Here is a simple and logical way for just about anyone to understand evolution. A bit of a warning. If you are a creationist and you view this video, you may have problems refuting evolution from here on in:
I've seen one video response to King Heathen's video by one who considers himself to be a Fundamentalist. King Theist23 is probably the most rational Fundamentalist you will find though. His response is for his Fundamentalist brothers and sisters:
He makes excellent points. However, I have to take exception to his line "I don't know, I wasn't there." This is a complete 180 from his stating "I love science."
Also, saying "it doesn't matter if evolution is true or if the world is ancient" is also an ignorant statement. It completely matters if you are in the field of science. It also matters in many cases in how one views things like homosexuality, for example.
Interestingly, he concedes that it is a possibility that God put all the evidence for evolution on this planet, as well as the evidence for the deception that the earth and universe is 4.5 billion and 13.5 billion years old, when he possibly created everything 6,000 years ago. Mind blowing how far people will go, even rational ones.
April 6, 2008
Tagged: The Six Word Short Story
Lex from Gripes of Wrath has tagged me.
I'll give this one a try.
"She lied, I was the best."
I tag no one. No pressure.
There! Two stories for the price of one.
The Six-Words Meme was originally started by Smith Magazine. The history is thus:
Legend has it that Hemingway was once challenged to write a story in only six words. His response? “For sale: baby shoes, never worn.” Last year, SMITH Magazine re-ignited the recountre by asking our readers for their own six-word memoirs. They sent in short life stories in droves, from the bittersweet (“Cursed with cancer, blessed with friends”) and poignant (“I still make coffee for two”) to the inspirational (“Business school? Bah! Pop music? Hurrah”) and hilarious (“I like big butts, can’t lie”).
I'll give this one a try.
"She lied, I was the best."
I tag no one. No pressure.
There! Two stories for the price of one.
April 4, 2008
Another Question For Fundies: Where Does My Morality Come From
I'd like to hear from Fundies. Now I realize that I haven't attracted too many Fundies to comment on my blog recently, but I'm asking for feedback here.
A couple of days ago, I saw a stray dog roaming from backyard to backyard on the street of my backyard neighbours. One neighbour, a Christian told the dog to get out of his backyard, not in an evil way, but just the same, he just turned the other cheek at the plight of this lost doggy.
I was thinking of going around to the other street with a leash, but before I could even get my coat on, Daisy, my border collie, started barking as if the mailman was at my front door. It was the stray dog.
I checked to see if there was any ID on his collar. Nope.
I opened the gate to let the dog into my confined large backyard.
I got him some water, and a couple of dog treat bones.
Daisy was curious, so I hesitantly let Daisy out back with him. They were fine together.
But then my wife got too comfortable with the dog and let him into the house. I said three words to her: "are you crazy." And just as I finished saying those words, the dog had spotted Otto, my "temporary" cat. He wound up viciously chasing Otto around the living room, causing Otto tremendous trauma, but luckily no physical damage. I think it is the first time that Otto found out a valuable lesson: that he is part of the food chain.
We quickly got the dog out of the house, and knew right there that adopting the poor old guy was out of the question.
I phoned the local SPCA to see if an older black lab male had been reported lost. No luck. I told them I would walk the dog for a bit to see if anyone recognizes him.
I started walking the dog saying "go home" and letting him lead. The few people I asked about recognition came up empty for me.
I had noticed I walked about 25 minutes when it dawned on me. Why am I doing this? I'm supposed to be a heartless atheist void of morals. What was driving me to walk this mutt? I'm not out to impress my God, because God is non existent to me. Was I out to impress my wife? I don't think so. I'm way beyond that these days.
Even after this realization, I continued walking with the dog for another 25 minutes.
No luck still.
But my question remains Fundies, why did I do this? And don't give me the "it doesn't matter because dogs don't go to heaven so they don't count as morality stuff."
I finally phoned the SPCA and they sent someone to pick him up (I was pretty sure that they don't put stray dogs down in my area). The SPCA dude was a flaming gay. I felt like saying, "if you want to get married to another guy, it is OK with me," but I held back. But man was he gay. He referred to the dog as "honey." And yes, he knew the dog was male. While putting him into the truck he said, "looks like you are neutered, honey."
Anyway, I asked if there was a chance he would be put down, and I was relieved to hear that they don't put stray dogs down in my area.
A couple of days ago, I saw a stray dog roaming from backyard to backyard on the street of my backyard neighbours. One neighbour, a Christian told the dog to get out of his backyard, not in an evil way, but just the same, he just turned the other cheek at the plight of this lost doggy.
I was thinking of going around to the other street with a leash, but before I could even get my coat on, Daisy, my border collie, started barking as if the mailman was at my front door. It was the stray dog.
I checked to see if there was any ID on his collar. Nope.
I opened the gate to let the dog into my confined large backyard.
I got him some water, and a couple of dog treat bones.
Daisy was curious, so I hesitantly let Daisy out back with him. They were fine together.
But then my wife got too comfortable with the dog and let him into the house. I said three words to her: "are you crazy." And just as I finished saying those words, the dog had spotted Otto, my "temporary" cat. He wound up viciously chasing Otto around the living room, causing Otto tremendous trauma, but luckily no physical damage. I think it is the first time that Otto found out a valuable lesson: that he is part of the food chain.
We quickly got the dog out of the house, and knew right there that adopting the poor old guy was out of the question.
I phoned the local SPCA to see if an older black lab male had been reported lost. No luck. I told them I would walk the dog for a bit to see if anyone recognizes him.
I started walking the dog saying "go home" and letting him lead. The few people I asked about recognition came up empty for me.
I had noticed I walked about 25 minutes when it dawned on me. Why am I doing this? I'm supposed to be a heartless atheist void of morals. What was driving me to walk this mutt? I'm not out to impress my God, because God is non existent to me. Was I out to impress my wife? I don't think so. I'm way beyond that these days.
Even after this realization, I continued walking with the dog for another 25 minutes.
No luck still.
But my question remains Fundies, why did I do this? And don't give me the "it doesn't matter because dogs don't go to heaven so they don't count as morality stuff."
I finally phoned the SPCA and they sent someone to pick him up (I was pretty sure that they don't put stray dogs down in my area). The SPCA dude was a flaming gay. I felt like saying, "if you want to get married to another guy, it is OK with me," but I held back. But man was he gay. He referred to the dog as "honey." And yes, he knew the dog was male. While putting him into the truck he said, "looks like you are neutered, honey."
Anyway, I asked if there was a chance he would be put down, and I was relieved to hear that they don't put stray dogs down in my area.
March 30, 2008
THE NEW 16 COMMANDMENTS: HOW TO DEAL WITH ISLAM IN THE WEST
Lex over at Gripes of Wrath has found a very good article entitled What Is To Be Done, by Hugh Fitzgerald. I'm going to just copy the summary for my blog readers, some of whom will be upset over this piece:
The above makes sense to me. Unfortunately, realistically only some of these issues will ever be marginally touched on, until perhaps it is too late.
With that said, I don't see much difference in Muslim demands when pitted against fundamental Christian demands when it comes to gay marriage and choice and God in school. The only difference is the reaction of what happens when their mythological world views are shut down. Muslims are dangerous. Christians are collectively becoming more enlightened, even the most Fundamental of them, and though they are whining and bitching over the unChristianization of the West, they are impotent as reality has taken over. When it is said and done, most of them can't possibly believe with 100% conviction in their fantasy stories.
God Is For Suckers has a great comedy clip up by Bill Maher on religion (language warning):
I'm not worried about the Christian Right anymore. The internet is destroying the YEC movement very quickly. And the Fundy Jews are not a bother either, except they might give me a dirty look while shaking a finger at me.
Back to the Muslims. Read Lex's article about Critical Mass when it comes to Muslim immigration as well.
It really gets me that Muslims collectively are against Israel's right to exist, and like to pretend that it is prior to 1948 when dealing with what the solution for the region is. By 1948, there was something like 600,000 Jews in the region. Many of whom migrated there from Europe, but so what? It is OK for millions of Muslims to migrate to the West but not OK for 300,000 Jews to migrate to a tiny region in the middle east that was non sovereign land? Talk about hypocrisy.
1. Education of Infidels, so that they are well aware of the contents of the texts of Islam -- Qur'an, Hadith, Sira.
2. Education of Infidels, so that they understand how, over 1350 years, those texts have been received, and acted upon, by Believers.
3. Education of Infidels, so that they know a good deal about the history of Islamic conquest, and subsequent subjugation of non-Muslim peoples in the lands conquered -- a subjugation that, no matter what the land, or the kind of non-Muslims conquered, the result was always the same.
4. Education of Muslims within Infidel countries, so that they will understand that the failures of Muslim societies -- political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral -- are the direct result of Islam itself.
5. An end to all Muslim immigration to Infidel lands.
6. Imposition of tests for naturalization that require a detailed knowledge of the history and cultural achievements of the Western country in question -- see "Going Dutch" for one, admittedly exaggerated-for-effect example.
7. Inclusion, in the test for naturalization, of a loyalty oath, swearing sole allegiance to the political and legal institutions of the particular Infidel nation-state. In the case of the United States, allegiance to the Constitution would be considered adequate. Subsequent proof of perjury would, in the law, be considered valid grounds for stripping a naturalized citizen of that citizenship.
8. Making any support, direct or indirect, for Jihad -- defined as the "struggle" to remove all obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam, including but not limited to the political and legal institutions of the host country – illegal.
9. Preventing any foreign funds from entering the country to be spent for the building or upkeep of mosques or other institutions connected to Islam, or for campaigns of Da'wa.
10. Curtailing in the prisons campaigns of Da'wa, on the grounds that the evidence shows that those who convert contain a high proportion of people who subsequently present a threat to society.
11. Refusing to bow to any Muslim demands for changes either in schools or in workplaces to accommodate Muslim rituals or Muslim ideas of what is fitting, from the hijab (where banned, as in France) or for extra time off for prayers in the middle of the work-day. This is not the sort of accommodation that Infidels, in Infidel lands, should be expected to make. In other words, the policy should be No Changes For Islam.
12. Reciprocity in the current number of mosques. Taking into account the absence, for tens of millions of non-Muslims in Muslim-ruled lands, of churches, Hindu temples, and other houses of worship, the policy should be to reduce the number of mosques in Western lands until there is a change in the Muslim lands. Reciprocity is a concept most people can understand and justify.
13. Reducing benefits so that large families (likely to be Muslim) cannot continue to be formed by those who assume they will be supported by the state. Muslim women will be expected to work in the same numbers as non-Muslim women, and will no longer be supported by the Infidel state (that is, Infidel taxpayers) to be breeding machines.
14. Enforcement of the laws against polygamy will be increased. Those practicing polygamy will be subject to being stripped of citizenship and returned to that Muslim state from which they, or their closest relatives, came. Since so many Muslims in Western Europe continue to observe, in Muslim enclaves, the mores of the countries that they, or their parents, or their grandparents, came from, the argument that they cannot "go back" can be dealt with. There is no obligation for the countries of Western Europe to live with the colossal error of their immigration policy.
15. There will be not the slightest concession made to Muslim sensibilities on the subject of aspects of Islam, including Muhammad. Those who wish to live in an environment where Islam is to be free of criticism are free to move to Muslim countries. There are many dozens of them. They control vast land areas, and vast natural resources. This is not a case of a tiny people having no place to go.
16. Efforts should be made to publicize the most celebrated defectors from Islam, to publish and distribute their books, to make much of them. This should be done both for the education of Infidels, and for the conceivable education of those who, born into Islam, may be persuaded to leave it.
The countries of North America and Western European countries can do much to make the practice of Islam, and campaigns of Da'wa, harder to support, and to make those Muslims who are intent on adhering to this ideology so dangerous to non-Muslims think again about remaining in the Western world. Benefits can be limited. Foreign sources of aid can be cut. The general atmosphere of continuing refusal to yield, and of ever-increasing Infidel awareness of the texts of Islam and the history of Muslim conquest, will naturally create conditions of suspicion and hostility that are not, to the well-informed, either wicked, or baseless but, alas, entirely reasonable.
The above makes sense to me. Unfortunately, realistically only some of these issues will ever be marginally touched on, until perhaps it is too late.
With that said, I don't see much difference in Muslim demands when pitted against fundamental Christian demands when it comes to gay marriage and choice and God in school. The only difference is the reaction of what happens when their mythological world views are shut down. Muslims are dangerous. Christians are collectively becoming more enlightened, even the most Fundamental of them, and though they are whining and bitching over the unChristianization of the West, they are impotent as reality has taken over. When it is said and done, most of them can't possibly believe with 100% conviction in their fantasy stories.
God Is For Suckers has a great comedy clip up by Bill Maher on religion (language warning):
I'm not worried about the Christian Right anymore. The internet is destroying the YEC movement very quickly. And the Fundy Jews are not a bother either, except they might give me a dirty look while shaking a finger at me.
Back to the Muslims. Read Lex's article about Critical Mass when it comes to Muslim immigration as well.
It really gets me that Muslims collectively are against Israel's right to exist, and like to pretend that it is prior to 1948 when dealing with what the solution for the region is. By 1948, there was something like 600,000 Jews in the region. Many of whom migrated there from Europe, but so what? It is OK for millions of Muslims to migrate to the West but not OK for 300,000 Jews to migrate to a tiny region in the middle east that was non sovereign land? Talk about hypocrisy.
March 28, 2008
FITNA: The Movie Barack Obama Doesn't Want You Watch
The much anticipated controversial short movie (17 minutes) FITNA is now available on line. It is really a very well done anti-Islam movie, which takes actual quotes from the Koran and quotes from radical Muslims and then illustrates how these Muslims and the Koran aren't just trying to scare us:
Originally, I had the below link up to show the movie, but it seems that Live Leak has received credible threats and wound up grudgingly taking the film off its site. Click the video below to see Live Leak's explanation:
I had to add the shot against Obama because I strongly believe that pulling out of Iraq will absolutely give radical Islam a perceived victory. And after watching FITNA, who wants that? Obama is not the right guy for the job today. Maybe in 100 years, but not today.
I also think that as John McCain stated about radical Muslims after 9/11 (as paraphrased by Rondi on her blog): "We are going to have to kill a lot of them and civilize the rest of them," is as true today as it was over 6 years ago.
Note: Correction, it was Lawrence Eagleburger, a McCain adviser, who was responsible for the above quote.
McCain is going to be the next President. From what I've watched and read, Hillary Clinton is pretty much mathematically eliminated from winning, and 28% of her supporters will vote for McCain if she doesn't end up as the Democratic nominee.
McCain is also no pushover for the Christian Right either. He'll concern himself with real business.
Originally, I had the below link up to show the movie, but it seems that Live Leak has received credible threats and wound up grudgingly taking the film off its site. Click the video below to see Live Leak's explanation:
I had to add the shot against Obama because I strongly believe that pulling out of Iraq will absolutely give radical Islam a perceived victory. And after watching FITNA, who wants that? Obama is not the right guy for the job today. Maybe in 100 years, but not today.
I also think that as John McCain stated about radical Muslims after 9/11 (as paraphrased by Rondi on her blog): "We are going to have to kill a lot of them and civilize the rest of them," is as true today as it was over 6 years ago.
Note: Correction, it was Lawrence Eagleburger, a McCain adviser, who was responsible for the above quote.
McCain is going to be the next President. From what I've watched and read, Hillary Clinton is pretty much mathematically eliminated from winning, and 28% of her supporters will vote for McCain if she doesn't end up as the Democratic nominee.
McCain is also no pushover for the Christian Right either. He'll concern himself with real business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)