Happy International Blasphemy Day! We have only 90 minutes left. I spend most of my time mocking Christianity, but this gem from Islam cannot be ignored: apparently, Hamas has decided that girls who haven't reached puberty are marriagable. Seriously. Man,not even the FLDS sinks this low.
So here's my IBD question- in Islam why is pedophilia good, and alcohol bad? And can I really expect anybody following this religion to be sane?
Happy IBD! Go out and insult someone's religion, before one of those crazy believers makes it illegal!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
maybe i don't want to seem nicer
some genius named nathan named his blog after a guy stupid enough to fall asleep on a window ledge and fall out to the street below. this makes nathan's blog worth reading for a reason that must occur only to christians. and nathan has decided he knows just how to make atheists seem nicer. because if there's one group of people whose opinions matter to me, it's the christians. oh wait, i meant the hell's angels.
nathan's first idea is that atheists need to stop feeling smug. i guess nathan doesn't like the condescending way we atheists roll our eyes at yet another recital of pascal's wager, or the first cause "argument". that eye-roll might have something to do with the fact that these arguments have been refuted, repeatedly and long ago. why should we pretend to care about bad re-runs?
i'll tell you what nathan- watch the south park episode where they explain what scientologists believe. and then tell me what our attitude should be with the people who actually believe it. then, make yourself, as a courtesy, sit with one of those weirdos at the times square subway station and get a stress test, and force yourself to listen to how the thetans are causing your problems, and what scientology's "evidence" is of this. do not tell me, with any expectation of being believed, that you don't feel the slightest bit smug about not having been hoodwinked into believing into some dreck l. ron hubbard dreamed up and sells in the mass market paperback section. and remember: one woman's dreck is another's "faith". try not to roll your eyes at the poor soul.
oh, and apply this to wicca, mormonism, and your smug knowledge that of course zeus and athena are false gods.
then, nathan wants us atheists to ignore christians' proselytizing, because they're not really trying to convert us anyway, just the people who haven't made up their minds. nathan, here's a fucking clue (christ, am i smug): we want to reach out to the people who haven't made up their minds too. we just do it by summarizing the "arguments" for the existence of a deity and refuting them. we also point out various contradictions in your "book", as well as the contradictions between the different things christians tend to believe about their deity. so, we have to address you whether you want us to or not. i know, your jobs are much easier when we don't . which is probably why you think it would make us seem nicer if we just let you spout gobbledy-gook with no rational, evidence-based response. it's like a football team's offensive squad demanding the other side not bother to defend their goal. i wonder what the ref would say?
nathan, dear, can intelligent and rational people believe in magic? and tolkien's elves? and tolkien's hobbits? can intelligent people there really was a cinderella, and spend their lives looking for that glass slipper? because that's all communicated by books too. your "book" is a collection of stories never meant to be taken literally as things that actually happened. it was people trying to forge a cultural heritage with a story of shared struggle and sacrifice. cute story, especially is you like killing innocent, firstborn children on behalf of the good guys. the god "communicating" through that book is a manipulative, vengeful, petty, jealous, bloodthirsty asshole who apparently has no problem planning our sins and then punishing us for them. and in order to forgive the humans whose sins he planned and plans to watch, he sent his "son" to earth to lead a blameless, sinless life. after this blameless, sinless life, this god then has the son's friends betray and abandon him, and then has the authorities of the patch of dirt the son lived and preached around force this son through the most excruciating, tortuous death humankind has ever devised (except, of course, suicide from watching general hospital). this horrific death then makes it possible for this god to forgive humans' sins. you call this intervention? here's a clue: this all-powerful god could have decided to just forgive people, but didn't. how do you rationally, intelligently explain why the tortuous death of someone who supposedly was himself perfect makes it possible for an all-powerful deity to forgive people for shoplifting? what was this god's thought process? what's rational and intelligent (not to mention ethical) about any of this crap?
i know you hear this all time, but where was this intervention during the holocaust? why does a just god let this happen, to his chosen people no less? i notice that this god lets alot of shit happen that just wipes out hundreds of thousands of people with one big wave. why intervene for the ancient hebrews leaving egypt, and not for people on the hijacked planes on 9/11? how does this god pick his interventions? i notice most of them happened in this "book", with parts dating back 4,000 years ago, with these last interventions happening about 1,900 years ago. why no interventions now?
nathan, do you read what you type before posting? do you know that a hypothesis is based on a series of observable facts? oh, i visited all these islands in the pacific ocean and found species are similar to each other and yet still different species. and i found that each one is perfectly well suited to that particular island's environment. and other people have found fossilized skeletons of animals that no one sees anymore. why would some species die out, and some survive- and does the environment have anything to do with that? i guess i could come up with a theory that explained how attributes that make a species better suited to a particular environment make it easier to survive, and pass on offspring with those attributes. and over time, attributes that are not good for an environment cause those living things to die without offspring. i guess i could test the theory by examining other environments, and observing whether species are suited to those. and i guess scientists in later generations could find even more fossils, and figure out how to date the fossils and the rocks the fossils are in, and then i guess some future scientists could also examine genes to see how closely related different species are.
oh, i noticed that people who get cowpox don't get small pox. why is that? i guess, maybe, the cowpox is not as strong as small pox, but getting it makes your body somehow better at resisting smallpox. maybe i could convince a few brave souls to be injected with pus from cowpox blisters, and see if they too resist small pox. but that would be a combination of induction and deduction, and the christians have decided that that can't be the scientific method. guess i won't bother.
get it, nathan? someone sees observable facts without an explanation, then makes an explanation. this explanation (called a theory) is then tested by experimenting and collecting additional observed facts. this theory is used as an explanation for facts until some new, observed facts no longer support the theory. then a new explanation is thought of, or the original theory is revised, and this new explanation is tested. see? in the scientific method, no one is required to except a theory without experimental data to support the theory. this enables human beings to understand how the world operates with the best knowledge we have at the time. which is a fuck of a lot better than trying to figure out how to make the sun stop in the sky.
however, you are correct about one thing: science is easy to abuse. just tell people that it's a belief system that atheists have "faith" in, tell people that the dinosaurs lived with people in the garden of eden, and put a saddle on a triceratops. but please note, it tends to be your fellow christians who do the abusing. i guess, to reach the undecideds.
which leads me to nathan's last pearl of wisdom. millions of people claim to be mormons, and therefore christians. can i judge christianity by these millions? what about the christians following sun myung moon? might not be in the millions, but a lot of people anyway. which millions of christians should i judge the religion by? the ones who want to go back to forced pregnancy and childbirth? which sect got it right? i just want to know- who are the real christians, who are the fakes, and who gets to decide who is what? are you the decider? am i? is the pope? how 'bout pat robertson?
and what is the christological narrative? four conflicting accounts? is the part about jesus coming back to israel to give the jews one last chance to accept him a part of the christological narrative? is jesus appearing in north america part of the christological narrative? exactly how broad is this broad narrative? and who decides how broad it is? me? you? the pope? jim wallis? mitt romney? sun myung moon?
as for quoting old testament law: i'll make a deal with you: when conservative christians stop telling me that homosexuality is considered an abomination in leviticus, and that some prophet in the old testament told us god knows us in the womb and therefore abortion is murder, i'll stop with the shit about not eating shellfish and mixing fabrics. oh, and we can see how the laws were supposed to work- the punishment is usually right there in the text, and it usually involved throwing rocks at offenders until the offenders were dead. i'm sure the christians who you consider intelligent and rational because they just happen to believe the exact form of christianity you do are cool with this.
nathan's first idea is that atheists need to stop feeling smug. i guess nathan doesn't like the condescending way we atheists roll our eyes at yet another recital of pascal's wager, or the first cause "argument". that eye-roll might have something to do with the fact that these arguments have been refuted, repeatedly and long ago. why should we pretend to care about bad re-runs?
i'll tell you what nathan- watch the south park episode where they explain what scientologists believe. and then tell me what our attitude should be with the people who actually believe it. then, make yourself, as a courtesy, sit with one of those weirdos at the times square subway station and get a stress test, and force yourself to listen to how the thetans are causing your problems, and what scientology's "evidence" is of this. do not tell me, with any expectation of being believed, that you don't feel the slightest bit smug about not having been hoodwinked into believing into some dreck l. ron hubbard dreamed up and sells in the mass market paperback section. and remember: one woman's dreck is another's "faith". try not to roll your eyes at the poor soul.
oh, and apply this to wicca, mormonism, and your smug knowledge that of course zeus and athena are false gods.
then, nathan wants us atheists to ignore christians' proselytizing, because they're not really trying to convert us anyway, just the people who haven't made up their minds. nathan, here's a fucking clue (christ, am i smug): we want to reach out to the people who haven't made up their minds too. we just do it by summarizing the "arguments" for the existence of a deity and refuting them. we also point out various contradictions in your "book", as well as the contradictions between the different things christians tend to believe about their deity. so, we have to address you whether you want us to or not. i know, your jobs are much easier when we don't . which is probably why you think it would make us seem nicer if we just let you spout gobbledy-gook with no rational, evidence-based response. it's like a football team's offensive squad demanding the other side not bother to defend their goal. i wonder what the ref would say?
nathan, dear, can intelligent and rational people believe in magic? and tolkien's elves? and tolkien's hobbits? can intelligent people there really was a cinderella, and spend their lives looking for that glass slipper? because that's all communicated by books too. your "book" is a collection of stories never meant to be taken literally as things that actually happened. it was people trying to forge a cultural heritage with a story of shared struggle and sacrifice. cute story, especially is you like killing innocent, firstborn children on behalf of the good guys. the god "communicating" through that book is a manipulative, vengeful, petty, jealous, bloodthirsty asshole who apparently has no problem planning our sins and then punishing us for them. and in order to forgive the humans whose sins he planned and plans to watch, he sent his "son" to earth to lead a blameless, sinless life. after this blameless, sinless life, this god then has the son's friends betray and abandon him, and then has the authorities of the patch of dirt the son lived and preached around force this son through the most excruciating, tortuous death humankind has ever devised (except, of course, suicide from watching general hospital). this horrific death then makes it possible for this god to forgive humans' sins. you call this intervention? here's a clue: this all-powerful god could have decided to just forgive people, but didn't. how do you rationally, intelligently explain why the tortuous death of someone who supposedly was himself perfect makes it possible for an all-powerful deity to forgive people for shoplifting? what was this god's thought process? what's rational and intelligent (not to mention ethical) about any of this crap?
i know you hear this all time, but where was this intervention during the holocaust? why does a just god let this happen, to his chosen people no less? i notice that this god lets alot of shit happen that just wipes out hundreds of thousands of people with one big wave. why intervene for the ancient hebrews leaving egypt, and not for people on the hijacked planes on 9/11? how does this god pick his interventions? i notice most of them happened in this "book", with parts dating back 4,000 years ago, with these last interventions happening about 1,900 years ago. why no interventions now?
nathan, do you read what you type before posting? do you know that a hypothesis is based on a series of observable facts? oh, i visited all these islands in the pacific ocean and found species are similar to each other and yet still different species. and i found that each one is perfectly well suited to that particular island's environment. and other people have found fossilized skeletons of animals that no one sees anymore. why would some species die out, and some survive- and does the environment have anything to do with that? i guess i could come up with a theory that explained how attributes that make a species better suited to a particular environment make it easier to survive, and pass on offspring with those attributes. and over time, attributes that are not good for an environment cause those living things to die without offspring. i guess i could test the theory by examining other environments, and observing whether species are suited to those. and i guess scientists in later generations could find even more fossils, and figure out how to date the fossils and the rocks the fossils are in, and then i guess some future scientists could also examine genes to see how closely related different species are.
oh, i noticed that people who get cowpox don't get small pox. why is that? i guess, maybe, the cowpox is not as strong as small pox, but getting it makes your body somehow better at resisting smallpox. maybe i could convince a few brave souls to be injected with pus from cowpox blisters, and see if they too resist small pox. but that would be a combination of induction and deduction, and the christians have decided that that can't be the scientific method. guess i won't bother.
get it, nathan? someone sees observable facts without an explanation, then makes an explanation. this explanation (called a theory) is then tested by experimenting and collecting additional observed facts. this theory is used as an explanation for facts until some new, observed facts no longer support the theory. then a new explanation is thought of, or the original theory is revised, and this new explanation is tested. see? in the scientific method, no one is required to except a theory without experimental data to support the theory. this enables human beings to understand how the world operates with the best knowledge we have at the time. which is a fuck of a lot better than trying to figure out how to make the sun stop in the sky.
however, you are correct about one thing: science is easy to abuse. just tell people that it's a belief system that atheists have "faith" in, tell people that the dinosaurs lived with people in the garden of eden, and put a saddle on a triceratops. but please note, it tends to be your fellow christians who do the abusing. i guess, to reach the undecideds.
which leads me to nathan's last pearl of wisdom. millions of people claim to be mormons, and therefore christians. can i judge christianity by these millions? what about the christians following sun myung moon? might not be in the millions, but a lot of people anyway. which millions of christians should i judge the religion by? the ones who want to go back to forced pregnancy and childbirth? which sect got it right? i just want to know- who are the real christians, who are the fakes, and who gets to decide who is what? are you the decider? am i? is the pope? how 'bout pat robertson?
and what is the christological narrative? four conflicting accounts? is the part about jesus coming back to israel to give the jews one last chance to accept him a part of the christological narrative? is jesus appearing in north america part of the christological narrative? exactly how broad is this broad narrative? and who decides how broad it is? me? you? the pope? jim wallis? mitt romney? sun myung moon?
as for quoting old testament law: i'll make a deal with you: when conservative christians stop telling me that homosexuality is considered an abomination in leviticus, and that some prophet in the old testament told us god knows us in the womb and therefore abortion is murder, i'll stop with the shit about not eating shellfish and mixing fabrics. oh, and we can see how the laws were supposed to work- the punishment is usually right there in the text, and it usually involved throwing rocks at offenders until the offenders were dead. i'm sure the christians who you consider intelligent and rational because they just happen to believe the exact form of christianity you do are cool with this.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
it's time. okay, it's been time for a while
the right are not decent human beings. we on the left have been saying this privately for years. but nobody wants to blurt it out in public, except people who are never going to interview john mccain anyway. anyone who wants to get invited to speak on news and commentary tv shows have been unwilling to say this openly, because the tv talking heads all agree that to impugn someone's patriotism is wrong. except for people opposing illegal wars, or illegal torture, or unconstitutional detention. anytime you oppose something that is actually illegal or unconstitutional, well, that means you hate america. but i digress.
discussing the sad reality that basic human decency has fled america's right is currently limited to the blogosphere. this idea that right wingers want social justice and tolerance and peace, but just want to pursue those goals with unrestrained greed, theocracy, and unjust wars, is what most public, "respectable" figures must declare. but the time has come for public figures to publicly admit that the right wing of america could give a shit about social justice. america's right doesn't care if illegal aliens bleed to death right outside hospitals- in fact, america's right would enjoy the sight. america's right doesn't care about tolerance, and we know this because they never extend it to anyone but themselves. non-christian religions, non-white people, non-profit projects, receive nothing but scorn from them and will never receive anything else. and peace? has anyone listened to the right? with the exception of ron paul, the right has a long list of people they're dying to bomb, and they'll even sing the list to an old beach boys tune for ya.
and then there is the biggest delusion of all. the idea of republicans actually knowing what the fuck they're spewing about. spare me. these are people who shrugged, if even that, at the cost of our invasions of aghganistan and iraq. these are people who still wanted george bush's welfare to the rich in the form of tax cuts at a time when we "had" to fight those wars. these are people who supported the creation of a whole new department of the federal government and accompanying cabinet position (homeland insecurity, i think). these are people who supported the nsa listening to our phone calls, reading our emails, finding out what library books we've borrowed, and demanded that anyone who participated in this rape of our privacy be pardoned in advance. these are people who supported treating foreigners, many of who were innocent, worse than michael vick treated his dogs. these are people who thought locking someone up indefinitely (read: for life) on the president's say-so alone was a great way to preserve freedom. these are people who thought shocking and awing middle easterners into accepting foreign military occupation was requested by god. these are people who's idea of christian charity means that there is no amount of kicking someone when they're already down they won't tolerate. and they have the nerve to act like they care about the deficit now. and freedom. and government interference in people's private lives. and the religious beliefs of the president. and anything except their own pathetic, paranoid delusions.
because that is what the right in america has become. one big delusional cult. a cult that believes that obama is a muslim. and muslims are taking over (that's why obama's the president, so he can hand the country over to them). and obama is a racist, and so is jeremiah wright. and black people are racist. and obama is a communist, socialist and a fascist (you have to ignore the wars they fought against each other in spain and germany and russia, but oh well). and a bailout that we are supposed to get paid back to us, with interest, from the banks is going to bankrupt us. and that open season has been declared on gun owners, taylor swift, and white kids who ride the bus. and that the country is going to fail unless obama does. and that government bureaucrats will decide if anyone over 65 gets to live or not, based on whether or not they've read karl marx. and that global warming is a hoax to destroy the SUV market, and turn us into soviet russia (where i guess people lived in trees and were strict vegetarians). delusion after delusion after delusion. no matter how many times these delusions are argued against with facts and reason and some logical induction and deduction, the delusions continue.
there is a solution to this. we, as a nation, must start calling the right what they are. in public, on tv, on the internet, on op-ed pages, at family reunions, and at birthday parties. the right are lying, scheming, delusional, greedy, bigotted, sexist, theocratic douchebags. and they have been for a while. and we must freeze them out of the public realm. because there is only so much political discourse that anyone can have with a dining room table.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
you can call yourself chewbacca, but that doesn't make you a wookie
regarding this asshat:
why the fuck are we supposed to be against eugenics? can't we do anything to flush these dipshits out of the gene pool?
why the fuck are we supposed to be against eugenics? can't we do anything to flush these dipshits out of the gene pool?
Thursday, September 10, 2009
thanks, joe
mr. wilson:
i would like to thank you on behalf of the democratic party for your outburst wednesday night. nothing expresses just how republicans think and the content of their characters better than your bullshit catcalling. neither you nor any of your "colleagues" have produced evidence that health insurance reform would actually provide coverage of illegal aliens, and the charge has been debunked by non-partisan factcheck.org. but you still feel the need to express outrage based on ignorance, and in the most inappropriate way possible. what better example of how your party operates, what it values, and just how much respect you have for your fellow americans than last night.
you know, when code pink interrupts a congressional hearing with anti-war slogans, they get escorted out. where was the capitol police when we needed them? your outburst has taken the question "do we really need republicans in our discourse?" and put it center stage, where it belongs. even during the worst of the bush administration, democratic elected leaders had the decency to shut up and let bush finish hanging himself. you couldn't even let a man speak the truth. way to show us what you're made of.
regards,
culuriel
i would like to thank you on behalf of the democratic party for your outburst wednesday night. nothing expresses just how republicans think and the content of their characters better than your bullshit catcalling. neither you nor any of your "colleagues" have produced evidence that health insurance reform would actually provide coverage of illegal aliens, and the charge has been debunked by non-partisan factcheck.org. but you still feel the need to express outrage based on ignorance, and in the most inappropriate way possible. what better example of how your party operates, what it values, and just how much respect you have for your fellow americans than last night.
you know, when code pink interrupts a congressional hearing with anti-war slogans, they get escorted out. where was the capitol police when we needed them? your outburst has taken the question "do we really need republicans in our discourse?" and put it center stage, where it belongs. even during the worst of the bush administration, democratic elected leaders had the decency to shut up and let bush finish hanging himself. you couldn't even let a man speak the truth. way to show us what you're made of.
regards,
culuriel
Friday, September 4, 2009
It's only socialized insurance if OTHER people have it
A few things regarding this incident:
1- No finger biting!!!! Why was this the appropriate response to getting hit in the face?!?!?! Turn yourself in and face the music. You have at least one witness that it was provoked, which will get you a lighter sentence.
2- If you don't want to get your finger bitten, don't start a fight. Seriously, I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy? He wanted a fight. He got one. He can come and kiss my cellulite-y ass if he wants sympathy.
3- I guess it's a good thing Bill Rice has government run and subsidized health insurance. He could go right to the hospital and get treated without worrying about paying. It never occurs to Bill that maybe other people should be able to get this great insurance, too. But letting others have access to the sweet deal you get yourself by the great virtue of living to 65 is socialism. It's always perfectly reasonable when YOU get the government services, and it's always socialism when SOMEBODY ELSE does. Remember that, boys and girls.
1- No finger biting!!!! Why was this the appropriate response to getting hit in the face?!?!?! Turn yourself in and face the music. You have at least one witness that it was provoked, which will get you a lighter sentence.
2- If you don't want to get your finger bitten, don't start a fight. Seriously, I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy? He wanted a fight. He got one. He can come and kiss my cellulite-y ass if he wants sympathy.
3- I guess it's a good thing Bill Rice has government run and subsidized health insurance. He could go right to the hospital and get treated without worrying about paying. It never occurs to Bill that maybe other people should be able to get this great insurance, too. But letting others have access to the sweet deal you get yourself by the great virtue of living to 65 is socialism. It's always perfectly reasonable when YOU get the government services, and it's always socialism when SOMEBODY ELSE does. Remember that, boys and girls.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)