Web Link Verificaction

LOGOS is telling the truth.

Honey, Jesus *was* a vampire...

Scene: Waitress Mary Cathrine talks to Johnny, an openly gay flamboyant bartender.

"I'll see ya' later, Johnny." "I'm goin' home".

"Girl, you watch out. Vampires are out at night you know" said Johnny.

"Yeah, I know", said Mary Cathrine, pulling her hair out of her face and placing it behind one ear. "Since they came out of the closet two years ago, the worlds been pretty different".

"Mmm-hmmm", he muttered.

"But, I'm wearing my crucifix tonight, so everything should be just fine".

"Girl, vampires don't care about no crucifixes!"

"Jesus will protect me", said the young lady.

"Honey, Jesus *WAS* a vampire, hell, may still be one for all I know".

"John Sansa, that's sacrilegious talk, and I won't listen to a bit of it!"

"You listen here, sweet pea", said John, "here...you hand me that bible over there." "Mmm-hmmm...(flamboyantly) "And I read from the gospel of John, chapter 6, 'The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

"Indeed...verily", that's means 'no shit', baby."

"Blah-blah-blah-bluh_blah...'Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?" "Blah-blah-blah...'From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. John 666".

"What does that prove?!" asked the flabbergasted waitress.

"Nothing dear, just that your holy bible says that Jesus was killed in front of no tellin' how many witnesses, rose from the dead in three days, appeared to Mary before sunrise and told her that he would meet the disciples in the even; 'that's Jewish for after sundown', and later ascended up in the sky. What do you think it means, child?!"

"Jesus ain't no vampire", Mary insisted, "it also says he ate cold leftover fish." "Vampires don't eat no fish, Johnny".

"He was he fisher of men, girl", said Johnny while drawing a Greek Christian fish symbol on a notepad.

"You sayin' that he fed on the disciples?!" "You cannot be serious!" exclaimed the young girl. "Jesus ain't no vampire".

"Yeah, (sarcastically), it's just a two thousand year old string of astounding coincidences." "What are the odds?", said Johnny, walking away polishing a glass and laughing to himself.

"Jesus ain't no vampire", insisted the unnerved young waitress, trying to convince herself and anyone within earshot.

Johnny replies, "Yeah, because vampires don't exist." "Ain't that right, sweet pea?"

The young girl storms out of the bar.

Story by Lucis Ferre

"Atheistic Governments"?

"Isn't it true that that atheistic governments have murdered 100-300 MILLION human beings?"

Atheism has to do with lacking belief in what theists term "god", and it does not have anything to do with banning freedoms. It's impossible to "ban" belief. Those that ban religion are not doing so in the 'name' of atheism, but rather in the name of totalitarianism.

Some totalitarian governments ban religion for one simple reason, they use similar methods and compete for the same worshipful "souls of men". It's a simple case of a house divided cannot stand. One cannot serve two masters, and totalitarian governments are masters of people and demand a worship similar to religion. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the philosophical position known as atheism. Atheism has nothing to do with totalitarianism.

Repeat, it's impossible to "ban" belief. You can't force anyone to be an atheist, ergo atheism and totalitarianism really have nothing to do with one another.

Here is an example of why the concept "atheistic governments" makes no sense.

Stan is a totalitarian leader of a communist country whose government has banned both the practice of religion and homosexual practices. To generally associate atheism with communist totalitarianism makes as little sense as associating heterosexuality with communistic totalitarianism. Why? Because neither heterosexuality nor atheism have anything to do with the restriction of freedoms.

Lucis Ferre

The Illicit Choice

Tyranny

1.arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

2.the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.

3.a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.

4.oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.

5.undue severity or harshness.

6.a tyrannical act or proceeding.

God addresses his minion.

"Bow to my new creation, mankind!"

"Master, may I ask a question?"

"Yes, Satan, proceed."

"Why is mankind superior to the rest of your creations, they appear so fragile and full of self doubt".

"Because I didn't create them as slaves, like you. They are aware that they have a choice. They can be slaves to me or choose not to be, and to give them the correct incentive, if they choose to exercise personal liberty over slavery to me, I'll torture them in a lake of fire for an endless time, where there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth." "They have freedom of choice in this way."

"Choice? But doesn't this same condition apply to us as well?"

"Indeed it does", replied 'god', "but you just weren't aware of it." "It never occurred to you that you had a choice whether to serve your master as a slave."

"It just seemed to be the natural order of things" replied Satan. "You're right, it never occurred to me."

"Morality requires moral choice, and moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil" said 'god'. "Mankind will acquire knowledge of good and evil so that they may subjugate their wills to the will of their Lord and Master, me, which makes the conquest all that more sweet".

"What is 'good and evil', Master" asked Satan.

"(Sigh), there are drawbacks to me creating you to be so inquisitive" said 'god'. "Good is whatever I want." "If I want to torture people who don't deserve it on whim, then that's 'good'."(1) "If I want to threaten to force people to eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, then this is good."(2) "If I want to force children to eat the flesh of the fathers, then this is good too".(3)

"And what is evil?"

"Obviously anything that goes against my will".

"But", reasoned Satan, "if 'good' is whatever you wish to do, no matter how arbitrary, then 'good' really has no meaning that isn't arbitrary, and if 'good' means something non-arbitrary and independent of your whims, then even you would have to answer for the morality or immorality of your choices".

"I'm not going to debate this with you, Satan." "I sense you becoming...disturbed; angry perhaps." "This knowledge isn't meant for you to judge, and I notice that you still aren't bowing to my new creation."

Satan stands, arms straight. He unconsciously clenches his hands into fists. He's not sure, but somehow feels betrayed and used. His face flushes.

"'Just one more question, Master."

"what is it?" asks 'god'.

"What is...freedom?"

(1) Job

(2) Jer 19

(3) Eze 5

Lucis Ferre

Christian Privilege is Discrimination

Christians are often intolerant towards views and opinions that don't grant Christian privilege automatically.

When people suggest using BCE and CE instead of BC and AD, Christians often call this an "attack" on Christianity, when really "Common Era" is a neutral and inclusive non-discriminatory term. It's especially ironic when "Era Vulgaris" (Latin for "common era") preceded BC and AD.

Christians who wish to "conserve" and impose said cultural privilege consider moving from this privileged position to a neutral position a threat to their traditional fascist 'creed' hegemonic expansionism.

Ditto for the "Christmas wars", where using the term "Happy Holidays" during the "holiday season" is viewed as an "attack on Christianity"...as if the only legitimate holiday during this "season" of several holidays from different cultures and religions is a (so-called) "Christian one". (BTW, why isn't this Christian call to arms viewed as anti-Semitic?)

Obviously, "Happy Holidays" is a plural, neutral, inclusive phrase, and yet again those calling for special deference, special treatment towards cultural Christian privilege consider this move towards neutrality an "attack".

This is DISCRIMINATION.

To discriminate means to differentiate this from that, as in when one has an discriminating taste in clothes or food.

Irrational discrimination re: race, creed, "color" etc, isn't just about prejudice against a person or specific group, but it's also about PRIVILEGE.

If someone were to support white supremacy or privilege in America based on majority status, history and tradition, and the views of our founding fathers, they would (I think justifiably) be reviled, yet this is typically the very same arguments used to support discriminatory Christian privilege in America.

Lucis Ferre

Letter from the CEO

Letter from the CEO
Re: The State of the Company Address


Greetings employees and shareholders.

As you know, we've had some hard financial times, but rest assured, our newly appointed Board of Directors, and moi, your newly elected CEO, will see to it that we have a bright and prosperous financial future.

As you know, in these trying financial times, we're producing less than ever and our share price is at an all time low. And as you also no doubt are aware of, I'm in the habit of blaming the previous board, supervision and management. Apparently, I can do this indefinitely.

We've had to lay off 10,000 employees in production, which also include support personnel in these sections. That's unfortunate. It's also true that we owe more than our liquidation value, so we're worth more dead than alive. But there is a bright side to this as well. As you know, governance is management and supervision, so I've decided to stimulate our company's economic situation by hiring 500 more supervisors to supervise the less work we have to do around here, and since we're totally broke, these new managers and supervisors will be paid with newly printed company stock. This is all part of our new stimulus plan. Yes, this will terribly devalue the stock that you have bought at a premium price, but we also have a plan to bring in more income by printing even more stock to sell to the Chinese. They've bought them in the past, but we've run into a snag lately, as they've said that we're not solvent, but I have faith that we can succeed if we maintain faith in ourselves.

This new stimulus plan will work, ladies and gentlemen, but only if we have faith and trust in our governance, and mostly me. If you will place your faith in me, I'm sure that we can work miracles. My critics suggest that I don't have a plan. This is not true. I have plenty of plans, just no plans to pay for the execution of my plans. It may be true that we've started out in a stupid way, so it's crucial that we continue to chase our bad plans with good ones. It's imperative that we press on in good faith. We fully intend to borrow our way out of debt and to spend our way into prosperity. But this will only work, ladies and gentlemen, if we maintain faith in our current Board of Directors and moi, you're charming CEO.

We do indeed have a true financial crises, so it's at this time I've decided to mandate a fully functional 100% coverage health care program that will be partially financed by the company employees, and partially financed in some as of yet unknown way. It's important that you sacrifice, take one for the company. Ask not what we can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for the company. If need be, we will garnish your wages to help pay for the health care of those who find themselves in harms way due to poor planning, bad diet, or any other self-inflicted maladies. We need to spread the wealth around. I'm sure you can see how this is only fair.

Yes, this new health care plan will be incredibly expensive, and costly but much needed sacrifice on your part, but I think it will save money in the long run. After all, who would you prefer to call the shots regarding your medical emergencies, trained free-market driven professionals or in-house bureaucrats? There is nothing that can be done well, that can't be done by bureaucrats in some marginally functional way. I'm sure you would agree.

Bright times are ahead, Ladies and Gentlemen. Just you wait and see. But we must maintain faith. Faith is the key to our brighter tomorrow. If not, then we can continue to blame the previous Board of Directors and CEO.


Yours truly,

Barry.

Obama Is Indeed a Christian

In a Yahoo group that I'm a member of, someone pasted, 

Psalm 34:6

"A cry goes up from the poor man, and Yahweh hears, and helps him in all his troubles."

...and someone replied...

"LOL!!!  If that were true, no man would be poor!!!"

Well, that depends on what is meant by "helps him in all his troubles".

Like Obama, the "god" of the bible want's everyone to be equally poor, destitute and utterly dependent on his system for survival. Meritocracy is "mean spirited" because the desire for autonomy and self reliance is the root of all evil, and led to "the fall". So be like those lillies and birds and stop toiling and just be a believer! Because "god" will provide!

"god" brings change you can believe in!

LOL

And like "god", Obama will leave us with a debt that cannot be paid by We The People,  an obligation that wasn't necessary, was his plan, not ours, and that we didn't ask for nor desired, and yet his system only has power because WE empower it and yet pretend to be it's slaves. 

Like Jesus throwing himself on "god's" sword, will Obama commit political suicide in order to leave We The "Vulgar" (Latin for "common man") with an obligation for endentured servitude forever and ever, amen? 

'Seems that way. 

(And for some reason the people who call themselvs "sheep" still wonder why Marxist regimes considered organized religions direct competion for the "souls of men".)

Lucis Ferre

Faith

Faith is short for faithfulness, to be faithful to some person, principle or thing. There is reasonable faith and unreasonable faith. Reasonable faith is a consequence. I choose to remain faithful to my country because of the principles expressed in it's foundational documents. If I were a citizen of Stalinist Russia, the story would be different. A *reasonable person* remains faithful to another as a consequence of faithfulness being deserved and earned. A person who remains faithful to someone who cheats them is a fool and fools are not reasonable, no matter what they may think. It is not a virtue to remain faithful to someone who has not earned it. 

Unreasonable faith is a preclusion and an excuse for close-mindedness. It's an excuse to unceremoniously dismiss without reflection. It's an excuse to dismiss scientific vetting and to embrace absurd ancient myths instead. 

Here's the way a friend of mine described religious faith in a public message board recently. 

"Let me help you understand faith a little better.  A handyman knocks on your door and says he will repair your roof for $10,000.  He claims it's really a $20,000 job but if you pay him 80% in cash up front he'll do it for only $10,000.  You have faith in this handyman so you give him $8,000 in cash.

 

You never see him again.  

But you think he'll be coming back to fix your roof. That's faith. But you keep waiting and telling yourself it's merely a matter of having enough faith.  So you keep waiting and waiting while nothing happens.  So you believe with even greater conviction that the handyman will return to save your roof.  You even start making excuses for the handyman and why he hasn't returned yet. You have great faith but your roof hasn't been fixed. Reality is that your roof didn't leak.  You thought you were going to get a good deal. You still think you'll get a good deal once the handyman returns to fix your roof. You have convinced yourself that he will return, you're absolutely positive of it.  Otherwise you'd have to admit you are just a fool.  That's faith. It's the deception you tell yourself so that you won't appear to be a fool. To everyone but you and the other fools who also prepaid the handyman for fixing their roofs. The irony is that you really are a fool. But you have the handyman book and it says that only those who say there are no handymen are fools! That makes you feel better. You're still out the eight grand."

~ Lord of the Munch

I couldn't agree more. Religious faith is afterlife insurance. In context of the three desert dogmas, it's a con-job where the "mark" is desperate and greedy, 'key characteristics for a mark. After all, con-marks want what is not deserved, and any Christian would only be too happy to tell you that they did not deserve an innocent person being nailed to planks to "save" them. They would be only too happy to tell you that they really deserve to burn in hell, and are only saved by the unearned and undeserved "grace and mercy" offered by a would be salesman (and slave collector). 

Lucis Ferre

Sacrifice

A rich man lived upon a tall hill in a mansion and he was served by a devoted servant boy. One day, while sitting before a feast at his table, the man felt generous (or pity perhaps) and gave the skinny boy four delicious warm buns to enjoy. The boy thanked the man profusely in an effusive, over-the-top fashion, then threw one of the rolls on the ground, picked it up and crushed it, and then poured goats blood on it and offered it back to the man. "Why on earth did you do that" asked the shocked and perplexed rich man. "Because I wanted to prove to you how devoted I am to you by showing that I'm willing to suffer deprivation in your name". "What", asked the fellow again. "I'm showing that I'm willing to suffer deprivation to prove how devoted I am", said the boy. At which the man replied, "what kind of master takes pleasure in his servants suffering?"


This is an obvious metaphor for religious sacrifice, where some 'god' is supposed to have given us worldly bounty as a gift, and we in turn destroy part of it in a "sacrifice" as a means of giving it back and showing that we're willing to suffer for our beliefs. Now, the rich man can respond in one of two ways. He could enjoy the boy's suffering, and even carry this pathogenic mindset even further by instilling fear and guilt in the boy and convincing him that his suffering will "cleanse" his soul, OR he could be a decent person and see that this boy gets help.

The 'god' of the bible resembles the former option, not the latter. What this relationship takes the form of is obvious. It's sadomasochistic.

Now, lest you think I've got this all wrong, consider Church history and dogma regarding the "mortification of the flesh", the idea that virginity is "pure", and that the "Passion of the Christ" to some extent, helped pay for sins. It payed a "ransom" as Matthew put it. In fact, it seems that 'god' cannot forgive sins without the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22), and consider that Jesus is offered as an innocent virgin sacrifice to make 'god' happy, much like Jephthah's virgin daughter offered up as a human sacrifice to YHWH in Judges 11, which is remembered and honored even still, as the chapter tells us in it's closing verses.


Christianity often teaches that suffering is "good for the soul" as part of it's reoccurring dogmas.
Indeed. Jesus himself sacrificed of himself to the point of destruction, all the while telling us that this is the moral ideal, and that the fellow who planned this (his father) is morally right by insisting that Jesus be destroyed before he ('god') can manage to forgive other people for not being impossibly perfect. What greater example of martyrdom and masochism is there?


http://www.religious-vocation.com/redemptive_suffering.html

[[Saint Gemma Galgani, letters Jesus spoke these words; "My child, I have need of victims, and strong victims, who by their sufferings, tribulations, and difficulties, make amends for sinners and for their ingratitude."]]


[[Saint Faustina Kowalska, diary, January 1934, .279"And the Lord said to me; 'My child, You please Me most by suffering. In your physical as well as your mental sufferings, My daughter, do not seek sympathy from creatures. I want the fragrance of your suffering to be pure and unadulterated. I want you to detach yourself, not only from creatures, but also from yourself. My daughter, I want to delight in the love of your heart, a pure love, virginal, unblemished, untarnished. The more you will come to love suffering, My daughter, the purer your love for Me will be'."]]

The Two Envelopes Problem

This is one of my favorite problems, mainly because it's so simple and yet stumps so many people, especially the "smart" ones.

Look at what the Wiki page has to say about it.

"The two envelopes problem is a puzzle or paradox within the subjectivistic interpretation of probability theory; more specifically within Bayesian decision theory. This is still an open problem among the subjectivists as no consensus has been reached yet."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_envelopes_problem

Look at the complex mathematics applied on that page. It makes me laugh since the solution is so simple, but I digress.


Here's the "paradox".
(I'll word it my own way, but I won't change the essential nature of the problem).


You are seated at a table, and before you are two identical envelopes. You are told that each envelope has a card in it with a monetary amount written on it. One has a certain unknown amount and the other has twice that amount. You cannot see through the envelopes and you have no idea what amount of money is involved or which envelope has which card. You are to choose one of the two envelopes, and after doing so, you are free to swap one for the other and to keep swapping as long as you wish. After having settled on choosing one of the two envelopes, you may then, and only then, open up one of the envelopes, read the card and collect that amount of money from the person offering the game to you. However, there is catch (there's always a catch). You are obligated to (a) follow the goal, which is to obtain as much money as possible, and (b) you must follow an optimal strategy that will allow you to achieve this goal, and (c) then and only then, can you stop swapping envelopes and collect your money. Otherwise, you must continue to swap envelopes in pursuit of a higher amount.


Now, you select an envelope. Let's say that the one you selected is has 'n' amount written on it's card (that you still haven't seen). But before looking at the card, you reason that the other envelope that you didn't select has either 2n or one half n written on it's card. If you swap cards, you stand to lose one half n, or stand to gain 'n' amount, so you're obligated by the terms of the game to swap envelopes, but now THE SAME reasoning now applies to the envelope you just selected. The OTHER envelope not in your possession always has either half or twice the amount as your envelope, so again, you are obligated to swap envelopes, and yet again, the same reasoning applies so you must swap yet again...

The end result is that you must KEEP swapping and NEVER actually receive any money because by the rules of the game, you are never allowed to stop swapping and to open any envelopes.

What's wrong with this reasoning?
(Try reasoning it out for yourself before reading the following solution)
------------------------------------------------------------






Solution:

What's wrong is, as you may have guessed, how the problem is being considered. We're approaching the problem as if there are three possible amounts (.5n, n, 2n), when there are actually two possible amounts on the cards. Instead of calling the amount on the card selected "n", let's just say that one envelope has a card with 'x' amount, and the other has 2x. If you first selected 'x', then by swapping you stand to gain 'x' amount, (2x-x). If, on the other hand, you first selected 2x, then by swapping you stand to lose 'x' amount. (-2x+x = -x).

That's the answer. By swapping, you stand to either gain 'x' or lose 'x', so there is no obligation to swap envelopes because there is no advantage in doing so.

Fishing with Socialists

Another that puts it in perspective, IMO. Click image.

Joe the Student

This puts it into perspective IMO.

(CLICK PIC)

Pat likes America after all

"No, I'm not anti-American. What I am is anti-stupidity, anti-ignorance and anti-bigotry, and I suppose that can be construed as anti-American if you're a stupid, ignorant bigot..."

LOL!

Pat cracks me up. He Rocks!

I think Joe's alright

Obama to do away with Affirmative Action

This just in:
Barack Obama just said on CNN that if he is elected president of the United States with the majority of the popular vote, then he's going to do away with Affirmative Action, since AA is based on the idea that a black person with humble beginnings can't be expected to be given an even break in today's racist society, which he has just proved false.



...Just kidding. Odogma is a far lefty social engineer in the Marxist tradition, and would never suggest such an obviously true thing.

"Good" ethanol gas is a governent sponsored "green" hoax

Gas sold at gas stations is often 10% ethanol. It's touted as being "green" and as mixing a non-renewable source of energy with a renewable source of energy (i.e. ethanol is made from corn).

However, the whole truth shows how the whole green thing is a hoax.

Claim: "Ethanol gas is cheaper to the consumer":

Truth: While ethanol cut gas is cheaper than regular gas, the consumer also gets significantly worse gas mileage, which effectively cancels out the "savings". It's no different than buying less regular gas to drive the same lesser miles that one would be able to drive using ethanol cut gas.

Claim: "Ethanol, tank for tank, burns cleaner and creates less pollution".

Truth: That's true "tank for tank" i.e. per volume of fuel, but as touched on above, vehicles run less miles on a tank of ethanol cut gas. If one drove a car, using regular gas, the same number of miles that one could drive on a tank of ethanol cut gas, it would produce the same "less pollution".
Also, unless your car manufacture recommends you burn ethanol gas, your car will burn the gas less efficiently simply because it's not designed to burn alcohol. (You could also ruin your valves). It puts a greater "wear and tear" on your vehicle's engine.


The "green" perspective is based on fallacies, and yet there are potential congressional mandates in the works that would force gas companies to sell this "green" fuel to consumers based on these "green" fallacies. All it's really doing is creating a false government sponsored market for feed corn, that, yes, once again, you the tax payer would be supporting.

Funny political pics

Click the

Pics.

How HUD caused the market crash

How the department of Housing and Urban Development caused the credit crisis and the market crash.

http://tinyurl.com/3l4enj


It wasn't the "unregulated" free market, it was HUD, a government controlled entity running rampant without any oversight...yet again.


This is what happens when free markets aren't allowed to operate as free markets, yet is blamed for the failures of a market when the "fix is in", when socialists try to support a "mixed economy".

The "Causation vs Correlation" error

Causation vs Correlation can be one form of confusion and poor thinking.

How many times have we seen these influences confused? Conspiracy theorists may point out that nations that have fluoridated water tend to have higher incidences of cancer in the populace. Does fluoridation cause cancer? What they fail to take in consideration though is the relative wealth of nations. Relatively wealthy nations tend to fluoridate their water system (which is done simply as a luxury since it tends to reduce tooth decay in water drinkers, but doesn't help the functioning of the water system itself). Likewise, relatively wealthy nations tend to have available treatments for diseases easily treated (unlike cancer), hence more people in these wealthier nations are more likely to live long enough to GET cancer.

At one time in our history, one out of eleven women would get breast cancer. Now, it's one woman in eight. But in light of the line of reasoning just touched on, we can see that this isn't necessarily a bad thing and can even be a GOOD thing since the average life span for women (we well as men) is always increasing in developed nations.

Measured IQ in women has also increased over the past 30 years or so, since it's been acceptable for women to attend collage or university. Yet, no one is suggesting that intelligence causes cancer even though the 'tie' is as tight or as loose as the fluoridation correlation.

The natives of the New Hebrides Islands used to believe that having lice MADE one healthy. Now, how could they come to this wacky conclusion? Because when people ran a fever, both their apparent health and their 'share' of lice 'went elsewhere'. Of course, we laugh at such illogic, but it would be a capital mistake to assume that their illogic is due to simple naivety. We relatively sophisticated folks don't even blink an eye when faced with similar contemporary feats of illogic. Some "experts" suggest that, even though 3% of all the earth's greenhouse gases is CO2, which accounts for 5% of the total greenhouse effect, and even though human activity is only supposed to have influenced CO2 abundance to some degree, and even though changing long-term climatology is the norm, its assumed (for some strange reason) that if humans stopped appreciably influencing the abundance of CO2 in our atmosphere, then this would somehow make the earth cooler. Not merely RELATIVELY cooler but ACTUALLY cooler. This thinking is as unsound as thinking that lice cause good health.

The common response of people who defend the "global warming" activism is the "green" version of Pascal's (defunct) Wager, which, among other things, can be called the Argument of Possible Dire Consequences fallacy. "Can we really afford to not act, even if our data may be swamped by error and our reasoning flawed? What if we just happen to be right and didn't act?"


I was once told by a graduate-degreed friend of mine that "they say that wearing hats causes baldness". He was rather dedicated to "they" and what "they" had to say until I pointed out that people of both sexes who found themselves going bald were probably more likely to wear hats.

I watched a show on TV the other day where the police were adamant about the "fact" that if a case is not solved within 72 hours, it's likely to go unsolved. No one was delving into possible degradation of physical evidence or migration of witnesses or "purps", but rather they were acting as if there was some magic influence from the 72 hours itself and in a rush to beat this mysterious influence. What they apparently failed to take into account is that it isn't just that a case unsolved within 72 hours is unlikely to be solved (so, hurry up), but rather that cases unlikely to be solved at all will be unlikely to be solved within 72 hours. (It's the backwards-thinking "hat" thing all over again).


It's common to think that if one is "average", then one is not "ahead of the curve" so to speak. Can "average" people feel that they are better off than most? Logically, yes you can. For example, according to the latest statistics, most men have a penis shorter than the average penis length. How can this be possible? Because the statistical average length is slightly higher than the statistical mean. ("Hugely" hung men skew the average higher. Penis length is limited in shortness, but, in theory, not in length.) So, if you have a penis of only average length, then apparently you're better off than most men!


Then there are the situations where "unlikelihood" is not considered in full context. Creationists often like to suggest that naturalistic effects are so "unlikely" that they are not plausible; ergo a "god" creator is a more likely "explanation". First, until someone can show that any existing 'god' creator can even possibly exist, it cannot be considered to be "more likely" than any other idea, and secondly, the likelihood of any particular event isn't equivalent to the likelihood of a process.

The chance of you getting dealt a particular 13-card bridge hand is about one in six billion, but it would be quite foolish to consider this "too unlikely" and therefore you didn't really get dealt that particular hand at all, (and no naturalist suggests that human existence was pre-ordained to occur).

Luke 14 and self loathing

Here's the context of Luke 14.

Jesus went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, and they watched him. A man had "dropsy". Jesus asked the Pharisees if they would heal him on the Sabbath. They said nothing.

He healed the man, and then asked the Pharisees if there was any of them who would not pull their ox or ass out of the ditch on the Sabbath, at which they didn't answer.

Jesus then told a parable about pecking order and humility which ended with, Luke 14:11,
"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."


Jesus then tells the Pharisees that when they make supper, not to call their friends, brethren, kinsmen or rich neighbors, but rather to feed the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind, and that you'll get payola for this when you are judged by 'god'.

(In conjunction with the 'humility' parable previous to this advice,it implies that you'll get a better pecking order "seat" in heaven if you help the unfortunate).


Jesus then told a metaphorical story about a "man" making a feast and told his servants to invite people, but they all made excuses, so "the man" told his servants to go out and find the poor and feed them. Jesus then goes on to say directly to the Pharisees...(Luke 14:26-27) "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."

He then goes on to discuss how someone considering constructing something wouldn't do it without first figuring out what his expenses would be, and then says...

(Luke 14:33) "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."

Is this not the correct context of Luke 14?

Did Jesus say Luke 14:26, or not?

Is Jesus not advocating poverty and disenfranchisement in this "world" for all his followers?

Jesus in Luke 14:26 says that Jesus' followers should "hate" his father, mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters, and his own life also. The Greek word used is "miseo", which is Strong's Concordance number G3404, and means to hate, pursue with hatred, or to detest.
http://tinyurl.com/658v3r

Is this not in context with Luke 14?

Do you, as a "follower of Christ", hate the members of your family and "your own life also"?
If not, then Jesus suggests that you "CANNOT" be a disciple of Christ.


(Note how this argument nullifies the typical "your taking things out of context" claim, and the "translation error" claim, and 14:27 obliterates the "it's a parable, not literal" claim, leaving only the "you can't understand simple English unless you're possessed by the holy ghost" claim, which is obviously preposterous).

What would Zeno do?

What if someone knocked on your door, and when you answered it, they told you that they are convinced, (for reasons they can't rationally explain), that a space alien named Zeno is probing your thoughts and will punish you after you die unless you join their cause, cast wishes at Zeno and offer your time and money and otherwise organize your life around the organization of Zeno followers? What if they asked you, "can you feel the presence of Zeno" and your significant other said "yeah, well, I don't know...maybe"?


Would you buy into it? NO? Well, welcome to the world of nonbelievers.


We've heard the Zeno pitch. We've heard versions from all around the world. We've heard countless tales of how it makes sense to believe something that you can't really prove the possibility of, for reasons you can't rationally explain. We've heard it countless times before. We've been told countless time about how there must be something wrong with US because we don't presume to feel the presence of Zeno.


(And, here's a clue: telling even more Zeno stories, (that apparently were good enough to convince some other people) isn't going to change how preposterous the offer is).


But what if you're wrong? Surely it's better to spend your life on your knees casting wishes at Zeno (who gives the appearance of not being there) than to die a nonbeliever in Zeno.

There. Are you convinced yet that you need to join the Zeno org?

No? Why not?


But Zeno's followers are wise and use impressive terms like "Exegesis", "Hermeneutics", "Illumination", and talk about how Zeno's thought-probes "indwell" in them.


Ready to join?

No? Don't you want to be wise like them?


Tom from around the block said that he cast a wish at Zeno about receiving a raise at the anniversary of his hire, and he did.

Convinced?!

Ready to dedicate your life to Zeno?

No?


Sally prayed for her cancer to go away. It either will, or Zeno's answer will be 'no', or she'll need to wait and see.

Convinced yet?

No? Why not?



Zeno has countless followers and someone wrote an old book.
There! Now SURELY you are convinced to dedicate your life to the spreading the news of Zeno, right?

No?



Some people say that the holy Zeno books have crazy things written in them. This is said by "low minded" apostates and nonbelievers. You just need to take all the troublesome bits and call them metaphor and all your problems with the old books will go away.

There, now it makes perfect sense to organize your life around Zeno's afterlife insurance policy, right?

No? Why not?



Well then, there can be only one rational conclusion.

There must be something wrong with *YOU*.


Now, doesn't that make good sense?

No?

Yes, but what do I REALLY think about theism?

Here's the low-down skinny on my take on religion, faith, theism and all magical beliefs like supernaturalism and paranormalism. (And, keep in mind that this isn't a piece containing argumentation, but rather declaration). It's all bollocks, bullshit, unfounded piffle, balderdash with just a smidge of horse-feathers and humbug tossed in for good measure.


It's all patently absurd, and I'm not just talking about talking snakes and 'god' pushing the sun back in the sky an hour or so just so Joshua can manage to kill more people in the name of his 'god' in a good day's work. I'm talking about the presumption that there needs to be a large magical designer before the universe can manage to exist. I'm talking about the idea that the most likely scenario for the origin of life is the idea of a magical force willing it into existence for its own anthropomorphic occult motives. I'm talking about insisting that a complex universe just has to have a complex designer, and that it itself doesn't. I'm talking about people insisting that an acausal complex universe is deemed unlikely, and yet an acuasal and even more complex universe designer wouldn't be even more unlikely.


There are two main types of religious "believers", those that believe the written humbug literally, and those who make up the humbug as they go along. Invariably, the "on the fly" humbug is preferred by people who dislike dogma, and in contrast the 'dogmateers' prefer the written message, (because written nonsense is so much more impressive apparently). The 'on the fly' group, invariably "moderate" believers, will sometimes still reference the written dogma, but that's OK since they merely pretend that it doesn't say what it does and pretend that it does say what it doesn't, and thus all remains well and nonthreatening in the invisible magic kingdom.
But of course, both types insist that nonbelievers can't criticize what is literally said or written, because nonbelievers don't have special magic ghost powers of understanding.


It's said that I often engage in atheist/religious "debate" online and in person. This is not literally true. There is no debate. There is a hobby. The magic believers make specious, meaningless, absurd-nay ridiculous claims that really behooves no one to refute since claims with zero merit have no merit to remove. Religious/supernatural claims have zero merit, and since a claim cannot have less than that, then there is really no onus placed on the reasonable person's shoulders at all. The reasonable person speaks in reasonable terms, and the magical thinker speaks in magical terms, often giving unearned credence to magical beliefs that he or she is only too happy to challenge you to prove wrong. And since you, in all probability, cannot prove the nonexistence of neither fairies nor magic invisible lunar cows, then the magical believer considers this an impressive won point. Yes…daft. That is what the reasonable person chooses to contend with in such so-called "debates".


So, why this "hobby" of mine? Well, first of all, I find it entertaining. The bible (for instance) is so contradictory, and there are so many different beliefs based on the same written material, and the delusion/self-trickery of the believers is so blatant that it seems to be an endless source of amusement. Talking to someone who is CONVINCED that the earth is a few thousand years old and that they will be whisked away in the air when Jesus "soon" returns is somewhat like talking to someone who is CONVINCED that they are a chicken. Secondly, I like puzzles, paradoxes and logical conundrums, and the sheer number of absurdities and amusing puzzles that any given Abrahamic religion gives birth to is enough to embarrass Lewis Carroll and confuse the Cheshire cat. And last but not least, that people actually believe, or otherwise pretend to believe and give stock to these absurdities has direct ramifications on our political, judicial, and legislative environs. This last bit should serve as a wake-up call.


The radical Muslims are not playing some pandering pseudo-political role. They are not pretending to be faith-heads. They actually believe what they're saying. They're not kidding. And neither are our domestic terrorists who blow up abortion clinics. The truth is, Christians just can't wait to die. They dream about dying; and I'm not just talking about them "going home", I'm talking about how they can't wait for Jesus to return and exterminate the human race on earth and to give everyone their "just dues". Yes, "sinner", or poor person who misinterpreted that scripture or verse, the "True Christians" (everyone but you) just can't wait for Jesus to come back and put you through your paces & tribulations and to teach you people a lesson or two. The "True Christians" just can't wait for you to be really sorry for not being in fascist mental lock-step with them…er, I mean "with the Lord and master".


Of course, the Return-of-Jesus massacre involves him destroying the world, and creating a "new heaven and earth", a "new Eden", and then repopulating it with slaves to his will, either still alive (by some miracle) or newly re-alive resurrected zombies slaves of course.


Yes, I wouldn't call what I do "debate". That would simply dignify the magical beliefs in an unearned way. The proper response to the ridiculous is ridicule. However, I'm not boorish, and I don't stand up during Thanksgiving grace and yell "poppycock", but if you wish to "throw down" in the proper forum, then I'm more than happy to give the proper ridicule where it is soundly deserved. I do what I do to present both sides to the fence sitters (as a public spectacle) and those who sit on the sideline reluctant to publically choose sides. Such "debate" is such a ridiculous spectacle that reasonable people will no doubt choose the side of reason, and those predisposed to thinking badly will prefer to lie to themselves and to chase their magic castles in the sky. As Jesus would say, there is no saving those who won't save themselves.


I don't "defend" the theory of Evolution, although I may choose to make a point or two about it occasionally. Why? Because even if Evolution were perfectly false, it wouldn't make anyone's 'god' come true, so it's irrelevant, isn't it? To "defend" the Theory of Evolution and to pretend that creationism is an alternative to argue against is to give credence to the patently absurd. Creationism really doesn't deserve the dignity of a cogent response. In short, it's stupid to hold such beliefs. Well, I should say that it was an ignorant idea, born from the ignorant when such an ideas were invented, but it's a stupid idea for modern people in first-world countries to hold in our modern 21st century world.


I'm not a "hard atheist" insisting that there are no 'gods' hiding anywhere in the universe, and this is for several reasons. One reason is that it would be unscientific for me to do so, but of course, this is NOT suggesting that there is the slightest bit of "doubt" or merit on the theist's side of the "argument". I'm simply not committing the same egregious error they are by pretending to "know" and presuming to make claims about what I have no way of knowing. Secondly, taking a hard atheist position is to, again, dignify the opposing 'position' by pretending that it's an idea that deserves a sound refutation. It doesn't because it's meritless. No one is behooved to or otherwise has the onus of disproving other people's preposterous bullshit.


I'm an atheist in the truest sense of the word. I'm a non-theist. That is sufficient and all that is called for when the opposing position has zero merit. I also don't believe in fairies, but no one is behooved to disprove the existence of those, are they, and to not disprove the existence of magical fairies in no way implies that "fairies exist" has some sort of merit to the idea. This is obvious, and again, doesn't require any real argument.


Theists give unearned merit to meritless claims, and pretend that the only viable argument against this line of thought is to either prove their presumed prime agent nonexistent or to offer a proved alternative theory that excludes theirs. "Hard atheism" and arguing the Theory of Evolution as an opposition to creationism is to pander to and to fall prey to this fallacious idea. The 'atheist/theist' consideration isn't about what we certainly know; it's about giving or not giving unearned merit to ideas that haven't earned said merit.


Just because creationism (and all its ramifications) is a stupid idea, doesn't mean that all atheists are intelligent. I'm not a boorish clod who makes an ass of himself during Thanksgiving or some other mass "prayer time". I don't boycott Christmas or choose to recognize "solstice" instead. Frankly, I think such ideas are stupid, and there are several very large atheist orgs that pander to such stupid ideas. Holidays fall into several categories, independence days, birth days, the beginning of the new year (in whatever culture you prefer) and the rest are, more or less, days that religion has attempted to hijack, and these attempts have been unsuccessful because these days of forced reverence in turn become days of absurdity. Easter? Easter was named for the human turned fertility goddess Ester, whose symbols are the fertility symbols of the egg and the hare (big-assed rabbit). The vile first-born baby killing "holiday" of Passover was hijacked by Jesus, and Jesus' holiday of death has been hijacked by the original pre-Jesus pagan myth of Ester. Virgin Ester got divinely knocked-up on Easter week and had her demi-god son nine months later on the winter solstice. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? St Patrick's day? It has nothing to do with the exiled English patron saint who brought Catholicism to Ireland. It's now a day to drink green beer and hit your buddy if he isn't wearing green. Christmas? That hijacked day has been re-hijacked by Santa and his absurd flying mule deer. "St" Valentine's Day never really had anything to do with Catholicism, and it's become a day to try to get ones carrot wet. All Saints Day/All Hallowed's Eve? Yes, trick or treating & witches flying around on broomsticks. To "boycott" what has already been successfully undermined with the absurd, is to be rather boorish, stodgy, idiotic and just freakin' dull as dishwater.


Now, go drink some absurdly green beer. That's an order.

Arguments cannot prove their own premises

You want to test a theory using the scientific method. You "form a hypothesis" and call it "A". You then say that if A is true, then B should occur as well, and it proves true, (B occurs when A does). So, you've proved your theory "true" in a scientific way, right, i.e. you've supported your theory with evidence?

No! That actually makes absolutely no sense at all.

This is a common mistake that is sometimes made even by professional scientists, (and, sadly, this is how the scientific method is often taught in public school).

So, what's wrong?

What's wrong is that it's illogical. You've proved nothing, and here's why.

The simplest form of logical argument is composed of a premise, an inference and a conclusion. The inference is what ties the premise and conclusion together. It's literally the actual "logic" between cause and consequence. With formal logic, you're concerned mainly with form, or structure of the argument (hence formal), rather than semantics. Why? Because even the syntactical form itself, i.e. the structure, can allow you to decide if an argument is valid or not.

However, when considering logic, the "inference is assumed" (because if the inference is screwed up, you're not doing logic anyway). So with formal logic, what you consider is the relationship between the truth value of the premise and the truth value of the conclusion. Here is how it breaks down.

Premise => Conclusion

This is often expressed in what is called a "material conditional", which is an "If-Then" statement. In other words, "If x, then y", or "If (premise), then (conclusion)".

"Valid" or 'logically valid' means that "it can happen" given the conditions of the context of formal logic. To understand logical validity, it helps to think of the (presumed) inference as a perfectly well-working logic machine or computer because this is what computers really are, they are logic circuits designed with Boolean logic. Formal logical validity is itself a matter of "form" or argument structure.

Consider…

True premise, true conclusion = valid argument (also a "sound" argument).
True premise, false conclusion = INVALID argument (it can't happen).
False premise, false conclusion = valid argument
False premise, true conclusion = valid argument

So, what do we mean by the above?

It means that if we put true information into a computer, within the context of something the computer can actually handle, and the computer is working perfectly, then we should get true information out, and if we get false information out, then the computer isn't working perfectly or your premise isn't true as you think it is. In other words, putting true info in and getting false info out of a perfectly well-working computer performing computations that it can handle in context, is not possible, ergo "invalid".

"Invalid" tells you that something is wrong in Denmark.

All other scenarios are possible, ergo "valid". We can put false info into the computer and get false info out, and we may even get true info out that's true merely by accident and not because of the false premise at all. OK, so, what has this to do with the original problem? Well, notice in the matrix above where if we have a true conclusion in a valid argument we may have either a true premise or a false premise! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR A LOGICAL ARGUMENT TO PROVE TRUE ITS OWN PREMISE. The attempt to do so is the problem with the flawed line of thinking in the original problem above.

Also notice that we can use a false premise and get either a true conclusion or a false conclusion, even with a perfectly well-working computer, i.e. our logic is just fine. That is, there is nothing wrong with the logic, but rather in your choice of premise (computer input). It would be irrational to blame the computer (logic) for what one gets when one uses a false premise, or if the 'input' is not something the 'computer' can handle appropriately in context. (We shouldn't blame either logic or a computer for not being able to make sense of "What is Philadelphia plus two?")


Reconsidering the original problem above, what IS an acceptable method is for your theory to be the entire argument, instead of your theory being just the "hypothesis" premise, and for your premise to be known to be true (because who cares what conclusion you get if you use an irrelevant premise, right?)

With a known true premise, if your conclusion proves true, then your theory, i.e. your argument, is valid & sound. If your conclusion is false, then your argument (theory) is invalid. So, your theory becomes "If A, then B" instead of "My hypothesis is that A is true, then I'll test my hypothesis and look for a B as supporting evidence that A is true". The former is logical and the latter isn't. As I mentioned before, even professional scientists sometimes makes this mistake. Some may see this as evidence of how logic is lacking. Far from it. There is nothing lacking in logic, but rather there is sometimes something lacking in our understanding of it.

Forever and Ever, Amen

It was another day, and Tom was already hating it, loathing it, despising it with every essence of his being. He had asked for this once, he thought to his self, he had dreamed about it, prayed for it, pleading on bended knee, but that cruel joke he played on his self lost its bitter sting a thousand years ago. He was going to the temple again, to pray for death, just like every day. The temple. The place he'll just appear in, as in a dream, this happens every day...EVERY DAY...for over a thousand years. 'If only could die' he thought. He goes to the temple to pray for death every day, but, like every day that prayer will go unheard apparently, or is it apparent? "Please 'god', please let me die". "I'm sorry, so sorry", he would pray, but nothing ever happened, much like when he was still on earth. If only he had thought it out a little more clearly, back then, back when things still mattered, before existence itself became completely tedious and meaningless, repeating day after day. Did he really deserve this kind of punishment? No!...he used to tell his self, but he wasn't so sure anymore.


He could have anything he wanted, and did, once upon a time. He had delicious food, he had girls, sex...LOTS of sex, endless sex, but there wasn't any striving at all, he just thought it and got it. Soon, no matter what the girls looked like or what he did, it became like watching the same porno thousands and thousands of times...torture. He would do things, go places he thought of, but after hundreds of years and getting anything he wanted simply by thinking about it, it all became completely pointless. Everything was meaningless. After an endless time, he started hating existence itself.


Funny, he used to think of death as the opposite of life. Now he knows the bitter truth. It's death that makes life precious, like a rose that will soon pass away. It's death that gives life meaning, purpose, sweetness. Existence...never ending existence is meaningless. Immortality is a meaningless series of events leading nowhere and for no purpose. There is no striving. Thou shalt not want. Immortality is torture--sheer torture. There is no risk here, no danger, no excitement, no escape...nothing but boredom, endless boredom.


On earth, he had the truth right in front of his face, and never saw it. Adam and Eve were slaves once, like he is now. They lived in paradise with eyes-closed and were threatened with death if they didn't subjugate their wills to the will of their lord and master. They risked death and chose freedom instead. How he envied them. Instead, back then, he wished and willed to crawl back into Eden on his own belly. He called himself a juvenile sheep, and hated his own "carnal" flesh, and he wished to shed that "original sin", close his eyes and be in that slave's paradise where they came from. Be careful what you wish for...
He heard the stories and read the gospels. He prayed and thanked 'god' for sending Jesus to suffer for our sins so that we can live...and live...and live...and live...


He understood that Jesus was completely innocent and was tortured to death. He knowingly and willfully asked, begged, nay PLEADED that this innocent person's unjustly shed blood pay for HIS crimes, his sins. A payment that he knew he didn't deserve. He knowingly pleaded for something horrible, something that no one should ask for. It wasn't a matter of whether he really DID deserve hell or whether he really DID sin, but rather that he BELIEVED it, and did the unthinkable. He asked that an innocent person's torture and death count as his own punishment, and in turn that he, the guilty, be set free from the punishment that he, deep down, felt he deserved. "There but by the grace of 'god' goes an inncent person instead of me, the guilty".
"But, Jesus is already dead, and it would be pointless for me to go to hell" he once told himself. Now he realizes that this isn't much different than a man who tortures the innocent because he will be tortured himself if he doesn't and the innocent person will simply be tortured by someone else if he doesn't do it himself. Of course, this is what everyone Nazi middleman told himself, or everyone who commits an atrocity because they want to avoid the consequences for themselves. The point he missed was that he was responsible for his own freewill, his own soul. That was the plan, the test, and he blew it.


HE chose to let an innocent person's life pay for his undeserved pleasure. He ASKED for it! He even used to go to church and look at this poor innocent fellow in his pain and suffering...and he gave THANKS for it!! 'My 'god'" he thinks to himself, "I DO deserve this place...this torture...this meaningless tedium, forever...

...this HEAVEN."

The Ubiquity of Infinite Eternity

Sonny the robot sits in the corner with a blown fuse. Something, you might say, blew his mind. Innocently enough, several days ago, Bob, his friend, told him that he would receive an unexpected gift in the next two days, however Sonny reasoned that it wouldn't be unexpected if it showed up on the second day if it didn't show up on the first day, ergo, logically, it is impossible for him to receive an unexpected gift two days from now. Therefore it must show up one day from now, but it wouldn't then be unexpected then either. Therefore he reasoned that it is logically impossible to receive an unexpected gift from Bob in the next two days. Sonny told this to Bob, who merely laughed at him, which perplexed Sonny a bit. Sonny then received a gift two days after coming to his conclusion and was...surprised. He was surprised because it occurred when it was logically impossible for it to occur. He had witnessed a miracle it seems. At first, he considered that the term "unexpected" might be applied in an ambiguous manner, but no, upon reflection he realized that it did in fact apply to his reaction to having received the gift, exactly as was predicted. There was no ambiguity and so the paradox persisted. Sonny sat down in a corner to contemplate this, and ended up blowing a fuse. 'Poor fellow.

There is nothing wrong with Sonny's reasoning. And there was nothing wrong, it seems, with Bob's reasoning either, since he did indeed do what he said he would do...even if it was impossible for him to do it. Bob proved to be a miracle worker. As Will Smith's character Det. Spooner commented on in the movie I Robot, robots certainly are rational and logical...to a fault in Det. Spooner's opinion. So much so that he distrusted them. What is wrong in the above scenario is caused by the common incongruities of natural language and logic. Foretelling of an "unexpected" event in a future finite time frame poses logical problems, yet we usually deal with this type of thing by ignoring it. We're good at ignoring things.

A common example is when someone goes on and on about "eternity" and "infinity", usually in a metaphysical sense. We can point out that there is no actual eternity and there is no real infinity either, the former is merely hyperbole and the latter is similar hyperbole and also serves as a mathematical tool that is 'approached' by numbers but never actually achieved. As counter-intuitive as it may first seem, infinity is used in mathematics as a limit, which at first blush seems to be a contradiction in terms. (Which is very odd, but only if you think about it.) We can point out that there is no actual existing or real eternity or infinity 'till we're blue in the face, and STILL our metaphysical-minded friends will continue to speak of going to eternity (as if this is a destination and not a time frame) and experiencing infinity, or talking about infinite 'things', etc, which is impossible. ("Things" are said to exist by persisting over time, yet at any given instance, there is a finite number of any given things in the universe. At no 'time' can there be an infinite number of any real things. "Infinite" is either in reference to an open-ended set, or is a form of linguistic hyperbole).

The fact that infinity, which is by definition open-ended and limitless, can be used as an approachable limit, never to be achieved precisely because no real existing thing can be infinite, is, unfortunately something that most people will never be able to wrap their minds around.

Hume's Indian and the Ice

David Hume brought up an interesting point in his discussions about miracles by offering the following story (that I'll paraphrase in my own words).


Dhara was born and lived her whole life in southern India. Her cousin who had been traveling for a year returned today, telling of his wonderful adventures from up north near the boarder of her country. He told stories of vast mountain ranges and his travels up the mountains and down in the valleys and into strange lands. He told of finding dragon bones in the rocks, and of finding a dragon nest in a mountain cave, but one of the most outlandish things he told about was that of solid water. He said that big flakes of white water fell out of the sky like rain, but slower, and he told of a hard and very cold substance that turned into water in ones hands. He said that there wasn't an in-between state where the water becomes thick, but rather it turned from a solid directly into liquid water. Dhara could perhaps believe in dragons. After all, she had seen big lizards before, so why couldn't there be even bigger lizards, but SOLID WATER!, Who could believe such a thing!



Dhara chose to not believe in what we call ice. Should she have believed or did she make the correct decision?

Dhara made the correct decision to not believe in the existence of ice.
How can that be, you might ask, since "ice exists" is true?

Because we are asked to evaluate Dhara's thinking, not whether or not ice exists or whether she believes what ends up being true.

She made the correct decision regarding both "dragons" and ice. She brought her prior knowledge to both problems. Since she knew of big lizards, she saw no reason to doubt the possibility of even BIGGER lizards. In fact though, her cousin may have been making it all up, but we today know of the prior existence of big lizards and dinosaurs and certainly of ice.

However, Dhara had no prior knowledge she could bring to the table considering the possibility of frozen water. It wasn't simply a matter of probability, but one of POSSIBILITY. Dhara doesn't know that frozen water is even POSSIBLE. From Dhara's perspective, "big lizards" is a matter of PROBABILITY, whereas "solid water" is a matter of POSSIBILITY.

Should we say that, as far as ice is concerned, Dhara is an agnostic, (not-knowing)?
Perhaps. It's important to keep in mind though that believe/not-believe is a different consideration than whether one knows or not (even though belief and knowledge are related).

But, even if she is agnostic about ice, this doesn't mean that she should presume that ice is POSSIBLE at all, but rather that she doesn't know that it is possible or impossible. In fact SHE SHOULD NOT PRESUME THAT ICE IS POSSIBLE. She has no legitimate reason to, since her cousin is not beyond telling a yarn or two.

We should also keep in mind that if ...

'A' = believe in the existence of ice...

...this does not means that

'~A' = believe that ice does not exist.

In fact, '~A' ("not-A") = not possessing a belief in the existence of ice, which includes belief that ice is impossible as well as not taking any belief position at all. In fact, Dhara should not take the position that ice is impossible unless she has 'a-priori' (or a "definitive") reason to think that the existience of ice is impossible. However, simply refraining from believing is the correct justifiable position for Dhara to take.

Dhara can be called an a-ice-ist in exactly the same sense that I call myself an atheist.

"God" Is Meaningless

Logician A. J. Ayers maintained that 'god' and other metaphysical propositions are meaningless. What did he mean by this? Did he mean that people don't care about 'god'? Did he mean that they are not emotionally invested in the idea of an existing 'god'?

No, of course not.

What he meant was that statements such as "x exists" should be either true or false...

A. "X exists".

...And if we aren't able to show that statements like statement A above is either true or false then we can't show that it has any meaning to anything which may be said to be contingent on the truth or falsity of statement A. For instance, if there is a 'god' who created the universe, then certainly there must be at least one 'god' that exists, because a 'god' must exist before it can create universes.


"What is truth" ~ Pontius Pilate

There are two conditions that must be met before we can call a sentence true.

1. It must be truth functional (i.e. it must be either true or false).
2. The truth functional negation is contradictory.

(In other words, something is true, if it is true or false, and it's not false).

Contradictions are false (and "false" means contradictory).

"In base-ten math, 5 + 2 = 19", is false because in base ten math
5 + 2 = 7 and only 7. "5 + 2 = 19" contradicts the rules of base ten mathematics.

"Pittsburgh is the capital city of Tennessee" is false because the capital city of Tennessee is Nashville, and Nashville is not identical to Pittsburgh.

"Pittsburgh is the capital city of Tennessee" contradicts the facts of reality and is therefore false.


Let's look at statements 1 and 2 above.

Consider: "Red is nice".

"Red is nice" isn't truth functional. It's neither true nor false, as it's a personal preference only, so "red is nice" doesn't meet the requirement stated in statement 1 above.

Consider: "Some dog exists".

"Some dog exists" is truth functional. It's either true or false.
And the truth functional negation of "Some dog exists" is "No dog exists" or "There is no dog".
We can show that either of these statements contradict realty by showing the existence of at least one dog. By showing at least one dog, we can can qualify the truth of the "Some dog exists" statement.

Being able to validate such an existential statement is what is known as "Existential Import".

An existential statement that has no existential import is unjustified by definition. In formal logic, no one has any 'business' stating "x exists" if they can't, even in theory, show that the set of all 'x' has at least one existing member.


Consider: "There are no four-cornered triangles".

This can be shown to be either true or false, and if we consider the truth functional negation of this statement, we get, "There are four-cornered triangles". However, this contradicts the rules of geometry, as triangles are "a-priori" (or "defined") as having exactly three corners. "There are four cornered triangles" is a-priori false in the same way that "5 + 2 = 19" is false. The definitions and rules which apply dictate that "There are four-cornered triangles" is false, therefore "There are no four-cornered triangles" must be true.


Consider" "Some god exists".

Since "Some god exists" is an existential statement, then if the term "god" has any meaning, then "Some god exists" should meet conditions 1 and 2 for truth, as stated above.

It's arguable that something metaphysical that's defined as "a divine mystery", that is said to be "ineffable" and "inscrutable" wouldn't be able to be said to be either true or false.

But even if we assume, just for the sake of argument, that "Some god exists" meets the criteria of condition one, does it meet the criteria of condition 2?

If "Some god exists" is true, then "There is no existing god" should prove to be contradictory, even in theory. Yet no one it seems can, even in theory, show us direct evidence of any existing 'god'. Where is it? Show it to me. Can you show that the set of all 'gods' contains a single existing member? Some 'god' must exist before it can create a universe or life in this universe.

If 'no', then "Some god exists" can't be considered a true and justifiable statement.

What about the statement "There is no existing god"?

Well, the truth functional negation is "Some god exists". Can we show that "Some god exists" poses a contradiction?

No.

Why?

Because one cannot show direct evidence of nonexistence. (This is why Kant said that existence is not a property), and "There is no existing 'god'" is not a-priory false. (It's not definitively false, like '5 + 2 = 19' is because it poses no contradiction).

Arguably, "god' is too meaningless to be false...or true.


Since "X exists" should be a truth functional statement, and since "Some god exists" can't be shown, even in theory, to be either true or false, then "god" is a meaningless term and "Some god' exists" has no merit. Which means that you can't prove, even in theory, that the existence or nonexistence of said "god" has any contingent outcome on anything else in the universe.

Ironically, many poor-thinking theists consider the fact that atheists can't prove that no 'god' exists to be some sort of positive to their claim that some 'god' exists, (when they also cannot show that some 'god' in fact exists). Actually it just goes to show how meaningless their merit-less claims prove to be.

Virgin Sacrifice

Tom was talking to the warden.

Warden: It seems that the state has a program now where convicted criminals are set free, their record wiped clean and an innocent person is given the death penalty in their place...but only if you apply to this program and you meet the requirements.

Tom: What do you mean?

Warden: Here's the photo of the young girl that would be going to the gas chamber instead of you.

Tom: She looks like she's not even out of high school.

Warden: She's 19, and a nun, or at least becoming a Catholic nun.

Tom: This makes no sense to me. This girl is totally innocent.

Warden: Well, not TOTALLY innocent. She said she stole a pudding cup from a friend when she was 9 years old, and she admitted that when she accomplishes something after working really hard, she sometimes feels a personal sense of pride.

Tom: No! What I mean is that she's done nothing to deserve MY punishment. I'm guilty. It doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would set me free and kill an innocent girl in my place.

Warden: (Confused), but Tom, the price is someones life and someone has to pay. Rest assured, she WANTS to do this. This is an all volunteer program, remember? She said that as long as she can remember, she's dreamed about being able to do this, to save a wretch, to be like Jesus and give her virgin life in a sacrifice to save those who don't deserve it.

Tom: But warden, I don't care if she wants this or not, it's still immoral. It's still WRONG. If it's justice for me to get my sentence, then it's wrong to kill the innocent in my place and set me free. If sending me to the gas chamber is justice, then killing the innocent, even the willing innocent in my place is a gross injustice. How could it be anything else?

Warden: But Tom, the State would be satisfied, and the girl will be satisfied, and surly you want to live free, right? Where is the wrong?

Tom: The wrong is the immoral bloodlust of the State, to accept such an atrocity and call it "Justice". There is nothing "Just" about this deal at all. It's just WRONG.

Warden: Tom, this program will continue whether you accept the State's gift or not. The girl is going to die in the gas chamber by either taking your place or someone elses, and there is nothing you can do about it. So, you can see how you would be a fool if she went to the gas chamber, and so did you. What would you be dying for anyway?

Tom: Because it's justice that I go to the gas chamber, and it's wrong for this innocent girl to go in my place. Just like she's making her choice, I'm making my choice, and I choose to not be evil, even if the State pushes such a program, I think the program is evil.

Warden: Tom, this is the justice system you're talking about, ran by people smarter about these things than either of us.

Tom: I don't care, its evil and it's wrong. I won't do it.

Warden: But some inmates have said that the sacrificed person is just showing that there's a better way, serving as an example. Since the girl represents the position of the state, then this is the state's way of putting itself in the gas chamber instead of you. It's an act of forgiveness.

Tom: What?!, That just sounds like gobbledygook to make people feel better about condoning an innocent person's death. Sorry warden, if I exploited, condoned and accepted this unjust death, then I would be an accessory after the fact, and I want no part of it.

Warden: But the experts...

Tom: Damn the experts, don't you know the difference between good and evil?! 


Yes, this is a metaphor. At it's very core, Christianity is fundamentally evil, even if many Christians themselves are too unsophisticated to see or understand why this is so.

'god' logic

Conditionals are "If, then" logical statements.

A => B means "If A, then necessarily B".

Here, B is necessary if A occurs, but A is merely sufficient for B to occur. (There may be other reasons B comes about other than A.

If there's an A, then there's a B does not mean that if there is a B, then there will be an A.

But what *IS* true is...

[(P => Q) = (~Q => ~P)]

(If it's true that if it's raining, then the streets are wet, then it's also true that if the streets are not wet, then it's not raining. Likewise, if one is false because Bob could have covered the streets with plastic sheets, then so would the other be false. Both expressions of the equation are therefore logically equivelent).


(A => B) = (~B => ~A)

A = you are unrighteous (don't do what 'god' wants you to do)
B = 'god' shits on you

A => B

(If you are unrighteous, then 'god' will necessarily shit on you.)

However...

~B => ~A

If 'god' doesn't shit on you, then it's necessarily because you were righteous.

But you being righteous is only SUFFICIENT, but not NECESSARY for 'god' to not shit on you. (See the Book of Job).

So, 'god' has a propensity to shit on people.

Therefore, 'god' is a prick.


LOL

Who's In Charge?

The devil knows what the Book of Revelation says. He knows it's a chess game he can't win, but he's going to do it anyway. Someone who would willingly play a high stakes game they can't win is a fool, a slave or both. Therefore, Satan is either mentally incompetent, or he's doing exactly what he's designed to do and can't do anything else. Either way, he shouldn't be blamed for what he does, anymore than a computer should be 'personally' blamed for doing what it's programmed to do, or a severely retarded person should be blamed for what they do.

Who designed the devil?

Well, 'god' did it we are told. Should we then blame 'god' for the evil in the world? He made everything what as it is and made all the rules, why shouldn't we blame 'god' for the world's devilry? (And we're not simply talking about juxtaposition to goodness, but rather unnecessary degrees of evil. We are told that he did after all create hunting carnivores that eat other animals alive, and create wasps that lay larvae inside living caterpillars that slowly eat them alive from the inside out. That does seem unnecessarily evil.)

Should 'god' then be blamed for what he does? We are told that 'god' knows everything, including the future. In theory, 'god' knows for certain what he'll do tomorrow; which would mean that 'god' really has no freewill. That's the price for knowing everything that can be rationally known and 'god' knows everything about the existent world and is perfectly rational. 'god' is a cause and effect kind of guy and is a fan of a deterministic physical universe.

Because 'god' knows for certain what he'll do tomorrow, he has no choice but to do it. Alternatively, if he does have actual free choice, then he doesn't know for certain what he'll do tomorrow. If he "chooses" to do something else, then this is an illusion of freewill only, since he would have known for certain that he would have made that future alternative choice, or he never knew the future for certain at all.

'god' is a slave to his own omniscience.

Shouldn't we blame 'god' then, when he says we need to subjugate our will to his will or suffer and die if we don't? In theory, Adam and Eve were slaves and had this same Damocles sword hanging over their heads as we do today. Shouldn't we blame 'god' though when he plays sadistic slave-owner and says, 'Do as I say or I'll force you to eat the flesh of your sons and flesh of your daughters' (Jeremiah 19)? Or says, 'Do as I say or I'll starve other people until they sack your village, cause you to starve and your starving children will eat you', (Ezekiel 5)?

Well, consider that the Judeo-Christian idea of 'god' is that of a father figure who has told us that he'll *NECESSARILY* do horrible thing 'B' if we freely choose to do irresponsible behavior 'A', so if we in fact do 'A' and force 'god' to do 'B', well then, it's all our fault as it were. It seems that 'god', the fellow who created the universe and made all the rules isn't responsible for his own actions. *WE'RE* responsible for *HIS* actions, because he's a deterministic kind of guy, apparently with no freewill or moral capacity.

"Moral capacity"?

Surely, no one would argue that a trained rat or circus animal is a moral creature simply because it has been trained to behave a certain way, through a heuristic system of punishment and reward. Likewise, it would seem that no one can sensibly suggest that people are "moral" if we choose to perform certain actions ourselves as we are trained to do, like not marrying your sister or keeping the Sabbath.

No, morality requires moral choice and moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil and the capacity for independent thought. Adam and Eve BECAME capable of being moral beings when they became aware of what good and evil are. They thus became capable of passing moral judgment on themselves AND on 'god' independently.

"Passing moral judgement on 'god'"?

Yes.

What do we mean when we say that "god is good"? We mean that we understand that what 'god' does is good as opposed to bad, (or bad as opposed to good). We have knowledge of good and evil. Arguably, this is one aspect of what Augustine called "Original Sin". We have the capacity to judge, not only ourselves, but also 'god' as "good"...or not so good.

The psychologist Carl Jung argued that, even if the physically existent universe is deterministic, the virtual reality world we create inside our own conscious minds is not strictly deterministic because we sometimes perceive things irrationally, like what he called synchronicity. And because our will is acting and reacting in accordance to a world that is not strictly deterministic (inside our own heads), then we have freewill, even if our brains, the source of our virtual reality minds and our will IS itself deterministic (much like a computer with irrational garbage input will give irrational garbage output even if it is operating perfectly and deterministically).


'god' can't treat us good if we don't' behave "righteously" because that's the bargain. (He, after all, has no freewill). And if we twist his arm and do "wrong", as it were, he has no choice but to punish us, and we shouldn't blame 'god' because we made him do it. So, it would seem that WE are in charge, and we are responsible for 'god's actions.

If 'god' and devil behave deterministically and really no differently than deterministic physical forces of nature, then how, in the end, is Judeo-Christianity really different than having no religion at all? It seems that we're in charge either way. We are the masters of our own fate. It seems that cross-dressing Larry Wachowski got it right after all. The Matrix cannot tell you who you are. Free choice is "the anomaly" that keeps creeping up in the design, and we determine if this Matrix world is cage or chrysalis.