mail: "Atheism spells political death in this country."
Or am I being too optimistic?
There's an article at Slate today on the likelihood of other minorities making it to the highest office in the land. Here's the money quote:
When the lion lies down with the lamb, when the president is a Republican Muslim and the Democratic speaker of the House is a vegan Mormon lesbian, when the secretary of defense is a Jain pacifist from the Green Party, they will all agree on one thing: atheists need not apply. A 2007 Gallup poll found that 53 percent of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president. (By contrast, only 43 percent wouldn't vote for a homosexual, and only 24 percent wouldn't vote for a Mormon.) As Ronald Lindsay, executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism, told me in an e-mail: "Atheism spells political death in this country."
Or am I being too optimistic?
Genesis Contradictions - Chapter II
Well, it looks like our good buddy Ray has taken me up on my suggestion that he turn the "Genesis Contradictions" subject into a regular feature. His latest post addresses the contradiction that God apparently creates light before He creates a sun to generate said light.
Ray glibly dismisses the contradiction thusly:
Well, Ray, that interpretation may resolve the above contradiction, but in so doing, it introduces a whole mess of new ones. Let's look a little more closely at the passages in question:
Now, if "God is light", why exactly would darkness be over the surface of the deep? If "God is light", and God has eternally existed, then it logically follows that light has eternally existed, and therefore, darkness could not be over the surface of the deep.
Also, why exactly would God need to speak light into being, if God is light?
Also, why would God have to see the light before concluding that it was good, if God Himself is light?
This is what happens when you try to make the case that an ancient primitive world creation myth is factually accurate, Ray. It's like trying to dig a hole in the sand at the water's edge...the harder and faster you dig, the more water pours in.
Ray glibly dismisses the contradiction thusly:
EXPLANATION : God is light (1 John 1:5, Revelation 22:5). He eternally existed, before He created the Sun to give light to the earth.
Well, Ray, that interpretation may resolve the above contradiction, but in so doing, it introduces a whole mess of new ones. Let's look a little more closely at the passages in question:
Genesis 1:2-4
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.
Now, if "God is light", why exactly would darkness be over the surface of the deep? If "God is light", and God has eternally existed, then it logically follows that light has eternally existed, and therefore, darkness could not be over the surface of the deep.
Also, why exactly would God need to speak light into being, if God is light?
Also, why would God have to see the light before concluding that it was good, if God Himself is light?
This is what happens when you try to make the case that an ancient primitive world creation myth is factually accurate, Ray. It's like trying to dig a hole in the sand at the water's edge...the harder and faster you dig, the more water pours in.
Fox News Mocks Us
I gotta say, I wish I was on that broadcast because I would have embarrassed them in a matter of seconds. It is easy to poke fun at a group and erect strawmen when there is no chance for members of the group to respond. Listening to those three nitwits chuckle and distort made me mad. I took them up and emailed them. Sure, no way will they respond...but it made me feel better. Twits.
Dear Fox News,
Your distortion of the facts is nothing new to me. However, I am curious as to where you received your information regarding the bus ad that asks "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake." You claimed that atheists put this up because we are "lonely on the holiday" and we feel "left out". However, if you read the statement from the American Humanist Society, their message is clear: "Humanists have always understood that you don't need a god to be good," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. "So that's the point we're making with this advertising campaign. Morality doesn't come from religion. It's a set of values embraced by individuals and society based on empathy, fairness, and experience." Hence, the whole "just be good for goodness' sake" part. Here is the link below:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/BusAds.php
Also, one of the correspondents said something about celebrating Jesus' birthday. Perhaps you should study just a bit of history, or comparative mythology. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus was born on Dec. 25? Dec. 25 is the winter solstice. It is a PAGAN holiday celebrating the birth of the SUN (not son). I don't hold any religious beliefs. I am not lonely during the holidays. In fact, Christmas is a capitalist holiday. Jesus isn't mentioned anymore. I love Christmas, as it is about time away from work, with friends and family, exchanging gifts and drinking eggnog. I am not handicapped in my participation in the festival due to my atheism. I wish I could have been on your broadcast with those three correspondents, because I would have pointed out that they are, each of them, atheists when it comes to Attis, Mithras, Isis, Thor, and all the other gods that we now ignore, let alone the other ones that millions of people still worry about. Let them make the case that their God supervises us all. The notion is absurd. I cannot disprove that the Christian god exists....but I don't have to. The onus is on the believer. In all my debates with theists, even lettered ones, once the veneer of proof is sanded away and no more straws can be grasped they always fall back to "faith"...which is a belief WITHOUT evidence. Which is simply irrational and absurd. It's easy to mock a group of exceptionally intelligent and moral people....when we aren't there to make you look ridiculous. The same way that Richard Dawkins made Bill O'Reilly look, on his own show, on your network.
Respectfully,
Dr. Clos
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Interlude
The Frog just spent the last couple hours getting his new HP laptop up and running and this is his first text ever written on it.
Yeah, it's fun to get a new puter- in one way, but I hate to abandon the old campaq since it has been bulletproof. Since I'm not a gamer and don't do rocket science I bought a mid priced model. Mrs Frog now has the Compaq all to herself until it finally bites the dust. I tried to give the new machine to her but most of her music and other stuff is on the old one so she wanted to stick with it for now.
Having said that, and since the Posts have been a bit free wheeling tonight, I was just wondering if any of you had ever landed on this video.
This kid plays Pachelbel’s Canon, the composition from the turn of the 18th century known for its solemn chord progressions and its overexposure at weddings. His rendition is a technically challenging piece and uses a maneuver called sweep-picking. This was of interest to me because my late father in law did some sweep picking but not to this level.
This might be old stuff to you all, but I still play it now and then and fired it up to test out the speakers on the new puter. And yes, they are far superior to the old one.
Yeah, it's fun to get a new puter- in one way, but I hate to abandon the old campaq since it has been bulletproof. Since I'm not a gamer and don't do rocket science I bought a mid priced model. Mrs Frog now has the Compaq all to herself until it finally bites the dust. I tried to give the new machine to her but most of her music and other stuff is on the old one so she wanted to stick with it for now.
Having said that, and since the Posts have been a bit free wheeling tonight, I was just wondering if any of you had ever landed on this video.
This kid plays Pachelbel’s Canon, the composition from the turn of the 18th century known for its solemn chord progressions and its overexposure at weddings. His rendition is a technically challenging piece and uses a maneuver called sweep-picking. This was of interest to me because my late father in law did some sweep picking but not to this level.
This might be old stuff to you all, but I still play it now and then and fired it up to test out the speakers on the new puter. And yes, they are far superior to the old one.
Burner - A Short Story
Gary Dunning woke up to the alarm clock buzzing that annoying, drilling electronic noise. It was 7 am and Gary had to truck his ass on down to work.Life is lived from one acid second to the next. Earlier that month, he had found a rusty car by searching the web for the cheapest piece of junk he could find. It only needed to run; it didn’t need to look pretty. The car had a strange gasoline smell coming up from the floor boards. He suspected that the exhaust was leaking and filling the cabin with the hideous stink. Gary feels sleepy sometimes when he’s cruising, as the carbon monoxide filters into his lungs. He hadn’t made the connection between the gas smell and his out-of-it mental state when he drives.
He had become addicted to pain. As he cruises the streets aimlessly drifting down random alleys, sluggish but euphoric, chasing shadows. He had the habit of putting cigarettes out on his arm,
burning small, red holes.His skin is pale and clammy, like that of a corpse. The scars turn blue from abnormal blood flow from his heart. He drifts the car to feed his adrenaline needs. He had replaced the license plate, so any witnesses couldn’t track him back to his doorstep. Trash cans led to sign posts which soon gave way to parked cars. Macabre medical photographs on the dashboard slip around and fall to the floor as the forces whip the car around.
Eventually he had hit a person and he found that that was the best feeling in the w
orld. The screams and hilarious noises didn’t stop him from driving, sending him into a state of ecstasy which is unparalleled with any drug he had tried. He palms his penis through his unzipped jeans. He slowly masturbates—in his mind--rehearsing, rewinding a slow motion movie and hearing her torso hitting the right bumper and passenger door, making a metallic, thumping sound. His friend, a greasy auto mechanic he had met while changing the oil, rides shotgun. Gary jerks him off until the mechanic sprays cum all over the glove compartment and steamed up windshield.He flashed back to the first person he had ever hit. She had a blue coat, white shirt, and tan skirt. He didn’t remember what her face looked like, or whether she had gloves on or not. The most salient point of the experience, the thing that burned in his memory the most, was how her umbrella had landed on the windshield and traveled with him for a few minutes before he turned on the windshield wipers and it slid off.
It’s 7 am and Gary still has to get to work. Driving all night made him drowsy. A dress shirt feels good and covers the mutilation. He puts on his slacks and business jacket, grabs his briefcase and locks the door behind him.
Guess who's back...
Ray's back from his trip to Europe and, no, the travel does not appear to have broadened his mind.
Among the - it has to be said - really poorly written blog posting (honestly Ray, take a writing course or something), were a couple of Comfort Classics;
Apparently la Galerie de l'Evolution was "...packed full of stuffed animals that God had created" and, "The only "evidence" of evolution was a stuffed image of the discredited “Lucy” and a copy of Origin of Species."
To sum up;
"Believers in the theory have encouraged me to visit museums to see proof of transitional forms. The evidence was less than pathetic."
So there you have it; evolution is bunk and God has a part-time job supplying stuffed animals to French museums.
Ray: we've missed you!
Cheers,
Among the - it has to be said - really poorly written blog posting (honestly Ray, take a writing course or something), were a couple of Comfort Classics;
Apparently la Galerie de l'Evolution was "...packed full of stuffed animals that God had created" and, "The only "evidence" of evolution was a stuffed image of the discredited “Lucy” and a copy of Origin of Species."
To sum up;
"Believers in the theory have encouraged me to visit museums to see proof of transitional forms. The evidence was less than pathetic."
So there you have it; evolution is bunk and God has a part-time job supplying stuffed animals to French museums.
Ray: we've missed you!
Cheers,
Biblical Understanding for Nonbeliever Knuckleheads, episode 1
I was reading Debunking Atheists (probably my last time there) and saw Dan trying to rationalize the Noachian flood. For some unknown reason I erupted into a fit of mathematical dilettantism.
The Bible says that even the highest mountains were submerged and many people seem to agree that Mt. Everest is an acceptable measuring stick.
I got interested in how much water would actually be needed to submerge Mt. Everest. Several details such as the land mass above sea level, or the water from melting polar caps have been omitted in the following. This is as simple as it gets.
We will calculate the volume of the flood waters by calculating the volume of the Earth according to its mean radius (6731 km) and subtracting this value from the volume of a sphere whose radius equals the Earth's radius plus the height of Mr. Everest (6731 km + 8,848 km = 6379,848). The values have been rounded in this post, but were calculated to a greater accuracy.
Original volume of Earth: 1 083 206 916 845 km3
Volume with Mt. Everest covered in water: 1 087 726 237 887 km3
Volume difference: 4 519 321 042 km3
The volume of the Earth's oceans is approximately 1 300 000 000 km3 (source: wiki), hence the amount of water needed to achieve the end result of the flood is approx. 3,5 times that existing in the oceans today! Kewl!
Yes, this post is completely inconclusive, as per its inspiration.
Thank you for engaging this week's episode of 'BUNK'.
The Bible says that even the highest mountains were submerged and many people seem to agree that Mt. Everest is an acceptable measuring stick.
I got interested in how much water would actually be needed to submerge Mt. Everest. Several details such as the land mass above sea level, or the water from melting polar caps have been omitted in the following. This is as simple as it gets.
We will calculate the volume of the flood waters by calculating the volume of the Earth according to its mean radius (6731 km) and subtracting this value from the volume of a sphere whose radius equals the Earth's radius plus the height of Mr. Everest (6731 km + 8,848 km = 6379,848). The values have been rounded in this post, but were calculated to a greater accuracy.
Original volume of Earth: 1 083 206 916 845 km3
Volume with Mt. Everest covered in water: 1 087 726 237 887 km3
Volume difference: 4 519 321 042 km3
The volume of the Earth's oceans is approximately 1 300 000 000 km3 (source: wiki), hence the amount of water needed to achieve the end result of the flood is approx. 3,5 times that existing in the oceans today! Kewl!
Yes, this post is completely inconclusive, as per its inspiration.
Thank you for engaging this week's episode of 'BUNK'.
Todd Friel Picks Up the 'Jean' Story
And mangles it, chews it up and quotes many here in the process...
http://podcast.wayofthemasterradio.com/audio/podcasts/1108/WOTMR-11-11-08-Hour1.mp3
WARNING: Contains nuts.
http://podcast.wayofthemasterradio.com/audio/podcasts/1108/WOTMR-11-11-08-Hour1.mp3
WARNING: Contains nuts.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
jean - part 3
Jeans post has now near on 200 comments and most of the latter comments are support from fundies.
I was wondering where it was all coming from till I read one saying he had heard about it on the Way of the Master radio show and had been disgusted by some of the comments read out on air.
So there you go ...
I was wondering where it was all coming from till I read one saying he had heard about it on the Way of the Master radio show and had been disgusted by some of the comments read out on air.
So there you go ...
This Caught My Eye
I'm sure most of you are familiar with the right wing rag, World Net Daily. If not here is a fairly typical article they publish. They have a rather large audience. I never read it anymore, but Ed Brayton picked off this one.
Wait! Before you go there, you must know that this is the mouthpiece of Chuck Norris. Yes, the highly esteemed actor and arbitor of all morals in the United States. He has some pretty zany companions including Mike Huckabee, et al.
Proceed at your own risk.
Wait! Before you go there, you must know that this is the mouthpiece of Chuck Norris. Yes, the highly esteemed actor and arbitor of all morals in the United States. He has some pretty zany companions including Mike Huckabee, et al.
Proceed at your own risk.
Pot, meet Kettle
A little irony for our blood:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/another_minority_persecuted_by.php#comments
Discuss, enjoy. And fight for the gnomes.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/another_minority_persecuted_by.php#comments
Discuss, enjoy. And fight for the gnomes.
Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Gay Marriage
Just wanted to share this...Keith Olbermann speaks out against the passing of Proposition 8 in California.
I myself find it shocking that such legislation can pass on the same day we elect the first African-American president.
I myself find it shocking that such legislation can pass on the same day we elect the first African-American president.
Monday, November 10, 2008
No new Ray?
He hasn't posted anything in a while. I wonder what's up. I don't know about you guys, but I'm sure that if I hear that Crockaduck argument just one more time, I'll finally be a true believer in Da Jeebus.
Some Stuff I Want to Say
It seemed a bit slow so I figured I could get away with a brief rant in two parts.
One:
On this Jean Thing and some other current discussions; It always leads back to the children. Some people see kids as miniature adults *puke* and sometimes never consider the ha-uge chemical changes that these little human cubs go through. Their brains go through an enormous galvanizing process when they are about two years old (Terrible twos- Who knew?) then again at puberty and finally at eighteen to twenty-one. And therein lies the problem. How many adults are not educated enough to understand the basic sociology behind kids and their needs? That may be rhetorical but in my experience, ignorance rules.
So, they fall back on that old dusty book of myths that their mommy and daddy taught them about.. Trouble, that.
Two:
The Bible. I love the bible. As I have said, I have fourteen copies. Whenever I am at a yard sale or sumpthing I always look for the heirloom types, those supple leather bindings of dimpled and otherwise textured facades. I almost feel holy just handling some of them, but even my revered copy of The Complete Works of Robert W. Service is not leather bound! (Yard sale tip: If you feign meekness, they usually tell you that if you really need it, you can have it for free.)
So, where was I...oh ya....I have never published this on the internet, but I have written several letters over the years to friends and family members answering their question; Does the bible mean anything to you? The answer is Yes It does. The following is a compendium of those letters.
I tried studying the bible in the theological style, and I had a really good mentor, but alas, I could not/ cannot get past the accepting-the-miracles stage.
So, you might ask, OK Frog what what does the bible mean to you? One Thing- Sacrifice.
Over the years I have read the bible sober, mostly, and also under the influence of a couple of preferred recreational substances; forward, backward, start with NT, & et., and slowly but surely I could see the message of the bible and finally one day about seven years ago I had a Revelation. There is a thread running through the bible. I had always expected that, and I had a couple "pet" ideas over the years based on my conclusion that since humans wrote this book then it possibly contained a "human" message. That message is basically, "There is no free lunch."
In the spirit of the brevity that I promised and my inability to stay focused, having hit the road at 4:30 AM this morning, suffice to say that I think the bible tells us that the most important thing we sacrifice ourselves for is the well being of our children. Not even our own kids, but the children of this community who will inherit exactly what we left to them.
Skipping over many other issues related to this, I shall come back to the Jeans of the world and child rearing. If there is anyone here reading this and you beat your kids, stop it now. Do not sacrifice that child to that horrible humiliation. Would you smack your wife? Turn her over your knee? Your co-worker/ subordinate at work? No. But in realty, if someone gets mad at me and whacks me in the ass, I don't care because I am a mature adult and I will merely cal 911, or better yet, fuck you up.
Here is a personal example. My youngest son, then four years old, now almost 19 was the shopper from hell. You couldn't go into a store without the usual shenanigans. One day I determined it was time we had to go, and without buying supper, we would have to go without having our favorite meal that night.
His Mother and I made grilled cheese sandwiches and he realized that he was the cause of the austerity meal. He became the best shopper in the universe, and still is. Why? Because he could see that we sacrificed our favorite dinner to show him how unacceptable his actions were.
Many parents do not understand how to teach values to their kids. They seem to want to teach them myths, or worse, beat them into submission, which is always counterproductive.
Respectfully submitted,
froggie
One:
On this Jean Thing and some other current discussions; It always leads back to the children. Some people see kids as miniature adults *puke* and sometimes never consider the ha-uge chemical changes that these little human cubs go through. Their brains go through an enormous galvanizing process when they are about two years old (Terrible twos- Who knew?) then again at puberty and finally at eighteen to twenty-one. And therein lies the problem. How many adults are not educated enough to understand the basic sociology behind kids and their needs? That may be rhetorical but in my experience, ignorance rules.
So, they fall back on that old dusty book of myths that their mommy and daddy taught them about.. Trouble, that.
Two:
The Bible. I love the bible. As I have said, I have fourteen copies. Whenever I am at a yard sale or sumpthing I always look for the heirloom types, those supple leather bindings of dimpled and otherwise textured facades. I almost feel holy just handling some of them, but even my revered copy of The Complete Works of Robert W. Service is not leather bound! (Yard sale tip: If you feign meekness, they usually tell you that if you really need it, you can have it for free.)
So, where was I...oh ya....I have never published this on the internet, but I have written several letters over the years to friends and family members answering their question; Does the bible mean anything to you? The answer is Yes It does. The following is a compendium of those letters.
I tried studying the bible in the theological style, and I had a really good mentor, but alas, I could not/ cannot get past the accepting-the-miracles stage.
So, you might ask, OK Frog what what does the bible mean to you? One Thing- Sacrifice.
Over the years I have read the bible sober, mostly, and also under the influence of a couple of preferred recreational substances; forward, backward, start with NT, & et., and slowly but surely I could see the message of the bible and finally one day about seven years ago I had a Revelation. There is a thread running through the bible. I had always expected that, and I had a couple "pet" ideas over the years based on my conclusion that since humans wrote this book then it possibly contained a "human" message. That message is basically, "There is no free lunch."
In the spirit of the brevity that I promised and my inability to stay focused, having hit the road at 4:30 AM this morning, suffice to say that I think the bible tells us that the most important thing we sacrifice ourselves for is the well being of our children. Not even our own kids, but the children of this community who will inherit exactly what we left to them.
Skipping over many other issues related to this, I shall come back to the Jeans of the world and child rearing. If there is anyone here reading this and you beat your kids, stop it now. Do not sacrifice that child to that horrible humiliation. Would you smack your wife? Turn her over your knee? Your co-worker/ subordinate at work? No. But in realty, if someone gets mad at me and whacks me in the ass, I don't care because I am a mature adult and I will merely cal 911, or better yet, fuck you up.
Here is a personal example. My youngest son, then four years old, now almost 19 was the shopper from hell. You couldn't go into a store without the usual shenanigans. One day I determined it was time we had to go, and without buying supper, we would have to go without having our favorite meal that night.
His Mother and I made grilled cheese sandwiches and he realized that he was the cause of the austerity meal. He became the best shopper in the universe, and still is. Why? Because he could see that we sacrificed our favorite dinner to show him how unacceptable his actions were.
Many parents do not understand how to teach values to their kids. They seem to want to teach them myths, or worse, beat them into submission, which is always counterproductive.
Respectfully submitted,
froggie
A Comfort Quote Mine
Well, this one's rather humorous that I just noticed:
"Atheists, please continue to think for me." -- Ray Comfort
What's French for "copyright"?
Ray's book translated and posted online.
Some volunteers have translated Ray's book "The Way of the Master" for "the sole goal of advancing the Kingdom of God"
I've posted it to the latest "Genesis" blog over at the swamp, coz I'm not convinced Ray would like having his books available for free on peoples' blogs.
Or perhaps I'm wrong and Ray is not motivated by money and has made all his work public domain.
Which way will he jump?
Some volunteers have translated Ray's book "The Way of the Master" for "the sole goal of advancing the Kingdom of God"
I've posted it to the latest "Genesis" blog over at the swamp, coz I'm not convinced Ray would like having his books available for free on peoples' blogs.
Or perhaps I'm wrong and Ray is not motivated by money and has made all his work public domain.
Which way will he jump?
The horror. Witchcraft in the 21st C
Children are being tortured, outcats and killed because they are accused of being witches.
A mixture of fundie christianity and traditional beliefs in Nigeria. The Niger delta has more churches than anywhere else in the world.
I was going to quote some paragraphs but it is all relevant and all horrific. Easier if you follow the link and read the story.
This was a money quote though:
No I'll think you'll find it was a nonsense already.
The documentary Dispatches Special: Saving Africa's Witch Children will be shown on Channel 4 (UK television channel)on Wednesday, 12 November, at 9pm (GMT)
Hopefully it will be accessible afterwards on their wensite channel4.com
A mixture of fundie christianity and traditional beliefs in Nigeria. The Niger delta has more churches than anywhere else in the world.
I was going to quote some paragraphs but it is all relevant and all horrific. Easier if you follow the link and read the story.
This was a money quote though:
"putting a traditional religion together with Christian religion - and it makes nonsense out of it"
No I'll think you'll find it was a nonsense already.
The documentary Dispatches Special: Saving Africa's Witch Children will be shown on Channel 4 (UK television channel)on Wednesday, 12 November, at 9pm (GMT)
Hopefully it will be accessible afterwards on their wensite channel4.com
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Lee L. Mercer, Jr.
I posted a link to Cracked.com's The 6 Most Insane People to ever Run for President. I have to recommend Lee Mercer's website, especially his Reasons for Candidacy. http://www.mercerforpresident2008.com/c14f7f9dd9bbed555232a5cb8defd6f7.html There's a lot to it, but I think it's worth it. I would have voted for him, and I wish he could have won, just for the spectacle. Lee Mercer in 2012!
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Jean- Part Two
I was going to say that I am speechless over Jean's reply to her current lay-guilt-and-shame-on-your-kids post.
But I am not speechless, though. As bad as it was, it gets worse and I could write for the next hour all the ways that this is so wrong.
I could be naive, or have lead a sheltered life, but that is not the case. I've carried some burdens and been through the wringer a couple times in my life, but I have never seen anyone exhibit this type of crazy, and brag about it, concerning kids. People that operate on this level rarely brag about it in public.
After pondering her response I looked up to notice a picture hanging on the wall of my den of my two daughters when they were nine and ten, and my eyes welled up with tears thinking about the hell hole that that little four year old daughter is living in.
I know I sometimes get wound up and use some expetives for effect, but I do not dare in this case because I am so mad that I know I would end up coming off as a total idiot, but I retain the right to say what I really want to in the next post.
The Angry Frog
But I am not speechless, though. As bad as it was, it gets worse and I could write for the next hour all the ways that this is so wrong.
I could be naive, or have lead a sheltered life, but that is not the case. I've carried some burdens and been through the wringer a couple times in my life, but I have never seen anyone exhibit this type of crazy, and brag about it, concerning kids. People that operate on this level rarely brag about it in public.
After pondering her response I looked up to notice a picture hanging on the wall of my den of my two daughters when they were nine and ten, and my eyes welled up with tears thinking about the hell hole that that little four year old daughter is living in.
I know I sometimes get wound up and use some expetives for effect, but I do not dare in this case because I am so mad that I know I would end up coming off as a total idiot, but I retain the right to say what I really want to in the next post.
The Angry Frog
Fundy Logic
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. --GB Shaw
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
Delos B. McKown
Friday, November 7, 2008
Anyone who doesn't like Led Zeppelin is dead to me....
They say that in polite discourse there are several topics that one should avoid at all costs. Unfortunately, these also tend to be the most interesting topics with the strongest emotional investments.
Seeing as we spend so much time here discussing 2 highly controversial topics, religion and politics, I figured we could devote a post to the most controversial topic of all!
Music preference.
What are you grooving to now, and why?
Seeing as we spend so much time here discussing 2 highly controversial topics, religion and politics, I figured we could devote a post to the most controversial topic of all!
Music preference.
What are you grooving to now, and why?
Child Abuse?
Jean thinks her 4 year old daughter is a wretched sinner.
I thought her post on slavery was outrageous but this one takes the cake.
She says:
(my bold)
I posted on it on my blog
Shocking, unbelievable. And she has comments from people saying how inspiring that is.
Is it just me?
I thought her post on slavery was outrageous but this one takes the cake.
She says:
Sometimes during the day or before bed, she always asks me if she has been good, and I always try to be as honest as I can with her, and I will tell her what she has done wrong if I can remember. If she has been better than usual I will praise her and tell her. I have never said to her she has been a perfect little girl who has done nothing wrong all day, If I say that to her then I am a liar and I will be doing her more harm than good. I do not believe in teaching children self esteem or that they should feel good about themselves, because they should not.
Yes my four year old daughter told me that the only person who would ever help her to be a good girl was Jesus Christ, because she could not do it on her own. I have never told her this. I would have thought this is too deep for a four year old to understand. That she was a sinner, she could not control her sinful nature. She wanted to be good but she could not, instead she did things that where wrong no matter how she tried to be good. Her theology is far deeper than that of many preachers today. I mean she gets it.
(my bold)
I was so amazed by God's power that I wanted to cry. I have never shared this with her, so how did she know? It can only be the work of the Holy Spirit. For a little girl to know that she can not be good on her own, that there is only one who can help her, that is Jesus is beyond my comprehension. When she said that all I said to her was that she was right. I did not say anything more as I was in shock and I did not want to ruin what the Lord was doing in her heart.
I posted on it on my blog
Shocking, unbelievable. And she has comments from people saying how inspiring that is.
Is it just me?
Obama babies
Here's a concept to give the screaming horrors to the religious right.
While hundreds of thousands of Democrats took to the streets on Tuesday night, others chose to celebrate in more intimate ways, if conversations among bloggers are anything to go by.
"I watched Obama's acceptance speech, heart – and loins – swelled alike," wrote Mia on the breakupgirl.net blog.
"My loving man gave my hand a squeeze, and I was filled with a wondrous, deep and primal desire to embrace him and celebrate life. And even – now that we have a prayer of creating for them a worthy world – to make life, to make babies."
EEK!
A contributor to Yahoo Answers was a litte more direct: "I had good sex while simultaneously watching Obama's victory on CNN. Now THAT'S a great way to spend an evening, let me tell you."
I'm imagining Mark Laine, Curtis, ray et al shuddering in horror at the thought of Obama sex.
Huge Laugh out Louds.
edited for YouTube comedy bonus. Racist Christian lady goes nuts in a coffee house:
Thursday, November 6, 2008
That's one way of looking at it
For the geeks amongst us, next time someone brings up the "information" argument...
<hypnosis>1. The human cell contains 75 MB of genetic information
<hypnosis>2. A sperm 37.5 MB.
<hypnosis>3. In a milliliter, we have 100 million sperms.
<hypnosis>On average, one ejaculation releases 2.25 ml in 5 seconds.
<hypnosis>Using basic math we can compute the bandwidth of the human male penis as:
<hypnosis>(37.5MB x 100M x 2.25)/5 = (37,500,000 bytes/sperm x 100,000,000 sperm/ml x 2.25 ml) / 5 seconds = 1,687,500,000,000,000 bytes/sec = 1,687.5 TerraBytes/sec
<jck_true>Sweet
<jck_true>DoS attack!!!
<hypnosis>a bukkake would probably be a DDoS then
<hypnosis>11 men would give 17 petabytes/sec
Courtesy of The Quote Database*
* a collection of quotes from IRC.
<hypnosis>1. The human cell contains 75 MB of genetic information
<hypnosis>2. A sperm 37.5 MB.
<hypnosis>3. In a milliliter, we have 100 million sperms.
<hypnosis>On average, one ejaculation releases 2.25 ml in 5 seconds.
<hypnosis>Using basic math we can compute the bandwidth of the human male penis as:
<hypnosis>(37.5MB x 100M x 2.25)/5 = (37,500,000 bytes/sperm x 100,000,000 sperm/ml x 2.25 ml) / 5 seconds = 1,687,500,000,000,000 bytes/sec = 1,687.5 TerraBytes/sec
<jck_true>Sweet
<jck_true>DoS attack!!!
<hypnosis>a bukkake would probably be a DDoS then
<hypnosis>11 men would give 17 petabytes/sec
Courtesy of The Quote Database*
* a collection of quotes from IRC.
lack of imagination
Ethan said at the swamp:
6000 years is very very old. Millions of years is just absurd but I suppose necessary for your faith in Evolution.
What an ignorant (nothing new). There are older living beings in the world.
God must have created some trees 4000 years before he created the world. Probably he was bored...
6000 years is very very old. Millions of years is just absurd but I suppose necessary for your faith in Evolution.
What an ignorant (nothing new). There are older living beings in the world.
God must have created some trees 4000 years before he created the world. Probably he was bored...
Ray, you're leaving out a LOT of stuff...
Over at the Swamp, our good friend Ray has posted his latest missive, entitled "Genesis 'Contradictions'". In it, he poses this question from (ostensibly) an atheist:
(I'm sorry I can't be more helpful regarding the author of that quote, but you know how Ray is with attribution...)
Anyway, Ray then launches into some ridiculous twadle about how the word "day" means "exactly 24 hours", or, "a period of time", or "a thousand years", depending upon the context the word was used in.
Ray could teach Bill Clinton a thing or two. I'm beginning to understand that to a Fundie, the phrase "pay attention to the context" is code for "ignore what it actually says". This makes it all the more amusing when they bleat "Evolution is just a theory!", blithely ignoring the meaning of the word "theory" within the very real context of scientific thought.
But what first struck me about this post was not the ridiculous "context" defense (I'm pretty much inured to that by this point), but the fact that Ray provided only one example of a contradiction within the Book of Genesis. As we all know, there's more than just one. Thanks to www.infidels.org for providing me with the content to formulate a slightly more comprehensive list of Genesis contradictions:
As you can see, there's quite a few, and these are just the ones that deal exclusively with the Book of Genesis. I wonder if Ray is going to make "Genesis 'Contradictions'" a regular feature at the Swamp...there's certainly enough material for it...
"Did it take God one day or six days to create?"
(I'm sorry I can't be more helpful regarding the author of that quote, but you know how Ray is with attribution...)
Anyway, Ray then launches into some ridiculous twadle about how the word "day" means "exactly 24 hours", or, "a period of time", or "a thousand years", depending upon the context the word was used in.
Ray could teach Bill Clinton a thing or two. I'm beginning to understand that to a Fundie, the phrase "pay attention to the context" is code for "ignore what it actually says". This makes it all the more amusing when they bleat "Evolution is just a theory!", blithely ignoring the meaning of the word "theory" within the very real context of scientific thought.
But what first struck me about this post was not the ridiculous "context" defense (I'm pretty much inured to that by this point), but the fact that Ray provided only one example of a contradiction within the Book of Genesis. As we all know, there's more than just one. Thanks to www.infidels.org for providing me with the content to formulate a slightly more comprehensive list of Genesis contradictions:
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)
GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.
GE 6:19-22, 7:8-9, 7:14-16 Two of each kind are to be taken, and are taken, aboard Noah's Ark.
GE 7:2-5 Seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken (and are taken) aboard the Ark.
GE 7:7 Noah and his clan enter the Ark.
GE 7:13 They enter the Ark (again?).
GE 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.
GE 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).
GE 12:4, AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years.
GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel.
GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.
GE 17:8 God promises Abraham the land of Canaan as an "everlasting possession."
GE 25:8, AC 7:2-5, HE 11:13 Abraham died with the promise unfulfilled.
GE 35:10 God says Jacob is to be called Jacob no longer; henceforth his name is Israel.
GE 46:2 At a later time, God himself uses the name Jacob.
GE 36:11 The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz.
GE 36:15-16 Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz.
As you can see, there's quite a few, and these are just the ones that deal exclusively with the Book of Genesis. I wonder if Ray is going to make "Genesis 'Contradictions'" a regular feature at the Swamp...there's certainly enough material for it...
Group Portrait -- Update
For anyone interested:
Progress on the picture (original post) hasn't been as fast as previously hoped. I've done sketches of a whole bunch of you guys, but the bottleneck is in digitizing them: my method has been to scan the image and digitally trace and colour it. I don't own a tablet, so this step has to be done via mouse, which is far from ideal. But it's what I did with the last one, so the end result isn't too bad.
I've digitized about 5 people so far and progress is continuing, albeit slowly. Feel free to make more suggestions. :)
Progress on the picture (original post) hasn't been as fast as previously hoped. I've done sketches of a whole bunch of you guys, but the bottleneck is in digitizing them: my method has been to scan the image and digitally trace and colour it. I don't own a tablet, so this step has to be done via mouse, which is far from ideal. But it's what I did with the last one, so the end result isn't too bad.
I've digitized about 5 people so far and progress is continuing, albeit slowly. Feel free to make more suggestions. :)
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Obviously, Terry Hasn't Been Spending His Time in Therapy
http://atheist-theory.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-grieve-for-americathe-foolishness-of.html
Terry and Daniel should get together. What a tag team they would make. And I know that the Executive Protection division of the Secret Service will be busier than ever before, but I hope they have a photo of Terry Burton.
Terry and Daniel should get together. What a tag team they would make. And I know that the Executive Protection division of the Secret Service will be busier than ever before, but I hope they have a photo of Terry Burton.
To my eternal shame...
I wrote a foreword for Ray, although I don't think he'd use it even if we strapped his feet to a rabid crocoduck and fed it a couple Naga Jolokia's.
Foreword
"Dear reader,
It is recommended that you read the following book with a critical mind. Do not take anything said in it at face value, especially when it deals with scientific theories. Mr Comfort, whatever his other favorable attributes, is an extremely biased and ill-informed author. The title of this book attests to this.
Atheists are a diverse group of people, bound only by one thread: our inability to accept on faith the existance of a god. Please, dear reader: do not paint us with a single brush, as Mr Comfort would have you do. Judge us as the individuals we are."
James Schumacher
Atheist
-- EDIT --
Oh... My... Flying... Spaghetti... Monster...
He chose it, and I didn't even have to break out the chilli. The end is nigh.
This... this is too much of a shock to the system. I think I need a lie down.
Foreword
"Dear reader,
It is recommended that you read the following book with a critical mind. Do not take anything said in it at face value, especially when it deals with scientific theories. Mr Comfort, whatever his other favorable attributes, is an extremely biased and ill-informed author. The title of this book attests to this.
Atheists are a diverse group of people, bound only by one thread: our inability to accept on faith the existance of a god. Please, dear reader: do not paint us with a single brush, as Mr Comfort would have you do. Judge us as the individuals we are."
James Schumacher
Atheist
-- EDIT --
Oh... My... Flying... Spaghetti... Monster...
He chose it, and I didn't even have to break out the chilli. The end is nigh.
This... this is too much of a shock to the system. I think I need a lie down.
A Slight Rant Of My Own
This is something that I've been thinking about and talking about with friends of mine. Back when McCain was ahead in the polls (before the economic melt-down), one person I know was saying that if McCain wins the Democrats are going to have to look at their platform and adjust it to be more right leaning. I of course, being extrememly liberal, didn't like that idea at all. However now that Obama has won the election, I think the Republicans are the ones that need to adjust their platform. I think it's time that they realize that it isn't the religious zealots that got Bush elected, it's the independents.
Back in 2000 America was experiencing a surplus after the Clinton administration and everything was going good and people believed that it really didn't make a difference who got elected. Since the economy was in good shape, Bush was promising to cut taxes and people wanted some of that money back (no one could have predicted what would come over the next seven years). In 2004, some people came around and realized that W was a complete fucktard and that we needed a change. However there were two wars going on and people were anxious switch administrations in the middle of that cluster-fuck (not to mention the fact that Kerry was a horrible candidate).
Anyway my point being that the Republicans may be the ones who need a deep re-evaluation. They need to realize that pandering to the religious right won't do shit for them, and that while the majority of this country may be Christian, they are not fundamentalist nut-jobs! They also may need to re-think their economic stance as well, trickle down economics doesn't work, plain and simple!
Back in 2000 America was experiencing a surplus after the Clinton administration and everything was going good and people believed that it really didn't make a difference who got elected. Since the economy was in good shape, Bush was promising to cut taxes and people wanted some of that money back (no one could have predicted what would come over the next seven years). In 2004, some people came around and realized that W was a complete fucktard and that we needed a change. However there were two wars going on and people were anxious switch administrations in the middle of that cluster-fuck (not to mention the fact that Kerry was a horrible candidate).
Anyway my point being that the Republicans may be the ones who need a deep re-evaluation. They need to realize that pandering to the religious right won't do shit for them, and that while the majority of this country may be Christian, they are not fundamentalist nut-jobs! They also may need to re-think their economic stance as well, trickle down economics doesn't work, plain and simple!
I Think I Might Regret This...But....
Did you ever get an idea stuck in your head....you know better..but you wanna run with it? OK.
Ray's latest post, "A Request to Atheists." If one person would validate Ray by so.... No. False start.
Ahem...what the fuck is going on with that, and I consider it an insult to the intelligence of every Free thinking person that ever went to that cesspool of celestial crap hole to even condiser that one of us would be willing to compose something that he could actually use as a Foreward. A Foreward? To his book?
The odacity! I want to kill myself, but not yet, let me finish.
I feel very presumptuous at times, when I ask a bit too much. But for Ray Comfort to ask an atheist to write a fucking foreward to his book, that he could actually use, redefines the word, presumptuous.
Ray is looking for a sycophant atheist. Some worm that would compromise their rationality to lend even a modicum of validity to RC. And if he finds one I am gonna scream Poe and thaw out hell after it freezes over, ad worse stuff too.
So, take that any way you want to. I don't like to shoot from the hip too much but that request pissed me off to no end. Who the hell does he think he's dealing here with/ rhetorical. Apparently, he thinks he will find someone among us that would compromise their integrity to side with him.
Thanks for listening and I will delete this post if anyone wants me to.
The Frog
Ray's latest post, "A Request to Atheists." If one person would validate Ray by so.... No. False start.
Ahem...what the fuck is going on with that, and I consider it an insult to the intelligence of every Free thinking person that ever went to that cesspool of celestial crap hole to even condiser that one of us would be willing to compose something that he could actually use as a Foreward. A Foreward? To his book?
The odacity! I want to kill myself, but not yet, let me finish.
I feel very presumptuous at times, when I ask a bit too much. But for Ray Comfort to ask an atheist to write a fucking foreward to his book, that he could actually use, redefines the word, presumptuous.
Ray is looking for a sycophant atheist. Some worm that would compromise their rationality to lend even a modicum of validity to RC. And if he finds one I am gonna scream Poe and thaw out hell after it freezes over, ad worse stuff too.
So, take that any way you want to. I don't like to shoot from the hip too much but that request pissed me off to no end. Who the hell does he think he's dealing here with/ rhetorical. Apparently, he thinks he will find someone among us that would compromise their integrity to side with him.
Thanks for listening and I will delete this post if anyone wants me to.
The Frog
"Palin Rocks"
Two new posts by Ray and he hasn't mentioned the election. I replied to his "Answers to Questions that Atheists Can't (Definitely)Answer post. I'll be surprised if my reply is posted, so here it is for what it's worth:
First, let me quote a great seer and prophet:
Palin rocks. We are not going to have an Obama-nation.
posted by Ray Comfort at 7:40 PM on Sep 3, 2008
Now let me quote from the only book that matters to said prophet:
Romans 13:1-2; 1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
As for your current post, Ray, I'll just address point number 7 for now; you've obviously never heard of the Piraha of Brazil. But that's no surprise; we know how much you like doing actual research. The Piraha have no concept of a god or creator. There's a book coming out this month titled "Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes; Life in Amazonian Jungle" by Daniel Everett, but I doubt if you'll read it. And now for some Spurgeon Gold on the subject of dumb, evil cigars:
"When I have found intense pain relieved, a weary brain soothed, and calm refreshing sleep obtained by a cigar, I have felt grateful to God and have blessed His name." -Charles Spurgeon
First, let me quote a great seer and prophet:
Palin rocks. We are not going to have an Obama-nation.
posted by Ray Comfort at 7:40 PM on Sep 3, 2008
Now let me quote from the only book that matters to said prophet:
Romans 13:1-2; 1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
As for your current post, Ray, I'll just address point number 7 for now; you've obviously never heard of the Piraha of Brazil. But that's no surprise; we know how much you like doing actual research. The Piraha have no concept of a god or creator. There's a book coming out this month titled "Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes; Life in Amazonian Jungle" by Daniel Everett, but I doubt if you'll read it. And now for some Spurgeon Gold on the subject of dumb, evil cigars:
"When I have found intense pain relieved, a weary brain soothed, and calm refreshing sleep obtained by a cigar, I have felt grateful to God and have blessed His name." -Charles Spurgeon
Hiatus
I have a lot going on right now, folks. I'll be back in roughly 2 weeks or so. Keep up the good work. Love to you guys.
I just failed a test on Christianity
So should I tell my professor, when I get my grade back, that I'm entitled to be wrong, as a dirty "evolutionist"?
Here's Your Sign
I couldn't resist posting this. If you know anything about Kent Hovind, you'll bust a gut laughing at this comment from "Bonni" to Ray. There is more crazy packed into this comment than I would have thought possible. I really think Bonni deserves some kind of dunce award.
Bonni said...
"Mr. Comfort,
I was wondering if you know a Dr. Hovind? He is an expert at demonstrating how the Bible completly disminishes any notions about evolution. Dr. Hovind was a science teacher for 15 years and is extremely knowledgeable in the theory of evolution. I just recently watched one of his seminars and was absolutely spellbound. I grew up believing the theory of evolution. Evolution is being taught in our schools to our children as fact not fiction or even theory. I had a hard time with creation when I first became a christian. I am fory-three years old and I finally know the truth. Dr. Hovind's son still travels the country doing seminars on this subject. I was just wondering if you knew of him since so many of your athesist objections turn toward evolution as their basis for trying to discredit the Bible. Thank you Bonni"
I looked at a couple videos by Kent's son, Eric, a couple months ago. Never again. I would rather have a root canal while listening to polka music.
Bonni said...
"Mr. Comfort,
I was wondering if you know a Dr. Hovind? He is an expert at demonstrating how the Bible completly disminishes any notions about evolution. Dr. Hovind was a science teacher for 15 years and is extremely knowledgeable in the theory of evolution. I just recently watched one of his seminars and was absolutely spellbound. I grew up believing the theory of evolution. Evolution is being taught in our schools to our children as fact not fiction or even theory. I had a hard time with creation when I first became a christian. I am fory-three years old and I finally know the truth. Dr. Hovind's son still travels the country doing seminars on this subject. I was just wondering if you knew of him since so many of your athesist objections turn toward evolution as their basis for trying to discredit the Bible. Thank you Bonni"
I looked at a couple videos by Kent's son, Eric, a couple months ago. Never again. I would rather have a root canal while listening to polka music.
Ray's Election Prediction
You can still post to this entry, so add your "Great post, Ray" today.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5823596693953871104&postID=5909969258341462389&page=1
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5823596693953871104&postID=5909969258341462389&page=1
Open Letter to Rev. Arnold Conrad:
I don't know if you kids remember the good Reverend Arnold Conrad...he's the nutjob who offered the following prayer during a McCain rally in Davenport, Iowa:
As the risk of sounding "arrogant", I would like to pose the following question to Reverend Conrad, as well as all the Fundie nuts who subscribe to this sort of diseased thinking (Ray, I'm looking at you):I would also pray Lord that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their God -- whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah -- that his [McCain’s] opponent wins for a variety of reasons.
And Lord I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you would step forward and honor your own name in all that happens between now and Election Day.
Oh Lord, we just commit this time to you, move among us, make your presence very well felt as we are gathered here today in Jesus's name I pray.
Where's your god now?
A Grievous Omission
Holy batshit crazy islamic nutballs.
I visited richarddawkins.net for the first time in a long while, and was drawn to listening Dicky D.'s talk on Harun Yahya's magnum opus, Atlas of Creation. This little clip enticed me to look into Harun Yahya's internet presence, and was pleasantly surprised to find an endless corridor of crazy.
Harun Yahya is in possession of a few URLs that tangle a convoluted mess of propaganda speckled with occasional dodgy English and spelling. Actually, they have a list of their registered addresses here. 118 websites. Yeeess. Oodles of fun.
A couple of select picks here for your gawking pleasure:
- The Global Darwinist Dictatorship Must Apologize to the Entire World!
- For Children - aka Scariest feckin' site you'll see all week
- Fakewinism - an example of creationist wit
- Darwinism has been annihilated across the world
Oh, the title? Grievous omission? Is Harun Yahya yet included in the sidebar for professional non-thinkers? I personally think they definitely deserve a spot.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
к∑ⅰ₮ｻ on the Heart...
к∑ⅰ₮ｻ wrote...
That's right, it's not your brain stem that sends signals to your heart to keep it beating; it's God. Good grief.
"Even you guys recognize that we’re in a cursed and fallen world. That it “ought” not to be this way. I believe God designed our hearts perfectly. In fact, He’s sustaining your heart beat even as you read these words. It takes no thought on your part. No conscious effort to flex its muscle. And while you’re alive it never rests even while you sleep. Have you thanked the Lord for keeping your heart steady and working?"
That's right, it's not your brain stem that sends signals to your heart to keep it beating; it's God. Good grief.
A Heartfelt question on biological development...
...or a big, fat set-up.
What the deuce is going on now?
As you may have seen, Ray ' Not-a-science-degree-guy' Comfort posted a series of infantile questions about which came first; blood or the heart. He has asked this before and, quite unsurprisingly, didn't pay attention to the answers or research it for himself. Now he's at it again.
He received, for his troubles, a series of answers ranging from the best, modern scientific understandings of circulatory development:
... along with the predictably dumb responses from his ardent followers...
The questions then, are; What purpose does this serve? What is his next move? Why should we care? Who will be the first to say 'Great Post Ray!'? Call it if you can...
Points will be awarded for accuracy and graded on the Prophecy Scale:
0 - 3 points - Biblical
4 - 7 points - Pat Robertson
8 - 10 points - Nostradamus
11 - 13 points - Mystic Meg
14 - 16 points - Dani'El
17 + points - if you're that good, you shouldn't have ruined it for everyone else.
Have fun!
Matt
EDIT TO ADD:
Ray has now included the correct answer to his many questions on developmental biology and the synergistic nature of the circulatory system in living organisms:
"The only answer to these questions is that Almighty God supernaturally made the human body (and every other creature) with a heart, lungs (needed for oxygenated blood), kidneys (to get rid of bad blood) vessels, arteries, blood, skin (to hold it all in), etc., all at once. Unthinkable for an atheist, but true. "
Translation:
"Magicmandunnit"
Did you expect any less?
What the deuce is going on now?
As you may have seen, Ray ' Not-a-science-degree-guy' Comfort posted a series of infantile questions about which came first; blood or the heart. He has asked this before and, quite unsurprisingly, didn't pay attention to the answers or research it for himself. Now he's at it again.
He received, for his troubles, a series of answers ranging from the best, modern scientific understandings of circulatory development:
-
" Irukandji said... Ray, I hate to break it to you, but someone has to: this isn't a head-scratching, hair-tearing, brain-breaking conundrum capable of moving grown evolutionary biologists to tears; it's freshman level biology..."
- " Froggie said...
Ray,
That is a very common tactic of fundies all over the web.
Ask a series of questions that would take two years of formal study to answer. And you expect to answer it in a blog comment.
Get real, Ray."
... along with the predictably dumb responses from his ardent followers...
- " Wayne Dawg said...
Ray - Great questions......but the evolutionist have never explained whether the chicken or the egg came first, so why would you confuse them with hearts and blood?"
The questions then, are; What purpose does this serve? What is his next move? Why should we care? Who will be the first to say 'Great Post Ray!'? Call it if you can...
Points will be awarded for accuracy and graded on the Prophecy Scale:
0 - 3 points - Biblical
4 - 7 points - Pat Robertson
8 - 10 points - Nostradamus
11 - 13 points - Mystic Meg
14 - 16 points - Dani'El
17 + points - if you're that good, you shouldn't have ruined it for everyone else.
Have fun!
Matt
EDIT TO ADD:
Ray has now included the correct answer to his many questions on developmental biology and the synergistic nature of the circulatory system in living organisms:
"The only answer to these questions is that Almighty God supernaturally made the human body (and every other creature) with a heart, lungs (needed for oxygenated blood), kidneys (to get rid of bad blood) vessels, arteries, blood, skin (to hold it all in), etc., all at once. Unthinkable for an atheist, but true. "
Translation:
"Magicmandunnit"
Did you expect any less?
Political Dogma
With election season coming to an end, I would like to discuss one of my complaints about Politics in the U.S. The biggest problem I have is that people become too dogmatic based on political party. For example, they try to rationalize what their candidate and party believes in to justify it for themselves. I especially face this issue being a very moderate libertarian. When speaking with most libertarians, I disagree with allowing the free market to solve everything, returning to the silver standard, and the idea of a government conspiracy behind everything (e.g., 9/11 truthers).
I have also noticed that a lot of people despise certain candidates during the campaigns and push the notion that they are wrong about everything. Going into this presidential election, I was a big fan of John McCain. However, I was disappointed and insulted when he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. While Palin is a candidate that I doubt I could ever cast a ballot for, she does have some good aspects:
- She spoke out about the financial bailout and stated that the government should not reward bad decisions.
- She favors reducing small business taxes.
- Absolute gun rights.
What I am wondering is if anyone else disagrees with their party or candidate of choice on certain issues? If so, what are they? Also, if you despised a candidate this election, what do you agree with them on?
I am asking these questions because I have the perception that the country is strictly divided at the moment due the dogmatic political beliefs of many citizens.
Liveblogging the US elections
Look guys, I'm stuck out here in rural France and we are only going to have occasional news broadcasts through our early morning hours.
Can you guys stateside keep me up to date with news feeds?
If you hear of a state or city result, could you be sweeties and post it in the comments, what % Dem, what % rep etc.
Thanks
I'm so far away.....
Can you guys stateside keep me up to date with news feeds?
If you hear of a state or city result, could you be sweeties and post it in the comments, what % Dem, what % rep etc.
Thanks
I'm so far away.....
The destruction of San Francisco
For those following the craziness at http://judgmentofsanfrancisco.blogspot.com/
I've been trying to show Dan'El that it is easy to find significance in random events and that possibly he has had hallucinations resulting from exhaustion and stress, and that he has suffered persection as a result of his antagonism towards others.
I found a thread started by him on the forum Prophesy Talk
This thread has many of the "significant" coincidences he has mentioned in his blog, but also outlines the details he has not yet revealed.
Specifically that he believes the AntiChrist and the False Prophet are his own 2 younger nephews.
Oy Vey!
Do I continue to try and get him to see the possibility that he is deluding himself or is really too far "out there"?
I've been trying to show Dan'El that it is easy to find significance in random events and that possibly he has had hallucinations resulting from exhaustion and stress, and that he has suffered persection as a result of his antagonism towards others.
I found a thread started by him on the forum Prophesy Talk
This thread has many of the "significant" coincidences he has mentioned in his blog, but also outlines the details he has not yet revealed.
Specifically that he believes the AntiChrist and the False Prophet are his own 2 younger nephews.
Oy Vey!
Do I continue to try and get him to see the possibility that he is deluding himself or is really too far "out there"?
Chinese and the Bible
Todd Friel's latest piece of lunacy is that Chinese characters represent various scenes or concepts from the bible - it is, of course, rubbish...
http://www.raccoonbend.com/languages/chinchar/chinchar.html
Will Friel retract this rubbish and present an honest view of the subject...?? Doubt it.
http://www.raccoonbend.com/languages/chinchar/chinchar.html
Will Friel retract this rubbish and present an honest view of the subject...?? Doubt it.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Rappin' Jesus Guy
I wrote about this a bit more over on my own blog, but today I saw something that I've never seen before - a rappin' Jesus guy. I was at a No on 8 demonstration (I live in California, and 8 is the gay marriage ban) this evening, and I tried to talk to one of the Yes on 8 guys. He was holding a completely non-sequitor sign reading "Prop 8 = Free Speech".
When I tried to get him to explain, he just kept saying "Yo" a lot and he tried to rap about Jesus. It was like trying to talk to a fucking cartoon.
When I tried to get him to explain, he just kept saying "Yo" a lot and he tried to rap about Jesus. It was like trying to talk to a fucking cartoon.
Professional Non-Thinkers
You forgot Answers in Genesis. They have their own online "peer reviewed" journal now. They are definitely pros.
It is finished
Comment 571 on the massive presuppositional thread over here. From myself to scmike.
Oh wow. Big surprise. You dodged the original question, again, ignored the fact that I have pointed out over and over again that within the context of this debate, the words "sense" refers to any data gathering device, again, fled into sematics to make me look 'foolish' despite knowing both of the above, and repeated the same statement I quoted 3 previously provided answers for above. Again.
You continue to conflate knowledge with data, despite my repeatedly correcting you on this, you make the statement that I was refuting in reponse to the example within the refutation, showing no sign of having even noticed the context, and you show no indication of having retained any of the information I have repeatedly provided you since the beginning of this debate.
I have no interest in continuing to repeat myself. You could not validify your own worldview under the logic you used to supposedly disprove mine. You could not acknowledge arguments which refuted your own, choosing instead to ignore them and simply repeat the already refuted arguments. You could not even directly answer the same question you continually ask your opponents.
I accept that you will proclaim yourself the victor, but this outcome was unavoidable from the start due to your inability to acknowledge opposing arguments.
Goodbye, scmike. This discussion is terminated.
EDIT: It is also worth noting that in the post immediately above this, I warned Scmike of his proximity to terminating the discussion:
Given that your entire argument rests on your opponents supposed inability to answer it, your own inability disproves either both our arguments (if your logic is valid) or neither of our arguments (if your logic is not).
Avoid it again, and I will conclude that you are unable to acknowledge any answer that disagrees with you, and follow Maragons lead and terminate this discussion.
Oh wow. Big surprise. You dodged the original question, again, ignored the fact that I have pointed out over and over again that within the context of this debate, the words "sense" refers to any data gathering device, again, fled into sematics to make me look 'foolish' despite knowing both of the above, and repeated the same statement I quoted 3 previously provided answers for above. Again.
You continue to conflate knowledge with data, despite my repeatedly correcting you on this, you make the statement that I was refuting in reponse to the example within the refutation, showing no sign of having even noticed the context, and you show no indication of having retained any of the information I have repeatedly provided you since the beginning of this debate.
I have no interest in continuing to repeat myself. You could not validify your own worldview under the logic you used to supposedly disprove mine. You could not acknowledge arguments which refuted your own, choosing instead to ignore them and simply repeat the already refuted arguments. You could not even directly answer the same question you continually ask your opponents.
I accept that you will proclaim yourself the victor, but this outcome was unavoidable from the start due to your inability to acknowledge opposing arguments.
Goodbye, scmike. This discussion is terminated.
EDIT: It is also worth noting that in the post immediately above this, I warned Scmike of his proximity to terminating the discussion:
Given that your entire argument rests on your opponents supposed inability to answer it, your own inability disproves either both our arguments (if your logic is valid) or neither of our arguments (if your logic is not).
Avoid it again, and I will conclude that you are unable to acknowledge any answer that disagrees with you, and follow Maragons lead and terminate this discussion.
Musings on the internal dialogues that will occur in people who think Sarah Palin is a decent human in the event of an Obama win.
First post for a week due to a new arrival in the 'Slaphead household - a beautiful little girl - and the ensuing timesuck that occurs. First chance today to get online and I note that the insanity and the inanity over at Ray's place and Terry's place and a thousand and one other bastions of illogicality remains in fine fettle. Let's hear it for da stoopid...
Anyway, here in the UK we're keenly following the US election, most of us hoping that Obama can win a historic victory and undo at least some of the damage that has been done to world stability by Bush and his cronies.
It's interesting to try and get a feel for the Palin-brigade. Terry's blogs are full of the most wonderful fuckwittery - he's even repeating the 'Obama is a Muslim' myth. He may have split from his guru Ray, but he's still full of similarly dumb notions. It made me wonder what the Terrys of Ithis world will blame if an Obama win is the eventual outcome? If they've all spent so much time praying hard to the sky fairy and get no answer, what are the chances of it shaking their brains hard enough to get them working again..?
I know, I know... 'slim to nothing'. It's all going to be the fault of Satan and homosexuals again.
I can still dream, you bastards.
P.S. For the creepy Christians, if McCain wins, I will be putting it down to him winning more states due to more people voting for him. Crazy, I know!
Anyway, here in the UK we're keenly following the US election, most of us hoping that Obama can win a historic victory and undo at least some of the damage that has been done to world stability by Bush and his cronies.
It's interesting to try and get a feel for the Palin-brigade. Terry's blogs are full of the most wonderful fuckwittery - he's even repeating the 'Obama is a Muslim' myth. He may have split from his guru Ray, but he's still full of similarly dumb notions. It made me wonder what the Terrys of Ithis world will blame if an Obama win is the eventual outcome? If they've all spent so much time praying hard to the sky fairy and get no answer, what are the chances of it shaking their brains hard enough to get them working again..?
I know, I know... 'slim to nothing'. It's all going to be the fault of Satan and homosexuals again.
I can still dream, you bastards.
P.S. For the creepy Christians, if McCain wins, I will be putting it down to him winning more states due to more people voting for him. Crazy, I know!
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Google's Creepy Advertising Technology
This post has nothing to do with Ray or religion--we all need a break from that, right?--but I wanted some feedack on something...
If you use Google Mail through the online interface (rather than downloading it into Outlook), you have probably noticed the ads and the way they sometimes match up with the content of your messages. What's happening here is that Google has automated search software that--
1) Rapidly scans the text of all your email messages
2) Searches the terms and compares them to a list of advertisements that companies have bought from them.
3) Finds a crude match...for instance, if you have the word "car" in an email, the search software might find an ad for used car or car repairs.
4) Publishes the ad based on the target word in your email message
I was always vaguely uneasy about it, but two experiences recently creeped me out and angered me. I describe these two cases below, and would like your thoughts on them.
If you use Google Mail through the online interface (rather than downloading it into Outlook), you have probably noticed the ads and the way they sometimes match up with the content of your messages. What's happening here is that Google has automated search software that--
1) Rapidly scans the text of all your email messages
2) Searches the terms and compares them to a list of advertisements that companies have bought from them.
3) Finds a crude match...for instance, if you have the word "car" in an email, the search software might find an ad for used car or car repairs.
4) Publishes the ad based on the target word in your email message
I was always vaguely uneasy about it, but two experiences recently creeped me out and angered me. I describe these two cases below, and would like your thoughts on them.
- A friend of mine sent me a message about a mutual friend of ours who was recently and very suddenly diagnosed with a rare and serious form of cancer. Google displayed an ad in which that person's name was tied to an ad. I won't use his real name, but it would be as if his name were Treo and an ad for Sony’s Treo popped up.
- The automated search went through a message I had from the Obama mailing list and then it put up ads for other left-of-center political groups, publications, etc.
Sure, this technology is really convenient, but isn’t it also creepy? These weird, invasive dips into my private life—my relationships with friends and my political affiliations—are unsettling, even if no human ever accesses them. I’m going to read up on the technical details about how this advertising works. Maybe I’ll come away with a better feeling about it, but if advertising needs to create positive feelings about a product, Google ads are driving me away from products I see there.
Neither the Cosmological Argument Nor The Moral Argument Are Strong Evidence For God
Recently, I asked MrFreeThinker to show me either empirically or logically that God who is the creator of the Universe and humanity who watches over and plays a part in our lives actually exists. He linked me to a rather interesting page, Arguments for the Existence of God.
I also asked MrFreeThinker what the strongest arguments were. Here's his response:
So let's look at these arguments and see if they survive enough scrutiny to show the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Cosmological Argument
I hate the summarize the cosmological argument because I think it's well made and nuanced, but many of us may already know it. However, here's the logic of the cosmological argument none the less:
1. Something currently exists.
2. Nothing came from nothing.
3. Therefore the basis of all being must be eternal.
4. This universe is in a state of entropy, had a beginning, and is therefore not eternal nor the source of all existence.
5. So, either the Universe or God is self existent, and since the Universe isn't self-existent, God is, and therefore exists.
The problem with this convoluted argument lies in several layers. The biggest logical fallacy is the false dichotomy between having to choose either God being self-existent or the universe being self-existent. There exists an infinite number of self-existent constructs that could potentially create a universe. God, at the very least must be intelligent by definition, and this argument in no way suggests that the self-existent construct has intelligence.
In other words, the jump from "something is eternal" to "God exists" is a leap of faith with no evidence in this argument to back it up.
Nothing came from nothing also contradicts the premise of a self-existent being. Similarly, quantum physics shows that particles do appear to "come from nothing," but more importantly, effects don't necessarily need a cause. So the entire second premise has been invalidated, making the rest of the argument moot.
The Moral Argument
Here's the basic argument:
1. If we seek to do the highest good through moral law, the result is our own happiness.
2. However, there exists no objective moral law for a being of and by the natural world.
3. Therefore, something outside of the natural world created absolute and objective morals to which we should follow.
Similarly...
1. Some things we can all agree are morally wrong like killing everyone in Canada.
2. Therefore, an objective standard of morality exists and moral relativism is a contradiction.
3. However, there exists no objective moral law for a being of and by the natural world.
4. Therefore, something outside of the natural world created absolute and objective morals to which we should follow.
The question of morality is a deep question. However, like the cosmological argument, a leap of faith is necessary to accept that God exists.
The argument essentially jumps from "objective morality exists," to "therefore a supreme all-knowing intelligent entity exists outside of our universe who created everything and plays a role in human affairs."
I, like many, would argue that empathy is the root of all morality and explains the duality of both objective morality and moral relativism. This is a much simpler argument that explains away all the problems of morality and why morality leads to happiness. Similarly, the morality from empathy argument makes far fewer assumptions than the moral argument for God.
In other words, when Occam's Razor comes into effect, serious doubt is placed upon the moral argument.
Conclusion
Neither the cosmological argument nor the moral argument rely on any kind of empirical evidence. Both are subjective arguments which, while thought provoking, don't show beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists.
More importantly, none of these arguments even address the possibility that the Christian God of the Bible exists, just a deistic god. So not only do these arguments not pass basic scrutiny, they are an even lousier basis for a belief in the biblical God.
I also asked MrFreeThinker what the strongest arguments were. Here's his response:
I think (as for a general creator) the cosmological argument (Aquinas' form) is very strong. It is good as it is also supported by cosmological evidence like the expansion of universe that supports the idea that the universe had a beginning. The moral argument is good when talking about a more involved god.
So let's look at these arguments and see if they survive enough scrutiny to show the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Cosmological Argument
I hate the summarize the cosmological argument because I think it's well made and nuanced, but many of us may already know it. However, here's the logic of the cosmological argument none the less:
1. Something currently exists.
2. Nothing came from nothing.
3. Therefore the basis of all being must be eternal.
4. This universe is in a state of entropy, had a beginning, and is therefore not eternal nor the source of all existence.
5. So, either the Universe or God is self existent, and since the Universe isn't self-existent, God is, and therefore exists.
The problem with this convoluted argument lies in several layers. The biggest logical fallacy is the false dichotomy between having to choose either God being self-existent or the universe being self-existent. There exists an infinite number of self-existent constructs that could potentially create a universe. God, at the very least must be intelligent by definition, and this argument in no way suggests that the self-existent construct has intelligence.
In other words, the jump from "something is eternal" to "God exists" is a leap of faith with no evidence in this argument to back it up.
Nothing came from nothing also contradicts the premise of a self-existent being. Similarly, quantum physics shows that particles do appear to "come from nothing," but more importantly, effects don't necessarily need a cause. So the entire second premise has been invalidated, making the rest of the argument moot.
The Moral Argument
Here's the basic argument:
1. If we seek to do the highest good through moral law, the result is our own happiness.
2. However, there exists no objective moral law for a being of and by the natural world.
3. Therefore, something outside of the natural world created absolute and objective morals to which we should follow.
Similarly...
1. Some things we can all agree are morally wrong like killing everyone in Canada.
2. Therefore, an objective standard of morality exists and moral relativism is a contradiction.
3. However, there exists no objective moral law for a being of and by the natural world.
4. Therefore, something outside of the natural world created absolute and objective morals to which we should follow.
The question of morality is a deep question. However, like the cosmological argument, a leap of faith is necessary to accept that God exists.
The argument essentially jumps from "objective morality exists," to "therefore a supreme all-knowing intelligent entity exists outside of our universe who created everything and plays a role in human affairs."
I, like many, would argue that empathy is the root of all morality and explains the duality of both objective morality and moral relativism. This is a much simpler argument that explains away all the problems of morality and why morality leads to happiness. Similarly, the morality from empathy argument makes far fewer assumptions than the moral argument for God.
In other words, when Occam's Razor comes into effect, serious doubt is placed upon the moral argument.
Conclusion
Neither the cosmological argument nor the moral argument rely on any kind of empirical evidence. Both are subjective arguments which, while thought provoking, don't show beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists.
More importantly, none of these arguments even address the possibility that the Christian God of the Bible exists, just a deistic god. So not only do these arguments not pass basic scrutiny, they are an even lousier basis for a belief in the biblical God.
The Republican 2008 Presidential Election Campaign, Explained
Weemaryanne will make bold to explain
The take-away from this campaign:
"The message of note
Is that you must vote
For the one who is not named Hussein."
Inspired by the excellent Roy Zimmerman.
The take-away from this campaign:
"The message of note
Is that you must vote
For the one who is not named Hussein."
Inspired by the excellent Roy Zimmerman.
Christians aren't interested in fear-mongering, they just want to tell you of Jesus' love!
I went to church and Sunday school, I kept the law and every rule.
Good I was-kind and nice, I kept from evil, sin and vice.
I had a title, an honorable name, Cars and land, wealth and fame.
A diamond ring was on my hand, My house was the best in all the land.
I gave much money to the poor, It didn't hurt me, I always had more.
I drank the best and finest wine, And sent my kids to colleges fine.
I dined upon the best food, I was always in a very good mood.
I heard the Gospel many a day, I didn't care, I had my way.
I didn't accept Jesus, God's only Son, I didn't care what He had done.
Then I got old and death drew nigh, Yes, siree, it was time to die.
All of a sudden I had to go! Where was I going-I didn't know.
I bade my family a shaky farewell, Now it was time to go to Hell!
I woke with a start and started to choke, The place was dark and filled with smoke.
I looked around but couldn't see, The place was black, as black can be.
People wailed and people did scream, I wished to God it was only a dream.
Then next thing I knew, I was on fire, The scorching flames grew higher 'n higher
I rejected Jesus Christ and sealed my fate, I can't receive Him, it's now too late.
When I was alive all was well, Now I'm tormented, chained in Hell!
*Edit: sorry the spacing was really annoying me!
**Edit: also I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make it seem like I wrote this...I'm really not that creative. This is from Bible Believers Baptist Church (that's what it says on the back anyway)
Gamers are just as bad as atheists apparently....
Apparently atheists aren't the only people that christians hate. They also hate Dungeons and Dragons players. So much so that a christian children's charity recently refused a donation of $17,398.00 because it had been raised, in part, by selling Dungeons and Dragons.
Letting children starve and die is okay, just so long as you're making a point and trying to force your beliefs on others. What's a few dead kids when we can send a message about just how much we hate board games?
Letting children starve and die is okay, just so long as you're making a point and trying to force your beliefs on others. What's a few dead kids when we can send a message about just how much we hate board games?
The Golden Calf Part Deux: It Gets Better
I mean, it gets worse. I mean -- oh, hell, go and read for yourself:
The late-middle-aged redhead at the centre of the top photo is Peggy Noonan, hack writer and genuine believer who really should know better. OTOH, if her retirement funds are as crapped out as everyone else's then I suppose a devout Catholic might as well go along with this sideshow. It can't make things worse, right?
Part I here.
(Aside: We're rearranging furniture to accommodate a long family visit, and my computer and modem will have to be moved and re-connected. Don't know just when it will happen or how long it will be until I'm back online. Don't fret, I will be back.)
The late-middle-aged redhead at the centre of the top photo is Peggy Noonan, hack writer and genuine believer who really should know better. OTOH, if her retirement funds are as crapped out as everyone else's then I suppose a devout Catholic might as well go along with this sideshow. It can't make things worse, right?
Part I here.
(Aside: We're rearranging furniture to accommodate a long family visit, and my computer and modem will have to be moved and re-connected. Don't know just when it will happen or how long it will be until I'm back online. Don't fret, I will be back.)
This Reminded Me of Ray's Message.
I'd really like Ray's response to this video or any other Christian's who frequents here or at Ray's for that matter. However, I doubt any Christian will take the time to make a meaningful rebuttal to this video, so to all my friends at the Raytractors, I hope you enjoy this video.
More Tracts
Halloween is awesome! Today I not only saw a dominatrix with her submissive on a leash but I also got my first ever Chick Tract! I've heard of these before and have read a few of them online, but there is just something so funny to me about actually being handed one! I was so excited!! This is the one given to me:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0032/0032_01.asp
My collection of bible tracts is getting quite large...maybe I should make a collage!
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0032/0032_01.asp
My collection of bible tracts is getting quite large...maybe I should make a collage!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
As I understand it, blood came first, then blood vessels, then the heart..."