Hmmm... Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal reminds us that even if Yahweh is real, all of my anti-theistic ranting could still pay off in the end.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
This website appears to be a product of Farkers. And it's awesome.
I don't actually believe that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. I just don't understand why Beck doesn't provide conclusive proof that it didn't happen, so we can finally move past this as a nation.
I don't actually believe that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. I just don't understand why Beck doesn't provide conclusive proof that it didn't happen, so we can finally move past this as a nation.
PZ writes this morning about some asshats who are offended that the awesome band They Might Be Giants sings a children's song that (gasp!) promotes the idea of evolution and refers to angels as unscientific.
Later, I was checking out some stunning photos of volcano lightning (seriously, you gotta see that shit) and when I
get to the bottom, lo and behold, there is an argument in the comments over whether this is some kind of penis-wielding display by an angry god.
Meanwhile, I've been conversing with HuffPo's resident "yoga chickie" over in the comments section at Joel's blog, trying to explain to her why us "atheist fundamentalists" feel the need to be so vocal. It's because the other side1 will not shut the fuck up, and uses every possible context to prattle on not just about their absurd delusions, but also why we should all cower in terror of their warmongering sky daddy.
I did not go looking for some theological discussion today. Well, okay, I got pointed to the TMBG thing via a hardcore atheist blog, but PZ originally posted about it just because TMBG is awesome, and I would have clicked the link and listened to the song anyway. In the case of the volcano lightning, I was just looking at some cool pics that I found out about from Snopes. And yet, everywhere I turn, there are theistic blowhards trying to tarnish everything that is beautiful and wondrous in this world with their dumbass sectarian viewpoint.
You can't escape it. Not in today's world. And given that, we have two choices: Run away, or take a stand.
1I want to clarify that by "the other side" in this case I do not mean moderate theists, and especially not "imaginary friend"-style pseudo-theists like Lauren... I waffle on whether moderate theism is potentially harmful or not -- and you can read a lot of my thoughts about that in my conversation with Lauren at Joel's blog -- but that's a subtlety that's not very important right now. I'm not inclined to spend much time arguing the finer points of whether a mature form of theism is a net positive or a net negative, when our politics and our daily lives are under constant assault by an infantile and intolerant form of theism.
Later, I was checking out some stunning photos of volcano lightning (seriously, you gotta see that shit) and when I
 |
Meanwhile, I've been conversing with HuffPo's resident "yoga chickie" over in the comments section at Joel's blog, trying to explain to her why us "atheist fundamentalists" feel the need to be so vocal. It's because the other side1 will not shut the fuck up, and uses every possible context to prattle on not just about their absurd delusions, but also why we should all cower in terror of their warmongering sky daddy.
I did not go looking for some theological discussion today. Well, okay, I got pointed to the TMBG thing via a hardcore atheist blog, but PZ originally posted about it just because TMBG is awesome, and I would have clicked the link and listened to the song anyway. In the case of the volcano lightning, I was just looking at some cool pics that I found out about from Snopes. And yet, everywhere I turn, there are theistic blowhards trying to tarnish everything that is beautiful and wondrous in this world with their dumbass sectarian viewpoint.
You can't escape it. Not in today's world. And given that, we have two choices: Run away, or take a stand.
1I want to clarify that by "the other side" in this case I do not mean moderate theists, and especially not "imaginary friend"-style pseudo-theists like Lauren... I waffle on whether moderate theism is potentially harmful or not -- and you can read a lot of my thoughts about that in my conversation with Lauren at Joel's blog -- but that's a subtlety that's not very important right now. I'm not inclined to spend much time arguing the finer points of whether a mature form of theism is a net positive or a net negative, when our politics and our daily lives are under constant assault by an infantile and intolerant form of theism.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
"We are all mutants!" blares the headline, and I suppose it's true: According to a paper published in Current Biology, we each have about 100 to 200 mutations in our gene sequences. I guess that's not too surprising, considering we are talking about using biological (i.e. messy) transcription methods to copy billions of individual data points. Getting a several dozen of them wrong is to be expected.
I post this for two reasons: First of all, I'm sure PZ will be posting something about this, and I wanted to beat him to it. heh... also, this has some relevance to a blog post I am currently composing that explores a new metaphor that helps a simple computer engineer like me understand how such complexity could arise out of a relatively small genome.
I post this for two reasons: First of all, I'm sure PZ will be posting something about this, and I wanted to beat him to it. heh... also, this has some relevance to a blog post I am currently composing that explores a new metaphor that helps a simple computer engineer like me understand how such complexity could arise out of a relatively small genome.
This was a postscript a friend of mine tacked on to an unrelated e-mail thread, but I loved the joke so much I had to steal it (I hope he doesn't mind).
My hobby: fucking with people who have possible concussions.
"Who is the current President of the United States?"
"Barack Obama."
"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE HE IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN!"
After having spent ten hours undergoing very intensive heart surgery performed by brilliant and highly skilled doctors, Pat Robertson gives credit where credit is (not) due:
What a dis! I'm imagining now if one of the customers of the product I work on was like, "It can only be through the grace of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that this PostScript document was spooled and converted into halftoned CMYK so that it could be printed with such holy image quality." I'd be so pissed...
Via Ed Brayton.
Only the prayers of thousands of believing people kept me on this earth.
What a dis! I'm imagining now if one of the customers of the product I work on was like, "It can only be through the grace of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that this PostScript document was spooled and converted into halftoned CMYK so that it could be printed with such holy image quality." I'd be so pissed...
Via Ed Brayton.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Woo hoo, I just got my second comment from a theist! I was originally replying in the comments section, but it's an old post so nobody is likely to see it, and it turns out this guy's blog has a rather juicy "proof" of "the existence of an Intelligent and Perfect Creator". It's just damn fun to pick apart, so here goes:
I think this is not quite correct, but it's actually an interesting topic. He is definitely correct in pointing out the need for some sort of singularity at or around t=0. However, to say that the singularity must be a "prime cause ex nihilo" is making assumptions about the laws of physics and causality beyond what is well understood at this time. In the first few picoseconds after the Big Bang, it may be that causality didn't really exist in a way that is well-captured by our logic.
Of course, when I try to think about that, my head spins. If I wanted to ridicule this answer, I might paraphrase it as "causality didn't exist until it was caused by the Big Bang." heh... I dunno, whether a first cause is necessary is a whole other debate that involves advanced philosophy, cutting edge cosmology, and quantum physics -- three topics of which I am fairly ignorant.
So for the sake of argument, let's move on and accept his premise: Let's say that science supports the idea of some kind of "cause ex nihilo".
Up until this point, the guy's argument has been reasonable, though probably not quite correct. The following sentence is where he descends into batshit-crazy territory:
Bullshit! Oh man, where do I start?
First, he suddenly and without warning injects the word "Creator", thus imbuing agency to this hypothetical "First Cause". If the universe does have a cause ex nihilo, why would we assume -- without any evidence whatsoever -- that that cause would be a thinking intelligent being?! This is classic apologist trickery. He has gotten us to agree to the idea of a thing which caused the universe to come into existence -- and then starts calling that thing a "Creator", with all of the baggage that goes along.
Two, just because thing X caused thing Y, that does not in any way mean that thing X has all of the traits of thing Y, or even that all of the traits of thing Y can be comprehended by thing X. If I chop the head off a chicken, that does not make me taste like chicken, nor does it mean that I fully understand all of the processes going on the chicken's death. Right? Similarly, there is no reason why the cause ex nihilo of a "perfectly orderly" universe would itself have to be "perfectly orderly."
Third, whence this logical leap from "perfectly orderly" to "perfect"? Osama bin Laden is "perfectly three-named", in that he has exactly three names -- not one, not two, but three. Does that mean Osama is perfect?! That's stupid. "Perfectly X" does not imply perfect. And anyway:
Fourth, "perfect" is undefined, and he is gaming us with the definition of "perfectly orderly". At the beginning of this whopper of a sentence, he defines the criteria for being "perfectly orderly" as merely being "logically consistent". But by the end of the sentence, he is implying much more.
Wow. I count an average of one grievous error per five words. That's quite a sentence. To give an idea of just how absurd this is, I have employed the same logic in the following paragraph:
I assert that if Anders commented on my blog, I must have at least one comment on my blog. The previous statement is logically consistent (i.e. perfectly orderly) and I created it. Therefore, I am perfectly orderly, hence I am Perfect. Kneel before me, bitches!
What? I have to provide an "instruction manual" within the reach of everything I create now?!? Dude, that's going to SUCK... I'm making pasta for dinner tonight, and I don't even know how to write in Pastanese!
Bzzzz, wrong again!
Fuck dude, according to this guy's "proof", we've all gotta start worshiping Osiris. That is going to SUCK.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo; i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace. In contrast to endless opinionating of innumerable pseudo-scientific religionists, science recognizes the necessity of a Prime Cause ex nihilo
I think this is not quite correct, but it's actually an interesting topic. He is definitely correct in pointing out the need for some sort of singularity at or around t=0. However, to say that the singularity must be a "prime cause ex nihilo" is making assumptions about the laws of physics and causality beyond what is well understood at this time. In the first few picoseconds after the Big Bang, it may be that causality didn't really exist in a way that is well-captured by our logic.
Of course, when I try to think about that, my head spins. If I wanted to ridicule this answer, I might paraphrase it as "causality didn't exist until it was caused by the Big Bang." heh... I dunno, whether a first cause is necessary is a whole other debate that involves advanced philosophy, cutting edge cosmology, and quantum physics -- three topics of which I am fairly ignorant.
So for the sake of argument, let's move on and accept his premise: Let's say that science supports the idea of some kind of "cause ex nihilo".
Up until this point, the guy's argument has been reasonable, though probably not quite correct. The following sentence is where he descends into batshit-crazy territory:
Being logically consistent (orderly), the universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Perfectly Orderly; i.e. Perfect.
Bullshit! Oh man, where do I start?
First, he suddenly and without warning injects the word "Creator", thus imbuing agency to this hypothetical "First Cause". If the universe does have a cause ex nihilo, why would we assume -- without any evidence whatsoever -- that that cause would be a thinking intelligent being?! This is classic apologist trickery. He has gotten us to agree to the idea of a thing which caused the universe to come into existence -- and then starts calling that thing a "Creator", with all of the baggage that goes along.
Two, just because thing X caused thing Y, that does not in any way mean that thing X has all of the traits of thing Y, or even that all of the traits of thing Y can be comprehended by thing X. If I chop the head off a chicken, that does not make me taste like chicken, nor does it mean that I fully understand all of the processes going on the chicken's death. Right? Similarly, there is no reason why the cause ex nihilo of a "perfectly orderly" universe would itself have to be "perfectly orderly."
Third, whence this logical leap from "perfectly orderly" to "perfect"? Osama bin Laden is "perfectly three-named", in that he has exactly three names -- not one, not two, but three. Does that mean Osama is perfect?! That's stupid. "Perfectly X" does not imply perfect. And anyway:
Fourth, "perfect" is undefined, and he is gaming us with the definition of "perfectly orderly". At the beginning of this whopper of a sentence, he defines the criteria for being "perfectly orderly" as merely being "logically consistent". But by the end of the sentence, he is implying much more.
Wow. I count an average of one grievous error per five words. That's quite a sentence. To give an idea of just how absurd this is, I have employed the same logic in the following paragraph:
I assert that if Anders commented on my blog, I must have at least one comment on my blog. The previous statement is logically consistent (i.e. perfectly orderly) and I created it. Therefore, I am perfectly orderly, hence I am Perfect. Kneel before me, bitches!
An orderly Creator necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.
What? I have to provide an "instruction manual" within the reach of everything I create now?!? Dude, that's going to SUCK... I'm making pasta for dinner tonight, and I don't even know how to write in Pastanese!
Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Tor•âh′
Bzzzz, wrong again!
Fuck dude, according to this guy's "proof", we've all gotta start worshiping Osiris. That is going to SUCK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
