Category Archives: Crazies

Some Police Officers are Increasingly Afraid…

Police Riot GearWith the recent nonsense surrounding Ferguson and other liberal hotspots, I find this news story entirely unsurprising. According to the mayor of Philadelphia, some police officers are getting increasingly frightened of the communities that they are assigned to protect.

Yet the problem isn’t that most cops are crooked and need to be looked upon with distrust, the problem is that lots of citizens have little to no respect for the law or for the people who we have tasked with enforcing it.  These are people who are patently anti-social, they care about no one but themselves and if anything bad happens or they even get the feeling something bad can happen, they take to the streets and scream bloody murder.

See, all of these recent cases haven’t been bad white cops out shooting innocent black men on the streets for no reason.  That isn’t what happened in a single case.  Michael Brown tried to take the gun from a cop.  Eric Garner was breaking the law and resisting arrest.  Antonio Martin pulled a gun on a cop.  In every case, it’s been black criminals breaking the law, acting in a manner contrary to their own well-being and getting shot for it.  Yes, it’s a shame when the cops have to use lethal force, but to see the largely liberal public screaming that cops ought to be shot before they ever harm a civilian is absolutely absurd.  These cops are not being found guilty of a crime because they haven’t done anything wrong, that doesn’t stop the community from trying them in the court of public opinion.  All these communities, and it’s virtually all liberals from what I’ve seen, are ignoring the circumstances of the shootings and only seeing that the dead guy was black and the cop was white and that’s all there is to it. It’s more of that absurd victim mentality that pervades the liberal mind, especially in the black community.

These are not cops that hate their communities, these are communities that hate their cops.  In Brooklyn, New York, two cops were brutally murdered in their police car as “revenge” for the police shootings that have happened in recent weeks.  The murderer, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, murdered his girlfriend and boasted that he wanted to kill cops.  After killing officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, he turned the  gun on himself.  There was a second attempt at a cop shooting in the Bronx that was avoided only because the gun jammed as an unnamed gunman took aim at two police officers.  Cops have every right to be afraid of their communities, especially when their communities are cheering attacks on the authorities.

Of course, this wouldn’t be much of a story if the whole premise put forward by these hoodlums is entirely false, which it is. So here’s the actual data.  There are 641,208 police officers in the United States, at least as of 1998 when the last study was done. Of those, 87% are white and 11% are black, which for the purposes of this point are all that are relevant.  From 1980-2008, black officers were involved in 13% of the justifiable shootings by police.  In those shootings, less than 3% of those shot were white and 11% were black.  Black officers shoot far more black suspects than white suspects.  Is that racism?  Nobody on the left will claim so.  Further, according to Bureau of Justice statistics, only 1/5000th of 1% of all arrests made nationwide result in the death of the suspect.  In the seven years of the study from 2003-2009, there were nearly 98 million arrests made in the United States.  Only a minuscule number of those arrests resulted in the death of the arrestee, an average of 1 per every 20,000 arrests. You are four times more likely to be electrocuted in your shower than to be killed during an arrest, yet according to a lot of liberal pundits, police violence is at an all-time high.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

According to Policing and Homicide 1976 to 1998, published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, and published in March 2001, a disproportionate number of black officers are involved in shootings deemed justifiable in the United States.  Remember, I said that blacks made up 11% of the 641,208 officers nationwide, yet they account for more than 17% of all justifiable police shootings.  They also, as I mentioned before, are responsible for far more black-officer-shooting-black-suspects than white officers by a wide margin, 32 in 100,000 for black officers vs. 14 in 100,000 for white officers.  We see that white-officer-shooting-white-suspects in the same time period is 28 in 100,000, vs. 11 in 100,000 for black officers. Clearly, white officers are not out trying to kill black suspects as “leaders” in the “black community” have claimed.  If anything, they should be screaming about black officers because they demonstrably kill more black suspects than anyone else.  Of course, black-on-black violence is epidemic in our country, a black man is 6x more likely to be killed by another black man than by a white man, yet the “black community” doesn’t talk about that.  There’s no racist angle there to exploit.  They can’t play the victim card so they don’t bring it up.

But here’s where things become interesting.  According to the studies, young black males murder police officers at a rate 6x higher than young white males do.  At the time of the study in 1998, young  black males made up less than 1% of the population but accounted for more than 21% of the police murders.  And people wonder why cops pay more attention to young black males?  Seriously?

The longer this nonsense goes on, the more I wonder if it isn’t better if the cops just pull back from these ghetto neighborhoods and let them all murder each other.  It isn’t at all unlikely, studies done of some of the most violent neighborhoods in the nation show that you have between a 1:7 and 1:15 chance of being the victim of violent crime each and every year  you spend in these neighborhoods.  Take away what law enforcement there is in these areas and there will be blood running in the streets in short order.  Hopefully the people who are most likely to attack the police will be the first ones to go, but let’s be honest, if the police did walk away, as they certainly have every reason to do, the black community would be up in arms screaming that they’re not being protected.

The cops just can’t win.  Sorry, given a choice between a cop that puts his or her life on the line every day and some career criminals, I’ll take the cop each and every time, without exception.  Maybe we need a little gene pool cleaning in this country.


Maybe There’s a Message About Jesus Here

Bird Poop Jesus

Jim Lawry of Brooklyn, Ohio, went out to his car and saw something amazing.  A bird had apparently left a present on his windshield and when he looked at it closely, it seemed to him that it looked just like Jesus.

Frankly, to me, it looks like a dog, but there’s no accounting for pareidolia. Apparently, this guy is serious too, he sent an e-mail with a photo to the local news and his Facebook page suggests he really believes in this crap, no pun intended.

Of course, pareidolia is nothing new, it’s the tendency for humans to see patterns in random shapes, whether those shapes actually appear or not.  I’ve written about it numerous times in the past and will indubitably do so again in the future.  People with overactive imaginations seeing things that don’t really exist because they don’t exercise the critical thinking portion of their brains enough.

But assuming for a moment that this really is an image in bird crap of Jesus Christ, what does that really tell us?  That Christianity is crap?  That God is taking a dump on believers?  Is there supposed to be a deeper message here or is it just weird images showing up in bizarre places?  What might that message from the Almighty actually be?  Or is it supposed to be inscrutable and we’re supposed to scratch our heads and wonder about the majesty of it all?

I guess you can take it as you wish, the idea that the creator of all things is operating in bird excrement as a medium for his artwork.  You’d think he could be a little more impressive, wouldn’t you?  Is it too difficult to spell his name in the stars or something?  Maybe bird poop is all he can muster.  God might work in supposedly mysterious ways but I wouldn’t want to shake his hand, if you know what I mean.

Logic Escapes Christians

Logic FailI know this is like a broken record, but lots of theists out there, Christians particularly in this example, just don’t have the slightest clue what logic is.  I had someone argue that there is an objective morality because, assuming God exists, then such a morality is a characteristic of God.

Says who?

Let’s look at an example of this.  Let’s say you had never seen a cheetah, you had no idea what a cheetah was.  I came to you and told you that one of the defining characteristics of a cheetah was that it ran really fast.  You could ask me how I know this and I could take you to see a cheetah and you could see it run really fast.  You could, and should, ask me how I know that this claim I’m making is actually true and it would be on my shoulders to demonstrate how I came to this knowledge.  Even if I wasn’t able to take you to see a cheetah first hand, I could show you all kind of videos online, books, expert testimony, etc. And you could, and again should, ask how those experts came by their knowledge and the same rules would apply.  Eventually, those experts would have to get back to actually having a way of seeing a cheetah in action or studying the structure of a cheetah or something whereby they could have rationally gained that knowledge.

Claims about gods don’t work that way.  Theists cannot produce any rational means of coming by the information they claim to have, they cannot show that the gods that they claim are real actually operate the way they assert.  There are no experts that can show that they have achieved such knowledge through any demonstrable means.  There is no way of demonstrably differentiating between a real characteristic of a god and an invented one.  You cannot go see a god and find out if the claims made about it are actually so.

This kind of thing goes right over the head of theists.  There’s some circuit in their head that insists that their gods are exactly  as they imagine them to be, they’re entirely unable to contemplate the possibility that they have no way whatsoever to know if their gods are real or what they might actually be like.  In that way, it is exactly like an imaginary friend and that’s important.

Seriously, how many times have you had a theist tell you in complete confidence exactly what God is like and how God would react in every possible situation, but can’t explain how it is that they know any of this?  Oh, they might say they read it in the Bible, but again, they can’t describe how the people who wrote the Bible came by their knowledge either.  It’s just magic!  Or maybe it’s personal revelation!  Unfortunately for them, there’s no way of telling the difference between personal revelation and just making something up and again, they’re left with empty, un-demonstrable claims that nobody with the slightest grasp of reason ought to take seriously.

That’s probably why they buy into it.  Zero reason skills whatsoever.  And they wonder why we laugh at their absurd beliefs.

Avoiding Ferguson No More

Missouri Highway Patrol takes over the Ferguson protestsI’ve purposely not addressed the Ferguson shooting, I’ve carefully avoided talking about Michael Brown and Darren Wilson and the whole nonsense that arose following both the shooting itself and the Grand Jury announcement.  For one, it doesn’t matter, it’s just been children acting like children and people taking advantage of a situation to riot and steal things in the name of “social justice”.  I find that absurd in the extreme and frankly, I figure the police in Ferguson ought to have been shooting looters regardless of skin color, with the most painful non-lethal rounds possible if nothing else.  There simply is no excuse for acting like that and the whole thing got completely out of hand.

I’m all for peaceful and lawful protesting but that’s absolutely not what happened in Ferguson, Missouri but I could have predicted it for you long ahead of time.  It was inevitable.  You had the race-baiters like Sharpton whipping up the crowd, you had the liberal media pushing racial buttons and you had an entitlement-happy crowd, built up by the liberals, just waiting for an opportunity to go on a rampage.  Mix well and set aflame.

Whether these people like it or not, the Grand Jury, who are the only ones legally tasked with deciding if Darren Wilson ought to be prosecuted for the death of Michael Brown, found no reason whatsoever to bind him over for charges.  A rational society would accept that finding because it is legally binding.  These people are not being rational though, they are being emotional and their emotions lead them to believe and do ridiculous things.  It’s not all that different from the way religion operates.  They take a position to which they are already emotionally attached and then desperately cling to it no matter what the evidence actually says.  This is what happened in Ferguson.  While what happened to Brown is regrettable, it was all Brown’s fault that he  got shot and had he not tried to take Wilson’s firearm, he’d likely still be alive today.  Place the blame where the blame actually belongs.

But no, that’s not what the liberal public wants and Obama is just fanning those flames by suggesting that there is a valid “simmering distrust” between minorities and the police.  There is only a distrust between the people who think laws are mere suggestions and the police who are tasked with arresting those who violate the law.  It’s those crazy liberals who think black people ought to get special treatment because they’re black who have a problem.  This was never a racial thing, it was a criminal doing something stupid thing.  If it was a racial thing, then there would have been just as much furor at the case of a black officer killing an unarmed white guy, yet there was none.  Liberals won’t even address it.  You sure didn’t see mobs of unruly white people rioting and smashing store fronts.  They’d have been crucified in the media if they had, yet black people in Ferguson get away with it and the police, who try to contain the madness, get criticized.  This goes all the way back to Rodney King, and probably before, where rioting while feigning social outrage is the acceptable thing to do.

We have a racial problem in this country but it’s not racist white people picking on peaceful black people.  It’s liberal entitlement-happy racists, people who believe that blacks deserve to get back at whites for past injustices, and those who figure that while they’re stomping around being pissed, they might as well break some windows and steal some TVs.  What the heck, they’re entitled, right?  If a police officer, regardless of skin color, does something wrong to an individual, regardless of skin color, they should be prosecuted to the extent that the law allows.  It shouldn’t matter if the individual that was wronged was black or white, rich or poor, gay or straight, male or female, the cop, if they were in the wrong, should get the same punishment and it should be harsh.  I’m fine with cops being held to high standards but they should not be held to impossible standards and they most certainly shouldn’t get punished differently based on the gender, orientation or race of the “victim”.  But that’s not what liberals want.  Color-blind society my ass.

So it’s all over and done.  Darren Wilson’s life is ruined, even though he did nothing at all wrong.  Liberals ought to be happy about that, he’s been forced to leave the force and he and his wife will have to go elsewhere and hope they can get jobs.  The liberals will just go back to watching for another case that they can make political hay out of and the looting and rioting can repeat as it always seems to.  It’s the liberal way, after all.


When Crazies Attack

Crazy People EverywhereYou know what makes me really shake my head?  Watching theists sit around and argue over theology, especially when you get people with entirely different theological positions who are convinced that everyone but themselves are wrong.  It reminds me a lot of a bunch of 9/11 conspiracy nuts sitting around bitching about the minutia of their shared delusion.  Why?  Because it’s exactly the same thing.  Crazy people calling other people who believe other crazy things, crazy.  There is no way to talk sense into a room full of people who have no concept whatsoever of what being sensible means.  I keep seeing different sects of Christians arguing over the trinity and both of them are just declaring victory and because obviously, they are right, everyone who disagrees has to be an “antichrist”.  What does that even mean?  What can be done about the crazies?

It’s not just the lunatic groups who get together to hash out their lunacy, this happens on an individual basis too.  I’ve got one guy who is desperately trying to tell me that there is a plan for redemption and throwing me all kinds of Bible verses and links to prove it.  No, there is a CLAIM that there is a plan for redemption, I’m questioning whether it’s real or valid.  He simply assumes that it must be real and valid because he has blind and fanatical faith that it is, therefore just throwing around verses from the Bible is all the proof anyone should ever need.  No, try again.  That only works with people who already believe the Bible is true, those who question it are not going to be impressed by quoting it.

It is really pointless to try to have a productive intellectual discussion with people to whom intellectualism is meaningless, at least when it comes to their religious beliefs.  As has been wisely said, you cannot reason someone out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into in the first place.  I think it’s the worst of all possible worlds when you have people who know their beliefs are irrational, they acknowledge their beliefs are irrational and they just don’t care.  Why should they have the slightest interest in thinking critically about what they believe? Why should it matter?  It makes them feel good, that’s all they care about, who gives a damn if it’s actually true.  And  yes, I have had theists tell me they couldn’t care less if there is really a god, they’re going to believe because it makes them happy to do so and nothing anyone could possibly say will ever make them reconsider their decision.  These people are insane.

But what can we really do about the insane?  They cannot be reasoned with, by definition.  They cannot be ignored, people like this vote their beliefs and that screws things up for everyone.  So what’s left?  Shoot them?  Most of them will never change their minds and the only way we will ever be rid of them is after their deaths.  Of course, that will never fly.  So what can we do?  That’s where I’m stuck.

This is Going to Come Off Racist

Radio TowerI am well aware that this post is going to come off racist to some but it’s a serious question that I think ought to be addressed.  The talk radio station that I listen to, the one I’ve talked about a lot in the past, is a supposedly conservative talk station.  Most of its hosts are very conservative, although virtually none are particularly religious.  I’m actually surprised at how critical the majority of them are of religion and how readily most of them are to say they aren’t religious.  Most of the hosts are white, although there are several Hispanic hosts and two black hosts, all of which can be verified by going to their web site and looking at the host pages.  It’s the black hosts that I want to talk about right now though.

Before I begin, I’ve started to pay attention to how all of the hosts that I  hear, and granted I hear some a lot more often than others, based on when I happen to be in the car, talk about race, particularly their own.  I have yet to hear any of the white hosts spend any appreciable time talking about “being white”.  I have yet to hear any of the Hispanic hosts talk about “being Hispanic”.  I have, however, heard constant references by the two black hosts about “being black”.  It seems to be a major part of their schtick.  Last night, for instance, one was on and spent the entire time I listened, probably close to an hour, talking about “how black people think”.  Isn’t that kind of racist, in and of itself, asserting that all people with a particular range of melanin in their skin all have to think the same way?  So far as I’m aware, I’ve never heard a white host talking about how white people think, I’ve never heard a Hispanic host talking about how Hispanic people think and, even though I don’t know that I’ve ever heard an Asian radio host, I can’t imagine them spending valuable air time talking about how Asian people think.  It’s an absurd concept, why did this particular host think that all black people think alike?  It immediately strikes me as the old canard that you can’t tell black people apart.  That’s just racist.

And these hosts didn’t grow up in the hood, they were both, based on what they’ve said on the air, college educated and raised in at least middle class households.  So why do they spend all their time playing the race card?  What is it about a lot of black personalities that makes them automatically identify with skin color?  Personally, I just don’t get it.

Unfortunately, just noticing such things is enough to get you cast as a racist.  I guess pointing out the facts, especially when they are inconvenient facts, is enough to get you demonized.  My crime, according to some, is just noticing, just like realizing that feminists, who are supposedly for a gender-neutral society, spend all of their time pointing out how different men and women are.  But no, point that out and you’re a sexist!  They want you to do as they say, not as they do.  The fact is, when someone tries to group people together by the color of their skin, they are being racist.  It’s absurd to think that all black people think a certain way, just as it is to think the same of white people.  People are people.  People’s choices, positions and beliefs ought not be determined by their skin color and if they are, that’s really a problem.  I don’t go running around identifying myself by my skin color but there are a lot of people who do and no matter how they try to justify it, they’re still wrong.  It’s still racist.  Identifying race as a defining factor is, by definition, racist.  Oh, I know, blacks can’t  be racist, had another person tell me that today, because blacks have no power.  Tell that to our black president.

I just get so sick of the hypocrisy, where blacks and feminists and other liberal crusaders think that the rules don’t apply to them, they get to be racist and sexist and then they get to shout down anyone who points out their failures as being racists and sexists.  Can’t we all just stop paying attention to skin color and gender and just live together in harmony?  Hell no, that’s how these people make their living!

And that’s a shame.

Arguing Free Will is Religious

Free Will2There are a lot of subjects that I really don’t like to talk about, not because I can’t, but because people on the other side really haven’t got a clue what they’re talking about and they’re often very emotionally attached to one side or the other.  One of those subjects is abortion, another is natural rights and, unfortunately, one more is free will.

Free will is an odd critter.  People will often cling to their beliefs about it with an almost religious fervor. Unfortunately, I think most of the time, people on both sides of the argument are just talking past each other because nobody ever bothers to rationally define their terms.  You’ve got the people on one side who are very sure that free will can’t possibly exist because we live in a deterministic universe.  They define “free will” in such a way that it cannot possibly exist, they’re convinced that we’re all just automatons programmed by the universe to wander around and do things for reasons inscrutable.  Those are the people I have most trouble with because they’re really using “free will” in an absurd manner.  Since I won’t use it in their terms, they really don’t like me much when I point out how ridiculous their claims really are.

Take a discussion I had today with someone who was a strict determinist.  I gave him an example of being at an intersection and having a choice of going left, right or straight ahead.  I could make any of those decisions I wanted, I could go left, I could go right or I could go straight ahead, barring obstacles like brick walls and the like.  So what is it in his deterministic universe that decides which path I will take?  I could go left and then, the next second, I could  go right.  He says no, the universe has changed in the second between my decisions.  Oh really?  Please show me the specific changes in the universe that have altered my ability to make a choice?  He couldn’t, in fact, he didn’t even try, which is hardly surprising because he couldn’t do it and he knew it.  He just asserted that there must have been a change because he had to keep to his original religious faith in determinism.  Sorry, that’s not how rational debate works.  If you make a claim, you have to back it up.  If you cannot back it up, don’t make the claim.  In fact, that’s exactly how religion operates, isn’t it?  Make claims that cannot possibly be supported and get upset when people don’t take your unsupported claims seriously.

What’s worse, these people tend to get really upset when people won’t buy into their unsupported drivel, it wasn’t long until this guy was calling me names because I wouldn’t take his word that the universe worked the way he insisted that it did. The more I pointed out the irrationality of his position, the madder he got until the moderators shut him down and banned him from the thread.  As I said, people get really emotionally attached to things, even if those things are really absurd. They lack the ability to step back and look at their own position from an intellectual perspective and see the flaws in their own beliefs.  This is true of the religious, this is true of many political debaters, it most certainly is true when it comes to free will.  It stops being about accepting the best supported and most rational positions and becomes all about standing your ground, even when you’re wrong.

Why do so many people do that?

Are Theists Stupid?

not-sure-if-stupid-or-just-christianOn a recent Atheist Experience, they talked briefly about their disagreement with calling the religious stupid, saying that the religious can be just as smart as non-theists.  Well, yes and no.  Certainly, with regard to their theism, theists are not as smart as non-theists because they believe in irrational things. They can be bright outside of their religious beliefs, they can be geniuses in fact, but when it comes to the things they believe about gods and the supernatural, they are, without exception, downright dumb.

That’s because their beliefs are irrational and there’s no denying it.  They believe things, on faith, for which they have no good objective evidence are actually so.  They are delusional.  They have an overactive fantasy life.   They ought to be embarrassed by it, just like an adult who still believes in Santa Claus ought to be embarrassed by it, they’re just not.  That’s an even more clear reflection on their intelligence in the religious realm.

I know I’ve said this before, but some people seem to have a significant problem making differentiations between sub-sets of data.  They assume that if a person is “smart”, that means they are smart in all things and if a person is “stupid”, that must mean they are stupid in all things.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  We are all smarter in some areas than we are in others, we are all dumber in some areas than we are in others and apparently, if these differentiations are not spelled out directly, some people are unable to understand that simple fact.  There are plenty of things that I am downright ignorant of.  That doesn’t make me a completely ignorant person.  One of my primary examples of this is Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institute of Health and former head of the Human Genome Project.  He’s a genius when it comes to his scientific work.  He’s also a evangelical Christian.  He’s very smart in one area, very, very dumb in another.  I don’t know how we can call it anything else but what it is.

Many rational atheists were once religious.  We were, by any reasonable definition, stupid.  We didn’t understand the reality, we didn’t have the tools to evaluate the facts or think critically about the situation.  Then we learned.  We stopped being stupid, foolish and gullible.  We started acting as rational beings, at least with regards to religion.  Religious stupidity isn’t necessarily permanent, it can be changed, just by adding a dose of evidence and mixing with the spoon of rationality.  It happens every day, more and more often as the public becomes better educated and science shows us that religious bunk is wholly unnecessary to living a worthwhile life.

So yes, I’m going to continue to call Christians and Muslims and Buddhists and all of the rest of the religious looney-tunes stupid.  It’s not because I want them to feel bad, they ought to feel bad enough because they believe this crap in the first place.  It’s because I want them to step back and take a look at what they believe and realize just how stupid it actually is.  I know that the majority aren’t capable of that, but for those that do, that need a metaphorical boot to the head to get some intelligent thought going, it works.  I’m not going to pretend to respect these people and their crazy beliefs, these are things that they should be ashamed of, they should want to change and until they do take steps to change them, they deserve to be thought of as idiots, at least within the religious realm.  They need to lift themselves out of the morass of religious insanity and join the rational human race.

Then, and only then, will they stop being religiously stupid.

Extinction Happens

DodoYou know, I get rather sick of seeing conservationists, typically very liberal conservationists at that, whining about how man is ruining the planet and killing off species and we should all be horrified at ourselves because species are dying because of our evil machinations on the planet.  Well guess what?  That’s evolution!  Species die off every day!  New species arise to fill those ecological niches!  Welcome to the real world!

Whether these species are killed off by man or by other animals or by changes in the ecology, that’s how nature operates.  It’s how things have worked since time immemorial.  It’s how things will continue to work long after our own species has gone extinct.  We need to stop pretending that somehow, we’re special and we have a greater responsibility to protect every species of fly and frog and bird.  We do not.  Evolution happens and that means extinction happens.

Now I think we ought to take reasonable measures not to purposely or carelessly cause the extinction of other species if we can help it, but I swear, there are a lot of conservationists who take it way too far.  I think a lot of this comes from liberal guilt.  There are, without question, a lot of liberals out there who feel guilty because they are alive, especially if they are reasonably happy and well-off.  They’re sad that they’re not poor, disabled, disenfranchised and generally hated, so much so that they begin to hate themselves and everyone around them.  Success is awful and no one ought to be successful, so long as people who are unsuccessful exist.

Of course, this is a first-world problem, caused by people who have far too much time on their hands, sitting around drinking their lattes from Starbucks, driving their SUVs and whining about how hard the world is.  You don’t see this in the middle of sub-Saharan Africa, where people fight to survive and don’t really care that the warthog they’re about to kill for food is endangered or not.  So what?  It’s about survival, not social consciousness. Maybe we’d do better to remember that we’re just animals too and that we will have an impact on this planet, just like any other animal species.  Let’s try to be careful, but not become self-loathing like these ridiculous liberals that over-run the country.  Species die.  Animals go extinct.  They always have, they always will.  Welcome to reality.

Now get a grip and live in it.

What the Hell is Wrong with Feminists?

Halloween-costume-2There’s apparently a big bruhaha going on over a Subway commercial where women are told to stop eating burgers and presumably eat Subway so that they’ll fit into sexy Halloween costumes.  There are women out there whining about how sexist it is that they’re expected to wear sexy costumes! How dare anyone suggest that! Well, nobody is suggesting it, they’re simply acknowledging the reality, that there are an awful lot of sexy costumes out there that women choose, yes CHOOSE, of their own free will, to put on.  Nobody is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to wear these costumes, in fact, nobody really gives a damn if you wear a costume at all.  You make that decision for yourself and now you’re whining about it?

Holy shit, what is wrong with you women?  Is the very existence of a costume reason for you to bitch and whine that someone ought to stop it because you don’t like it?  Grow the fuck up!  Seriously, this is just another stupid feminist nonsensical cause to get riled up about.  Wear what you want.  Wear a bag over your head, it can only help some of you.  Just shut the fuck up about ridiculous invented controversies that mean absolutely nothing.

The more that I see feminists complain about stupid stuff, the more that I see them want to boycott and control the language, the more laughable they are.  Do these people ever stop to think how pathetic their antics make them look? Why is anyone going to feel sorry for these poor women who are convinced they are being forced at knife-point to put on a slutty Cinderella costume and parade around with their tits hanging out, especially when nothing of the sort is going on?  If you don’t want to wear it, guess what?  You don’t have to wear it!  Get over yourself!

So here’s the “offending” Subway commercial.  I’m sure you’ll agree that there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with it, except in the tiny little liberal heads of uber-feminist idiots who think everyone ought to do what they’re told and pretend that there’s a vast male conspiracy to make them look like a slut.  Most of these women dress that way anyhow, what are they complaining about?

[youtuber youtube=’′]

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to Subway.

The Stupidity is Strong With This One

creationistsEvery time I think I’ve seen the stupidest thing that a theist can say, I come across something worse.  I ran across this on a forum and the number of people pointing out just how stupid this guy is was quite amazing.  Of course, this dipstick has no clue what evolution is, it wasn’t long after this that he started talking about the Big Bang and abiogenesis and all that, things that have nothing to do with evolution at all, but even after being corrected, he doesn’t care.  It interferes with his mindless belief in the Bible and that’s all he needs to invent absurd crap about it.  Honesty and education are two things that never impinge on his thought processes.

So here we go, his first post, in its entirety.  How many fallacies can you spot?

First – evolution being the work of God is fine and not racist because God created all people as equal.

Taking the Creator God out of the “evolution” has that theory as racist indeed.

The thing is that the claim that evolution is just some happen-chance or non-Godly event is thereby claiming that the African people are the lower evolved while the white race is the highest evolve.

This makes so the Atheist idea of evolution is just a new guise of the never ending racism, and that is also the motivation for keeping God out of the equation even when the evidence is there of the Creator God.

There really is no sensible reason for a religious person to deny the obvious truth of evolution except for the Atheist intrusion in that the Atheist evolution thereby promotes injustice and iniquity against any person or group of people who are deemed to be lower evolved.

So let’s look at some of the most absurd parts of this, shall we?

First – evolution being the work of God is fine and not racist because God created all people as equal.

Well clearly that’s not true.  God didn’t create all people as equal or the Hebrews wouldn’t be God’s chosen people! He picked one particular racial sub-group to be his favored people and suddenly God isn’t racist? What about the Australian aboriginal peoples?  What about Eskimos? What about the indigenous American peoples?  What about Asians?  All of these people were around at the time this was going on, God was simply ensuring that none of these races could hear the “Good Word” and even if they did, they couldn’t be saved.  God is a serious racist.

The thing is that the claim that evolution is just some happen-chance or non-Godly event is thereby claiming that the African people are the lower evolved while the white race is the highest evolve.

Nobody claims that.  Oh, wait a minute, the religious claim that!  You have to remember that at the core of American slavery was Christianity who taught that the African people were descended from Ham and therefore, sub-human and only fit to serve their white masters.  Someone is projecting a bit, I think.

This makes so the Atheist idea of evolution is just a new guise of the never ending racism, and that is also the motivation for keeping God out of the equation even when the evidence is there of the Creator God.

Oh, there’s evidence, is there?  Where is this evidence?  He has it, he just won’t show you!  Hmmm, seems I wrote about that recently…

There really is no sensible reason for a religious person to deny the obvious truth of evolution except for the Atheist intrusion in that the Atheist evolution thereby promotes injustice and iniquity against any person or group of people who are deemed to be lower evolved.

Which, once again, there is no evidence of.  Oh, I’m sure he thinks he has evidence that he keeps locked up tight somewhere but he can do nothing, as revealed in the rest of the thread, to actually prove it.  Yet in the end, this idiot declares himself the victor and waits for everyone to ride him around on their shoulders, only to be surprised when everyone thinks he’s an idiot.  When asked where any of his evidence is, he’s self-assured that he presented it, yet is hard pressed to directly point to any of it.  Apparently, claiming that evidence exists is just as good as presenting the evidence.  Believing strongly that you’re right is the same as proving that you are.

This is really getting more and more typical of engagements with theists, where only the most absurdly stupid and self-deluded will take up the apologetic mantle.  It just leaves atheists shaking their head, wondering exactly what is wrong with these people, yet to the theists, this is the norm.  Believing in things they cannot justify, clinging to things they cannot explain, claiming things they cannot demonstrate, this is what is left of religion in America.  Stupidity, just because it makes them feel good, is the order of the day.

Sad, isn’t it?

Atheists Can’t Think Rationally About Rape

You know, for people who, generally, claim to be rational, atheists can be a ridiculously irrational lot.  A lot of that I blame on the liberal mindset, liberals really aren’t good at setting aside their emotions and just dealing with the facts as they are presented, but when it comes to some of the typical liberal bugaboos, there’s just no dealing with them intellectually.

Case in point, recently Richard Dawkins tweeted about rape, trying to differentiate between two bad situations and pointing out that one was worse than the other.  He specifically said that pointing out that one was a worse situation than the other in no way was an endorsement of the lesser bad situation.  Of course, the emotional liberal atheist crowd went apeshit and started saying Richard Dawkins was a rape apologist.

You people are fucking idiots.

Dawkins Rape Tweet


What he said was 100% correct and logical, yet because it mentioned rape, people who pretend to understand logic turned off their brains and started ranting online.  He even went back and presented a generic example of the argument to show people their logical failings.  They still didn’t get it.  I’m not surprised.

Dawkins X Y Tweet


Of course, Dawkins knows this, it was an example of what he says in a new article called “Are there emotional no-go areas where logic dare not show its face?”  Indeed, there are such things and this is proof.  It’s a hot button issue that liberals are not able to think intelligently about. I understand what he was saying because hearing the word “rape” doesn’t switch off my higher brain functions like it does with liberals.

So let’s look at another example, using the same format.  “Getting shot in the head at point blank range by a murderer is bad.  Getting tortured to death by having parts of your body cut off slowly with a dull, rusty knife is worse.  If you think that’s an endorsement for getting shot in the head at point blank range by a murderer, go away and don’t come back until you’ve learned how to think logically.”  Is there anyone out there… ANYONE… who wouldn’t agree with this statement?  At all?  Anyone who thinks that the first option is qualitatively equivalent to the second?  Is anyone that stupid?  And does anyone think that by pointing out this blatant and clear fact, that I’m somehow advocating the first option?

Why is this?  Due to the prevalence of extremist feminist bullshit in atheism, rape is seen as the worst crime imaginable.  It’s worse than murder, worse than torture, worse than anything imaginable and to even dare suggest that any instance of rape is less horrible than the Holocaust is going to get you attacked by these crusading hyper-feminist fucktards.  There simply are no intelligent or moderate voices among the liberal atheists when it comes to this crime, none at all.

I’m sorry though, but when given a choice between being raped and being slowly dismembered by a chainsaw, I’m going to say the second is worse.  That’s just my opinion, of course, others are welcome to disagree and I’m not saying that either of them are good options, just that one is qualitatively worse than the other.  No one should ever be raped, just like no one should ever be slowly dismembered by a chainsaw, but given a choice, I pick the first over the second if I absolutely had no choice but to have one done to me.  If you can’t think about that rationally, if you can’t step back and evaluate ideas dispassionately and intellectually, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

The Whine For The Win!

auto-repairPeople whine about the stupidest things, this time out, we’re going to talk about modern cars and the “fact” that people “can’t” work on their own car.  This was brought up by an article, written by Steven Lang, over on Yahoo Autos, where he whines about 7 reasons that people “can’t” work on their own cars.

Of course, you can work on your own car, assuming you have the proper knowledge and equipment to do so and that seems to be what confuses Steven.  He seems to think that just because his garage is full of 30 year old tools, he ought to be able to use them on modern cars, just like he could when he was a kid.  Unfortunately for him, that was 30 years ago when the tools actually fit the parts on the cars and that’s not necessarily the case today.  It’s like people complaining they can’t change the tubes on their television.

tv with tubesNow I remember growing up when you could work on your own TV.  You open up the back and there was a huge array of tubes that you could test and change out at the local hardware store.  If things failed, it was a relatively mechanical adjustment and since your TV was usually a rather large piece of equipment, difficult to take to a shop for repair, you did a lot of it yourself if you could.  Today, however, that’s largely impossible, there are few user-replaceable parts in a television and even if there were, most of us don’t have the equipment to test the parts to find out what needs fixing in the first place.  I’m sure somewhere out there are people bitching and complaining that they can’t do it themselves.  Come on people, grow up and deal with it.

So let’s look at these seven really ridiculous, whiny reasons why this doofus thinks we can’t work on our cars.

Motor Oil:  So let me get this straight, is he asking why we “can’t” work on our cars, or why we might not save a ton of money working on our cars?  You certainly can change your own oil if you want, he’s complaining that it might be more expensive than he remembers in years past.  Well guess what, dumbass, oil prices have gone up.  You might have seen it in the news, assuming you can read?  I guess he’s also complaining about the fact that you can’t just dump your old oil down the storm drains so it dumps into our waterways and pollutes the environment. Damn being responsible!  Yes, you might as well just take it in if you’re so irresponsible that you can’t do it the right way.  What a twit.

Plastic Shrouds:  Next he whines about all of the plastic shrouds in the engine that might intimidate a novice because, you know, unscrewing things is a challenge.  Sorry, anyone who can’t manage a couple of screws shouldn’t  be messing around under the hood in the first place.  He thinks this is a conspiracy theory to keep auto dealerships in business.  No, it’s an essential part of the way the engine operates, they work to control the flow of air and heat in, around and out of the engine compartment.  We’re sorry that efficiency confuses you.

Gravel Shields:  Oops, we’re back to the confusing issue of screws and how some people don’t understand what a screwdriver is, nor do they have the 2 minutes necessary to remove a couple of screws.  Seriously?  This guy is that stupid?  Yeah, of course he is, what a whiner.  And here’s a news flash for you, if those plastic screws break, they cost about $2 for a dozen.  Go buy a couple of dozen to keep on hand.  Or better yet?  Replace them with metal screws.  I know this is horribly confusing, that these screws can be replaced, but keep thinking about it, I’m sure  you’ll get it eventually.

Sealed Containers:  I have no idea what car this guy is driving, but the only car out there that I know of that doesn’t have a dipstick for the oil is an extremely high-end Mercedes AMG that has a computer that tells you when the oil is low.  Otherwise, every car on the road has one and this guy is a moron.  In fact, the only fluid that many cars do not give you a place to check is the coolant, which he talks about, and complains about, next…

Lifetime Fluids:  Ah, here we find the real reason he’s whining.  He’s cheap.  He wants his car to last forever.  So why do you have a newer car, where any of these things are a problem?  Why aren’t you driving your 1967 Dodge Dart?  You won’t ever have any of these problems with one of those.  But no, he buys a modern car, full of modern conveniences, then he bitches and whines about those new conveniences.  What an ass.

Longer Maintenance Intervals:  Now I don’t know about you, but fixing your car is a pain in the ass.  I guess this guy actually likes having his car break down and replacing things.  There was a time when you were supposed to get an oil change every 3000 miles.  Now, with synthetic oils, it’s more like 10,000 miles.  But this guy thinks this is a grand conspiracy by car manufacturers to keep people from doing their own maintenance because, if they don’t have to constantly think about it, they’ll get lazy and that’s got to be someone else’s fault!

Computer Diagnostics:  And now the worst of them all, his “damn kids, get off my lawn!” nonsense.  If you want to read your computer, go get a scanner.  It’s that simple.  They cost what they cost, I’ve seen them for as little as $30, running to several hundred dollars, depending on how advanced you want to get.  The scanner recommended by J.C. Whitney for my particular car runs $73.95.  If that’s prohibitive, then no, you can’t work on your car because you’re too fucking cheap.

I’m sorry, but tools cost money.  Trust me, I have an entire workshop stuffed full of them, they are often the most expensive part of any project and until you collect enough of them, things you do are going to be expensive. Welcome to reality.  We can go back to my TV example.  Most people cannot do their own work on their own TV. If they bought the equipment, if they had the training, they could.  They choose not to.  The same with cars. If you want to work on your car, buy the equipment necessary to do so, get the education that you need to understand what you’re doing and shut the fuck up.

Or better yet, get a fucking job so you can afford to take it to the shop and let a professional do it.

Geez, these anti-progress trolls are just idiotic.

Opinions vs. Statements of Fact

fact opinionThe recent discussion on natural rights has resulted in yet another concept that libertarians and others of their ilk don’t seem to get.  See, there was one libertarian who was honest and admitted that “natural rights” was just his opinion.  Well no, it’s really not because for every single natural-rights advocate I’ve ever come across, it’s never stated as an opinion, it’s stated as a fact.  There is a difference.

An opinion would be “it is my opinion that everyone has these particular rights”.  A statement of fact is “everyone has these particular rights”.  In close to 100% of cases that I’ve encountered, natural-rights advocates have said the latter and I’m only hedging because I’ve never seen anyone say the first, I’m just giving the benefit of the doubt.  Even our libertarian who admits that it’s his opinion, stated it as a fact and when I pointed this out to him, he didn’t correct his error.

What he did do, though, is declare that it was a “core value” and therefore, not open to debate.  Wrong.  Everything is open to debate.  Absolutely everything, without exception.  If you cannot provide a compelling case for your arguments, no matter what you want to call your position, you lose.  He says, though, that no core values can be defended, that’s the nature of a core value.  I call bullshit.  All of my “core values” are defensible, I can argue why I think they are important, why they have an important impact on society and why they ought to be in place.  I just don’t claim that any of them are necessarily true or that everyone actually respects or recognizes them because clearly, they do not.

The natural-rights crowd doesn’t do that though.  They pretend, and most are actually convinced, that these things are actually so and in that, it places them in the same camp as the religious, who are similarly supremely convinced of their own delusions.  In fact, I’ve run into plenty of theists who claim that they don’t have to defend their “faith”, just because it’s faith.  No, the only way to avoid having the burden of proof for your views is to not talk about your views.  The moment you bring them up, you’re automatically on the hook for defending them. That’s the way rational debate works, you don’t get to just opt out.

Maybe if both the libertarians, at least those who are natural rights advocates, and the religious figured that out, we might have more productive debates.  Instead, we’re just left with the religiously and politically faithful demanding things they cannot show to be true and the rest of us are left shaking our heads.

The Religion of Natural Rights

Natural RightsI always find it amusing whenever a discussion about natural rights pops up because the typically libertarian adherents have to resort to quasi-religious means to have any hope whatsoever in justifying the concept.  Recently, yet another of these fun topics reared its ugly head and, like clockwork, the libertarians leapt into the fray, declaring, without evidence, that there are all kinds of universal rights that magically exist, even if they were totally incapable of proving any of it.

One guy, in fact, became the poster boy for libertarian natural rights stupidity when, not only could he not justify it in any way, he started getting mad.  Really mad.  But along the way, he hit the smorgasbord of theistic irrational responses, the things that we pretty much expect to see coming from the apologists because they really have nothing intelligent to say.

Some of those included:

  1. Declaring that everyone knows natural rights are real and anyone who says otherwise is just lying!  Clearly, natural rights are “self-evident” and anyone who doesn’t accept that is an idiot and a liar.
  2. Throwing the argument from authority into the mix, saying that the Founding Fathers believed in natural rights so clearly, they’re true.
  3. When that didn’t work, he went for full-tilt insults, calling people stupid for disagreeing with him, then “excusing” himself from the conversation because he had better things to do than talk to idiots.  Of course, he never really excused himself, he kept coming back again and again to repeat the same nonsense that had come before.

How often have we seen these things from the religious?  This guy was running with their playbook, whether he knows it or not.  And like the religious, his tactics aren’t impressing anyone. pretty much everyone else in the discussion is pointing out the same inherent flaws that I am and he’s getting madder and madder as time goes on. I’m waiting to see how long it takes for a blood vessel in his forehead to pop.

But that’s really the thing, even if you aren’t given to fits of rage and utter religious irrationality, libertarians and other “natural rights” advocates still have no good reason to believe that they’re actually true or meaningful.  It’s a blind faith in something they wish was true, yet cannot demonstrate is true.  This puts it in the same religious setting as a Christian declaring moral laws.  It came from an unquestionable authority!  You have to accept it!  It’s magically and automatically true!  Except in this case, that authority isn’t a god, it’s the deified demi-gods, the Founding Fathers.  Here’s a news flash for you, just because the Founding Fathers said something doesn’t make it true. Just because the patron philosophical saints, Locke, Hobbes and Paine said something, that doesn’t make it true.  Just  because you want to believe something, that doesn’t make it so either!  The only thing that makes a proposition true is being able to logically, rationally and objectively argue its merits and produce evidence to support your claims.

And libertarians can’t do that, any more than the religious can.  Intelligent, rational people would accept that their beliefs are unjustifiable and find a better path.  So what’s wrong with the libertarians?

Are People Getting Dumber?

Stupidity SignThanks to reader njmcc for pointing this out to me.  I’m honestly confused at how dumb some people are.  George Carlin once said “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” I think he was right on the money and the more that we see of humanity, the worse it gets.  Okay, granted, with today’s 24-hour news cycle and the prevalence of cell phone video recording everything we do, it could just be that stupid people are being caught being stupid more often and being posted to more places that are accessible, but it does make me lose my faith in humanity more and more each day.  So are people really getting dumber or is there something else at work here?

There are a couple of examples, originally presented here, that really do make me want to bang my head on a brick wall for a couple of weeks.  I’ll present what was said in the article, then take a look at what’s really going on.

Anti-Vaccer Stupidity:  This is a common one, but in a study recently published in Pediatrics, Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth University and his colleagues showed that as evidence was presented for the safety of vaccines, those already convinced that vaccines were unsafe became even more convinced of their danger.  This is called the “backfire effect” and is a well known cognitive bias.  People will over-react to news that ought to reduce negative feelings, using it to instead strengthen those negative feelings.  It makes no sense but, as I said, it’s very common, especially in the conspiracy community, where the more evidence one presents that a particular conspiracy isn’t true, the more conspiracy theorists will believe that the conspiracy has to be true. The evidence itself is seen as proof of the conspiracy.  I’m sure that the die-hard

Tax Cuts Increase Revenue:  Now in the article, they do correctly point out that “conservatives” (how did they know they were conservatives?) who read an article about George W. Bush’s statement that tax cuts “helped increase revenues to the Treasury,” which was proven wrong in this particular instance by financial data in 2000 and 2003 and were convinced that the statement was correct.  Okay, my question is the exact context of the article they were given to read.  The reality is, lower taxes *DO* increase revenues to the Treasury under normal circumstances, people who have more money to spend will spend more money in their local community, thus raising revenues, thus raising taxes collected at local businesses.  Now Mother Jones is a liberal rag, I wouldn’t trust it farther than I could throw it and they hate free-market capitalism and will jump at any chance to insult it, but assuming all other factors are true, either the readers of this article didn’t make the connection between the financial data and the quote or, as may be the case, there is a cognitive bias that caused them to double down on their stupidity.  The fact remains though, and I am no fan of George W. Bush, but his 2001 tax cuts on the most wealthy Americans did increase revenue.  In 2001, before the tax cuts took place, the richest 1% of taxpayers paid $301 billion dollars in combined taxes.  By 2006, the same 1% were paying $408 billion.  The total percentage paid by the richest 10% of the country went from 65% before the tax cuts to 71% after.  Cutting taxes. It works.

Death Panels:  Yes, once again it’s clear of Mother Jones’ absurd liberal bias, but let’s continue.  Now clearly, Sarah Palin was being obtuse when it comes to Obamacare creating Death Panels because, like it or not, Death Panels have been with us for many, many years.  They are a function of the insurance industry, it’s the point where your insurance carrier stops paying the bills because you’ve reached the maximum payout.  My father, for example, when he hit the hospital with stage four cancer and nothing could be done, his insurance company bailed out after just a couple of days, he had reached his lifetime maximum and they were done paying.  For most people, that means that, for financial reasons, keeping the care flowing is virtually impossible. Welcome to your death panel! That was many years before Obamacare was even the twinkle in the eye of anyone in the Democratic Party but it’s just as present there as it has been all along.  Nothing has changed, it’s no more prevalent now than it was in the past, Palin was just running around screaming the sky is falling because that’s what politicians do.  It is true and it has to be true, Obamacare is built around the existing insurance industry and no company can just pay and pay and pay forever, they don’t have an unlimited supply of money to throw at medical care, they have to take in more than they pay out.  Welcome to the reality of business.  Palin was wrong, Obamacare wouldn’t create Death Panels but it certainly would continue to use the ones that already existed.  It’s sad that people don’t understand the basics.

Obama is a Muslim:  This one is stupid and refuses to go away and there is no excuse whatsoever that the right wing can give for it.  I think a lot of the “Obama is a Muslim” crap came from the “Obama is a Kenyan” nonsense. Kenya is a largely Muslim nation and Obama’s father, who came from and largely lived in Kenya, even though he was, himself, an atheist, probably is the source of the misconception about his son.  Yes, it’s dumb, yes, Obama has come out many times and said he’s a Christian, although that’s backfired on him too, especially due to his relationship with racist preacher Jeremiah Wright.  I don’t know that, beyond some real crackpots, most people believe that Obama is a secret Muslim anyhow, I’m hoping that what imaginary friends he believes in, if any, are irrelevant to his ability to do the job he was elected to.  His religion ought to have no bearing whatsoever on his job performance.  Of course, we saw this same thing happen when JFK was elected, people were up in arms because he was a Catholic and not a nice Protestant boy like the majority of Americans.  I don’t think this is a racial issue particularly, just a xenophobia issue.  Anything that is different, be it religion, be it skin color, be it gender or sexual orientation, people react badly to and the more people try to tell them it doesn’t matter, the harder they cling to their beliefs.

Iraq and Al Qaeda:  There’s a reason this was a common claim during the Bush era, Bush himself used it as a means for getting into Iraq when he could come up with no other reason to go after the man who tried to kill his daddy. Therefore Bush lied to Congress, he asked his staff to find, or barring that manufacture evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack.  They went so far as to claim that they knew exactly where the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam supposedly had were located, even though they couldn’t find a single one of them following the fall of Iraq and the death of Saddam.  It was a stunt and it worked and even today, you have political toadies desperately trying to defend the stunt because to admit it was a lie would be a black stain on the neo-cons and the Republican Party and they don’t need any more dark stains on their already polka-dotted reputation.  Of course, the left is just as guilty of similar indiscretions, they try to white-wash the evils of their own party and I’m sure lots of liberals even believe their own party’s spin on things.  It goes both ways.  Of course, you wouldn’t expect Mother Jones to be honest about that, would you?

Global Warming:  Ah yes, another liberal talking point.  They couldn’t find any evidence of the “backfire effect” here so they waved their hands, presto chango, and tried to concoct a “boomerang effect” from their Republican victims.  Yeah, okay, the Republicans didn’t fall, hook, line and sinker for their “sky is falling” global warming narrative, therefore something has to be wrong with the Republicans.  It doesn’t work that way.  Yes, climate change is happening.  To some degree, it is caused by humanity.  That doesn’t mean we’re solely to blame and it doesn’t mean there’s necessarily a lot we can do about it even if we were.  Sure, we should be responsible but that doesn’t mean we should all go crazy, live in huts and wear fig leaves.  I find it funny that the liberal narrative keeps changing as the data does.  Oh no, it’s global warming, until it isn’t really warming, then they have to rebrand it to global climate change.  Oh no, the ice caps are melting!  Except they’re not.  In 2013, the polar ice cap increased by over 50% from 2012 levels.  Remember when Al Gore, prophet of the liberal lunacy, said in 2008, “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years”?  Now we’re seeing the North Pole ice coverage rebounding, up to about 9000 cubic kilometers in 2013 from a low of 6,000 cubic kilometers a year before.  This sends the liberals into a tizzy because they have to explain why things aren’t following the expected party line.  The reality is, global warming stopped 15 years ago and shows no sign of coming back, no matter how much crap we pump into the atmosphere.  The liberals have shaped the narrative carefully though, you never see them talking about global climate change before man was industrialized, even though we know that the planet goes through regular cycles.  We certainly can’t be the cause of them all, in fact, we can’t be the cause of any of them before the current one.  So why are liberals so afraid to talk about any of them?  Because it would undermine their case.  They want people to think this hasn’t happened before.  They’re wrong and, as I talked about back in the section on Death Panels, they’re not interested in presenting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth because nobody would fall for their rhetoric so they carefully craft what they talk about and what they do not and that’s just blatantly dishonest.

The problem is, everyone is dishonest, both the left and the right, the liberals and the neo-cons, the Democrats and the Republicans.  You can’t trust either side because both of them have an agenda.  Both of them have something they want you to believe and that something isn’t the truth.  It’s their version of the truth.  They want to use their version of the truth to assure your compliance and your support and your money.  Don’t listen to either of them.  Seek out the facts yourself.  It’s the only way to really find reality.

Suicide and the Art of Outrage

woman-yelling-at-laptopThe Atheist Revolution had an interesting article today about Robin Williams’ suicide and the subsequent uproar from the collective Internet over comments made by Shepard Smith.  I was totally unaware of any of this, of course, because I don’t pay attention to the constant whine coming from the online community.  I’m fine with suicide, as I’ve said before, the only one who has a valid opinion on life as an ongoing concern for Robin Williams is Robin Williams and if he chooses to kill himself, I’m entirely fine with that.  His life, his choice.  I’ve never met the guy, I’ve enjoyed some of his work, but I have no say in his life, his career or his choices.  My sole response upon hearing that he had died was “bye Robin”.

But that’s not true of a lot of people online and it’s not just Robin Williams, it’s every time anyone dies, every time anyone makes a bad choice, picks a show to be on, etc.  It’s rampant among the Hollywood zombies, the people who follow everything that happens in Tinseltown, where people get personally and fanatically involved in the minutia.  These people are idiots.

Now it doesn’t really matter what Shepard Smith might have said to spark all of this, he suggested that Williams took the cowardly way out and he’s welcome to his opinion.  Then again, Shepard Smith is writing online, which might be seen as being a cowardly way to avoid getting punched in the face, but I digress.

This doesn’t only apply to Hollywood though, this is the typical tactics of those Social Justice Wingnuts, Atheism+ as well.  They’re professional victims and imaginary victim advocates.  They get outraged online.  They yell at people for a living.  They don’t actually *DO* anything, they just yell about it.  It’s sort of like prayer, sitting around talking about a problem instead of getting off your ass and doing something to solve it. It’s just a means to stroke their own egos and feel good about themselves without inconveniencing themselves in the slightest way.  When was the last time Atheism+ organized a blood drive?  Or built anything for Habitat for Humanity?  Or organized their members to go out to homeless shelters or food banks to help?  They might have done so but I sure haven’t heard about it.  All they do, and someone please correct me if I’m wrong, is complain about things.  They’re outraged.  They’re just not outraged enough to actually do anything about it.  That would be too difficult!  This is all about expressing themselves to a world they think is hanging on their every word, dying to know what they think about every subject. As vjack says, it’s like the people who post pictures of every meal they eat, every outfit they wear and everywhere they  go. Sorry, you self-centered morons, your life just isn’t that important!

Unfortunately, while it’s unlikely that we’ll ever get these self-important gits to go away, it’s the rest of us who are the real problem because we give them exactly what they want, we give them attention, positive or negative. We stand by and comment on their nonsense, we fuel their whoredom and so long as that’s true, they’re not going to stop.  Why should they, we’re providing them with everything they want!  So long as we pay attention, so long as we play along with the fake outrage, we play right into their hands.

So please, stop.  Just stop.  Sure, it might be sad that Robin Williams killed himself, maybe we can learn something from it, maybe not.  Screw Shepard Smith.  He’s welcome to his opinions, I’m welcome to totally ignore them.  And beyond that, I wasn’t aware of the uproar because I don’t pay attention to the attention-whores.  I don’t listen. You shouldn’t either or you’re contributing to the mess.  What is it they say, if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem?  I’m part of the solution.  Why doesn’t everyone else jump on that bandwagon?

The Bizarre Nature of Liberal Thinking

crazy-thoughtsSeriously, I could make this a series.  I know I’ve talked about it before a couple of  times, but it continues to amaze me how liberals can get things so utterly and completely wrong.  I know it shouldn’t, after all, I talk to theists who are just as clueless, no matter how many times you point out the errors in their thinking, which leads me to think there is a lot more in common between theists and liberals than they’d like to think.

Anyhow, this came up over on The Atheist Revolution, in a post called Atheism, Race and Social Justice, where vjack responded to Sikivu Hutchinson’s article Atheism has a big race problem that no one’s talking about, that was posted in the Washington Post a while  back.  Wow, is that enough bouncing around for you?

Anyhow, the gist of the post is the same old tired social justice nonsense that floats around the heavily liberal atheism “movement” that says that because the most visible leadership of the atheism “movement” is white, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, and wealthy, we can’t forget wealthy, because that’s a horrible thing for liberals because it means these people are actually successful in the real world, because of all of that, there has to be some kind of grand conspiracy to keep women and gays and black people and transgendered people, essentially anyone who isn’t white, male, cisgendered, heterosexual and that all-important wealthy, down.  And if that’s not a heck of a run-on sentence, I don’t know what is.  This all brings us back around to what, as I’ve argued before, is one of the central tenets of liberalism, equality of outcome.

Essentially, that means that if people within a particular group are not represented in their racial, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and other factors, precisely as they appear in society as a whole, something is desperately wrong and the social justice warriors have to spring to the rescue!  There has to be someone to blame and it’s almost always those aforementioned white, cisgendered, heterosexual wealthy men.  Those are the boogiemen of the liberals, in fact, if you were to switch out the race or the gender of those in charge of a movement, such that it was no longer white men, the liberals have nothing to say about it.  You know, if we pointed out that, in professional basketball, black men, which make up 13% of the U.S. population, but are more than 75% of players in the NBA, liberals wouldn’t scream racism.  Racism only applies to white men, apparently. They might, if you catch them on a good day, complain that there are no women in the NBA, but they’d still blame white men for that travesty.  Yeah, they are hypocritical that way.

So when I reminded them of a story I covered a while back about black atheist groups, and in particularly a story about the National Day of Solidarity for Black Non-Believers, that didn’t get a peep.  The fact that there are specifically black atheist organizations out there that exist primarily for black members, doesn’t bother them. That’s not racist.  It’s the national atheist organizations that do not mention race at all, they are not American White Atheists or the Center for White Inquiry, nor do they deny blacks or women or gays membership anywhere in their by-laws, but these groups all have to be racist because they happen to be run by white guys!  Evidence? Who needs evidence?  It’s a liberal assertion, they take it on blind faith because the makeup of the atheist “movement” isn’t exactly what they wish it was.

And why isn’t it?  That’s certainly a fair question and one that deserves to be addressed, not necessarily so it can be changed, but so it can be understood.  Certainly, there isn’t a single reason, like the machinations of the Bavarian Illuminati, to control the Bilderbergers in a grand scheme to make atheism a movement of primarily white men.  That’s just stupid.  To do this, we have to look at individual groups to see what might influence that group to act as it acts with regard to their religious beliefs.  Let’s look at blacks since that’s what started this whole mess.  The demographics matter.  According to studies, 88% of blacks in the U.S. are religious, with 45% of them being Baptists.  In fact, according to Pew Research, black people top the religiosity charts in America, more black people identify as strongly religious than any other racial group.  Therefore, we should expect that blacks would be under-represented in any non-religious group, simply because they tend to be over-represented in religious adherence.  This is a cultural factor.  White guys aren’t holding guns to their heads and making them be religious. This is personal choice and we can understand it as a cultural thing, not a conspiracy thing.  Likewise, women tend to be more religious than men do.  I suspect this is also cultural, but there may be a psychological component as well.  According to George H. Gallup Jr., “A mountain of Gallup survey data attests to the idea that women are more religious than men, hold their beliefs more firmly, practice their faith more consistently, and work more vigorously for the congregation.”  Why?  Well, according to Rodney Stark, a professor of sociology and comparative religion at the University of Washington, “Studies of biochemistry imply that both male irreligiousness and male lawlessness are rooted in the fact that far more males than females have an underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses, especially those involving immediate gratification and thrills.” It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just reality.  Whether liberals like this reality or not is irrelevant.  Based on the biology and the sociology, we would expect to have more white males involved in atheism.

But we have to remember that liberalism isn’t about the data, it isn’t about the facts, it’s about the emotion.  It’s about feeling good about the conclusions that you come to.  It’s easier for liberals who by and large hate the majority anyhow, and I will admit there are some good reasons historically for doing so, to simply keep blaming their favorite whipping boy for everything that goes wrong in their lives.  It all has to be the fault of the white guys.  It doesn’t matter if there’s any actual evidence that they’ve done anything wrong, the fact that they exist is all that matters.

So how about a last bit of data that the liberals will ignore.  63% of Americans are non-Hispanic whites.  They hold the majority in 49 out of 50 states.  Worldwide, males outnumber females by a certain small percentage, between 1-7%.  Only 3.08% of Americans identify as LGBT, according to a 2011 study by the Williams Institute. Between 2-5% of Americans identify as transgender, or at least as identifying with the other gender.  Therefore, numerically, in any organization at all, even ignoring what I said above, the most common individual who might be part of any group is a white, cisgender, straight guy!  It’s mathematical!  And the wealth? The only people who are going to be able to spend a great deal of time and energy on a social movement like this are those who have money to do so! It’s no surprise that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett, the four horsemen of the “New Atheist movement” were all successful and skilled writers, professors and speakers before they ever got involved.  The fact that they all happen to be white men, again, is based on demographics, not conspiracy.

It’s really sad that I have to keep explaining this to liberals.  I know they won’t listen this time any more than they did in the past because, as I said, the facts don’t matter, only the emotional high they get from their beliefs, just like the religious do.  They want to champion the underdog, even when the so-called underdog needs no champion.  Most of these liberals who are whining the loudest are, themselves, white, male, straight and well enough off to be able to spend time pounding on the keyboard for extended periods of time.  They are upset in other people’s behalf, not because anyone else needs their outrage, but because it makes them feel better about themselves.

And that kind of sums up liberalism in a nutshell.

Axiom For The Win!

It seems to me that there are a few topics that lend themselves to axiomatic victories.  People who argue these aren’t really interested in demonstrating that they are true, they simply insist that they are and move on from there.  They start with the conclusion that everything they believe is right and look for evidence, if they bother at all, that supports that foregone conclusion.  By and large, these conclusions are entirely emotional.

So let’s take a look at a couple of these arguments.  This is by no means a complete list, many emotionally-based positions take for granted their own correctness, whether they can actually demonstrate it or not.

Religion:  The granddaddy of them all, religion asserts the existence of an unseen and undetectable god as the basis for everything they believe.  How do they know?  They just do.  They can provide no evidence, they can concoct no rational argument, they just believe without the slightest shred of proof and expect everyone else to do the same.

Presuppositionalism:  It deserves it’s own separate category.  Not only does it suffer from all the weaknesses of religion, but it makes a huge unwarranted assumption on it’s own.  It teaches that everyone knows God is real and that without a belief that God is real, no position can be argued for.  Perhaps more than any other, this is a shining example of the stupidity of the axiomatic win.

Libertarianism:  The central core of libertarian thought is the “natural right”.  They’re absolutely certain that they exist, they just can’t reason their way to them.  They cannot produce evidence for them.  They’re just damn sure they’re real though.  I did have one person, and this is where the title of this article comes from, declare that “natural rights” are a libertarian axiom, therefore he didn’t have to actually demonstrate them, they were simply defined to be true.

Antinatalism:  This is the newcomer to the list but it’s just as nutty as the rest.  It starts with the unjustified claim that all suffering is bad.  Well, not all suffering, just human suffering.  Why just human suffering?  I don’t think they really know, it all comes off like a bunch of emotionally-stunted, hippie-spewing nonsense.  If they were honest, they’d say all suffering was wrong and preach planet-wide Armageddon, but they don’t.

By definition, an axiom is a statement which is universally accepted as true and thus, not under debate.  It can only be an axiom so long as everyone involved accepts it.  If anyone disagrees, then it ceases to be an axiom and it must be defended like any other claim.  These views are not acceptable to the emotionally axiomatic above. These people all approach their beliefs not only wearing their emotions on their sleeve but covered head-to-toe in them.  There is no rational thought in any of these positions, they’ve entirely given up the intellectual high ground for arguments that are little better than “I’m right, so there!”

Anyone who resorts to axioms as a means to an automatic, immediate victory has lost before they begin.  That’s not how the real world works and certainly not how science works.  Could you imagine a scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal starting off stating as an axiom that they were right and anyone who disagreed was a Nazi? That’s absurd, yet essentially the same thing that happens with these axiom-rich beliefs.  Certainly these are not all of the ridiculous positions that use this tactic, they exist simply to highlight the absurdity of it all.  You can’t start with an unproven and highly controversial statement and then base your entire argument and belief system off of that statement.  It just doesn’t work that way.

But then again, if these groups were rational, they’d already know that, wouldn’t they?

At Least Accomodationists Are Consistently Stupid

Nobody should ever feel bad for any reason, WAAAAAAH!!!

Got into a debate with an accomodationist over on Twitter today after they started posting to the #atheism hashtag that what people believe is true for them.  I disagreed with the sentiment, truth is only true if it’s actually true.  People who believe false things, no matter what they believe, still believe in falsehoods.  And so began an exchange that lasted a couple of hours and still makes my head hurt.  Anyhow, this idiot who goes by @Harrison_Carr, showed me once again why accomodationism is really, really, really stupid.

First off, he was not at all clear on his ideas, which I suppose is par for the course.  At first, it appeared that he was arguing for some form of solipsism since he kept insisting that whatever someone believed, no matter how crazy it was, it was actually “true for them”.  That’s his phrase.  Of course, most solipsists say the same thing so I can be forgiven for being confused, but even after we sorted it out, he kept going back to that phrase over and over.  However, I eventually realized that he wasn’t talking about individual realities, but that he didn’t think anyone ought to be corrected or criticized because they won’t change their minds no matter what we do.  They’re deluded so we ought to leave them alone to live in their private insanity because nobody should ever feel bad about what they believe.

So I argued that, based on his ideas, we equally shouldn’t argue against racism and sexism or anything else for fear that the believers in those things might feel bad. And you know something?  He agreed!  We shouldn’t make racists feel bad for believing that non-whites (or non-blacks, etc.) are inferior!  It’s fine and dandy!  Of course, the fact that someone’s beliefs inform their actions really doesn’t seem to phase him, the idea that the religious are more likely to vote to ban gay marriage, teach creationism in schools or discriminate against other religions doesn’t seem to bother him at all.  There’s a complete disconnect in his mind between someone’s beliefs, religious and otherwise, and their actions and we know, for a demonstrable fact, that’s just not the case.

Apparently, making anyone feel bad for any reason whatsoever is a horrible thing.  If this idiot had been around in the mid 1800s, we’d still have slavery because he wouldn’t want to offend the slave owners.  Luckily, some people had the balls to stand up and do what was right.

We just went around and around, he just couldn’t get the idea that objectively correct ideas are important in and of themselves.  People ought not believe anything without significant objective evidence that it’s actually so and the fact that many people are ignorant of that simple fact doesn’t change the reality of the statement.  He ran on pure, unfettered emotion without an ounce of intellectual, rational or logical thought.  So long as people felt good, it didn’t matter what nonsensical mind poison ran through their head.  It was all I could do not to burst out into a Morris Albert song.

Once again, I don’t get these people who can be so totally uncritical of not only their own position, but of everyone else’s as well.  This guy would probably be out waving happily to a Neo-Nazi march or a Klan rally. Can’t make those people feel bad either, can we?  I wish I got how people could be so mind-numbingly stupid but I just can’t.  Anyone care to explain?

Twenty Not-So-Good Arguments For Christianity


There’s a real idiot on Twitter named Peter Saunders and he spams the #atheism hashtag with his laughable blog articles, supposedly proving the validity of Christianity.  He doesn’t respond to criticism, he doesn’t acknowledge his errors, he just dumps crap into the hashtag in hopes that someone might take him seriously. Recently, I saw an article called Twenty Good Arguments for Christianity that I thought I’d take a look at.  Sorry, if these are the good arguments, I’d hate to see the bad ones!

1.The uniqueness of Jesus Christ
The life, teaching, extraordinary claims and miracles of Jesus Christ as recorded by eyewitnesses are best explained by him being God incarnate: the creator and sustainer of the universe who took on human flesh.

There really isn’t anything that unique about Jesus, in fact, we can show where most of the details of Jesus, his life and his miracles have been taken from other local mythologies.  Christians claim that Jesus is unique to make themselves feel better, but Jesus is as unique as Zoroaster or Mithra or any of the other supposed mythic saviors. Further, we know that there are no demonstrable eyewitness testimonies in the Bible, none of the Gospels are written by the people whose names are attributed to them, most of the New Testament was written by people who never even claimed to have known the physical Jesus, the claim is bogus, yet apologists keep making it because they aren’t interested in the truth.  Faith does not make facts, sorry.

2.Jesus death and resurrection
All historical records are agreed on the facts that Jesus was killed, that his dead body disappeared, that the disciples claimed to have seen him alive and that the church grew rapidly in the belief that he had been resurrected. His actual bodily resurrection in space-time history remains the best explanation for these observations.

This is really an indication that Saunders is delusional.  No historical records have validated the existence of Jesus, much less that he was crucified, etc.  This is someone who thinks that just  because it appears in the Bible, everyone has to agree with it.  This is something that as lot of religious fanatics do.  They have done no actual research into the historical record, they just assume that because they believe it, it has to be true and everyone else must have  come to the same conclusion.  His assertion that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation just shows how crazy he is.  He might as well be saying that the existence of Harry Potter is the best explanation for the things that happen at Hogwarts.

3.The manuscript evidence for the New Testament
The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are by far the best attested events in all antiquity in terms of the number of manuscripts recording them and the closeness in time of those hand-written records to the events they describe.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  There are no contemporary accounts by demonstrable eyewitnesses of anything that happens in the life of Jesus and Biblical higher criticism proves just how unreliable the Gospels are. He says that it’s the best attested event in all of antiquity, which I wouldn’t agree with, but even if it were true, what does that tell us?  That events in antiquity are generally unreliable?  It still doesn’t prove that the Bible is true, that’s a matter of faith and delusion, both of which Saunders has in spades.

4.The uniqueness of the Bible
The uniqueness of the Bible in its continuity, circulation, translation, survival, teachings and influence along with its internal consistency despite consisting of 66 books written by over 40 authors on three continents over 1,500 years defies simple explanation and is fully consistent with its claim to be divine revelation.

Every claimed religious book is unique in some aspect.  Even if they weren’t, though, that doesn’t prove that the Bible, or any other religious book, is factually true.  That’s really where we need to focus on these things.  I’m not really concerned over what facts you can pull out about the Bible, none of the things that he mentioned give any validity whatsoever to what is actually written in the Bible.  Delusion again, no surprise.

5.Old Testament prophecy fulfilled in Christ
The 39 books that make up the Old Testament contain several hundred references to the coming Messiah concerning his life, death and resurrection which were written hundreds of years before Jesus’ birth but were fulfilled during his life and confirm his credentials as the promised Messiah.

None of these supposed prophecies stand up under even the most cursory of evaluation.  There isn’t a proposed prophecy in the Bible that can be proven to have taken place, in fact, the overwhelming majority are so vague that they aren’t even worth considering.  I could “prophecy” that there would be an earthquake in California and that a bridge would fall down.  My prophecy isn’t specific enough to demonstrably refer to any particular event, if we wait long enough, it’s certain to come  to fruition because we know there are earthquakes in California and that bridges do, eventually, fall down.  Further, there’s no mechanism for proving that later Biblical writers didn’t just scour previous writings and include imaginary fulfilled prophecy in their writings about Jesus.  We know, throughout the ancient world, that such things were actually done and there’s no way to prove that the events recorded in the Gospels actually took place, there exists no independent historical verification.

6.Biblical prophecy fulfilled in history 
The hundreds of predictive prophecies in the Old Testament and New Testaments about the fate of nations, empires and cities are consistent with supernatural revelation from a God outside the space-time continuum (Tyre, Sidon, Samaria, Gaza, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Greece, Rome, Israel).

Again, these are not demonstrable.  Tyre is a good example.  It states in Ezekiel 26 that Tyre would be completely destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and that the city would never exist again.  Funny, Tyre is a modern city in Lebanon, it seems to be doing just fine.  We can do the same thing for all of the other supposed prophecies. Sorry, just not impressed.

7.The uniqueness of the Christian experience
The shared testimony of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ by millions of people from diverse cultures, nations, personalities, professions and time periods is unparalleled by any other ideology and consistent with the existence of a God with a universal attraction to all kinds of human beings. Each testifies to finding peace, forgiveness, the power to change and new meaning, hope and purpose through Christ’s death and resurrection.

You can’t even point to a definitive Christian experience.  What one person identifies as a Christian experience, others would not identify with at all.  You have to remember that there are more than 38,000 distinct Christian sects, many of which disagree with the rest on significant doctrinal points.  The Christian experience to a backwoods snake-handler Pentecostal is quite different to the Christian experience of a big city Episcopalian. There is no personal relationship with Jesus because there is no demonstration that Jesus was ever real to begin with.  It’s more like a personal relationship with a child’s imaginary friend.

8.The origin of the universe
Everything that began to exist has a cause and it is now virtually undisputed that the universe had a beginning. Any cause would have to be outside the material universe so would be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal and all powerful – characteristics shared by the God of the Bible.

Christians can’t even show how they know what these supposed characteristics of God actually are.  How do they know?  Because it appears in a book?  How did the people who wrote the book know?  This is the biggest failure of this type of Christian apologetic, they are just making assertions without support for things they can’t even prove are real.  This all goes into the Kalam Cosmological Argument which has been soundly disproven, it’s just wishful thinking.

9.The fine tuning of the universe
In order for the universe to come into being and allow intelligent life to exist, it required an astonishing series of ‘coincidences’ to have occurred. The probability that the six dimensionless constants (N, Epsilon, Omega, Lambda, Q & D) would be tuned in such a way as to allow this is infinitesimally small and the phenomenon is best explained by intelligent design.

Here we see the complete backwards thinking of the theist.  In reality, the universe is not fine tuned for us, we are fine tuned for the universe.  We exist the way that we exist because of the way the universe is.  The puddle conforms to the shape of the hole, not the other way around.  Had the universe not supported the existence of life, no life would be here and no one would be wondering at the fine tuning argument.  Christians, and indeed most theists, are entirely convinced that they are special.  They’re just wrong.

10.Biological complexity
Whilst it is widely recognised that random gene mutation, genetic drift and natural selection can account for a degree of biological descent with modification (evolution) the mechanisms by which proteins, DNA, unicellular organisms and new body plans could have arisen remain unexplained. Blind chance and necessity alone are unable to account for the biological complexity that we observe on planet earth and these phenomena point to intelligent design.

Oh look, scientific ignorance at work!  I’m sure Saunders has no clue about what biological evolution actually says and as creationism and it’s bastard step-child intelligent design have lost in every single scientific forum on the planet, to continue to claim that it’s anything more than a laughable relic of an absurd belief is pretty funny on it’s own.

11.The rationality of the universe 
The universe operates according to physical laws which are not merely regularities in nature but also mathematically precise, universal, ‘tied together’ and rationally intelligible. These phenomena point to the existence of what Einstein called ‘superior mind’, illimitable superior spirit’, ‘superior reasoning force’ and ‘mysterious force that moves the constellations’ and are fully consistent with the teachings of Christian theism.

News flash for you Peter, Einstein didn’t believe in a personal god, or any god at all.  Like many scientists, he used the word “god” to refer to his awe and wonder about the universe, not to refer to some imaginary friend in the sky.

“I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.”

– Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism.

12.The human mind 
Human experience of free will, consciousness, self-awareness, conscience and a sense of meaning, purpose and destiny are all very difficult to explain within a purely materialist world view (ie. the belief that nothing exists apart from matter, chance and time). These phenomena point to, and are consistent with, a reality existing beyond the material world and are consistent with the biblical teaching that human beings are made in the image of God.

They’re not that difficult to explain at all and even if they were, that doesn’t lend credence to the  existence of a magical man in the sky.  This is an example, one among many, of the fallacy of false dichotomy, where the apologist argues that because the opposition cannot prove their  case to his satisfaction, therefore, his position is true by default.  No, sorry, your position is only true if you can provide evidence that it is actually true.  Since this is not the case, Saunders claims are faulty.  No surprise there.

13.The explanatory power of the Christian world view
The Christian theistic world view described by the parameters of creation, fall, redemption and consummation has considerable explanatory power in accounting for the existence of human complexity, creativity, love, suffering, disease, evil and hope.

Clearly, Saunders doesn’t understand what “explanatory power” means.  In science, it means the ability to make predictions about things that ought to be found to be true via experimentation and observation.  Where has Christianity ever made a prediction that can be verified in such a manner?  Anyone?  Bueller?  Bueller?

14.The universality of spiritual belief and experience 
The universal belief in, and experience of, a spiritual reality beyond the material world and in the existence of other intelligent beings in addition to human beings (gods, spirits, angels, demons, ghosts etc), along with the proliferation of different religions, is consistent with the Christian world view including the existence of a Devil whose intention is to deceive people into believing anything but the truth.

Obviously there is no universality of spiritual belief and experience or there would be no atheists.  Only a very tiny percentage of people report to have had any kind of spiritual experience and of those, none can be demonstrated to be actually spiritual.  Many people have experiences they cannot explain and they assert, without evidence, that those experiences are spiritual, but they can never demonstrate it, nor have they tried to find other explanations.  Saunders, once again, is laughably wrong.

15.The moral law
The universality of moral beliefs and conscience, and the similarities of moral codes across times, continents and cultures, point to the existence of moral laws and a supernatural law giver. The moral laws outline in the Decalogue (ten commandments) encapasulate these principles of respect for life, marriage, property and truth and their observance leads to more stable and enduring societies. These observations are consistent with the existence of a moral God who has designed human society to operate according to moral norms and who reveals moral principles.

There are no universal moral beliefs, as I’ve demonstrated before and making such a claim only proves that apologists don’t bother to think about these things before they spout them.  I find it funny that Saunders only looks at the Ten Commandments as a means to support the respect for life and doesn’t look at the multiple slaughters that God has either performed personally or ordered the Israelites to perform in his name.  He ignores that God commands slavery and details how it is to be  done.  God respects property rights?  Since when?   The Israelites were ordered to slaughter the people living in the “promised land” so they could steal it.  God is about the most immoral monster I can imagine.

16.Lives changed by Christian faith
The power of Christian faith and prayer to change behaviour and improve human functioning in restoring the lives of those suffering from addictions to drugs, alcohol, pornography and other enslaving activities or in reforming antisocial and criminal behaviour and strengthening marriages, families and societies is unparalleled.

Lives are changed by lots of things.  I know plenty of people who say their lives were changed when they became atheists.  This means nothing.  Of course, if Christian faith changed lives as Saunders says, why do they need religious 12-step programs?  Shouldn’t being a Christian automatically rid people of their addictions to drugs, alcohol, pornography, etc.?  No, the majority of people involved with those things are Christians in the United States.  Apparently, just being a Christian doesn’t change a thing.

17.Christian reformation of society
The reformation of British society in the 19th century (and many similar phenomena elsewhere in the world throughout history) through such moves as the abolition of slavery, child labour, child prostitution, prison reform and the establishment of schools and hospitals through the work of Wilberforce, Booth, Fry, the Clapham Sect and others was largely the result of the evangelical revival of the 18th century and lends strong support to the existence of a redemptive supernatural God who changes and shapes human lives and societies.

I will give credit where credit is due and certainly, Christianity has had a reformative effect on society, but only because Christianity has been forced upon people.  When you could be tortured or killed for not pretending to be a Christian, when the Catholic Church pushed the Inquisition across Europe, when you could lose your job, your family and your social standing for daring to question the dominant religion, it’s no surprise that lots of people pretended to be Christian because their lives and livelihoods depended on it.  However, this lends no credence whatsoever for a redemptive supernatural God, only for the people who actually demonstrably did anything and we’re getting closer to a post-Christian world where people are finally ridding the planet of the bigotry and stupidity of the religious reformers that came before.

18.The work of Christian missions
The development of education, healthcare and societal reform in the developing world owes a great deal to the work of Christian missionaries motivate by the love of Christ who underwent great hardship and made great sacrifices to assist and empower those marginalised through ignorance, superstition or poverty. If Christianity were true we would expect it also to result in demonstrable good across nations and cultures.

Funny, I know I heard somewhere, maybe in Matthew 19:21, that Christians are supposed to give all that they own and follow Jesus.  Hmmm, I’m just not seeing that happen.  It is a fact, of course, that there are many Christian missionary projects, just as there are many other non-Christian missionaries and entirely secular relief efforts going on around the world at any given time.  The religious efforts are almost entirely aimed at converting non-believers to their particular brand of religion.  As we see with many local efforts like the Salvation Army, some of these groups will refuse to actually render aid until the local population pays lip service to their religion.  It’s not about helping people, it’s about bolstering their numbers.

19.The plausibility of Christian eschatology 
The emergence of a one-world government under the leadership of an antichrist, antagonistic to God, based on the worship and pursuit of material things, strongly opposing Christian faith, dominating through economic control and resulting in massive environmental destruction seems increasingly plausible given recent historical experience and the current trajectory of world history.

How is any of that plausible?  Sure, I guess you could have a strong military leader come along and hate Christianity but that isn’t really what Christian eschatology is about.  They believe that God actually exists and that the antichrist will be a forerunner of the end of the world.  That’s not plausible.  That’s idiotic.

20.The phenomenon of Israel
The history, laws, influence and endurance of the nation of Israel through over 4,000 years of world history whilst world empires have come and gone, the maintenance of its national identity and central place in world affairs through war, persecution and holocaust, its recent restoration to Palestine and the educational and cultural achievements of its people are unparalleled but fully consistent with its special status as described in the biblical record and teaching of Jesus Christ.

Um, the only reason Israel exists is because the United States and Britain, following WWII, felt guilty because the Jews got massacred by the Nazis and therefore granted them a homeland, due in no small part to the lobbying by the Jews.  In fact, within a short time of Israel existing officially, they would have been wiped off the map without the constant financial and military support of the United States.  Israel has been a constant drain on the foreign aid budget of the United States for it’s entire existence.  This does not sound like a nation that is under the protection of God, does it?  And let’s be honest, the only reason Christians care about Israel is because they need Israel to be destroyed as a prelude to the second coming of Jesus.  Yeah, Christians really care about the poor, downtrodden, persecuted people of Israel, don’t they?

So there you go, more Christian fail from a long, long line of Christian fail.  So much of this is just blatant ignorance that could be solved by a few moments on Google, the fact that these asinine ideas keep coming up is proof that Christian apologists just don’t care about the truth, they don’t  care about reality, they only care about their credulous nonsensical beliefs and their ego-stroking.

That’s why Christians like Peter Saunders are complete idiots.

The Woo is Strong in This One

pseudoscienceI was recently having a conversation with someone who is completely in love with various medical woo claims, from homeopathic nonsense to poking yourself with needles to chiropractic stupidity.  All of the failures of these various and sundry woo claims don’t work on him, he’s convinced that these things must work because credulous people that he knows who have used these things have said that they worked.  When you point out that science has proven them false, he doesn’t care because he’s convinced that someday, science will discover that the scientific method isn’t the only game in town.

Yes, he wants science to embrace a method of evaluating claims that has nothing to do with the scientific method.

I’ve seen it before, of course, woo-peddlers who think that there will come a day when they’ll be able to prove the supernatural and other absurd ideas and they just have to keep the faith until that day comes.  I pointed out all of this and now, he’ll no longer talk to me.  His final sad attempt was to claim that the scientific method changes and someday, we’ll all acknowledge that he was right all along.  No, sorry, the scientific method doesn’t change, scientific knowledge, gained through the scientific method, does as we learn more about the world around us.  This guy is seriously convinced that you can do science without the scientific method, as though they are two completely different things.  Maybe you can do science via religious faith?  Nope, sorry.  The clue is there in the name, “the scientific method”.  It is the method that is used to do science.  It is the method that has always been done to do science and will always be used to do science.  And here’s the kicker, it’s the only method that we’ve found so far that provides testable results and allows for demonstrable predictions.  That’s why we use it.

It always disgusts me to see how many of these absurd woo-peddlers try exactly the same thing, and it’s true of the religious as well, who think that their ridiculous ideas will some day be borne out by some magical change in science.  When you tell them that nobody should believe anything until it actually is supported by objective science, they give  you a dirty look and move on to discuss their stupidity with people who aren’t so grounded in reality.

This is really why I get so tired of debating these idiots.  It’s always the same.  I could write out the script before I even start.  They don’t respond well to rational arguments and expectations that they can actually back up what they claim.  It’s just arm-waving nonsense and when it’s clear that you won’t stoop to their irrational level, they insult you and go elsewhere.  Honestly, we need to have a plague that kills the stupid and gullible.

The Law Applies to All, Larry

snake-salvationWe’ve talked in the past, particularly on the podcast, about the new “reality” show on National Geographic called “Snake Salvation”, where pastor Andrew Hamblin and his minuscule church of a dozen or so Christian crazies handle snakes and other nutty things because they think that’s what the Bible tells them to do.

However, what they think the Bible tells them to do happens to be illegal in the small Tennessee town that the church resides in and this causes problems.  His Tabernacle Church of God in LaFollette, Tennessee has consistently harbored venomous snakes and LaFollette has outlawed the private ownership of such snakes.  According to Hamblin, “This ain’t no longer just a fight for snake handling, this is a fight for freedom of religion.”

No, Larry, it is not.  See, the law applies to everyone equally.  I know that’s something that is probably over your head so I’ll type really slow so you might understand it, on the off-chance you’re smart enough to know how to get onto the Information Superhighway.  Just because you believe a thing doesn’t mean that you have the unrestricted right to do that thing.  It doesn’t matter if it’s your religion or not.

Of course, Larry could just find another town or county that allows the ownership of venomous snakes.  There are quite a few in his area that permit ownership, either with or without a permit, and he could figure that out online, again, if he’s smart enough to do so.  Certainly, there are states that don’t allow it, like Alabama, which forbids non-native venomous species or Arkansas, where it is wholly illegal, but Florida, for example, is fine with it, so long as you have a permit and follow local laws.  Tennessee has specifically banned snake handling since 1947, he has no legal leg to stand on remaining there.  Just move your church, Larry.  Of course, I doubt he could find enough snake-handling crazies in Florida, he’s hardly had any luck in backwoods Tennessee.

So anyhow, Larry gets hauled into court for repeatedly violating the law and keeping poisonous snakes on his property, which is neither zoned nor licensed for such.  Fish and game authorities confiscated about 50 reptiles, including rattlesnakes and copperheads, from his church and this is hardly the first time.

“That is my God given right in the United States; if God moves on me to take up a serpent, I can take up a serpent,” said Hamblin.  “They came right into the house of God and just ripped them [snakes] away. That would be no different if they just came and ripped your Bible out of First Baptist.”  Well yes, Larry, it would be very different.  Last time I looked, Bibles didn’t escape from cages, nor were they capable if biting and killing people.  Your snakes are.

Now keep in mind, I’m a reptile lover.  I’ve owned reptiles and snakes for many years.  I was on the local “hot team” for our herpetological society.  I’ve handled venomous snakes.  I still think Larry is crazy.  God doesn’t give rights in the United States, society does.  They haven’t seen fit to give you any such rights and your religious stupidity is blinding.  It’s no wonder rational folks just look at you and shake your head.  Your religious beliefs do not give you a blanket license to do whatever you want under the guise of your religious stupidity.

Personally, I think this is a pretty open and shut case.  The judge has bound over the case for trial, which is supposed to pick up in early January.  I hope that Hamblin gets the book thrown at him, hard enough to knock some sense into that stupid hillbilly skull.  These religious retards need to understand that the law applies to everyone and that they, religious beliefs or not, have to follow the same rules as everyone else.  Will he ever learn?  Probably not.  This is the stupidity that religion brings.


I Can Answer Matt Slick’s Questions…

matt-slickIt struck me earlier this week that I see a lot of challenges for Christians made by atheists, especially on Twitter, but I can’t say I’ve seen any challenges aimed at atheists, made by Christians.  Oh sure, I’ve answered some of their “10 questions” in the past and I enjoy doing things like that, but never any kind of direct challenge.  Therefore, I took to the World Wide Web to see if I could find any and my Google-fu has failed me.  Either that or there just aren’t any.  So I turned my attention back to some of those lovable questions that theists direct at atheists that tell us a lot more about their lack of information than anything else and came across this list of 31 questions that Matt Slick of CARM fame directs toward atheists.  What the hell, I’m game.

Of course, I can almost guarantee that I won’t answer any of these questions in a manner that Slick might wish I would because reality and whatever passes for it in Slick-land are two very different things.  Still, I guess it might be interesting to see what he wants to know, even though we know that he and other presuppositionalists really aren’t terribly honest in their apologetics.

And so, without further ado, here’s Matt Slick’s list of 31 questions for atheists.

 1. How would you define atheism?

I know this is a point of contention for Slick, but atheism is state of being without a belief in god(s).  It can be an outright denial of the existence of god(s), but that doesn’t apply to me.  I do not believe because there is not enough objective, demonstrable evidence for me to believe.  I do not believe in god(s) for the same reason I don’t believe in Bigfoot, alien abductions, unicorns or honest politicians.  If someone could present significant, objective, demonstrable evidence for the factual existence of any god, I would believe in it.  That doesn’t mean I would worship it, but I certainly would accept that such a thing actually exists, the same way I’d believe that reptilian aliens are running the country if someone plopped the dead body of an alien in front of me.

2. Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don’t believe in (lack belief in God)?

Absolutely and without question.  My actions with regard to gods are no different than my actions with regard to leprechauns.  Neither have any bearing on my decisions or actions.

3. Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who “lacks belief” in God to work against God’s existence by attempting to show that God doesn’t exist?

It is fundamentally impossible to show that something doesn’t exist.  Matt Slick is entirely unable to demonstrate that Krishna does not exist or that unicorns do not exist, etc.  All you can do is point out that there is insufficient evidence to think that it does and reject it provisionally on that basis.  I do not attempt to show that God doesn’t exist, any more than I attempt to show that there aren’t invisible, intangible gnomes living on my shoulder.  There’s no point to it.

4.  How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?

I’m not worried about atheism representing reality.  I do not adopt a position and then try to measure that position against the real world, I explore the real world and adopt positions based on how well they jive with that reality.  Honestly, I am a skeptic first and foremost and I reject anything for which there is no evidence, not just god(s).  As I said before, present evidence for your claims and I will believe, not until.

5. How sure are you that your atheism is correct?

All positions are provisional.  Based on the evidence that I have seen so far, there is no reason to believe that any god(s) exist.  If that changes in the future, I’ll re-evaluate my position based on that new information.

6. How would you define what truth is?

You’d have to define what you mean by truth, far too many theists think “truth” and “fact” are one and the same. As I cannot be sure of the intent of the question, I will leave the question unanswered.

7.  Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?

Apparently so since I hold it.  Again, I’d have to ask what is meant by “justifiable”.  Since atheism is the rejection of claims made by theists based on a lack of objective evidence, I’d argue that it’s just as justifiable as not believing in the Loch Ness Monster.

8.  Are you a materialist, or a physicalist, or what?

I know this would piss Slick off, but I identify myself as a realist.  I accept that which has evidence that it is real and reject that which does not have evidence that it is real.  Because we have evidence for the physical world around us, I accept it.  If someone came up with a way to demonstrate a supernatural realm to my satisfaction, I’d accept that too.  No one has done that, therefore I don’t believe it.

9. Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview?  Why or why not?

Atheism is not a worldview, nor is it a religion.  It is the answer to a single question, that being do you believe god(s) exist?  There is nothing else to it.  The second you start talking about any other position beyond one’s lack of belief in god(s), you’re no longer talking about atheism, but about something else.

10. Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity, but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?

Because Christianity is demonstrably harmful to humanity.  I feel the same about any and all religions, as well as any and all irrational beliefs.  I’ve got more than enough evidence of this in the Religious Horror Show.

11. If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?

The same thing that caused me to deny the existence of Santa Claus.  There was a time I believed it, I found that it was not a position that was defensible by the evidence, I rejected the claim based on the criteria I’ve described above.

12. Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?

Absolutely and without question.

13. Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?

Absolutely and without question.

14. Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?

Again, that’s a loaded question.  Do I think that all theists are demonstrably mentally damaged?  No.  Do I think that all theists are delusional to some degree with regard to their religious beliefs?  Yes.  Do I think that all theists are irrational in their religious beliefs?  Absolutely.

15. Must God be known through the scientific method?

God, and I’ll expand this to any claim, must be known through some form of thinking or methodology which produces consistently demonstrable results, is able to make consistent testable predictions and allows us to learn more about the world that actually surrounds us.  So far, the scientific method is the only means we’ve discovered which fits that criteria.  I’d be happy to consider another criteria if it was able to demonstrably produce similar results, but theists don’t even bother to try.

16. If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?

Even though I didn’t really answer yes, I’ll point out where Slick fails here.  There is no evidence that God is actually immaterial, mostly because there is no evidence that God is actually real at all.  Christians arbitrarily assign the “immaterial” characteristic to their beliefs about God without being able to demonstrate that God actually has that characteristic.  That’s like the farcical conception of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.  Both the characteristics “invisible” and “pink” are arbitrarily assigned to this invented entity without any means to actually show that they are a part of the real unicorn.  You could just as easily claim that it was an invisible blue unicorn and not fundamentally change anything.  In order to have an immaterial God, you have to demonstrate that immateriality actually exists and that it is a demonstrable characteristic of God, two things that theists have entirely failed to do.  I’d ask how they actually discovered that God was immaterial.  They can’t provide any reason, outside of blind faith, that they think this way.

17. Do we have any purpose as human beings?

Define purpose.  If you mean an external purpose, one forced upon us from without, I’d say there are many biological imperatives, such as survival and reproduction, which one could state as a purpose, although it is up to us whether or not we choose to follow them.  Internally though, we all assign some purpose to our own lives.  I decide what to do and how to live my life, within the context of the larger society around me.  My culture can have some effects, both positive and negative, on my choices.

18. If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?

I think I already did that above.

19. Where does morality come from?

Humanity generate morals, we all decide what is best within our individual communities and through our larger societies.

20. Are there moral absolutes?

Absolutely not and a look around the world at different societies and cultures, and across history, should disprove any such assumption.  There are certainly common moral views, brought about because we’re all humans and we all have similar needs and desires, but you cannot point to any single moral dictate that has held across all cultures and throughout time.  It just can’t be done.

21. If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?

Not applicable.

22. Do you believe there is such a thing as evil?  If so, what is it?

If you mean innate evil, then no.  Certainly there are things that we, as humans, can identify as evil, those things that fall so far outside of our cultural moral norms or our own social expectations that we are shocked when we encounter them.  What is viewed as evil in one place may not be viewed as evil in another.

23. If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?

Based upon the narrative in the Bible and my own personal social understanding, I’d certainly call him morally bad, based upon my own subjective understanding of right and wrong.  Of course, my understanding is neither universal nor “correct” in the sense that anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong.  Morals are subjective.

24. What would it take for you to believe in God?

That’s a somewhat difficult question because virtually any answer I could give, I could imagine an immensely powerful alien species being able to, at least in theory, duplicate it.  Therefore, I will say that if God was real and has the characteristics typically assigned by Christians, God would know what it would take to convince me and because I am not currently convinced, God has not seen fit to do so.

25. What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?

The same as above.

26. Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc. or what?

It must be objective and demonstrable to anyone without a requirement to believe in a god first.  I cannot think of any way this would not need to be rationally based but I’m open to someone suggesting a demonstrable means that is not.

27. Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer?  Why?

I think that a society run by the rational would be safer.  As I said above, atheism has no meaning outside of a lack of belief in god(s), hence any question about these people’s abilities to run a productive, safe society is entirely irrelevant and beyond the definition of atheism.

28. Do you believe in free will?  (free will being the ability to make choices without coersion).

That depends on what you really mean by that.  I think that people can choose from a variety of available choices without direct, identifiable coersion.  Certainly, people are not able to make choices that are simply not possible. You can’t decide to flap your arms and fly.  You can’t decide to explode into flames by mere willpower alone.  I’m sure that on some level, our biology has a great deal to do with what choices we make, but this is not something that we recognize on a conscious level and therefore, even if ultimately it is an illusion, it certainly feels real to us when we exercise it.  So yes, I believe in free will, I just disagree with how some people choose to look at it.

29. If you believe in free will do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?

I answered that above.

30. If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal, and thereby become “deity” and not be restricted by space and time?  If not, why not?

By the definition most Christians give for God, it is not possible for any physical being to ever evolve to such a point as to become as powerful as the Christian God.  Therefore, I’d say no.  Again, the Christian God has a lot of assigned characteristics, such as all-knowing and all-powerful which would seem to me to fall outside of any conceivable evolutionary path for humans or any other temporal/physical creature.

31. If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren’t you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?

I didn’t and I don’t.

In reality, my answers here would frustrate Matt Slick to no end because none of them allow him to twist my words into something that serves his cause and that’s really what he wants to do.  He’s demonstrated his own inherent dishonesty in debate after debate and that’s why he constructs many of his questions the way he does, to try to trip up the unwary and those not familiar with his methods.  Of course, after more than 30 years of dealing with dishonest theists, I automatically look at everything that they say with distrust and try to work out where they’re trying to twist your words around and can avoid them the vast majority of the time.  I recognize that these are not simple questions, they are designed to give the theist an opportunity to expand on the question and try to dig a wedge into the atheist’s words.  That doesn’t work with me and for anyone who debates theists on a regular basis, it’s a mindset you ought to adopt as well.  Know what they’re trying to do and think a few steps ahead and you’ll be fine.

So, while I doubt Matt will ever see my responses, what does everyone else think?  Any that you disagree on?  Let me know.

Sometimes a Sandwich is Just a Sandwich

PB&JSandwichMaybe it’s just the time of year but I keep running across these really ludicrous liberal stories that make me want to punch someone because they are so absurdly stupid.  Honestly, who in their right mind thinks this way?

In an absurd attempt to combat perceived discrimination, a Portland, Oregon school has taken complete leave of it’s senses and claimed that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are now considered a sign of racism!

Verenice Gutierrez, principal of Harvey Scott K-8 School, “picks up on the subtle language of racism” on a daily basis.  “Take the peanut butter sandwich, a seemingly innocent example a teacher used in a lesson last school year.  What about Somali or Hispanic students, who might not eat sandwiches?” Another way would be to say: ‘Americans eat peanut butter and jelly, do you have anything like that?’ Let them tell you. Maybe they eat torta. Or pita.  What is racist about a child’s lunch, one might ask? Peanut butter and jelly, of course! You racists probably even use black currant jelly sometimes. On white bread.”

That school started this past school year with intensive teacher sensitivity training to help educators learn to identify their “white privilege”.  No, sorry, that’s just a liberal code word for “we want to be racist against whites”. Ms. Gutierrez said, in a memo to educators, “Our focus school and our Superintendent’s mandate that we improve education for students of color, particularly Black and Brown boys, will provide us with many opportunities to use the protocols of Courageous Conversations in data teams, team meetings, staff meetings, and conversations amongst one another.”  Well I hate to tell you, but if you really are noticing educational problems among “Black and Brown boys”, it’s not because some kid is eating a PB&J on the playground, it’s somthing cultural, especially if you’re only seeing the problem among the boys and not the girls.  That’s not public school education, that’s a fucked up culture that these people embrace.  You’re not going to fix it by teaching these screwed up kids that the culture that their parents embrace is a good thing, any more than you’re likely to improve the self-esteem of Muslim girls that are covered head to toe in a burka that their religion is a positive thing.  This is one of the things most ridiculously wrong with the liberal mindset, the “multiculural” nonsense, where everything is equal, even if it demonstrably isn’t.  There’s no reason to pretend that the utterly failed black and Hispanic sub-cultures are just as valuable as every other, just so you don’t make people feel bad.  Worse  yet, the idea that you ought to drag demonstrably successful sub-cultures down to the level of the failed ones and teach people who belong to these sub-cultures that they ought to feel bad about it, just so the people at lower levels feel a little better is absurdly backwards.  We need to bring “Black and Brown boys” up to the level of whites. We do not need to punish whites because “Black and Brown” sub-cultures have been such an utter social failure. Reality is reality, truth is truth, people need to stop worrying about hurting people’s feelings and start working to fix the actual problems.

But liberals don’t do that, do they.  They just preach “sensitivity”.  Yeah, I’ll shove my foot “sensitively” up your stupid fucking ass.  It’s no wonder liberals come off as such morons.  They earn it.

The Stupidity of Telemarketers

telemarketer_cartoonI have a problem with telemarketers.  I hate them and they’re stupid.  Think that’s mean?  It’s not, honestly.  For one thing, I’ve been on the Federal No-Call List since the thing existed and it doesn’t mean a damn thing and the telemarketers know it.  I’ve even had them laugh in my face when I told them I was on it.  They don’t care and if you go to the website, it even tells you that they won’t do a damn thing about it.

The telemarketers are supposed to stop calling you if you ask them to, but it’s not just to be nice, but let’s be honest, if you tell them to stop calling, they should get it through their little pin heads that they’re not going to make a sale and try elsewhere.  Isn’t the point of telemarketing at all to sell things?  If you piss off everyone you talk to, how many sales are you going to make?  If you call someone who has already told you to piss off back, do you think they’re going to magically change their mind and decide to buy something?  No, of course not, they’re just going to get mad and tell everyone they know never to buy anything from you or your stupid company.

So I had this call earlier today, it’s the same guy who calls at least 3x a week, the same guy I have told for weeks on end to stop calling me and he never does.  I might be able to see it if it was someone else from the same company, maybe the person you told to put you on their no-call list didn’t do it, but it’s the same guy!  So he calls when I’m in the middle of something and I remind him that I’ve told him repeatedly to stop calling and he says “maybe if you said please”.  I said “how about if I tell you to fuck yourself and hang up on you?”  That’s just what I did, but I’m sure he’ll call back in another couple of days.  Is this the worst telemarketer in the history of telemarketing?  I don’t know because he’s got competition.  We’ve also got this cancer charity that calls for my wife every goddamn day. I’ve told them no.  She’s told them no.  They’ve been told in no uncertain terms that they will never get a penny out of us, ever.  What’s worse, they lie.  They’ll call and say my wife  gave them money last year.  That’s utter bullshit.  She’s never given them a red cent.  I’ve taken to telling them I hope they get cancer and their tits fall off.  None of these companies or charities will remove you from their list no matter what you say because they know the FTC is a totally toothless entity.

Unfortunately, these companies are just stupid and obnoxious and no matter how plain you make it that they will never make a penny off of you, no matter how many times you tell them what to do with themselves, no matter how nice you are, they’re going to keep on calling you because apparently, they don’t understand how to sell over the phone.  Maybe they’re hoping that you’ll buy something to make them go away, I don’t know.

These places are just not reputable.  Years ago, there was this local survey company that kept calling, wanting me to take a survey.  I don’t do phone surveys and told them to stop calling.  They called over and over and over again.  I asked to talk to a supervisor and the supervisor told me to fuck off.  They refused to provide their company name and they had a blocked number.  I called the phone company, they said they cannot block the calls and they can’t (or won’t) trace them to tell me who was making them.  Eventually, the guy started making threats over the phone, he said he knows where I live and he’s going to come kick my ass.  I  told him to bring it on, called the police and filed a report.  Don’t know if these idiots got shut down but never heard from them again. Honestly, do they think they’re going to get a survey done if they threaten people?

And no, having an unlisted number doesn’t help, most of these telemarket groups use purchased phone lists that include unlisted numbers.

Now if I wanted to, I could make a lot of money off these idiots, it is a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) 47 USC Section 227 for them to call you after being told to put you on the do not call list.  Each and every violation thereafter is $500, but for some of these companies, I’m sure they don’t even have a business license, it’s just some idiots doing things under the table to make a buck, I doubt you could ever collect, although you might be able to put them in jail and that’s almost as good.

So I guess I’ll just keep telling these morons the same thing that they refuse to do over and over again. It won’t do any good because most of them are scams and the scammers don’t care if they’re breaking the law or not.  I just wish there was a way to get them all shut down permanently.