Sunday, December 13, 2009

Why do so many christians claim that outsiders believe in their god but are "suppressing the truth"?

     It's not as though anyone has ever presented any evidence of the christian god. To me, it looks like a snow job. It is most likely that there is no being corresponding to the christian god. Next is the possibility that there is such a being, but that he is a fraud. It is incredibly unlikely that the character described is as described as such a being (who supposedly desires that we know him) could easily make himself known.

Sunday, December 06, 2009

Ah, It looks like Ray has recruited some people to pose as "atheists."

     Naturally, Ray from "Atheist Central" wishes to create an illusion that non-christians are childish people who would rather taunt and insult rather than argue points. Enter Fullcircle. He claims to be an atheist. But he criticizes anyone who exhibits rational thought. He only has praise for those who throw playground taunts at Ray and his followers. This is exactly the portrayal that Ray wishes to make. There is no question in my mind. This is an imposter.
     Here are some recent examples of this characters style of argument: "You bleating ignoramus! By the way it's 'grammar', Puffy, not 'grammer'. Got that?" "Loafie--Do you actually think anything you might say'd be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain?" "Tuber Q Losis, is there no end to your sycophancy? If I were Ray, I'd find your obsequiousness galling." (granted, he had to look up a few words, there) "Lisa darling, you tender soul, I'm sure we'll all take your sweet words under advisement...NOT."
     Look all you want. He does not say anything that even pretends to be a rational, coherent argument. It's all name-calling and insults. It might be understandable if, say, the quotes I gave were lapses of frustration. They aren't. They are his standard fare. He is actively trying to discredit all dissent to christianity by portraying his act as representative of said dissent. He also criticizes any who uses a rational argument against christianity. This is not an atheist. This is someone trying to create a false image of atheists.
     Now, I realize that, since I don't rule out the possibility of some god existing, I am not an atheist either. One might wonder why the charade upsets me. It upsets me because it feeds Ray's con. Ray doesn't distinguish between atheists and anyone else who disagrees with his sales pitch. This character doesn't either.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

He's not even a good liar.

     Daniel is at it again, predicting the imminent destruction of California. You will excuse me if I don't make travel plans. However, that idiocy is not the point of my post. My point is that on this thread he makes the following comments: "Also Oranges, this proves that if you have a serious question, and are not simply chanting your nonsense, your posts will get thru." "I repent of letting your posts thru, since I trust you will only return to your liberal useful idiocy. You were not banned before, you were just boring.
Now you are banned."
     It seems obvious that Daniel had already banned Oranges (for being inconvenient to his lies) but made an exception to "prove" that he hadn't engaged in such nonsense. Seriously, if you take Daniel at his word, he changed his mind because Oranges made a post that he considered valid.
     Still, I wonder what lies he will come up with on the morning of the 29th when California is still standing. I really don't think he will have the courage to admit that he was only speaking for himself. After all, he already hides from truth, banning those bloggers who expose his lies. He seems to be a frail little shell of a human being. Of course, I don't know him personally. It could all be an illusion. But it is a running theme of his known actions on his blog.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

A passed test of loyalty? Or a failed test of ethics?

     Genesis 22 tells of a story about the biblical god commanding Abraham to offer up his son as a sacrifice. Now, I have heard many people point to this as a demonstration of admirable qualities of loyalty and obedience. But it has never sat well with me. This seems exactly the sort of order that one should never obey.
     Among human rulers, only the pettiest want such devotion. If there is a god and there is any truth to the story, it seems much more likely that the god would be testing to see if Abraham would have the courage to say "no" to a blatently wicked command. Perhaps we need to learn to be able to refuse even an "ultimate authority" when we know the command is no good. If that is the case, Abraham was simply not ready. I look at the world and see that many people are not ready.

Sunday, August 09, 2009

Wow, it's like Randall Munroe knows me.

     Except that I don't drink alcohol at all. I guess he changed details to avoid any threat of a lawsuit.

Saturday, August 08, 2009

On censorship

     It is often difficult to navigate the boundary between when someone should and should not be able to block certain types of discourse he may find offensive. The extremes are easy. Anyone should able to block the hurling of epithets in his own home if he finds it offensive. Contrariwise, no one should be able to block any type of speech that he would not even know about if he were not looking for an excuse to be offended.
     On my own blog, I will delete any comment in which the language turns blue. (I delete all of Clostridiophile's comments because it reached a point where everything he posted was a foul-mouthed string of personal insults. Someday, he might put forward a decent post. But I will not know. I have no desire to sift through that and will delete them without reading them.) But on other blogs, I do not focus on language turning blue for how it turns the language blue. I will note, for example, when it is turning an "admission of a mistake" into sarcasm. But then I am calling on the inappropriate sarcasm.
     There are some people whose idea of entertainment is a 30-minute, non-stop barrage of four-letter words. I have even been told that I have "no sense of humor" because I am not impressed with that sort of thing. Now, I do wish that that wasn't quite so prevalent. I like sublety and depth to my entertainment; and it is just difficult to find. The people who like that sort of thing are welcome to have it. I do not begrudge them their tastes. I just don't like the way it has become so ubiquitous that finding anything else is nearly impossible. It is as though the entire artworld were taken over by nothing but "the blue duck."

Monday, July 20, 2009

Copy of post at "Atheist Central"


     I see you deleted my comment again. My comments have, of course, never violated your stated rules. But I do realize that you use pretense because you know that Jesus is just a lie you use to make your money.
     If someone gives an answer that you consider wrong, that is something to refute. Showing an answer to be wrong is a refutation. So, if you acknowledge that answers have been given to your "nothing created everything" play on words and you state that there is nothing to refute, you must believe the answers to be correct.


     I mentioned a play on words in my response to Ray. There are two possible meanings to the expression, "nothing created everything." It can be an assertion that there was no creation event to the universe at large, with which most atheists would agree. Or it can state that first there was nothing and that somehow that the nothing was an active creator, which is what Ray lyingly insists it means, once he hears no objections.


     I am reprinting this here as Ray is likely to delete the post again.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

This is a comment I made in respone to Nathaniel on "Atheist Central."


     "'Atheist' is a term to describe someone who does not believe in gods. It is also used to describe someone who disbelieves in gods." [Emphasis in original]
     It is rather misleading to list the more common definition last. The way you have worded it, someone unfamiliar with usage might think that your preferred definition is more common. It is not.
     "This is not something just made up by atheists themselves."
     That is in dispute. Perhaps you would like to try evidence. You could quote several people (none of them atheists) talking about atheists in a manner that makes clear that they are using your definition. (I'm not holding my breath.) I don't think you can find any.
     "Seriously, give it up. You're starting to sound like Ray and his Crocoduck argument."
     Perhaps you should give it up. You already sound like Ray. And, as I have pointed out above, you have directly contradicted yourself. Furthermore, my definition is the one in more common use. Yours appears to be used only by people with an agenda. I suspect that you are frustrated because the facts are against you. So you tell me to go away.
     It might be interesting for you to try to find any instances of your preferred definition being used in a manner that clearly does not pursue an agenda. That would be seeking a counterexample to my claim. A dictionary listing does not fit the criterion will list all claimed uses. The writers are not using the definitions themselves; but are noting its usage elsewhere. In the case of your definition, that usage is invariably by people trying to impede the more common definition of the term.

******END OF MY COMMENT ON THE POST *************

     The dispute is fairly straightforward. He doesn't like that people use the word "atheist" in the common meaning of believing there are no gods. I regard the definition of "anyone who doesn't specificly believe in a god" (which would include infants -- indeed, most times I see that definition used is to say "really, even newborns?" in response to some generalization (warranted or unwarranted) someone has made about atheists) as contrived and deliberately disruptive of communication.
     "What I meant by the sentence you quoted what that I found your comments to be very hostile towards atheism, your definition of it, not mine."
     "I wrote, clearly, that you seemed hostile towards 'atheism' [quotes corrected] as a definition, not hostile against some of the people who could be described as atheists in particular."
     This is the self-contradiction to which I referred. I have no problem with atheism. It's individuals that want to include everything but the kitchen sink in the term (deliberate exaggeration here; I'm making a point) that upset me.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Salt of the earth

     It amazes me that any people would want to think of themselves as "salt of the earth." Consider. Salting the earth was a highly destructive practice that it impossible to grow crops on the salted land for years. Even if we take it as spiritual symbolism, such a person must be spiritually destructive. It seems to me that certain religions carry direct warnings that they are harmful.

Saturday, May 09, 2009

On ridiculing ideas:

     I have seen some people quote Thomas Jefferson as saying, "Ridicule is he only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them." I don't know whether he actually said that. Either way, I disagree with the proposition. A proposition must be intelligible before one can ridicule it. An "unintelligible proposition" would be one that one could not determine any meaning behind. And there would be no point to ridicule.
     In actual usage, ridicule is used by people who don't want an idea considered, but are incapable of arguing against the idea. In essence, they find the idea challenges their indoctrination and they want it suppressed. For my part, I find those who use ridicule in place of argument to be useless to discussions. They contribute nothing.

UPDATE: Here is a site that brings my position into high relief. Interestingly, though it is not their intent, the people who use ridicule against christian ideas may as well be writing "Great post, Ray" to all of Ray Comfort's evolution posts. They are doing the same thing, even if they are not on the same side.

Sunday, May 03, 2009


     This is, of course, a response to the old lie SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLVM. I seem to remember hearing Einstein quoted as saying it is impossible simultaneously to prevent and prepare for war.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

I've probably said this before ...

     Ive probably said this before; but I don't believe that christians really believe what they say about their god. I think they are trying to convince themselves as much as they are trying to convince anyone else. Consider, blogs set up by christians to promote their "faith" often start out admitting comments. But it is only a matter of time. Sooner or later, they either disallow comments completely, or they screen them and allow only those comments that pose no challenge to them. I am, of course, not talking about the "christians" who are actually salesmen. Nothing challenges their beliefs because they are not trying to convince themselves that they believe. They are only trying to sell goods. But the people truly trying to support christianity ultimately seem to have a need to hide. This has been my experience, at any rate.

Saturday, April 04, 2009

Cross-posting here because Daniel feels the need to delete truth

Cross-posting here because Daniel feels the need to delete truth


     It is rather strange that you criticize the "prophecies" of others. You are already a false prophet yourself. You have written slanders about me and deleted my denials. There is no truth in you.

Thursday, April 02, 2009

To Daniel:

     "Pvb- Defend each other?
     "Are you a fellow pedophile to this man in your thoughts Pvb?"
     Actually, I was was referring to Freed's comment. He didn't like Oranges defending me from him "stepping on [my] toes." So, this refers to non-christians defending each other, not pedophiles. But I expect you know this.
     "I feel that it is a perfectly logical conclusion to be suspicious that you are. Not to accuse you, but to suspect you of it, as you doth protest too much."
     No, you are accusing. And I expected that a denial of your accusation would meet with your "doth protest too much" line. That is why I considered the question dishonest and why I didn't answer. I didn't like your bait.
     "Comments are closed on this thread."
     Yeah, that's the way to show you weren't making an accusation. Block responses.
     Now, let me tell you something about protesting too much. It is when someone who does something tries to hide it by bashing anyone and everyone who does the same thing. He is trying, preemptively to deflect suspicion. No reaction to an actual accusation could be protesting too much. And a refusal to answer it is certainly not protesting too much.

     Issuing a challenge and then blocking responses says a great deal about the master you say you serve. I don't know if you will read this. But it would do you some good to take a good look at yourself. Do you like what you see?


     Well, anyone else who may be reading this, the link goes back to his thread. I leave it to you to judge whether making an accusation and blocking replies is representative of christian love and honesty.

Well, no one got the points.

     A nice effort from Dax, though. It seems we have no Asimov fans here. "A House for the Feeble-minded" was taken from the story "Profession." It's a very interesting story. To me, it seems to carry the subtext that creativity cannot be taught.
     I see an analogy between the Education Tapes of the story and our educational system. They tend to "lock in" a particular way of thinking. People coming out are not able to see outside of their own little scope. And, no, that scope is not "reality." Of course, religious instruction also "locks in" its way of thinking.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

And once again...

     And once again Daniel goes running off. This time, it's just to his own blog, where he has the nice, convenient, delete button. Strange, isn't it? When he does it, he calls it "righteous rebuking." When others do it to him, he calls it "flaming" or "trying to steal [his] peace." Now, there is an important difference. Daniel does it on no evidence. The criticisms he receives, are evidenced by his own blog. The recent criticism refers to his own post here.
     I suppose everyone should be able to see his true colors.

Friday, March 27, 2009

It's points time again.

     Seriously, I can't seem to give these points away. Okay, the talk of home-schooling versus public schooling over at Dan's blog reminded me of "A House for the Feeble-minded." There are 150 point available to the first person who can get the reference.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Reynold has said...

     Reynold has said that the first people to think of and to hear of the idea of evolution were creationists. I am not inclined to agree. Sure, they openly claimed to believe in creationism. But, at the time, the church was very much in control. To do otherwise would have ended their careers -- and quite possibly invited a very unpleasant death. To anyone with an inquisitive mind creationism just does not make sense. Evolution has the advantage of making sense.
     The church hierarchy was very interested in weeding out dissent. It could only do so, however, when it could recognize it. As the leaders did not think like scientists, they would not be readily able to recognize disguised heretics.
     I believe large-scale evolution is held as a sacred belief. I also believe that if any scientist openly questioned it, his career would be ruined. Submissions to peer-reviewed journals would be returned unread. Now, this is testable in principle. But no scientist openly questions evolution. To test my idea, a group of scientists would need to do just that, and we could determine whether they continued to get published. The test will not be conducted. Who would put his career on the line in such a manner?

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Daniel is back.

     He changed his blog address. I posted which fits in this thread. I am reposting it here as I expect he will block it. I could be wrong. I always hope that he will turn to honesty; but -- I'm not holding my breath. In case anyone is interested, my comment follows.


     No, the lies I called you on, I demonstrated to be lies at the time. That's why I say they were careless. And for me to be bearing false witness, I would accusing someone of something of which I had no reason to think they were guilty.
     My comment was relevant to yours. I think you shut down because you were hiding from truth. I still think that you are trying to create an illusion. I am on no warpath; but I am, to use your terminology, rebuking you. But we shall see.
     Your claim of warpath is without merit, by any standard definition. Maybe you consider me to be "on a warpath" because I actually call you when you say something untrue. Perhaps it's because I don't sing your praises. I think it's because I speak truth and truth is your enemy. But you are always welcome to show me wrong. Or you can show me correct by blocking my comments.

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Some notes about presuppositional apologetics as practiced by Sye (and now Dan)

     It is dishonest to call someone to account for something not in dispute. Logic is not in dispute. Furthermore, as logic is necessary to account for anything, any attempt to account for logic would be inherently circular.
     Your god does not account for logic. Please stop pretending that it does. Your god also has not revealed anything to you "in such a way that [you] can be certain." If it had, you would be specifying the method and why you consider the method to be certain. The whole "in such a way" line is designed either to disguise the fact that there was no revelation or to disguise the method to prevent analysis. Either way, the claim is self-refuting.
     Your god is not a necessary precondition for logic. Logic must be present before one can discuss preconditions.

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Looks like a politician

     Someone recently said that Dawkins has gone on record saying that he won't debate creationists because he doesn't wnat to give them an air of respectability. I don't know if Dawkins actually said that; but I will comment on the described attitude. It reminds me of advise purportedly given to candidates seeking office. If you are behind in the polls, seek a debate. If you are ahead in the polls shun any debate you can.
     Creationists currently have no argument. They simply say something on the order of "it's too hard to understand how we got here, therefore god must have done it." A debate against that would "lend respectability" only in the eyes of someone who is not actually looking at the arguments. Avoiding a debate on that motivation is only seeking to keep people believing your position uncritically. I expect that if most people believed creationism, creationists would avoid debates for the same reason.
     Now, this isn't to say that there aren't good reasons not to want to debate. Perhaps he is simply not interested in whether uncritical minds agree with him or not. Consider, it is not important to me if people believe the world to be flat. I make an exception for rockets scientists and sattelite engineers. People in fields like that need to know the world is round. But they need to know based on the evidence, not because that is what they are told. It doesn't matter if a surgeon believes the world to be flat. It's not going to change how he does his job.
     I am convinced that some things are taught in elementary school only because religions preached the reverse. That the earth goes around the sun is meaningless to a young child. There seems no point in insisting that they believe that. And they will only be believing that on the authority of the instructor. For people for whom the fact is important, the evidence will be part of their eventual studies. Furthermore, someone committed to either position based on what they were instructed when he was young would make a very poor scientist. So, it shouldn't matter if the church is teaching geocentrism. Any worthwhile scientist should be able to revise the belief based on the data.

Friday, February 20, 2009

A note to Clostridiophile.

     You have demonstrated to me that you are not interested in knowing what my position is, that you are not trying to persuade me to your position, and that you are only looking for something that you can twist and ridicule. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before. But do not bother posting on my blog anymore. I will delete your comments unread. I would love to have a civilized discussion; but I realize that you are just not interested.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

For those who wish to convince me that evolution is scientific:

     Leave the ridicule and the mockery at the door. Thank you very much. I find a great deal of similarity between supporters of evolution and supporters of creationism. One of the similarities is that both groups like to mock and ridicule those who disagree or question. If you resort to saying "sometimes you have to combat nonsense with ridicule" or something similar, I will think that you do not have a case.
     Do not presume to tell me what I think. I will tell you what I think. You can tell me what you think.
     Do not refer me to 29 Evidences for Macroevolution. Its claims of potential falsifications are wanting. This is an example of why I think large-scale evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory. All of the "tests" I see have been "safe bets." For example, it claims that mammals with feathers would have falsified evolution. However, if you at its discussion about cladistic vs. phenetic classification, you will find that such similarities can be dimissed as superficial. If there were mammals with feathers, it would only be asserted that it was not a shared "derived characteristic."
     Do not tell me that I need to conduct an exhaustive search before I can make a comment. I will reject attempts to keep me busy just to quiet my dissent.
     Should I reject a "potential falsifer," do not tell me it was "good" without addressing my specific rejection. For example, if I say that the observation was made before the prediction, you may endeavor to show that the prediction, in fact, came first. If I say that the prediction was hedged with "may" or "might" (chromosome 2, anyone) you may attempt to show that there was no such hedging.
     Do not give me an experiment designed to distinguish potential paths for evolution but which "confirms evolution" for all possible results. It's the first thing I will check. I am looking for something that put the overall idea of large-scale evolution on the line -- not something that ruled out one of the competing mechanisms.
     If you have it, do present me with a prediction made that could not be made without assuming evolution, such that a failure to confirm could not be excused and that a confirmation was not subject to interpretation, together with its subsequent confirmation. Some concepts are vague. If you expect to find a transitional form, you are more apt to interpret something as a transitional form.


     Elsewhere someone has claimed that post means that I think evolution is specificly false. This is not the case. I am uncommitted on evolution (although it looks plausible enough.) I just say that it hasn't been put through the rigors normally required of scientific theories. Evolution (and large-scale evolution in particular) is an idea that fits existing data. However all "predictions" are protected in some fashion. It cannot be falsified. Chromosome 2 was taken as a confirmation of the prediction that they might find a fusion of chromosomes. But, had no such confirmation been found, it would mean nothing against the idea. It was a "confirm or inconclusive" test.

(I have also corrected some spelling above.)

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

It must be said.

A liar named Sye
Asks the same questions again,
Never accepts truth.

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Daniel is gone.

     He closed his blog, made his profile private, and left. I don't think he's gone for good. He will probably come up with a new user name and a new doomsday "prophecy."
     I suspect he left because he was afraid he wouldn't even be able to keep up his charade for his followers. He pulled up his stakes shortly after Dan (a fellow christian) agreed with me that being lied about would be frustrating. He didn't specificly agree that Daniel was lying about me, just that it would explain my anger with Daniel if it was the case. Now, Daniel was claiming to be a prophet and, according to christianity, someone who lies about people does not speak for the christian god. If Dan were actually to check for himself and decide that Daniel was a false prophet, the game would be up. I do not know whether Dan would consider it important enough to check. But I think Daniel decided he couldn't take any chances.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

How secure are you in your beliefs?

When looking for information about your beliefs, do you confine your search to sources that already agree with you? YES __ NO __

Do you ignore claims and evidence if made or presented by someone who disagrees with you? YES __ NO __

Do you encourage others to ignore anyone who disagrees with you? YES __ NO __

Do you refuse to consider the possibility that your belief is wrong? YES __ NO __

Do you insist that your belief is a necessary precondition for logic? YES __ NO __

Do you claim that anyone who opposes your beliefs must secretly believe them without knowing anything else about such a person? YES __ NO __


5-6 YES: You are completely insecure in your beliefs. They are nothing but a pretense. You shield them desperately because you afraid reality will shatter them.

4 YES: You are somewhat insecure in your beliefs. You fear the possibility of being wrong.

3 YES: You are not really secure or insecure in your beliefs.

2 YES: You are somewhat secure in your beliefs. You are confident that they will withstand scrutiny, but may have difficulty if they should prove to be false.

0-1 YES: You are totally secure in your beliefs. You believe them on the best evidence currently available to you. You are confident they will withstand scrutiny. You are also willing to change your beliefs if new evidence shows they are wrong.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Locally, I have seen a lot of people complaining about photo radar.

     One of the biggest complaints is that it is being used as a revenue source. Well, I'm all for eliminating its effectiveness as a revenue source. Get rid of the lead feet, people. No one is saying (as far as I am aware) that the speed limits are artificially low. People aren't saying that it is nabbing people who aren't speeding. The trouble is that they want to speed but don't want to pay the fine.

Friday, January 09, 2009

Ordinarily, I make the assumption that people actually believe what they are saying.

     There are some obvious exceptions to this. If a salesman thinks his product is inferior, he will deny it if asked. He may claim it superior unsolicited. I have reached a point where I think that dishonesty may be a requirement of christianity. I could be wrong; and I would love to have that demonstrated. But consider: Christians claim they are not interested in the praises of men. Yet, they often praise one another. Would they bother with such praise, if they really thought the recipients uninterested? The mere act of praise indicates that they think the claim of disinterest in such praise is a lie. But they praise on the basis of that lie. So, they are openly endorsing deception.

Friday, January 02, 2009

With apologies to Mr. Seegar

     And there's christians. And there's atheists. And mor(m)ons and muslims, too. And they're all made out of ticky-tacky. And they all look just the same.
     Okay, not all. Still, a lot of the people I run into on the internet are very dogmatic about whichever viewpoint they hold. If there were a "universal church," I'm sure it would the church of "I am right and you are wrong."