A Bitter Pill

So, normally I try to avoid traps on religion and politics — especially on the interwebs. But, nontheless, I was bored and decided to get into it.

So, somebody on a messageboard posts a topic entitled “If you believe in god, you’re a moron.”

Fort: Recent pope raving:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/13/pope.brazil.ap/index.html

“Blame COMMIES! and CAPITALISTS! and CONTRACEPTIVES!

And pretty much anything else that requires thought…” - Pope Dickhead the XCVenth

Okay, fine, so he has something against the pope and organized religion. I can understand that.

So, I reply/bite:

Gospel:

APARECIDA, Brazil (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI blamed Marxism and unbridled capitalism for Latin America’s problems on Sunday, and urged bishops to mold a new generation of Roman Catholic leaders in politics to reverse the church’s declining influence in the region.

“The Marxist system, where it found its way into government, not only left a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction, but also a painful destruction of the human spirit,” Benedict said as he opened a two-week bishops’ conference aimed at re-energizing the church’s influence in Latin America.

But he added that unfettered capitalism and globalization, blamed by many in the region for the deep divide between the rich and poor, gives “rise to a worrying degradation of personal dignity through drugs, alcohol and deceptive illusions of happiness

Not to say I agree with him, but you need to read a bit more carefully. Just because some things a person say is wrong, does not mean EVERYTHING he says isn’t insightful or untrue

Which leads to more unearthing of his hatred

Font: Actually, Gospel, let me make a few of the things I said a bit more clear, so you understand:

If you BELIEVE in GOD you are a MORON.

That about sums it up.

Everything the pope says is laden with fairytales of skipping unicorns and guys who SOMEHOW live forever.

But go ahead, and eat that shit up.

I’m not sorry if I hurt some feelings. If you’re religious, then, well, I’m pretty damn sorry for you. You can’t just be happy being part of the Nitrogen cycle.

Uh, let’s try more logic

Gospel: You’re missing my point. I’m not saying I agree with the Pope, nor did I say anything he said is true. But, there are a few religious progressives, including some sects of Catholacism (blacklabeled as “buffet chatholics”) that do not hold the pope’s infalability to be true.

Pope == False ==> God = False ????

Not only are you lumping every chatholic together, you are grouping all flavors of christianity together. I am not having “hurt feelings”. I’m simply pointing out some misunderstandings in your original post.

Let’s see if it works…

Fort: And a point of mine is also being missed:

I don’t take the time to differentiate between sects of catholicism, or christianity, because it’s not worth it.

There is no such thing as religious progressivism. That’s like saying there is a such thing as polished shit.

Nah.. he’s still upset with teh g0dz0r

Gospel: You’re clearly taking the approach of scientific mind. To that extent, would a scientific mind not differntiate between opinions, and to that extent at least hold the possability that what people say could be true and could be false. Furthermore, your opinion could be true or could be false.

Everybody has a belief structure, I don’t see the need to attack peoples’ as a whole unless it is clearly causing problems. Was chrsitanity a vehicle of enslavement and ignorance in the past (circa 12-1300’s+) sure. But, it does do a whole lot of good too in the world in its current mutation. There is nothing in this world that is 100% good or 100% bad, I’m sure Stalin did something good for his country at some point.

You need to differntiate, because there will always be conservatives, extremists, and fanatics in any belief. Dismissal without listening is equally as ignorant as the approach hardcore bible thumpers take; your form of logic is no better than theirs, imo.

Eastern religions are more like philosphy than anything else. Eastern cultures are neither innocent nor any cleaner in terms of Taoism, confucism, and general culture than the Western world (if not worse).

You can find flaws in anything, bible, scripts, whatever. You can find problems with the constitution, acts, laws, ~etc. It just seems Christianity has become the new “safe” whipping boy for people’s angst. Not sure why.

Buddhism and Hinduism did not stop India from being one of the most class-est, tiered societies in the world. Buddism didn’t stop people in Japan from invading their neighbors. Religion isn’t always the savior nor the cause of human strife. If you look at the kill count — yes, religion is very high, but you have to look at the deeper history. How many people were killed over territorial disputes disguised as a holy war (e.g. Vandals “crusade” against the holy roman empire). Or, the famous Crusades … when all they wanted was Israel.

Religion, yes, is a powerful scapegoat — but a blame-all is far from true. Look how many people die(d) under communist, atheist regimes. Look how many people die over trbial conflicts in the Congo in Africa. People will ALWAYS find a reason to kill each other.

Simply put, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Religion does a lot of ignorant things, but it does a lot of good things simply from a social structure standpoint.

Being a “moron” knows no creed, race, or country. It is individual.

TL;DR … maybe that’ll work

Fort: To answer Gospel’s question of why Christianity is the new whipping boy, one word: Evangelism.

Citing the eastern religions, allow me to clear something up, I’m speaking of my disdain for the belief in ‘God’, that being, the humanized version of some sort of super bearded old white guy depcited in the new testament.

So, the far eastern enlightenment chasers aren’t my target at all.

Evangels, Christians, Catholics - That’s who I’m militant against. I know evils are aspects of the individual; they exist in every creed, race, or religion, however: Difference between an atheist pedophile, and an evangel one: The atheist gets caught. Meanwhile the other is sheilded by his local ‘church’ group because he’s ’such a great guy.’ I’ve seen this happen personally in my life, and it boils my blood, and yes individual quams have influenced my anger towards an entire group.

Other problem with evangels, christians, catholics: They think just because GOD has forgiven them, everyone else will as well. WRONG!

The former Nazi Pope can take his ideals of having infinite numbers of catholic kids taking over the planet, along with his kid-raping cohorts in the vatican and cardinal diasies, and he can cram them up his ass.

/end statement.

still more hostility ;(

But wait. A semi-intelligent responce!

Miang: eh, the fact that its intertwined so heavily into our government is my main reason for such a militant attitude towards faith in a god / the afterlife.

Essentially, you can either be a religious literalist, in which case you kill people for heracy, or be a moderate which truely makes no sense. If the bible is the written word of god, and he tells you to kill those who are not of the same faith as you, why is it ok to ignore that part while taking it upon yourself to set the moral benchmark for all the people living around you? Picking and choosing whatever verses are convenient for your social agenda do not reflect a divine relation with a higher being. Fanatic or moderate, both religious models have no logic in them what so ever, yet are still tought as law to unknowing kids.

My problem is that religion breeds ignorance. From birth its an easy answer for most people. In that sense, yes, it has served some function as a sound social institution, but its blatant hate for science and progressive thought has kind of proven to me that humanity will be much better off once we stop treating mythology as fact.

Not to say, of course, that there arent other very important social issues outside of religion, but yeah, its time for humanity to move on.

A good argument, but

Gospel: @ Miang (a very good post)

Define blatant disregard for science when most, including Einstein, have some sort of belief structure. Furthermore, you are assuming that religion or exposure to it will make people ignorant. I can tell you my friend, there is a lot more in this world (especially America) that makes kids ignorant. The fact 80% of history taught to young kids is incorrect and skewed is a sign of that.

Pick and choose? That’s somewhat true, and is the common line used against “buffet” catholics. But, morality is never absolute as you make it, and true Christianity is about the message. I am not saying I am a particularly religious person, but I am taking the vantage point for this argument’s sake.

Also, picking and choose what is “conflicting” in the bible is a matter of perspective. Who was Kaine’s wife? We will never know. But, even Jesus violated the Sabbath. See, with the bible, unlike the Tora, there is a “new” chapter–which separates Christianity from convectional orthodox Judaism. It’s not quite “fair” to pick out semantics in the bible. Just because on page 329402 it says one thign and page 239804932043290 it says another dosn’t make the thing as a whole crap. Again, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Do some people take it TOO FAR? Yes. Are there insane, zealous evangelists? YES! But, I highly doubt these people would be any more enlightened wether there was or is a religion at all.

If a child is so helpless they will never question god and make the choice on their own, they were incapable of independent thought to begin with. Just because there exists an “opiate” in your mind does not mean everyone needs to take it. You are insuinating that the pressence alone of religion will defile the otherwise enlightened and intelligent minds of people.

Yes, I agree, I dislike how integrated religion is in our government currently. But, the fact o fthe matter is this country has and always will be Protestant rooted. I really don’t think most human beings would disagree with most of the tenemants of religion (not killing, faithfulness, stealing, etc). And the fact Roe V. Wade allows a woman’s choice shows that the government is not a 100% theocracy. I just cannot except this “all or nothing” sentiment.

fort: There’s something I need to clear up with you, Gospel, about Einstein having a belief system. Dr. Hawking also is proported as to believing in a ‘God’ of sorts. Infact MANY highly advanced astro-Physicists of our time do not tote themselves as complete athiests.

There ‘God’ however, has nothing to do with personal morals, social codes of conduct, or the organization of an afterlife. They instead believe in the Universe as an alter-force; more then physical law, atleast human physical law, will ever be able to define.

Saying that they have some sort of belief system must be understood for what it is; a belief system. There’s no Bible for Einstein and Hawking, only scientific maturation. I have a belief system in the theory of gravity. It has no similarities in the slightest with dieism.

Furthermore, I’m sorry that this thread has developed in this fashion, though I must admit I foresaw a bit of it. Let me try to bring it back to its intended focus:

I hate the Pope. He is an outdated, archaic, dangerous figurehead. I hate Catholism, because they KNOW in their hearts that I’m lesser then a person for having critical thought. I hate Evangels, and nothing needs to be said furthermore about that. I hate Christianity as a whole, because it’s had it’s chance as a social control mechanism, and needs to proceed the way of the dinosaur, as fast as it possibly can. These are MY feelings. I reserve my right to feel them as passionately as I choose. I don’t care about evidence to the contrary. I shall stand as stubbourn as one of the bible-thumpers on this issue: The New Testament, in all of its forms and interpretations, is rediculous at best, murderous at worst, and arguably one of the largest wastes of collective human society’s time.

Let us not even begin to speak of Pan-Arabic Islam, because THEN I’ll get afluster.

But, then, a mystery poster comes and wins the internet…

yang: Because a group of people, albeit a scientific community, with a set system of belief isn’t a religion. . .
The religion of astrophysicists is still a religion and it is still ridiculously fallible. Hence why some of what Einstein and Hawking have already donated to the world of science is now wrong. No person is perfect, therefore no group can be perfect. And while Hawking himself is not a Catholic, there are many astro-physicists that are. There are many priests who are scientists and many scientists who follow the church.

Omg! How can this be?!!

You and every other person who hate Catholics and Christianity hate them because they have held back science, yet they have given much to its development. Genetics today owe their existence in essence to a Catholic monk.
The stream line thought of evolution and development also are in debt to the evil and oppressive Catholic church. While rooted in the Greeks, these theories probably would have been passed over and forgotten had it not been for a certain Dominican monk and his peers.
The church, and its doctors have been keepers of knowledge for thousands of years. Modern astro-physics, philosophy, modern science owes a great deal to Bonaventure, Augustine, Aquinas. Without them, Plato and Aristotle might have been lost for centuries. Kant, easily one of the greatest minds to grace this earth, while not a self-defined follower, admits to the great use and necessity of religion.
The Pope and many doctors of the church, both today and in history have been protectors of academics and have only sought to keep this vast wealth and give it to the community. The present pope is not the mystic his predecessor was. He is truly an academic mind, and if you had bothered to let fall your personal prejudices, you would have been able to discover this for yourself.

Perhaps you hate them because they limit your own personal code of ethics and beliefs because. . .they. . .um. . .beat you up for having them!
I see. Ok Fort, if this is the case, if you have encountered the modern inquisition, then I think you should notify the local authorities. (This might land you in a nice white cell with a pretty white jacket to compliment it. But! You will be safe from the Christian bullies.)

Because of their actions in the past?! I think it entirely fair to hold a group responsible for the actions of the fathers. So, let’s wipe out Germany and Japan, and every Native American Tribe. (Of course, they can wipe us out too.) Let’s also kill the remaining family members of Charles Manson and every serial killer. Because, they are responsible after all. My great great great great great grandfather was killed by a Viking, I think that means I can kill the descendants of the Vikings.

Or! You hate them because they believe in something you don’t believe in and they think you are wrong? Though, you think they are wrong. Um. . .well those SOBs! How could they be so mean and unfair?!!

To refer to the original article, the pope was entirely correct. “Unfettered capitalism and communism” are responsible for much of the poverty and destitution in Latin America. Any simple understanding of economics will tell you that. Of course, we must also attribute it to the corrupt governments and the narrow, irrational minds that continue to march on in their haze without accepting knowledge. (Perhaps we should hate them for their stupidity and lack of critical thought. . .)

While I agree (and you might claim I have no right to agree or make this agreement known to you) that it is by far and away your right to believe whatever it is you wish, I think for someone who values progressive thought and understanding so highly, you should take a look back at your own argument. By your own words, the parallel can be made for other systems, ethics, beliefs, etc.
Racism can be justified by your words:
X group of people have done this and some continue to do so. Thus, the group as a whole is bad and I personally hate them.
Genocide:
X group of people are worthless because in the past they have committed these sins, and I can and do continue to hold hate against them. Thus, wipe them out.

Hold onto ignorance and you do nothing but perpetuate the very same problem you claim to detest in the subject of your hate. Treasure your irrationality, and you further stem the sickness that infects humanity.
Your mode of thinking, while entirely within your rights, is horribly flawed, irrational, and a greater poison to society than the grand ‘injustice’ of a belief in God.
Clearly objectivity is not something you prize. Since that is the case, really you shouldn’t be arguing anything of import since you have proven yourself incapable of separating rational thought from your own personal bias. For shame. As Gospel said previously, many atrocities have been committed by every religion. Yet you choose Christianity as your target because it personally has affected you. Again, a narrow world view and extremely selfish. You care for your own personal grievances but not those of humanity at large.

The church has risen above, accepted its flaws, and will attest to its lack of qualifications (for instance) to speak on matters of science from the pulpit. Which is why evolution is a personal ‘belief’ within the church, not one of doctrine.

I find it very interesting that the institution you hate has risen above you in its ability to acknowledge its limitations and its quest to correct them.

I think the safer equation we should make is:

Those who desire to live in ignorance = Idiots. i.e. you

zomg!

Commercial text not included: “Based on horizontal drop. Aerial sequence simulated. Professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt.”

Wiki’ing + Googling + recalling basic HS physics yields:

Terminal Velocity: V = sqrt ( (2 * W) / (Cd * r * A)
v=terminal velocity
W=weight in Newtons
Cd=Drag Coefficeint
r=atmospheric density
a=area exposed to air(area facing down)

^ simplified aerodynamics fluid formula

2006 Lexus IS350 is 3,435 lbs
Atmospheric Density (hotter) = 1.184
Assuming the car is falling flat - dimensions are 180in x 70.9 in exposed surface (88.625 sqr ft)
Drag of Lexus nose-forward is 0.3 falling cube is 0.8 … so let’s say 0.6

Thus…

3000 ft 243.795 ft/s
2000 ft 240.198 ft/s
1000 ft 236.679 ft/s
0 ft 233.235 ft/s

We can disregard the first 1000ft since it won’t hit terminal velocity. So…

V=at thus

We reach terminal velocity (240ft/s) with gravity 32ft/s in 7.456s.

d=1/2at

Thus, the car travels 894.688ft before hitting terminal velocity. Considering the distance travelled, and now hitting termianl velocity…

the car has another 3105ft or 12.939s left to fall.

Thus… the car takes about ~20s to fall to the ground. No way to get that drag coefficent without a physics lab.

A Lexus takes 19.231s to travel 4000ft. (Max speed of a Lexus 2006 IS350 is 140mph)

BUT this does not take into account the drag, wind resistance, and acceleration of the Lexus. Basically, no way in hell would that car on the ground make it in time.

Lexus: FAILS

INC False advertisement suits?

This pretty much summons up why I don’t have a RapeSpace. Independent blogging ftw. Because in the end, nobody cares what you have to say, but they they care even less about you.

http://verizonfails.ytmnd.com/ (blog)

Sigh. I hate this attitude in America, “It’s ok to suck at math, because not everybody is a mathematician.” Well then, kiddos, this is what happens when you fail math and go into your non-math-related profession. You FAIL at life. Honestly. I really can’t believe TWO not ONE but TWO Verizon employees could be such complete wastes of lives.

I had talked to a Citibank rep. on the phone the other day. And I thought to myself, “Oh boy, I’ve been outsourced to New Deli tech support.” But you know what? She was helpful, she kept asking if I could hold on very few minutes, and she was not an idiot. I had a very pleasant experience. The more and more I think about it, the more I realize outsourced customer service is sadly better than our homegrown Generation X/Y. You know why? They’re not complete idiots and they are trainable.

People think outsourcing is just because companies are looking for a buck? No. If our own workers weren’t such slack-jawed, lazy idiots the training and higher pay would be WORTH it. But, alas, that is not the case. It’s about RETURNS on investment (yes people are investments), and Americans are turning out to be poor investment for easily trainable jobs like customer support.

F*ck your jobs, I hope idiots like that starve and freeze.

EDIT: Good lord operantly the actual call was over 22 minutes.

Damn you, whitey. First you make us build railroads you don’t even use anymore, create glass ceilings for promotions, erase any public awareness on Asian racism, and finally… TAKE OUR WOMEN!

(Ignore the fact most asian men are jerk offs or pansies)

America is Evil Shockumentery Checklist:
1. Theatrical movie music - check.
2. Random political speeches clipped in (out of context for the most part) - check.
3. Random segments spliced together giving no frame of referancfe and only making unresearched assumptinos - check.
4. Random “authorities” agreeing with you - check.
5. The internets said it was true - check.

I think that video might be hinting on some debatable points, but much like the enemy it tries to engage. Fearmongering met with even greater fearmongering.

I’m really opposed to heavy taxing which is why I do consider my a conservative in the very strictest and older sense (not to be confused with neoconseravtism).

But,

We are in a new day and age, and I was bend my will a degree or two to come in line with modernism. I think mistaking the US Government as peddling “Americanism” is stretching it. It’s the companies, the fortune 500, the marketing, and the general willed ignorance of most people.

– Addressing the income tax:
Regardless if it is law or not, it’s there. I can see the argument that the rich don’t pay enough or whatever you want to say… but if we’re gonna go the “all is fair and free” route then we should remove minimum wage laws and such. Income tax is represenative of the federal government having control of your life to a degree. Well, why should they bother business owners to fair practices and protection of labor unions? Let’s get rid of it all at once.

– Addressing strong government control:
As opposed as I am to strong government control and taxes, the confederate states were a pretty clear of example of what happens when the government can’t levy taxes or has little inter-state power. Founding fathers and some of the4 most brilliant men were for a stronger government. I’m not advocating abuses of power or anything like that, but simply trying to meet this extremist preview half way.

I think the video makes the mistake Michael Moore made many times (no, not being a hypcrotical fatass): tries to squeeze to many arguments under the banner of “things are fucked up”. Too many shockumenteries only point out problems without going deeper into the ramifications of the alternatives or how to handle those ramifications or transitions would be (e.g. if we did removee income tax, how to compensate the various budgets of the federal government, etc). It’s really easy to be negative, but it’s hard to be constructive.

I’d have to see the video, but I’m willing to bet it’s not very constructive. Legal or illegal, consequences are reality in so far as repealing the income tax would have dire ones. So, unless it offers reasonable solutions I really don’t wanna hear it.

Tax protester constitutional arguments

Some tax protesters, conspiracy investigators, and others opposed to income taxes cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never “properly ratified.” One such argument is that because the legislatures of various states passed resolutions of ratification with different capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas) from the text proposed by Congress, those states’ ratifications were invalid. A related argument is that various states illegally violated procedural requirements of their constitutions when passing their ratification resolutions. Another argument made by some tax protesters regards Ohio, one of the states listed as ratifying the amendment. They contend that because Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio’s date of admission (1803) to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953 (and, therefore, could not have ratified the Sixteenth Amendment). These and similar arguments have been universally rejected by the courts.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.

In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.,[12], the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes ‘income’ to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on “accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.” Under this definition, any increase in wealth—whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actions—are all within the definition of income, unless Congress makes a specific exemption as it has for items such as life insurance proceeds received by reason of the death of the insured party[13], gifts, bequests, devises and inheritances[14], and certain scholarships. [15]

The only court case since then that repeals any powers is from disability, injury, compensation, etc.

Murphy v. IRS

On August 22, 2006 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service[16] and United States [Murphy v. United States]) that 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2) is unconstitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment to the extent that the statute purports to tax, as income, a recovery for a non-physical personal injury for mental distress and loss of reputation not received in lieu of taxable income such as lost wages or earnings. The Court stated:

At the outset, we reject the Government’s breathtakingly expansive claim of congressional power under the Sixteenth Amendment — upon which it founds the more far-reaching arguments it advances here. The Sixteenth Amendment simply does not authorize the Congress to tax as “incomes” every sort of revenue a taxpayer may receive. As the Supreme Court noted long ago, the “Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact.”

The Court also stated:

In sum, every indication is that damages received solely in compensation for a personal injury are not income within the meaning of that term in the Sixteenth Amendment. First, as compensation for the loss of a personal attribute, such as well-being or a good reputation, the damages are not received in lieu of income. Second, the framers of the Sixteenth Amendment would not have understood compensation for a personal injury — including a nonphysical injury — to be income. Therefore, we hold § 104(a)(2) unconstitutional insofar as it permits the taxation of an award of damages for mental distress and loss of reputation.

The Murphy ruling is mandatory precedent only in the District of Columbia.

So, if conspiracy theorists are going to argue against the supreme court and not trust any of the three branches of government, then we shoudl just start a revolution because if this is true then the government is beyond hope anyways. Otherwise, statutory law and decisions should be recognized instead of randomly citing pieces of the constituion and trying to debase the 16th amendment under symantics.

In Summary:

Let’s take a lemon and make 40 glasses of lemonade out of it. Now, I understand the student may or may not have been racially profiled. I can accept that fact of life. I can accept the policemen may have went a bit overboard and used excessive force.

Now, the media spin. You give them an inch and they take a mile. First off, that is not a very non-violent protest when you tell them to fuck off, mention the patriot act, and a bunch of extraneous behaviors. Now, he said he was leaving, yet his reaction was to go limp? What was so hard about getting up and leaving?

Let’s assume the officers are out of control. So, why would you try to reason with them aggressively? Why not comply with their request to be escorted and THEN sue them later? Unless, of course, you feel your shocking will help the ACLU get more money. Even if this kid has a case, he’s definitely guilty of being a moron. And as far as students “pleading” with him, that dosn’t look like pleading to me. That looks like kids being stuck-up college students loving an opportunity to shove their finger in the authoritarian pie.

One bad move (by the police) met by another bad movie (by the student and students) equals a clusterF*ck. I suppose this UCLA student received a typical college education… one that lacks common sense.

Liberal Media Spin

Now, the full video with the swearing, student belligerence, telling them they are idiots on the spot.

Original Video:

I found two really great articles that open up the debate and somewhat counter-balance all the religious fanatics out there. Sadly, most believers are either too ignorant, apathetic, or too tired to play in the academic arena. I can’t blame them, academics is somewhat of a contrived thing in and of itself. Nonetheless here we go.

This first one is a long one, but it debases some common, weak atheist remarks. I have respect for a few atheists, just not most. I think most are actually agnostic, but I’ll get inot that with the next article.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110206C

The recent small spate of atheist writings by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris, noticed in the pages of Wired and The Guardian, revives an old and rather quaint controversy. It is one which, I believe, is good for religion; but to unearth the genuine value of atheist beliefs we need first to dispose of the clutter of illogic and absurd claims that have washed up around them over the years.

The figure of the village atheist is a rather comic one. He proves his superior intelligence by mocking the sheeplike conformity of the poor benighted believers. The old word “enlightened” has now been replaced by the word “bright” as the self-description of this sort of atheist. He is a variant of the “Cliffie the mailman” wonk who knows it all, or Sportin’ Life the cynic in Porgy and Bess. An older version is Flaubert’s character Homais the bourgeois anticlerical pharmacist in Madame Bovary, and an even older one is Thersites the scurrilous doubter in Shakespeare and Homer. Much pleased by their own originality, they take their mishaps as the martyrdom of the bold intellectual pioneer, and they have produced a group of arguments that should probably be taken apart.

One is that religious ideology is a unique inspirer of terrible wars. In the current perspective, such an opinion sounds plausible. But anyone with an historical sense will recognize that the few hundred people who die each month in religious conflicts are absurdly dwarfed by the tens of millions, almost all of them religious believers, who died, within living memory, under the savage atheistic regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and the various dialectical materialist dictators of eastern Europe. We have seen what atheism looks like on the large scale, and it is not pretty: the Holocaust, the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution, the Killing Fields. Religion has indeed been a cause of appalling slaughter during the course of human history; but it must take fifth place behind atheist ideology, nation-state aggression, mercantile colonialist expansion, and tribal war in the carnage sweepstakes.

Another argument brought by the village atheist type is that to base one’s life on faith is intellectual suicide. This argument might be persuasive if there were any alternative, but there is not. Reason is not a basis for thought, but a method of thought. Kurt Gödel showed conclusively that every system of reasoning contains self-referential statements of the form of “This statement is unprovable”, which are correctly formed propositions that must be true or false, and must, if reason is fundamental, be provably one or the other. Analysis quickly shows that the statement must be true, but cannot be proved to be true. Reason is a process of proof, but reason is incapable of proving a certain true proposition, one that must take its place among the axioms of any logical system. Rationality cannot prove itself. The fundamental validity of reason therefore must be taken on faith; the only difference from a purely logical point of view between an atheist who believes in reason and a religious person who makes a primary act of faith is that the religious person recognizes the pre-logical basis of his beliefs, while the atheist does not.

If the village atheist dismisses this sort of thing as logic-chopping and takes his stand on the empirical down-to-earth evidence of the senses, the ground similarly disappears from under his feet. David Hume is rightly hailed as a hero of atheism, for his dismissal of the traditional arguments for the existence of God. But what his atheistic admirers miss is that his argument against empirical knowledge is even more devastating. Hume showed that the concept of cause has no logical necessity—that just because one event has often followed another, that does not mean that the same sequence must necessarily happen again, or that there is any necessary causal connection between them. Our expectation of causal connections in general, not just those that attribute the cause of events to God—is at best an emotional and practical habit. The religious person, by this logic, is actually more aware of the shaky basis of his commonsense than is the confident atheist.

Hume’s insight has actually proved remarkably prescient. In Hume’s time cause—courtesy of Newton’s magnificent discovery of the predictability of matter in motion—was seen by the scientific-minded as the only true relationship among events. In questioning cause, Hume anticipated the current multitude of relations now known to obtain among physical happenings. Quantum events, such as the emission of a particle by a piece of radioactive matter, are to a large extent purely random. Quantum coherence is different from cause—it is more like the existence of a harmonic between two vibrating violin-strings than like anything we would call cause. Nonlinear dynamical systems are so tangled and often so autonomous in their interrelations that any assignment of cause becomes virtually theological. For the initial conditions of the current state of turbulence are irrecoverable and irrelevant, and the outcome is, beyond the immediate future, increasingly unpredictable even if we had perfect knowledge, a condition impossible in this universe. And since the assignment of cause is in empiricist terms provable only by successful prediction, whatever cannot be predicted cannot be proved to be caused. And even prediction is tainted in some parts of the universe by second-guessing, rational expectations, theories of mind and self-fulfilling prophecy. Living social organisms are always involved in wildly idiosyncratic predicting contests with each other whose results are ecosystems that are both influences of their own and freely reinvented year by year. Human minds are causes of their own causes, or else the whole structure of legal and moral responsibility, which has built societies that have greatly altered the surface of the planet, is an illusion. And if something can be a cause of its own cause, the meaning of the word “cause” has evaporated. So cause, which is the basis of any empirical understanding of the world, must in itself be taken on faith.

The village atheist might still retreat to the pragmatist position, that though the rationalist and empiricist arguments for a basis in reason may be perversely twisted to question themselves, nevertheless the practical application of reason in the real world actually works and maintains our survival. We may never know exactly what electricity is, or what causes it, but when we turn the car key the engine starts. True enough, but even the pragmatist argument falls down in its own terms. For if in the absence of logical or evidence-based proofs of reason, usefulness and survival are adopted as the basic criteria of what is reasonable, religion actually comes off looking much more practical than unbelief. Almost the whole of the human race for all of its history has had some kind of religion or other, and has, triumphantly, survived and prevailed. As I pointed out in an earlier essay about demographics, societies with strong religious beliefs tend to reproduce themselves more robustly than societies without the hope and faith to sacrifice for the future. Societies that have developed sophisticated theological systems have tended to develop sciences and advanced technologies as well, because of a fundamental theological belief that things make sense and that there is an underlying order to the world. Thus from a strictly Darwinian perspective—the ultimate practical expression of pragmatism (and one to which I subscribe), religion is a powerful, perhaps the most powerful, survival strategy. One can even set aside the statistics that show that religious people tend to be happier, more long-lived, richer, and get better sex. If, pragmatically, by their fruits ye shall know them, and truth is whatever gets you the goodies and continues your germ line, the atheist should try to hypnotize himself into being a believer.

But this is shooting fish in a barrel. There are, actually, many valuable correctives and important questions that are offered by the atheist perspective. One of them is an implication of one of Dawkins’ favorite arguments against the rather feeble theist objection that you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist—you can’t prove a negative. Dawkins triumphantly retorts that

“There’s an infinite number of things that we can’t disprove, You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it’s wrong to say therefore we don’t need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don’t need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There’s an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there’s not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it.”

This argument actually isn’t an argument against religious belief as such, any more than the presence of thousands of myths about the invention of fire or the succession of the seasons or the phases of the moon casts doubt on the existence of a fire-inventer or the terrestrial or lunar orbits. In fact the multitude of divine myths could be taken as weak evidence that something divine must be going on, or else all those people wouldn’t have thought there was. There were thousands of beliefs about the healing powers of mosses and lichens and certain soils before penicillin and the antibiotic virtues of soil molds were discovered.

But Dawkins’ argument does cogently address the great scandal of religious differences, especially the fanatical clinging to one particular metaphor of mysterious unseen powers. What the atheist critique implies is that the religions had better seriously get together on their stories, because their insistence on the factual certainty of their own versions is both a cause of justifiable skepticism and a justification at the extreme of suicide bombers and the massacre of innocents.

Valuable also is the moral lesson of atheism. Virtuous atheists actually have a stronger claim to real goodness than virtuous Christians, Jews, or Muslims, because there can be no taint of cupboard love in their obedience to the moral law. They do not believe in a reward for goodness, and thus must love goodness for its own sake. The challenge to religious people is that they ought to do the good as if there were no afterlife, no heaven, no reward. God does not get a reward for all the good things he does, and if we are supposed to become as much the image of God as we can, as we are told in the scriptures, then we should seek out that life of love and service that is its own reward.

Atheism also challenges religious people to take nature seriously. Atheists like to point out that religious accounts of the creation and maintenance of the universe are often wretchedly totalitarian, and they find it easy to refute the idea of the first cause. If something ordered always needs a creator, and if God is ordered, they say, who created God? Was it gods all the way down? Can something reasonably create itself? Cosmological physics, as I pointed out some time ago in a piece on evolution here, has rather taken the wind out of the sails of this argument, because it is now forced to postulate trillions of universes with every possible set of initial conditions before the Big Bang—a mess perhaps even more in need of Occam’s Razor than the postulation of a self-creating creator. If indeed every possible configuration of universes must have coexisted with this one, presumably at least one of them must have been so put together as to constitute, by sheer chance, a gigantic beneficent Intelligence capable of manipulating all of its own constituents and creating from them an ordered universe like our own. So the only current viable non-theistic theory of the origin of the cosmos virtually mandates a beneficent creator somewhere that would look an awful lot like God.

But setting aside such rhetorical fun with our atheist friends, there is an imaginative delight in the naturalism of the atheists that has been lost to Christians, Jews and Muslims at least since the renaissance, and which maybe ought to be brought back. If religious people genuinely believe that God is responsible for the existence of the universe, then they must take into their religious consciousness and conscience, as the renaissance did, those aspects of nature that attract atheists away from any parochial little set of tribal myths. Religious people must undergo the shock of Job, who after those sophistical little squabbles about sin and blame and justification must suddenly see the universe in all its terrifying glory, the grandeur of Leviathan and Behemoth, the mysteries of the womb, the joy of the horse and the ostrich, the glitter of the Pleiades. We know now that there are millions of planets circling alien suns out there. Some, perhaps many, harbor forests, oceans where their own leviathan swims, perhaps even alien civilizations with histories and stories and religions of their own. Beyond the old question–What is man that thou art mindful of him?—there is the further implication that God has let everything go its own way, that the universe is free to create and generate itself, and that God values this wild autonomy. Evolution is not a disproof of God, but it may be an indication of the lengths to which he will go to let his creation live out its own genius and destiny. What generosity, to so delegate his creative power, to relish diversity and strangeness and above all freedom so very highly!

Now this one isn’t proof of creationism per-say either, but it’s a good argument similar to the above, but in a bit more friendly terms. Granted, yes, it’s on a religious “science” website, but give it some benefit the doubt. It at least opens the door that perhaps being agnostic is a lot more sensible than being an atheist. Actually, this one doesn’t copy well so I won’t copy it, but I’ll just link it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

P.S. This article on the disparity in the studies claiming the link between chimps and humans is somewhat interesting. It furthers the gap in proof for evolution, IMO. Not saying there is NO proof, but it definitely furthers the room for debate.

Okay, so people say Americans are lazy and unmotivated. You know, our low and staggering voting ratings, our general apathy towards politics and the environment, our pitiful academic standings, etc. But, hey, what do assholes know? When we have something more important than paying the bills (e.g. our horrific American debt which most households have) is the REALLY importnat things…. waiting in like for 8 hours to 3 days for a $800+ videogame console.

The stores around here had only 5-6 units per store (I’m told from workers). Now, I wonder if Sony is liable for inciting riots and such. But seriously, I am so glad these morons froze their asses off for nothing and I hope many got injured. I praise all who bought a PS3 and sold it for 4-5X the value.

So, now Senator (shudder) Hillary Clinton is speaking about Health Care. Now, I’m not questioning her ability to be a Senator–esp a junior senator which means she really can’t do crap. The thing is, though, given her previous and pretty much damning prior experience with minor administrative roles, I pray to god she stays as far away from the White House as possible. I’m no sexist, and if she was qualified for the position I’d give the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, she has proven herself worthless.

Here’s her talking about health care….

She . . . said Democrats would focus on improving the quality and affordability of health care–a touchy matter for the former first lady, who in 1993 led her husband’s calamitous attempt to overhaul the nation’s health care system. The failure of that effort helped Republicans win control of both the Senate and House the following year.

“Health care is coming back,” Clinton warned, adding, “It may be a bad dream for some.”

Now here’s a 2003 entry from a LIBERAL economist Brad DeLong explaining why Hillary + White House = Bad

My two cents’ worth–and I think it is the two cents’ worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994–is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn’t smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.

So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to [Sen.] John Breaux and [Rep.] Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation’s health-care system . . .

Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch–the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president.

It bothers me greatly that Medicare and especially Social Security are major issues that are in dire straits, yet politicians on both sides choose to ignore it. The problem is people have emotional attachment to stupidity and thus the debate isn’t even on a level playing field. Given the track record of the government’s ability, I am still unsure why liberals and many Americans are so trusting of the government to handle their medical issues and retirement. The government is extremely conservative with their investments (e.g. your taxes) and generally banks yield what… 3..4%? The market continuously yields 8-10% given diversified investments.

You give somebody $10,000 and tell them to invest it. Most people with some knowledge will throw it to a professional investor, mutual fund, stocks, etc. I doubt many would throw it in a bank and hope the interest revenue will suffice for retirement. The age of pensions and traditional Social Security/Medicare is dead, and people need to accept that.

The party of “choice” (e.g. choice over one’s own body) is also the party that says you’re too dumb to use your own money. Interesting concept. Furthermore, investment professionals are also too dumb to handle your money (e.g. privatized health care, social security, etc). No, only the government bureaucracy is smart enough to make sure your 6.2% and 1.2% taxes are handled wisely.

I wonder if I get a refund when the social security and health care system explodes.