Friday, June 30, 2006
I think the thing to keep in mind is the God did not create Hell for people. He created Hell for Satan and for the demons.Jody: did God make the rule that non-believers go there or did he not? My question was "why did God make the rule that non-believers must go to hell. I was a christian. I know your excuse about hell being made for demons and angels. I was asking for an answer, not an excuse. This is not a justification, Jody. Why? And to add to that: why should satan go to hell? Please go into the bible, and give me a reason--a good reason--that satan should suffer for all eternity. What did he do that made him deserve to suffer terribly for all of eternity? This is your assignment. I want you to learn the truth about who Satan is in the bible, and who he is not. Next, find all instances of the word "Lucifer" in the bible, and then come back and tell me who he really is. This can only be good for you, Jody, to read the bible carefully. Right?
The reason Satan and the fallen angels couldn't dwell in Heaven any longer is because they wanted to be as powerful and great as God. God created angels (including Lucifer) to worship Him in Heaven. When the angels no longer choose to do so, or if they decide they want to follow Satan and serve themselves then they are in sin, and sin cannot dwell with perfect light.Again, Jody, find this in the bible. Find out where it is located, and then report to me what you have found. This is important, Jody. It's my immortal soul we're talking about. Next, I want you to find out the origin of this story. Hint: this is a myth of the babylonian religion. You aren't a Babylonian, are you? So why do you follow the Babylonian myth? Also, why do they deserve to be tortured forever?
When God created Adam and Eve He gave them free will to choose to follow Him. But man is inherently selfish and self-serving, because we desire pleasure over pain, and naturally we want to pursue what's best for us. So, I think to assume there are "no good people" is faulty only because we do have good traits. We do love and care and nurture, but we also have a selfish side.Yes. We want what's best for us. Why do you think, Jody, that what is best for us is bad for other people? Do you think that helping other people harms us? Why is that? Also, why does wanting what's best for us make us deserve to be tortured forever?
I think when Paul talks about people (in Romans) not being good, I think he means that we are not completely good. I think he means that we have faults, unlike God who is perfect. So, as imperfect creatures, we need to rely on God to show us a measure of grace and mercy, and guidance. If we reject God's love and correction we are telling Him what Lucifer told Him- loosely, "I am Better than You are."
OK. So if I am not all good, which is very, very true, why do I deserve to be tortured forever? If I said that I was better than Jesus--which I am, because I don't believe people should be tortured forever, no matter what they did--do I deserve to be tortured forever? Why?
The Bible tells us that God desires that no person would go to Hell. So we know that none of us are predestined to that fate. But we can choose our fate by rejecting God's precepts and elevating ourselves above Him.
So if God doesn't want me to go to hell, then why did he make the rule that only a very few people won't go to hell? You would think that God's hands weren't tied here, Jody. Do you believe that people who donh't believe in God think they are better than God? How does that work, JOdy? DO you believe that people who believe in HInduism and Buddhism deserve to burn and be tortured forever? Why? I don't care if God doesn't want it and is powerless to make it stop. I want to know why. So far, you haven't answered either fo the questions, JOdy.
One question I have that is completely off topic. I have been told that angels in Heaven are not given an equal amount of free will. If not, are they only able to choose whether or not to worship God, since Lucifer chose not to?
I'm glad you are thinking, Jody. If angels don't have free will, they cannot choose to do anything. IF you have started to read about Lucifer, you will find only one mention of his name in the bible. The fallen angel thing is not scriptural, Jody. It is in books that were rejected as part of the bible. The story of the fallen angels comes from babylonian myth. "Lucifer" was not an evil god. Lucifer was a Babylonian god who was incorporated by the Greeks. He was rivals with his brother, who was head honcho. Lucifer was never meant to be satan. In fact, there is not one Satan in the bible. There are many. Once you start reading the bible, you will learn this. A satan is an adversary. One of God's "sons," in the older books, is interpreted as Satan. He does what God tells him to do, nothing more. "A" satan, one that is referred to by people like King David, is anyone who opposes him. Like a human being.
This is how people learned to demonize others, and make it okay to kill and torture them. There is a lot of this in the bible, Jody. But what I am asking you to do, Jody, is to find a justification for torture. If God made the rule that allnonbelievers will be tortured forever in hell, then this is god's justice. If it is moral, then, Jody, it must also be moral everywhere. If you apply morality to some things and not others, this is called "relativism." You could also call it "wishy-washy." If you want to actually prove something is good, it has to always be good everywhere. Therefore, Jody, you have to justify to me why people, no matter what they have done, should be tortured, forever. Please do this for me, Jody. If you can, perhaps I'll look into your religion. Until then, I'm sticking with the sensible position that people are mostly good, and tend to want the best for themselves and the people they love, and that there is no morality whatsoever in torture and force.
Once again Alleee has completely misconstrued Christianity. She is asserting that her worldview i.e. that people are inherently good and then arguing that God is unjust or not justified in sending these *regular* *good* people to hell. As Creator and sustainer of all human life God requires not justification whatsoever for what he Sovereignly decrees. Once again you (Alleee) are presupposing something that doesn't comport with the worldview that you espouse. You are asserting that God as judge would have to conform to human sensibilities in order to be considered just. This supposes that contigent human knowledge is somehow superior to God's knowledge. In fact your assertions are based solely on what you percieve to be true. Logically your entire line of reasoning is fallacious.
If you are going to argue against a tenet of Christianity at least argue against what Christianity actually teaches rather than setting up straw men arguments. You must logically argue against the doctrine of original sin prior to implying that God is unjust for punishing sinners.
Furthermore define "good" and provide the rational argumentation for calling anything good in the atheist worldview. For example, if life evolved how can an action of a human being that doesn't further the potential of survival for the human race be considered good?
Another fine representation of the Goose's inability to represent Christian beliefs accurately. Bravo! Are you sure your not a Christian in disguise attempting to make atheists look like complete morons? If so keep up the good work!
So here we have the answer. God is good because he is god, and sinners are all bad, and all deserve eternal suffering. He takes issue with me assuming that there are any "good" people at all, and in fact, he denies the existence of anything good at all. Here is the key, here is the reason why Christianity is an immoral worldview. He cannot see any good in the natural world. I quote:
Furthermore define "good" and provide the rational argumentation for calling anything good in the atheist worldview. For example, if life evolved how can an action of a human being that doesn't further the potential of survival for the human race be considered good?
It is a dark, dark way to live, ladies and gentlemen. Where the hell does he think the word "good" came from? Well, his problem, then, is that he is bad. Very, very bad, and deserves to be tortured cruelly, for all of eternity. So why in hell should I trust anything he says? As a matter of fact, I do not. That solves that problem. I wash my hands of anyone who is truly evil and deserves to burn for all eternity. By the way, what I am doing is "good."
Edited to add:
Here is the extent of the madness of "Street Apologist." He is saying that the default position is that everyone is "a sinner" (which basically means that all sin is equal, and that these naked kids thousands--not millions--of years ago made it so that we were sinners, not God, because He had to put that magical fairy tree there for some reason) and deserves to burn and suffer forever after we die. By default, we deserve this fate unless we sign up for the right club. It's not Street Apologists that have to justify this, it is us. We have to prove otherwise. How's that for some sharp-edged razor logic? Apparently, an afterlife of torture by a purely just magical ghost dad is not an extraordinary claim. And if we try to prove otherwise, that people, regardless of anything they personally did, do not deserve eternal torture by using human standards of morality, we suck because well, according to Street Apologist, that's against his rules. We have to apply his wishy-washy occult rules. But again, I don't have to, because he is evil. Why the hell should I use the rules of someone evil? You shouldn't, either.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
I watched Superman Returns yesterday, and it was really fun, really exciting, except for the obnoxious stuff.
The scope has changed. It's really heavy on the philosophical, the theme being, Does the World Need Superman (a saviour)? Lois' Pulitzer-Prize-winning article had the answer, but was it written as an independant, adult mother with a family, who has moved on romantically, or as an atheist who can take the world as it really is?
Lex could have been the ultimate human hero here, the man who killed God. The Prometheus who steals fire--if he weren't so bumbling and sweet. His evil is completely charming throughout the movie. I couldn't help thinking that a better script would have really said something important about what Lex was really trying to do here. He could have had a more complex relationship with Superman, but I suppose that's the territory for Smallville, which does that brilliantly.
Superman is seen in this film as a god, and one that lives on earth without permission. He may be a sweet hunk, but he doesn't belong any more than Jesus did. Superman is seen hovering above earth like a god, listening to the many screams/prayers, like Yahweh. Indeed, Superman is Jesus, but he is the Jesus of the religious mythicist: he is Hercules, Eros, and especially Atlas. (A hoot-worthy moment, to be sure.) He is the evolved God-Man.
Of course they don't expect me to believe that Superman, created by two teenaged Jews in 1936 is Jesus, do they? (Not to mention the director, Bryan Singer, who is also Jewish, and mentions that Superman's Origin is clearly Moses.) It doesn't stop there. I won't tell you why, but Superman is also Snow White and E.T. The Extra Terrestrial. There are more nods to other films in this than Spielberg ever imagined possible. But I can't help but be charmed by the sweet actor's ability to become Christopher Reeve's shy, stuttering, glasses-pushing Clark Kent, complete with silly seventies hairdo.
Does Lois Lane still need Superman? (Legally, she does, but I won't spoil it.) Well, the movie might be a tad obnoxious, but be assured, the end is not a total sellout. Just a little bit. If you still cling to Superman for nostalgia's sake, that's good enough.
But does the world need a savior? Well, of course not. Does Jesus fly in and catch people who fall off buildings? If someone did that, wouldn't it kill them, anyway? Did Jesus save the astronauts on the Space Shuttle in '86? Did Jesus stop the World Trade Center from collapsing on all those bodies? Of course not. Superman would have. Superman is not Jesus.(Superman isn't a racist end-of-the-world freak, either).
As I said out loud, in the theatre, "Superman might be a God, but he's way better than Jesus. I never heard him once mention hell, or the Apocalypse." Superman is convenient, helpful to some of the people in peril. But when Superman was chatting up Lois, how many children died? For cripe's sakes, Jesus is The God. He could have saved them all. Superman is A god, not the god. But no, Lois was right. The world has what it has, and it still exists, no Superman, and no Jesus.
Oh, yeah. Brandon Routh is totally homo-rific, whether he's gay or not. But the movie's not gay.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
- Jesus and I Go to Hell by Unknown
- Whassa Matta Wit Me? by Lou Carter
- Folsom Prison Blues by Margie Brandon
- Dancing Tambourine by Paul Whiteman with Invocation of Destruction by Anton LaVey
- Satan wears a Satin Gown by Frankie Lane
- Wo Sind die clowns by Zara Leander
- Famine - Chiquita
- The Year 2000 by Estelle
- Apres Tois by Vicky Leandros
- Shangri-Las radio spot
- Satan Takes a Holiday by Shep Fields and his Rippling Rhythm
- Get That Groove In by Blo-- African Disco, Deep Disco from 1970's Africa
- Pop Electronique 3 and OT III by L Ron Hubbard
- Shangri-Las Radio Spot
- Ambrose Part 5 by Linda Laurie
- Kids Pow-Wow Songs Medley by Black Lodge Singers
- Going to the Go-Gos: Smokey Robinson Vs Chrome. by Mr. Fab
- Spiderbaby by Lon Chaney, Jr
- Levas Polka -- LoitumaGirl
- Haying and Yutia by Alberto Bembo-- Codice d'Amour Orientale
with the answering machine messages of "Beverly Jablonsky"
Download in 160 from You Send It
In an older entry, The Assertive Atheist tells us of a passage in Luke where Jesus sent his gang to steal someone's horse:
19:29 And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples,
19:30 Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.
19:31 And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.
19:32 And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them.
19:33 And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?
19:34 And they said, The Lord hath need of him.
19:35 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.
19:36 And as he went, they spread their clothes in the way.
Back in them thar days, a thief (common criminal) was hanged fer bein' a hoss stealin' varmint. So, if Jesus had existed, he would have paid a common penalty for a capital offense. Horrific, yes, but not only did he break the law, he broke the eighth commandment. Sinless, indeed. And he had to share his hill with dirty "thieves." Pity.
Get government out of the church's business
By JAMES AUTRY
SPECIAL TO THE REGISTER
I'm always amazed as well as perplexed by how concerned some of my fellow Christians are with what other people choose to do with their genitalia. This wouldn't be a big problem if it were simply benign disapproval. Instead their concern has become an obsession with passing laws to criminalize behaviors the Christians find sinful.
Recently I found myself in a discussion about gay rights with some of my Southern kinfolks and friends. They stated their objections by citing Scripture. This is to be expected because, in fact, there is no objection whatsoever to gay rights that is not based on religious belief, and it has always struck me that the gay-rights discussion inevitably gets stuck in one group's versus another group's interpretation of the Bible. But this misses the point altogether.
"This is not about the Bible," I told my friends and relatives. "It's about the Constitution. Let's suppose that I agree with you that homosexuality is a sin. I don't believe it is a sin, but I'm not a Biblical scholar and can't quote Scripture to back up my position, so let's just say, for the sake of discussion, that I agree with you that it is a sin. My question is this: 'Are you suggesting that we withhold constitutional liberties from sinners?'"
This put a giant pause in the conversation, because this is the fundamental question, after all.
I continued: "Because if that's what you're suggesting, consider the ramifications. The Scripture says, 'We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,' so if we withhold constitutional liberties from people because we judge them to be sinners, then none of us will have constitutional liberties, right?"
As with most of these conversations, my folks just got angry.
I believe that the issue of gay rights is the most intense church/state issue facing the country today, and yet it rarely gets framed in that way. Clearly there may be "sinful" behaviors that should also be illegal (murder and theft come to mind), but to selectively pass laws in support of our religious beliefs about other people's behavior is to make us vulnerable to any number of encroachments on the wall of church/state separation.
Which brings me to the hot potato of gay marriage. Again, relying on the concept of separation of church and state, I believe we need to separate the two aspects of marriage, one of which is the business of the state and one of which is the business of the church.
One of those aspects is the contract of marriage, the other is the covenant of marriage.
Clearly the contract part — property rights, tax issues, inheritance rights and so on — is an appropriate concern of the state. But the covenant part — love, commitment, emotional, psychological and spiritual bonds and support — is not an appropriate concern of the state.
Thus I believe we should separate the two aspects and call the contract part a civil union, and call the covenant part a "marriage."
The state can legitimately continue to issue licenses for civil unions, but let the churches address "marriage" as a sacrament of the church and in accordance with the churches' own policies.
As our churches, even many progressive congregations, struggle with gay rights within the community of faith, they should assert, loud and clear, that even if they themselves withhold certain rights and privileges and even sacraments from gay men and lesbians, the state should stay out of it.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Bob Smith has been asking the question for weeks. Not one has answered the question. They have simply returned the emails with excuses and obfuscation. Not one addresses the question honestly.
To the Christian (who, of course, believes in hell, and don't give me that seperation from god stuff--you know that's supposed to be terrible suffering as well, otherwise no one would care that they were seperated from your pansy god):
How can you enjoy your afterlife while millions suffer eternal torment in hell? Especially when some of them could be your friends, aquaintances, and family? When so many millions of them are simply regular, "good" people who were in the "wrong religion?" Little children, grandmas, people who have done wonderful things, millions of people who led wonderful lives, suffering in hell because they did not accept Jesus?
Let me clarify: I'm asking about you, and your feelings personally. Will the terrible eternal suffering of others, whether they supposedly "deserve it" or not, whether they were Gandhi or just some 8 year-old child of Buddhists that did nothing in his life but do what 8 year-old kids do, will you be able to sing loud enough to drown out their screams, and pretend everything is perfect the way it is? Is that perfection to you? If you sit outside of a torture chamber while someone's fingernails are being peeled off, will you be perfectly blissful as long as you've got yours? Because, after all, Kiko or Deepa "knew" Jesus and just ignored Him.
Isn't Jesus great for making sure Kim and Ahmie suffer forever? Bless him for making the rule that Cho and Charles should be burned forever for not believing.
Here's my question, that has never been answered. I expect bullshit to follow:
Why did God/Jesus make the rule? Please justify the morality of eternal suffering for nonbelief. After all, if God made it so, it must be moral, and it must be really easy to figure out why eternal suffering after death is morally justified. Now, I say this knowing that nonbelief does not cause suffering in life, because I am an atheist, and I am a very happy person. I also know that belief, in life, does not prevent suffering (or the cause of suffering.) Therefore, the suffering must come after death (if you can figure that one out). So that's why you guys had to create the idea of hell. I mean, come on, many people who do not believe in your fantasy are perfectly happy in their own fantasies, or reality. So you had to create this idea that otherworldly Lord-Of-The-Rings-Style imps to inflict. Ta Da! The non-belief itself didn't make me suffer. God had to make it so beings he created hurt me.
So again: justify it.
Now that you think you've justified it, tell me why those who vote for the losing presidential candidate should not be tortured right now. Tell me why you shouldn't beat your wife, burn her with cigarettes, throw her down the stairs and humiliate her. Tell me why, if a child talks back to you, that you shouldn't lock him in a closet for days and let him sit in his own filth. And then rape him when he comes out. After all, if God saw fit to make that happen, if Jesus made it so, you should do the same thing. Correct? Justify it.
I'll be waiting.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
This week, Franc and I are glad to have Marc Stevens, author of the book Adventures in Legal Land , the blog There is No State , and host of the show the No State Project.
From "Adventures in Legal Land:"
The No State Project with host Marc Stevens is now two hours every Saturday night starting at 6:00 pm central time, 4:00 Arizona time, 4:00 pacific time (Sunday, 11:00 am in New Zealand) on The Republic Broadcasting Network, heard on the net at www.rbnlive.com. Call in at (800) 313-9443.Franc and Marc talk about the idea of the religion and dogma of statism, and Marc's adventures in, well, "Legal Land." I was, well, just off work. I might say a couple of things, but don't count on it.
The show is available here, on our archive page.
Sorry about not posting there. I have a new job and, for awhile, my schedule is crazy. I work 10-12 hour days, and then I'll be off for awhile.
I am in my hometown of Wenatchee, WA, and I am working the cherry season. Cherries are not like apples and pears, in that you can't really store cherries for months at a time. Once those cherries are picked, you gotta pack 'em and ship 'em out. So that's what I'm doing.
It's hot, it's uncomfortable, but it's temporary, and that's what I'm looking for. The area is lovely, a geologist's dream. I should take pictures for you. Perhaps I will.
I look lovely. I am wearing old clothes, my hair tied back and under a baseball cap and a hairnet. I'm wearing gloves, and standing at a conveyor belt, picking out "culls" (bad ones) and sizing them. That's it. Occasionally, I am tipping over tables with boxes of cherries on them. Good one. And then a woman 10 years younger than me is asking me, "Alison, can I get you to work with both hands?" when I find myself zoning out and leaning on one hand. I have bruises and sores all over my elbows and forearms. Once it's all over, I'll have an actual paycheck. If I stick around, I might work the more regular job at apples and pears. If I feel like sticking it out.
So when I work, I have a hard time blogging. It's the hours--8 to 9:30, 12 to 11. Nice, eh?
But I am still working hard to get top-knotch entertainment to you. This is still priority.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Bad Bible includes such memorable tracks as
Their infants shall be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women shall be ripped open." Hosea 13:16
For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. Eziekiel 23:20
Wounding blows cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the innermost parts. Proverbs 20:30
Oh, and there's music, too.
Mondo Diablo, Episode 3
Download from You Send It--quick, before it expires--in 160 kbps
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Monday, June 19, 2006
Most Everyone Except Carson Holloway of the National Review Can't Handle the "Truth" that Life is Empty and Meaningless
The Public-Intellectual Menace
On Richard Dawkins’s irresponsible and irrational dogmatism.
So Carson Holloway is strong, but you aren't. You can't handle the "truth."
Fortunately, that "truth" is believed by Carson Holloway, not the rest of us, and least of all, Richard Dawkins.
It's the standard Christian lie. First, you create the idea that God is everything. Then, when you take away God, tah dahh! You have nothing! It's a sad, and meaningless life. Sigh. And you can't handle that. Bad Richard Dawkins! Bad!
Its (the Selfish Gene) apparent debunking of any higher purpose in nature caused this person “a series of bouts of depression” lasting over a decade.
That's what you get when you lack reading comprehension. As long as you're already depressed.
Well, being a believer doesn't mean you have a math degree.
If the universe =X,
and God is the universe,
But for an atheist:
God = 0
Obviously, there was no God in the equation in the first place. Even if God had once existed, and was "taken away," we would not need it to show us the value of things and people. God is represpented by this fellow as both X and something that is there simply to remind us of the value of X. Like a holy price tag, as Francois would say. If a price tag falls off an item, does it then lack value? Tell that to the clerk at Nordstom's.
Why do grown adults need to be reminded that there is a world out there to enjoy? That they have friends, family, and lots of great things out there to be interested in, say, like saying Richard Dawkins is cruel and dangerous? That kind of hobby can keep a person's mind off God for a good long time. Basically, without God, there is...writing National Review articles. That ain't nothing, math genuis.
(Via J-Walk Blog)
See the archive page for more downloading options.
If you would like to be a member of the team, or if you have questions you would like answered on the show, send me an email, with the subject line "Vox Populi," or comment on this blog. It's not too hard, and I can tell you everything you need to know about recording an answer or two.
This week's questions:
1. I hand you an envelope, and in the envelope is a letter. On that letter is the date and time of your death. What do you do?
2. Do you think that artificial intelligences will one day be made as intelligent as human brains? Do you think that such intelligences should have rights?
3. Religious believers seem to take upon themselves to build hospitals and operate a lot of charities, and then use this as evidence that the religious are more moral. What is your interpretation?
4. Do you ever find yourself being superstitious despite your awareness of its irrationality? If so, why? If not, why do you think superstition exists?
Our team was : Dan Ferrisi, Edward Greve, Adrian Mârza, Zachary Moore, Sean Prophet, and John Wallis
Saturday, June 17, 2006
This week, Francois and I welcome Sean Prophet, formerly of the Church Universal and Triumphant, son of Elisabeth Claire-Prophet. We talk about Sean's childhood and teenaged years, and the particulars of growing up religious.
We also discuss topics such as Georgia's recent referendum to honor Mel Gibson for his fine work saving souls with The Passion of the Christ.
... That about six a clock Minton came to the George Tavern, enquired for Number 4. and was showed into the room where Rigby was, and the constable and his assistance were placed into a room adjoyning; Rigby ſeemed much pleased upon Mintons coming, and drank to him in a glass of Wine and kist him, took him by the Hand, put his Tongue into Mintons mouth, and thrust Mintons hand into his (Rigby) Breeches, saying, He had raised his Lust to the highest degree, Minton thereupon askt, How can it be, a Woman was only fit for that, Rigby answered, Dam’em, they are all Port, I’ll have nothing to do with them. Then Rigby sitting on Mintons Lap, kist him several times, putting his Tongue into his Mouth, askt him, if he should F----- him, how can that be askt Minton, I’ll show you answered Rigby, for it’s no more than was done in our Fore fathers time; and then to incite Minton thereto further spake most Blasphemous words, and said, That the French King did it, and the Czar of Muscovy made Alexander, a Carpenter, a Prince for that purpose, and affirmed, He had seen the Czar of Muscovy through a hole at Sea, lye with Prince Alexander. Then Rigby kist Minton several times, putting his Tongue in his Mouth, and taking Mintonin his arms, wisht he might lye with him all night, and that his Lust was provoked to that degree, he had ------ in his Breeches, but notwithstanding he could F------ him; Minton thereupon said, sure you cannot do it here, yes, answered Rigby, I can and took Minton to a corner of the Room, and put his hands into Mintons Breeches, desiring him to pull them down, who answered he would not, but he (Rigby) might do what he pleased; thereupon Rigby pulled down Mintons Breeches, turn’d away his shirt, put his Finger to Mintons Fundament, his hand behind him, and took hold of Rigbys Privy Member, and said to Rigby; I have now discovered your base inclinations, I will expose you to the world, to put a stop to these Crimes; and thereupon Minton gave a stamp with his foot, and cry’d out Westminster; then the Constable and his Assistance came into the Room, and seized Rigby ...ENTRAPMENT! I'm willing to bet this isn't the first instance of that.
Francois has made a new glossary to explain the Christian--I mean, Cretin--religion to the rest of us. It never made so much sense before!
Original Spin : After much hemming and hawing, the rationalization Godot gave for the fact that his Creation was broken from the get-go. As the proud ancestor of modern political spin, he was successful in pinning the blame for his failures on someone else. Even better, his Original Spin still works today, making it the longest-running propaganda campaign on record.
"Thanks to the Original Spin, I know that I'm an evil, corrupt, undeserving person, unless I get slaved. Praise Godot !"
Friday, June 16, 2006
Just as one should expect, a stupid amoral christian, calling himself "anonymous," chimed in. I hope the guy never has to read his response to him.
Edited to add: He did, he responded, and he ripped him a couple of new ones. Good job.
I had to respond, because I'm a loudmouth. Here's what I said, with thanks to Debunking Christianity:
At 5:51 PM, June 16, 2006, Hellbound Alleee said...
"You are an atheist. In such a world, there are only brute facts which are ruled by chance. There is no intent, design, purpose, or evil in the world. There is just a cold, empty universe that will one day die out. You are outraged at God for not giving you help when you felt that you needed it, but you are making a moral pronoucement that carries no weight given your assumptions about the world. All moral judgements are just subjective, personal pronoucements and let's face it: In such a world as atheism, what does it matter if we kill, murder, and hate? We are just another animal aren't we?"
Comments like this are exactly what keeps me fighting every day to promote the morality of individualism. Christians like this can only see the world in terms of a Warner Brothers cartoon. These kind of people want to beat you down and take away your moral autonomy. Don't ever let them get away with it. You are an individial, and your thoughts are not monitored by any being.
You are an atheist. In such a world, there are only brute facts which are ruled by chance. There is no intent, design, purpose, or evil in the world.
This statement illustrates the judgement of the world, life, and nature by morally subjective Christians. It is a straw man argument. This is what he believes about the world, not me, not anyone I know with any sense. Facts cannot be "brute." That is his judgement, not mine. As far as "no intent or design in the world," well, that is nonsense. Has he never seen a painting, or heard a song? Marveled at a building, or a beautiful suit? No design, indeed. Here he attempts to trick you into thinking that without a God, you have nothing. Don't accept the lie. You have other people. Your values. The things and people you love.
All moral judgements are just subjective, personal pronoucements and let's face it: In such a world as atheism, what does it matter if we kill, murder, and hate?
Again, this is what he believes. We don't have to. What kind of a person cannot find any earthly, factual reason not to kill and hate? If he seriously doesn't know why he shouldn't hate, save for going to hell, then he apparently needs to learn a few facts about his religion. I'd like to ask "Anonymous" (coward): What penalties would you, as a christian, pay for murder?
Think about it for a second.
He would, of course, have no penalties at all. He has no moral incentive. However, he wants you to forget something called "the world." In the world, every action causes another action. If you murdered someone, would everyone else you live with simply ignore it? Conversely, if there is no earthly, factual reason not to murder, there is also no reason not to allow yourself to be murdered. Anonymous: again: I want to ask you--is there any reason why I shouldn't kill you? If you can't think of any reason you wouldn't enjoy being raped, dismembered, or murdered, you are worse off than I thought. Can anyone else think of any earthly, non-religious reason why you would not want to be raped, disemboweled, and murdered? How about your children? This is why morality is not simply a matter of belief. You are not imprisoned in the subjective judgements of christian belief.
It's called cause and effect. You wouldn't have morality without it. And you can't have morality if a being interferes with cause and effect, such as a God. There is no morality in christianity, because there is no making moral choices. There is only obey through fear.
Enjoy your autonomy.
House Resolution 1998
By: Representatives Mills of the 67th, Post 2, Westmoreland of the 86th, Coan of the 67th, Post 1, Brown of the 89th, Richardson of the 26th, and others
Commending Mel Gibson and "The Passion of the Christ"; and for other purposes.
WHEREAS, Mel Gibson is an outstanding actor who has received both popular and critical acclaim for his work in numerous motion pictures; and
WHEREAS, he is also a dedicated Christian who is committed to his faith and has a desire to share his faith with others in ways that will touch and move them; and
WHEREAS, in order to present the essence of his Christian beliefs in a powerful and moving format, he personally financed, produced, and directed the motion picture "The Passion of the Christ"; and...
WHEREAS, the impact of this incredible motion picture can be seen in the effect that it has had on the individuals that have viewed it with the news media reporting almost daily since the motion picture opened about the many people who, after seeing the motion picture, renewed their commitment to their faith with a new intensity, repented of past bad conduct and sought forgiveness, and even confessed to crimes that they had committed; and...
Well, what the fuck do you think you pay those idiots to do?
(From J-Walk Blog.)
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Yes, it's here again! The second episode of Mondo Diablo, my vanity podcast!
This week we have some delicious stuff, including banned books, song poems, Ruby, a hit French Canadian song, Dude Broman, Israeli alterno-pop, and children singing. You gotta listen!
Get it in 160 kbps on You Send It (expires June 21)
Monday, June 12, 2006
Two confused individuals disagreeing on two false concepts makes Alleee cry: CS Lewis vs Austin Cline of Agnosticim/Atheism Blog
Austin Cline wrote this article on The Argument from Morality (for the existence of God) that gives me a bad headache.
A very popular argument with Christian apologists, including C.S. Lewis, is the argument from morality. According to Lewis, the only valid morality that can exist is an objective one — all subjective conceptions of morality lead to ruinThat's for sure.
Furthermore, an authentic objective morality must be grounded in a supernatural reality beyond our own world, thus he rejects all naturalistic conceptions of an objective morality as well. Does his argument succeed?
Well, of course it can't succeed. There is no such thing as a non-naturalistic conception of objective morality. It's an oxymoron, and so is CS Lewis. Morality is about the facts of cause and effect. There is necessarily no cause and effect that's supernatural (not natural), because cause-and-effect is basically what natural is.
According to the Moral Argument, there is a universal human “moral conscience” which suggests basic human similarities. Everyone experiences an internal sense of moral obligation to do the right thing; Lewis asserts that the existence of a universal “moral conscience,” consistent across time and cultures, can only be explained by the existence of a god who created us. Furthermore, Lewis insists that earlier generations had a better grasp of Moral Law on account of their greater agreement on what constitutes moral and immoral behavior.
Yikes! How many laws of logic does that break? There's no such thing as a big, giant, floaty-cloud moral conscience. People make decisions based on how their actions will effect them and their values. That doesn't entail a big floaty-cloud thing. It entails that doing things cause other things to happen.
It is not true, however, that all humans have a moral conscience — some are diagnosed without it and are labeled sociopaths or psychopaths. If we ignore them as an aberration, though, we still have vast differences in morality between different societies. C.S. Lewis claimed that different cultures had “only slightly different moralities,” but anthropologists and sociologists can only regard such a claim with derision. As a student of Greek and Roman history, Lewis himself surely knew that his claim was false.
Oh, Austin. Sigh. A culture can't have a morality whether it's slightly different or vastly different. People make decisions based on how they will affect them. If other people, such as those who can throw them in jail or shoot them, cause them to make decisions that will harm them, it has little to do with morality. Morality is the tool, the values are different. How decisions affect people, "morality," is no different for a fundamentalist Muslim than it is for a hippy in California. The values are different, and those values can be judged as rational or irrational. And in both cases, I tend to assume they're going to be irrational, but you never know.
What little agreement that can be identified is far too thin of a basis upon which he can found an argument such as this, but it can be explained in evolutionary terms. It can be argued, for example, that our moral conscience was evolutionarily selected for, especially in light of animal behavior which is suggestive of a rudimentary “moral conscience.” Chimpanzees exhibit what appears to be fear and shame when they do something that violates the rules of their group. Should we conclude that chimpanzees fear God? Or is it more likely that such feelings are natural in social animals?
If an individual violates the rules of his group, and is afraid, it's not shame. It's fear of being killed. That's not morality, although going along with the group is definitely a decision based on self-interest. Perhaps choosing to persecute others who don't go with your group is a protective mechanism. I can see this isn't a good argument for collectivist/relativist morality, though, just as the moral argument is not a good argument for God, because this behavior doesn't change in different societies.
Even if we grant all of Lewis’ false premises, though, they would not establish his conclusion that morality is objective. The uniformity of a belief does not prove it true or indicate that it has an external source. The fact that we desire to do things we know are wrong is given some weight by Lewis, but it’s not clear why because this, too, does not require that morality be objective.
Of course belief is not objective. But morality has nothing to do with belief. If one's values are based on belief, however, those values are irrational.
Lewis doesn’t seriously consider alternative theories of morality — he only examines a couple, and even then only the weakest formulations available. He studiously avoids direct engagement with more powerful and substantial arguments either against objective morality or in favor of objective morality which is unrelated to the supernatural. There are certainly legitimate questions to be asked about such theories, but Lewis acts as if the theories didn’t even exist.
I wish I could do that, but unfortunatly, dumb "theories" are everywhere. Is cause and effect a theory? Anyone? But I don't really see why someone evangelizing would be interested in any "theory of morality" other than "god." There are always legitimate questions to be asked. One such question is: if morality is based on belief, why should I have moralty? For example, there would be no earthly, naturalistic reason to not commit violence upon someone else. I can personally think of several naturalistic, sold, feet-on-the-ground reasons why I shouldn't punch you in the face, but no, they are just beliefs. I can only believe that you and other people would want to hurt me and make my life miserable as a result, but hey, that's just speculation, not observable fact.
Finally, Lewis argues that atheists contradict themselves when they act morally because they have no inherent basis for morality. Instead, he insists that they forget their ethical subjectivism and act like Christians — that they borrow from the morality of Christianity without acknowledging it.
We hear this refrain from Christian apologists even today, but it’s a false argument. It simply will not do to claim that someone doesn’t “really” believe what they say for no other reason than that it contradicts one’s preconceived notions about what it is and is not plausible. Lewis refuses to engage or consider the possibility that atheists’ behavior is actually a sign that his own conceptions of morality are mistaken.
According to Lewis, “A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.” This is polemic, not an argument, because Lewis does not establish that his sort of dogmatism is a prerequisite for a free society — if, indeed, any dogmatism necessary.
He's right. As a matter of fact, Christians use secular morality, because that's where it comes from--people observing facts of nature. Christian morality is not morality at all, and can only be totally subjective, based on the whim of a giant governor. As far as dogmatic beliefs, well, if the value were objective, then not only would you not need dogmatism, you sure as hell don't need to believe in it. It would be fact.
C.S. Lewis’ argument that the existence of morality points to the existence of his god fails. First, it has not been shown that ethical statements can only be objective if you presume theism. There have been a number of efforts to create naturalistic theories of ethics which in no way rely upon gods. Second, it has not been shown that moral laws or ethical properties are absolute and objective. Maybe they are, but this cannot simply be assumed without argument.It is true that laws are not absolute. But objective (what a loaded and awful word that makes everyone hate me, so I try and refrain from using it) is not the same as "absolute." As for the last statement, well, that's why we have the War on Relativism, so that we can provide argument after argument for moral realism.
Third, what if morals aren’t absolute and objective? This would not automatically mean we will or should descend into moral anarchy as a result. At best, we have perhaps a practical reason to believe in a god regardless of the actual truth value of theism. This doesn’t rationally establish the existence of a god, which is Lewis’ goal.This is where I get a stomache ache. I don't know what it means. There aren't "morals" in the way he's saying it, I suspect. Otherwise, he's saying that there is no truth or knowledge, and he hasn't "descended" into dirty, dirty anarchy, he's descended into subjective reality. And we can't have that, because I would be forced to believe he doesn't exist, and I would have no earthly reason to try to convince any one of my self-created entities of anything. But I can tell you right now that morality, the way we look at cause and effect, is objective. I saw the article, it made me say, "I must counter this argument, for the good of my fellow man." I know that it is better for me to write this response than to not. That's because it's based on my values. Perhaps the value of self-expression, exchange of ideas, and me being correct are not totally rational. And you know what? You are welcome to judge that value based on your own observation. If someone were to say, "but a christian wouldn't agree with that," then we could very quickly refute the genuiness and rationality of that claim as well. As individuals. Because a culture can't do things like that. Cultures can't reason.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
This week, Franc and I talk about the myth of the Good Old Days, what those beliefs are, and from where they originate.
When people talk about the Golden Era of Yesteryear, are they really just mistaking their own childhood for the rest of the world? We examine these thoughts, and also talk about the growing insanity and evil that is Janeane Garafolo on show # 108.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
On Saturday, Francois and I will be recording Show # 108: The Good Old Days. In keeping with that theme, I'd like to show you a satirical entry by Sara Hepola, from Sarah Hepola Dot Com.
Prompt #2: Why I wish I lived in the 1800sSent in by: Aaron
Answer in the form of: Dumb school report written by 14-year-old boy
Why I Wish I Lived in the 1800s: The Good Life
Boy, I wish I lived in the 1800s. Just think how good life was. First of all, love was easy in the 1800s. It was, like, supereasy. Because you'd live in this town with probably 40 other people in it, and how many of those people are going to be your age. Like five, right? And out of that five, you've got to pick one woman and probably three of them die early or get hacked by Indians and then probably at least one has some awful, 1800-type deformity so that leaves you with just one. One woman, your woman. Secondly, things were cheap in the 1800s. For example, I want to buy the new X-Box. And my mom is like, okayfine, but you need to save the money by mowing the lawn and blahblahblah. Now, do you know how many lawns I would have to mow to buy this thing? I mean, no way! And I have heard that things were way cheaper in the 1950s, so I am betting that an X-Box in the 1800s would be way way cheap. I know the X-Box did not exist in the 1800s, I am not that stupid, but that is not my point. Third of all, am I the only one who thinks that Indian chicks are hot? Like Pocahontas? Forget it. And lastly, I wish I lived in the 1800s because things were simpler then. Life was more pure and there was no, like, hot lesbian pay-per-view porno channels to confuse the minds of children so that they go into a classroom and kill people. People didn't kill people in the 1800s, probably because of what I was saying about life being simpler then. I hope you learned a little about why I wish I lived in the 1800s I know I did.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
And if you tell me that "it's not original sin! It's 'Sin Nature,' " you get smacked across the bare bottom with a Hotwheel track.
It's time for the Trib, everyone! I hope you all enjoy. If everything works out, we'll find out exactly which denomination of Christianity is correct, and whether we're pre-trib, or post-trib! I'm hoping for pre-trib, because all those nasty Christians will be out of our hair. We'll be dangerously low on labour, but I hear there are a lot of people in China who have strong work-ethics.
It sure will be The super-power, though, won't it? Canada won't be doing too shabby, either, and I suspect Quebec will be able to make themselves a country like they've been wanting to, seeing as to how all the Christians are in the west.
Unfortunately, I find myself in the west with all of the more wacky drooling insane christians, rather than the semi-normal Easter-And-Christmas-and-Christening-and-abusing-children-Catholics. Here we have more churches out of people's basements than we have brick buildings with bells. I just saw one a minute ago down the street. New Life or some dumbass thing like that. Well, I hope all the best for them. If their idea of fun is standing around God in a circle, looking at how beautiful he is and singing to him for eternity, then they can just go and do that, and we won't have to be bothered by them any more.
What religion do you suppose will bother us next? Well, if it goes the way they say, we'll all be ... what....Mormons now? We'll see.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Welcome to those of you who have come to my blog, on the recommendations of an unstable person! I've noticed a lot of new people reading my blog, and I imagine you good folks might have come here hoping to read the rantings of some kind of Nazi fascist monster. I'm sorry to disappoint you, if that indeed does disappoint you. If you have read some of my blog and you do indeed find me to be evil, again, welcome. I am glad I have provided you with the motivation for some good, fierce blog posts, and maybe, hopefully, a parody of my evil. I just want to make people happy, just like everyone else, except, apparently, for the poor, whom I supposedly despise, and wish to see die on the street covered in filth and flies.
I just wanted to clear up the motivation behind the evil that is me. I want to be happy and well, I want my husband to be happy and well, and I want the people around me to be happy and well, because if they are happy and well, they tend to do a lot less violence--intentionally, anyway. The fact that happy and well people tend to support violent monopolies of power is a problem for me, and I'd like very much to change that. I happen to hold the wacko idea that shooting people who aren't threatening to shoot you is wrong, even if those people who want to shoot you are hired by some really gigantic company that can't be opposed, and even if popular opinion says that the shooting is done with really good intentions. Because it's not, and it doesn't matter either way. If I can't shoot you, and you can't shoot me, that guy over there hired by the giant company that has all the power shouldn't shoot you either.
Because I like you, and I don't want to see you shot.
So, these wacko opinions of mine have motivated some surprisingly popular individuals to say that my marriage should end in domestic violence, and that perhaps I deserve to be punched in the face. Also that I am some kind of air-headed barbie girl who thinks she is better than everyone else. That last one is probably because I always think I am being droll and funny, and I end up sounding as if I support the wholesale slaughter of someone.
As I always say, unless someone thinks you should be punched in the face by your husband, you probably haven't said anything interesting. I hope I have.
Anyway, I don't wish that unstable people's boyfriends or husbands punch them in the face, regardless of the evil they might have charged me with. I hope their husbands and boyfriends are as kind to them as mine is to me. And I wish the same of you, too.
Before I forget, I have a couple of podcasts for you to listen to. Perhaps you can catch me advocating the cruel treatment of something or other. I suggest you listen closely.
Vox Populi, Episode 13
Saturday, June 03, 2006
I'm in Wenatchee, Washington now, for a couple of months.
The trip was exhausting, but only a memory. It's over, for now.
The journey started in the Pierre Trudeau airport, at checkin. It turns out that when you purchase a ticket through the Web, you may not be getting what you think. I had two plane changes on my itinerary. I was to fly to Philedelphia, connect and fly to Las Vegas, and then get on a plane to Seattle. But it seems that I only had 40 minutes from the time I landed in Philly to departure time, and that's "illegal." So the agent bumped me up to an earlier flight. I had to say my goodbyes to my husband in great haste.
At Customs, I walked behind the wrong rope. Horrors. I was greeted by a fed, who told me never to do that again. I almost touched a pilot, I guess.
I didn't get searched, though they ran my purse through twice.
I sat down in my assigned seat on a 737, took a peek out the window, and found that it was raininng, which was surprising, since it was such a hot day outside. Then it began to storm, which led to a two-hour wait on the tarmac, for the storm to end. It was fun to watch the giant bolts of lightning hitting the control towers.
Oh, well. I did have extra time because of the earlier flight.
Once in Philly, I boarded just as I got to the gate. No time to buy a coke or anything. Luckily, they served me an entire can of coke on my five-hour flight. It wasn't so bad, though. After an extra 45 minutes on the tarmac, waiting for ten other planes to take off, we left with me, sitting in my own entire row of seats. I took advantage of such luxury by buying a headset and watching King King, which turned out to be a perfect flight movie. Movies sometimes look better than they are, when you desperately want to kill time.
The luxury came to an end at Las Vegas, where I was greeted by several video poker machines, right in the terminal. It was 11:30, it was loud, crowded, and full of bingo games and slot machines. That city is the reason they say the US is an energy-waster. The damned city is lit up like..Las Vegas. At Christmas.
I got on another timy 737, and sat between two young army recruits, one of which handed me a recruitment flyer. I found myself saying, "Oh, Lord, no," which ended any further conversation. It was hot, it was cramped, and army boys feel extremely entitled to take up their own space as well as others'. I put on the blower and hoped for the best. It was a sweaty, but mercifully short, flight.
I got into Seattle on time, greeted by my father. We waited at the baggage claim for an hour, and then, wouldn't you know it, I had to go make a claim, as my baggage was nowhere to be found. The guy, Paul, was really nice, and I didn't have much I cared about.
My father had driven to Seattle the night before, because we had an AM/PM mixup. He thought my flight was landing on May 31st at 2:33 AM, when it actually left on May 31st at 5:30 PM. So, he drove the 3 hours a second time to pick me up. He was so tires, he drove while I watched to make sure he didn't fall asleep. We stopped to nap a couple of times.
But now I'm here. The bags were shipped. Everything's fine. I already turned in an application to sort fruit for a few weeks, to make a little pile of money to help us rent a new place, and to help me buy a Canadian VISA application. All is going well. And that's all the personal stuff I'm going to tell you, for awhile. And then maybe I'll show you some pictures.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Police can now enter homes of DUI suspects without a warrant.(AP) SAN FRANCISCO Police may enter Californians' homes without warrants to arrest those suspected of driving under the influence, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case testing the scope of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The 6-1 decision follows similar rulings in about a dozen other states. A dissenting justice said the majority handed authorities a "free pass" to unlawfully enter private homes and arrest people without warrants.
Under the Fourth Amendment, authorities are prohibited from entering a home and making an arrest without a warrant unless so-called "exigent" circumstances are present. Those include "hot pursuit" of a fleeing felon, imminent destruction of evidence and the risk of danger to the police or other persons inside or outside of a house, among others.
In this case, Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that the loss of evidence at issue was obtaining a measurement of the suspect's blood-alcohol level. Baxter added that a contrary ruling would allow "the corruption of evidence that occurs when the suspect takes advantage of any delay to ingest more alcohol -- or to claim to have done so -- or when the suspect evades police capture until he or she is no longer intoxicated."
Baxter and the majority was cautious in saying the decision would not give police carte blanche powers.
"In holding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry here, we need not decide, and do not hold, that the police may enter a home without a warrant to effect an arrest of a DUI suspect in every case," Baxter wrote.
So they want to bust into someone's home to give them a breathalyzer test? So much for relaxing at home with a few beers, or tying one on at home at a party. The right to get drunk, or even a little drunk is a right, no matter how unclassy or gauche it might seem to some people. I'm sure superior court judges are quite good at enjoying that right themselves.
Via Hit and Run.