Because You Earned It...

Leave it to Betty Bowers to give the perfect and timely response to those making a fuss about certain athletes who...::gAsP::....kneel for the National song.

But scathing sarcasm aside for the moment, there are a few bottom lines we should all be able to agree upon:

1. one either supports another's freedom to not only hold dissenting views, but for them to be able to peacefully protest in support of those views, or one does not support that freedom. (IOW, you either support the 1st Amendment, or you don't)

2. none of us did anything..e.g...none of us worked toward, filled out applications, or did anything else, to be born in the country in which we originated. (IOW, it makes zero sense to be proud of something that we played no role whatsoever in obtaining)

Now I give you Betty Bowers.....

Atmospheric Science: The Cover Up

Riddle me this:


Why would someone trust the information in this satellite photo....

but not this satellite photo.....

?


Today, September 8th, 2017, it is a beautiful, warm, sunny day here on Florida's West coast. Perfect beach weather! The type of weather for which snowbirds("snowbirds" = Florida slang for tourists from the North) flock here in the upcoming winter months.

If not for the weather forecasts and the institutions behind them..e.g....International Space Station, NASA, etc., you wouldn't in a million years think that looming in the Atlantic Ocean right now is a monstrous, category 5 hurricane heading directly toward Florida. And yet, millions of people are taking heed and trusting the atmospheric physics and chemistry behind the meteorology.

So, what gives? Why then are there some people who don't trust these same sources when it comes to, say, the shape of the earth? In image 2 you can plainly see the curvature of the earth. Normally the apologetic from flat-earthers is that NASA, and by extension, every other space administration globally, is part of a huge cover up to hide the true shape of the planet that we inhabit. In other words, they contend that the photos that show a spherical planet are "fake".

Of course, not once have I heard a credible reason for why they would be hiding the true shape of the earth, but this is part and parcel with conspiracy theorists..i.e..never connecting the dots.

In the meantime I think I will but my faith in the atmospheric sciences. And by "faith", I mean it in the colloquial sense, not the religious sense. The former, of course, is based upon a proven track-record and this is why I trust it, while the latter is not, which is why I do not trust it.                                                                                                                                             

Suds - Psychic - Songs

Okay, I can get on board with some suds, specifically, an ice cold bottle of  Negra Modelo with a squeeze of lime. And of course, being a musician I can get on board with some songs, as long as those songs aren't Folk or Country songs, and this goes doubly for today's Country music. But I digress. This could be for a whole discussion of its own.

What I cannot get on board with, though, are charlatans. It's especially awkward to see that a former classmate has fallen into this line of work, which means that at some point they either knowingly set out to prey on people when they are at their most vulnerable, or they have been duped (self-deceived) into believing that they have special powers. I would venture a guess that the later scenario is much less common than the former. Either way, on the top of a list of the most likely explanations for when seers, mediums, psychics, and clairvoyants, etc. get "hits" - for instance, when the personalities of our dearly departed loved ones meet up at a TV studio, or in this case, a tavern, to reconnect with their living relatives back here on earth - this is because the "medium" has used cold reading techniques, a la, "I'm sensing someone here lost a loved one to illness........either a Mary, or a Marvin? I'm getting an 'M' coming through. Anyone know a Mary, or a Marvin, or a Melissa, or a Mark who passed away?"

To the rational-minded it is clear what is really taking place, here. Anyway, I saw the above ad on social media a few weeks back, and since I went to Junior High School with this person I thought about striking up a conversation. Then I thought, nah, better to just remember her as the cute girl with hip hugger bell bottoms from back in the day. It's not that I don't still think this sort of thing ultimately does more harm than good, not to mention it gives organized religion a leg-up; I still firmly believe this. It's just that I'm trying to pick my battles a little more selectively these days, which I confess is not easy, especially given the current state of affairs in American right now.

     

See You Later, Alligator!

Today's featured fallacy: the straw man

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."

~ Wikipedia

In the wake of the whole protest in Charlottesville, anyone on social media has no doubt seen the array of memes that people are posting, both "for" and "against", the recent removal of certain Civil War related statues/monuments., etc. Welp, the above gem of a meme is one such meme.


Okay, point by point:

"Gonna" isn't a word, you *insipid morons.

*Yes, this is a nit pick and has nothing to do with a straw man. And yes, calling someone a "moron" is itself a fallacy, namely, an ad hominem. However, the insult isn't the extent of my argument, as I'm including reasoned arguments along with it. In other words, the personal insult is not in lieu of an argument, so not technically an ad hominem. 

Next, the statues aren't being removed "for no reason"; they're being removed and some relocated because they represent a part of history in which a part of America was advocating (and fighting for) the right to not only own other human beings, but to beat them should they act up or show defiance. Saying that the statues are being removed for "no reason", besides being untrue and intellectually lazy, is a way to make it easier to refute, hence, the straw man fallacy. You make your opponent's argument sound "silly," then it's easier to criticize.

Other arguments:

"By taking the statues down, your erasing history!" (misspelling intentional)

Nope, you can't "erase" history. 'Ever heard of books? Libraries? Museums?

"The Great Pyramids of Giza were built by slaves, too. Let's remove them!"

Okay, fine. Move to Egypt, apply for citizenship, and then petition to have them removed. 'Probably won't succeed, mind you, since there was such a thing as "obligatory labor" in that era, which is akin to when the Amish here in the U.S. raise a new barn. The community joins in to see it through. In this scenario, no one is owned and no one is beaten or lynched if they flat-out refuse to help. So, yeah, this sort of false equivalence isn't going to fly.

Other false equivalence:

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides" ~ Donald Trump, POTUS

There aren't "many sides" in this particular case, there are only two sides: 

1) White Supremacists, and 2) people against White Supremacists.

Yes, I'm afraid that's it. There are those whose mission is to prevent equal rights and beliefs for anyone non-white, and there are whose mission is to ensure those same rights for ALL people, regardless of skin-color. Which side are you on?

Lacey Sturm: A Former Atheist's Testimony

So, the other day on social media a video popped up in my news feed. The person who posted it friend-requested me a few months back, and best as I can tell, this was because he is a lover of "prog-metal"(progressive heavy metal music). To connect the dots for anyone reading along, my old band is thought to have helped pioneer this sound, at least, according to fans and industry people. The correlation is below.

After a little investigating, aka, clicking around on this person's page, I found that the person who posted said video is crippled and in a wheelchair and also appears to be a father of a little girl. This, and the fact that he is a fan of what I do, mainly the former, made me think twice and ultimately decide against posting a response or rebuttal to the video he posted. It made me think twice because his faith could be the only thing getting this guy by in life. And yes, I'm aware that faith could be the only thing getting countless, able-bodied people by in life, as well. As I've said many times on this blog, I do not speak out against religion because I get my jollies or some sort of cheap thrill pulling the carpet out from under people----in this case, it would be a guy in a wheelchair. No. I speak out against religion for largely two reasons, which are, 1) because religion does more harm than good, which, even in this day and age, this clearly still makes the world more dangerous than it needs to be. And 2) because I want believers to know the actual reasons why people become atheists, as opposed to the reasons they are told in church, and/or, as opposed to the reasons they arrive at by projecting their own misinformed views onto me and other atheists.

So, now the video......

Okay, so prior to being "saved", Lacey here, in all of her 16, 17, 18 years on the planet, had been through a lot of hurt. 

Now, I'm not trying to minimize anyone's life experiences, but come on now anyone who's ever been a teen and is now over 40. My goodness! And what's this?....she was self-centered and only thought of herself? Say it isn't so! So, in other words, self-centered just like 99.9999% of all other teens in America. 

[Edit: I've since learned that Lacey Sturm is currently 35, albeit, I have no idea how old she was at the time this video was made]

Lacey goes on..... 

"And when you're an atheist, it kind of....if you don't... if...if life gets too hard, there's really...there's really no reason to keep going.....I don't know." ~ Lacey Sturm 

Correct. You don't know. You don't know what you're talking about, other than making assessments about your own life, which wouldn't be so bad if you weren't also attempting to project your solution onto everyone else. You assume that a teenager who has a lot hurt over feeling like an outcast is on par with a teenager who has a lot of hurt over losing both parents in an automobile accident.

In other words, Lacey here has a very myopic view of life. She thinks that everyone's threshold for emotional pain is exactly the same; that everyone's trials in life are exactly the same, and subsequently, that everyone's problems can be made all better with a once size fits all "elixir" called Christianity. But of course, this is what Christianity does - that is, it teaches us that everyone suffers from the same "root" problem and that there is one solution that will work for everyone. This is actually one of the things I now loathe about Christianity.

So, do you know how I know that this just doesn't work? Here's how: Because for starters, suicidal thoughts are not exclusive to "atheists". That's the biggest clue of all. I can count six people I've known who were devout, church-going, bible-believing Christians who, for one reason or another, decide to end their own lives. 

On a much larger scale, I think it then becomes very safe to say that on any given day in church someone is thinking of (or has recently thought of) committing suicide. Given this, we can see that what Lacey thought of as a direct, unique message from God wasn't so unique after all. In fact, it amounts to confirmation bias: Lacy subjectively validated in her own mind that her problems were "unique" to her and that God had chosen to intervene. It was His Plan.

If that's true, then when Christians have suicidal thoughts and no one picks up on those thoughts, say, in church, we are then being reasonable to conclude that when plans to hang themselves or blow their brains out are carried out, this must be "God's Plan", too. 

Christian's suffering from depression and killing themselves at roughly the same statistical rate as non-Christians, including atheists? It's almost as if there isn't any "Plan" at all. 

Satan Mocks Hardest

Of all of the platitudes and adages that come out of Christian's mouths, there is one phrase in particular that I just find hysterical. 'Funny as shit. It usually surfaces when people are critical of the Christian's god, and it's usually when they have nothing to counter the criticism with.

So,  I guess it's basically a last ditched effort to threaten someone into belief, amounting to, "Oh yeah? Well, you're going to get it later, so neener, neener, neener!!!" Anyone who's spent any time on the playground in elementary school remembers this sort of thing.

Can all of us, believers, and even former believers, agree that Satan is God's worst enemy? Non-believers would be playing along under the pretense that it's all true, of course. So, yes? I mean, who has consistently been a thorn in God's side since day one? Who gives God the most brain damage? Who has single-handedly drafted the most believers and brought them on over to the dark side? Who is the biggest perpetrator of evil?

Answer: Satan, aka, the devil.

Christians: Let's get real. No one mocks God more than Satan. No one. And yet, look---God has not so much as slapped Satan on the wrist. God stands there with arms folded while his worst enemy throws a ginormous monkey wrench into his "Plan".

God is clearly mocked, and yet, God does nothing; zilch; nadda.

Since the idea that neither character exists is not up for consideration to a "True Believer", I'd be curious to hear a defense for this. Anyone?

Liberals and Conservatives: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Some would say that labels only complicate things and cause more division. Okay, maybe in some cases this is true. But in this instance..i.e..where political parties are concerned, if you boil the labels down you're left with certain principles and characteristics.

It is characteristic of conservative-minded people to not be open to new opinions/behaviors. By definition, this would make for at least some close-mindedness, wouldn't it? I think so. Closed to new opinions and points of view? Yes, that falls under close-mindedness.

Conversely, it is characteristic of liberal-minded people to be open to new opinions/behaviors.

So, just sticking to definitions, this seems to fly in the face of the idea that liberals and conservatives are "opposite sides of the same coin," or "birds of the same feather"....that there is really some covert commonality at play, yadda, yadda.

One person on social media put it this way....

If commitment comes from rejection, it means serious thought has gone into this commitment. If commitment comes from tradition, no thought at all has come into it.

This sums is it up pretty well, I think. Sticking with tradition..e.g..if I stick with a principle/value/behavior just because 'That's the way I've always done it!,' this doesn't require any contemplation on my part. I may as well be sticking with tradition for tradition's sake, and this, I contend, is what is taking place a lot of the time nowadays, and it's not only what holds us back as a society, it's what makes our society more dangerous than it needs to be. Less compassion = more potential for danger.

Speaking of society, I'm wondering how a Me, me, me! mindset is conducive to living in a peaceful society? For example, on social media I see one of the current hot topics is health care and the debate on if it's a right or a privilege. The argument that certain people are making is that they shouldn't have to pay for some other person's health needs. Your child has a preexisting condition, do they? Huh. Oh, well. Not my problem.

But yet, if it was their problem, I'm going to venture a guess that they'd surely be fine with getting monetary help from strangers before letting their child die. 

So? Why the posturing, then? Why the short-sighted, myopic view, then?

Here's why: Selfishness...aka, me, me, ME! These people? These people live in their own little societies, their own microcosms, and lately I've been trying to figure out what business they have living in a democratic society. There is no room for a bunch of individual societies here. Only narcissists and sociopaths live in their own little societies.

It's ironic, though: These self-serving, compassion-be-damned people would kill each other once they eliminated those whom they view as "snowflakes", which is their "en vogue", pejorative term for those viewed as weak. Yes, because being anything from poor, to compassionate, to non-religious, to non-white, to non-conservative makes you a crybaby in their eyes.

 Let's just say that I'm not feeling particularly hopeful for the human race these days.

Christian Letters

So, my mother, who lives only ten minutes away, wanted me to stop by her house to check out our former neighbor's obituary.

"Mr. Tench" was a war veteran, and since the obituary had a lot of nice things to say about him, my mother thought I might like to see it. He and his wife, Ann("Mrs. Tench" to me), lived in the house next to us when I was growing up. They were there when we moved into our house, and I believe I was around six yrs old when we arrived. His wife died about ten years ago and their only son died sometime in the 90's. So, Mr. Tench has been there alone for quite a while in the same house. His only daughter in law and grandchildren live up North.

Sometimes I cut down my old street to avoid traffic, and about nine months ago Mr. Tench was doing some odds 'n ends in his yard, so I stopped to say hello. At 90 yrs old, he was pretty sharp, because, while he didn't recognized me right off, he instantly recalled who I was when I mentioned the family name. I'm glad I decided to stop, because that would be the last time I'd ever see him.

To back up a bit, I had already seen the obituary online but I dropped by my mom's house anyway because I had a few things to discuss with her. When I got there she had a bunch of stuff pulled out that she had neatly displayed on her desk..e.g...old photos of my grandmother's side of the family, some greeting cards, and some hand-written letters. The letters were from my grandmother to her siblings, or it might have been her cousins, or maybe both. No matter.

The reason my mom had this stuff pulled out is because her uncle had also recently died. He was one of five siblings, another of which was my maternal grandmother, also deceased. There is only one surviving sibling now, my grandmother's youngest sister. She is in her 90s, and all considered, she is doing well and still living at home. Of course, this is because her son and a few other family members are able to keep a close eye on her.

So, cutting to the chase---my mom grabbed a stack of the letters my grandmother(her mom) had hand-written to other family members. I started reading, and not even one paragraph in I noticed bible quotes with the verse/chapter in brackets..e.g...[2 Timothy 3:4], and the like.

So, quickly, I do a cursory scan down the page, and lo and behold, every single paragraph contained at least one bible quote. In this particular letter my grandmother was speaking about how we live in a fallen world, yadda, yadda. Of course, every generation says this, and I remember my mom telling me that in her day they thought Elvis was "evil" because he gyrated his hips, so, there you go.

But, regretfully, I had a knee-jerk reaction to discovering the bible quotes and I quickly handed the letters back to my mom. When she asked me what was wrong, I told her [paraphrased] that I don't want to see this because it isn't my grandmother speaking; it's her indoctrination speaking. Okay, fine, I might've thrown in a few expletives. I was both saddened and angry. I could see that this upset her, as her eyes watered up.

As nicely as I could, I told my mom that it was bringing back bad memories, because, as I explained,  Christianity stole part of my grandmother's identity.

Now, a Christian onlooker might be thinking, "Yeah? So, what?!?", as if not being your genuine self is a good thing. Or...they might being thinking, "Huh? Christianity didn't steal my identity!"

Okay, it's not only possible, it's beyond-argument-fact: When you set out to live your life in devotion to "God"(or to some other leader..e.g...North Koreans to their leader), you are sacrificing a part of who you really are to appease someone else. And yes, from within the Christian bubble this is seen as a good thing. Fair enough. But on the outside of that bubble parts of the indoctrinated person are absent, simply because the Christian philosophy teaches us to believe that we are "wretched", broken, and in need of fixing. We are no good, "as is". We can't figure things out. We can't be "good"; we need a Master. In fact, our own righteousness is like that of a "filthy rag", according to "God's Word"

How can internalizing such things not change who you really are?

In a lot of ways, it changed who my grandmother really was. But guess what? As kind and caring as she was, this side of her shined through her "faith". It was those rare times that she was things like judgmental or strict that things were the other way around..i.e..her "faith" shined through her.

For example, my grandfather was a carpenter by trade and he had wood-working shop behind their house. My mom expressed to me the day I was over there that my grandmother wouldn't allow my mom to go out to watch or hang around my grandfather because, "Little girls don't do those sorts of things".

Sure, this could be chalked up to society's gender expectations, yes, but the bible teaches that men and women are different, that they were "created" for different reasons, and that their roles are different.

But perhaps most sad of all was a part of the letter where my grandmother was going on about how the youth of their day was so messed up, saying that the reason was because people love pleasure more than they love God, with a supporting bible verse, of course.

I don't know whether this saddens me more or disgusts me more. Imagine, you're given a body along with the urge to seek pleasure, but you're told not to use that body for pleasure. Think about this: In the hierarchy of biological/physiological needs, sex is right up there along side food, water, and AIR!

Be fruitful and multiply, but don't you dare lust!!!!

But kidding aside, when my mom started telling me about some of the instances that my grandmother was critical of her and/or overprotective, I could see that she, too, was becoming upset and dare I say she had some residual anger. It was then that she seemed to actually understand why I was angry and where I was coming from.

Dots: Not Connected.

In this day and age conspiracy theories abound. But what does one do when it hits home? What do you do if you work in proximity to someone who, say...someone who believes that the earth is flat, not spherical, and that NASA (not to mention every other space program around the pancake globe) is trying to hide the "true" shape of our planet from us? Do you bite your tongue? Do you try to reason with them?

Whatever you do(or don't do), it can put a strain on working relationships and even friendships if you're not careful. Approximately a month ago, a friend/colleague turned to me, and with the straightest of faces, told me this: "The earth is flat, bro'".

To back up a bit, this was in response to a part of a previous conversation in which I was being summoned to "write about" a "flat earth". Those who follow me closely might be able to figure out what the context is here. Naturally my response to being summoned to do this was to ask this person if they meant to mock the idea of a flat earth, because I am surely capable of that.  

Welp, no, they were serious, and my heart sank when it hit me that they were not kidding. All I could do at that point was to literally put my face in my hands and utter out loud, "Oh, god....no. No, no, no, NO!"

A few minutes of passionately exchanged ideas took place..i.e....they, offering why science is wrong and how "we've been lied to"; me, why science is right and how the dots are never connected with conspiracy theorists. And, well, they're not connected. What the hell does anyone stand to gain by keeping the true shape of the planet from you, me, and everyone else? No satisfactory answer.

And then some rather obvious questions come up, such as why there are time zones if the earth is flat. How is it that during a lunar eclipse we can actually witness the earth's shadow against the moon, and this shadow is curved? Not to mention, in a flat earth model the earth never even gets between the sun and moon.

Entertaining their hypothesis, if the earth has "edges", why on earth(no pun), in this day and age, where nearly everyone has a camera at their finger tips in their waking hours, has no one ever, not once, taken a video or picture of the "edges" of the earth?

Well, well, it's because the entire North Pole, which the flat-earther believes goes around the entire circumference of the flat, pancake earth, is a heavily guarded "no fly zone". That's why.

IOW, you've now entered the flat earth apologetics zone. Why do we have hundreds of thousands of pictures taken by NASA depicting a spherical planet? They're "faked", that's why. How is it I can be flying over seas and look out a 747's window at a really high altitude and see a curved horizon? Oh, it's because the plane's windows are curved, which creates a fish eye effect, and subsequently this distorts what I'm seeing. I'm dead serious. You can't make this up. ...::sigh::

Fortunately, the subject has not come up since then.

Would removing the turtle and elephants really make it less outrageous?

Meet Dudley Do-Nothing....

We've all heard of "Dudley Do Right", right? Welp, I now give you his cousin, "Dudley Do Nothing".

Dudley Do Nothing supposedly works all day, but interestingly - and conveniently for him - he doesn't actually do anything. Nope, he does jack-squat all day long, despite claiming do be "on the job" at all times and the best at what he does. 'Doesn't seem like a guy you'd hired to fulfill a position or get a job done, does it? I know I wouldn't hire him.

It's both bizarre and disconcerting, though, because there are some people out there who would hire Dudley Do Nothing. This is seriously messed up, especially considering that Dudley Do Nothing is indistinguishable from a worker who's not even there. In fact, Dudley Do Nothing looks a lot like the individual described here....

.

Apathy

 I confess that I never owned a Wham! album or cassette tape. I confess that I never bought a George Michael CD. I did(and still do), however, have an appreciation for George Michael's voice, which I consider to be strong and soulful. I especially like the Queen covers George Michael did..e.g.."Somebody to Love", since Queen is an all time favorite band of mine. And let's face it, not just anybody can jump into Freddy Mercury's shoes. George Michael could. Goosebumps every time.

With the recent publicized death of George Michael, my Facebook feed was blowing up. But not all feedback was positive. One *Facebook friend asked,

Is anyone really sad that George Michael died?

*Disclaimer: by "Facebook friend", I just mean someone who happens to be on my friends list. Often times people friend-request me based on being fans of my music. Many if not most of my Facebook friends I've never met nor will I ever meet.

I don't know what would possess someone to make such an insensitive remark, except maybe to seek attention. But in this particular case, it's fine by me if I never meet such an individual, as I don't want to be associated with anyone who is apathetic about people dying.

But to actually answer their question, yes, I'm sure George Michael's family members and friends are sadden by his passing, not to mention the millions of fans who loved his music. Could it be that this person is just jealous? Hard to say, but one observation I'd like to make is that he was a Trump supporter. Now, is this to say that all Trump supporters are insensitive jerks? No, of course not. But it is rather telling that most of the insensitive jerks I see posting their insensitive opinions are by and large Trump advocates.

I've said it before, and it's worth repeating: Apathy, racism, bigotry, elitism, are nothing new. What's new is that it's apparently trendy to be apathetic, racist, bigoted, and elitist. Someone has made this "en vogue".

BTW, the following was included in the deleted friend's profile pictures:

    

Very profound, isn't it?

As mentioned on other occasions, I still celebrate Christmas as a cultural holiday. Thus, I am not the least bit offended if someone says "Merry Christmas". For those who opt for "Happy Holidays", I feel that these people are just trying to include people of all faiths, and/or, religious persuasions; I don't feel that they are trying to strip anyone of their right to celebrate Christmas or whatever else one chooses to celebrate. The common denominator is that we are all human beings.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!!!!!

Festive Feet

This is something that I can not only enjoy for the holidays here in the South, but year round. Every day is flip flop weather in Florida! Oh, and by "holidays", I mean including Christmas. Yes, I've posted it before, but it's still a nice change from looking at decorated palm trees and houses.

In the End

I've often said in the past that if I could get just one religious person to put fear aside and to really examine the belief-system that they've likely been handed(just as it was handed to me), then it would all be worth it in the end. But who am I fooling? Come on....... really? Do I really believe that deep down?

I'm starting to wonder. I mean, is it really worth leaving the impression with the people I encounter online that I'm "difficult", trying to "one-up" everyone, and overall, just a big meanie because they are the ones who can't see that being an atheist blogger doesn't define me? Is it really worth the thousands of hours of blogging/discussing/debating, and yes, sometimes arguing, just to have most people write-off what I have to say with the wave of a hand, simply because they've been indoctrinated to do just that? Is it really worth putting aside the things in life that bring joy, as opposed to conflict and derision, just so someone can tell me with straight face that I'm "blinded by Satan"?......::sigh::

There's only one thing worse than having an invisible friend, and that's having an invisible enemy.

Church Marquees Continued...

The words of wisdom for today are:




Feed your faith.......

......starve your doubts.

 I suppose that there could be worse advice than this, but I can't think of any at this present moment. Of course, this is straight off the church marquee I saw just a few hours ago, so it's fresh in my mind. Then again, viewed from within the Christian bubble it makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Yes. If a thought that conflicts with your Christian worldview attempts to enter your mind, DON'T let it in! Thought be gone!...vamos! This is the devil tempting you!.......::sigh::


But today, being on the outside of the Christian bubble, there stands a herd of elephants in the living room. When it comes to religion, "doubt" is bad thing. Amen. Yet, interestingly, doubt and skepticism, which go hand in hand, are tools that we use in our everyday lives that keep us from being duped, and at times, doubt and skepticism keep us from being physically and/or emotionally harmed, and in some cases even killed.

I've said it before and it's worth repeating: Being skeptical weeds out error. Doubting the used car salesman whose sales-pitch seems too good to be true might very well save you from investing your hard-earned money in a hunk of junk or a lemon that might break once you drive it off the lot, and if not then, a week later.

See, in no other facet of life but religion (or "spirituality") do we cast skepticism aside and just believe, unquestionably. It's almost as if the redactors of the Bible knew damned-well that what they were selling was outrageous and unbelievable - mind you, this is coming from people who didn't even know where the sun went at night - so they needed to include a clause or two that admonished the reader to NOT allow doubt into their minds.

The red flag unfurls.

'Merica

Welp, you know what they say: nothing divides people like politics, which of course runs a close second place to religion.

I'll weigh in briefly on what I see taking place here in America, take it, or leave it:

Okay, in one corner we have Donald Trump; in the other corner we have Hillary Clinton. From what I gather, most people at least agree that this race is a case of the lesser of two evils, or put another way... which dog has the least fleas.

For sake of discussion, I'm willing to concede that this is precisely the case. There is no doubt in my mind that there's shadiness on both sides. I would never deny that. Shadiness comes with the turf when it comes to politics.

Since I'm in the music business, I like to use the band manager analogy: If your manager isn't crafty enough and smart enough to rip you off, then you don't want them as a manager. This is the person, after all, who is going to bat for you. It's the person who, while they might be nickel and diming you here and there, they are the one dealing with other shady people in the business, people who would love nothing more than to rake a bunch of unsuspecting musicians over the coals. A fight fire with fire sort of thing. But I digress.

Shadiness in politics is a given. That being said, I would never, even on my stupidest day, equate the level of crazy going on here. Allow me to be blunt: if you put both candidates on equal ground when it comes to having a sound mind, or in this case, an unsound mind, then you leave me not much choice but to think you are one deluded individual, or at the very best, you compartmentalize. In other words, you use subjective validation and confirmation bias to assess the political situation we see going on today.

But before I get into that, here's a few utterances of what I mean by "crazy":

"Why can't we use nuclear weapons?"

Note, not "why can't we" as in what would prevent us from using them, but more like.. what's the problem with using them? What's the big deal, in other words.

Okay, whoever asks such a question, rhetorically, or not, SHOULD NOT BE IN CONTROL OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Should someone call out a candidate for asking such a ballsy, ignorant question, especially in earshot of other world leaders, imagine that candidate responding......

"Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?"

To answer that question, we make them as last resort, for starters. What comes to mind would be in the case that some OTHER BAT-SHIT CRAZY world leader might start running around saying things like... "Why have them[nukes] if I can't use them?"

Seriously, folks. These things should raise an eyebrow. But mysteriously, for many people it's just normal banter from a candidate for the presidency. Call it into question, and some folks would prefer to focus on the "criminal" activity of *deleting emails.

(*as if no one has ever died on a Republican's watch)

But now imagine if the same above-described candidate was a male and that he went around saying things like, "Grab them by the pussy!", of the women that he encounters, stipulating that the target must be a "10", of course.

'Sort of lewd, don't cha think? 'Sort of disrespectful isn't it?  Note, I'm not going to sit here and act holier than thou and say that I've never used the slang word for a woman's nether parts. But then again, I'm not running for POTUS, am I? No. And on top of that, I'm a rock musician whose heyday was in the 80s. In other words, any "gabbing" that happened on the road was consensual. If I did any grabbing at all, it was more often than not because it was being thrown in my face. I'll stop here and save the juicy details for my autobiography. It makes Penthouse forum sound like a PTA meeting. Until then, I don't believe that I've ever once used the "P" word on this blog. And yet, one candidate has seemingly made using it en vogue. Hmmm.

Bottom line, the level of crazy is NOT equivalent. Not by a long shot. In fact, if you boil it all down, the names,  labels, mascots, and colors all disappear and you're left with the principles being espoused.

Whether Trump, or whether Clinton - again, the names don't really matter- you're either pro equality for women, or you're not. You either want women and their doctors in charge of women's health and reproductive decisions, or you want some grimy old men in charge of it. You either want a church/state separation, or you don't. You either want some sort of control when it comes to guns, or you don't.

 Boiled down, it's the principles that remain. Yes, the character of those espousing the principles matters, too. But I must reiterate: not all shady people are insane. E.g., Martha Stewart is surely a convicted criminal. She surely exhibited some shady behavior. But, oh, look, Charles Manson is a convicted criminal, too! Ordering that a pregnant women be carved up by a kitchen knife surely falls under "shady" behavior, doesn't it? 'Think so. Now, if one of them had to watch your kid for you while you were in the voting both, wouldn't the choice be a no-brainer? I rest my case.

The Virgin Run

Veering off the topic of religion/politics for a bit, my new band did its virgin run in front of 40 or 50 screaming metal-heads last Friday night, along with two bands from Atlanta. No bugs to work out in our set, really, well, except for our guitar player coming unplugged from his pedal board for about 15 seconds, which of course seemed like 15 minutes at the time. Whatever...bass and drum solo.

But anyway, the only real challenge now, is, a) finding places for us to play that welcome non-top 40 acts(acts that are all original), and b) finding places for us to play that will accommodate our drummer's monstrosity, albeit, badass, drum kit. The rest should fall into place, at least, according to the feedback from our local fan-base.

Here's a shot from Friday night.....

Notice bass drum heads illuminate our album artwork and logo. Ah, technology.





Here's our group photo taken from the back of our new EP entitled, "Encipher"....

If anyone's curious, yes, that's an inverted cross, but no, I/we don't worship "Satan" = )

The False Trilemma

Being bored while bouncing around the blogosphere, I begrudgingly decided to engage a theist that I encountered on the Patheos blog. This theist, a Christian theist, was refuting - or more accurately, they were attempting to refute - the "Problem of Evil".

Based on this individual's responses to other posters, I had a feeling that I'd ultimately be wasting my time trying find common ground. But hey, if nothing else, it's target practice, right? Yes, the more adept that the rational among us become at blowing holes in superstition and the various apologetics that, in particular, the religious-superstitious proffer, the sooner we'll have peace on earth, which ironically, is what religion and its adherents claim to promote now.

Early on in the conversation, this theist, hereinafter referred to has just "EWT", provided a premise from which we can work. His statements will be in red:

He writes.....

God apparently wanted a world with freedom more than he wanted a world without evil.

Notice right away that we're assuming that there's a "God" actually there for sake of discussion. Yes, because in a world with no gods, we'd fully expect that world to look exactly like the world we see right now. And aside from natural calamities(natural "evil"), in that world we'd see human beings exercising their free will for sinister purposes...e.g...rapists freely choosing to rape, murderers freely choosing to murder, muggers freely choosing to mug, etc. In other words, we'd see human beings perpetrating evil, no "devils" required. But I digress...


If we go back to EWT's premise, the suggestion here is that there was only two choices in front of "God".

Only two choices? An "omniscient" being with only two options from which he/she must pick one? Anyone who's been around the block a time or two when it comes to debating knows a false dichotomy when they see one. Welp, this is precisely the case with EWT's argument. In an attempt to square-up why his presumably all-loving, all-powerful biblegod allows "evil", EWT has employed a fallacious argument, also called a false dilemma. 

False Dilemma: A situation in which two alternative points of view are presented as the only options, whereas other are available.

I quickly pointed out that in fact, no, those are not the only two options, and I proposed that he offered a "false dichotomy". In true theist fashion, he came back and accuse me of "ignoring" his point. If I ignored his point, it's strange then that I concluded it was fallacious "point". He seems to be suggesting that unless I accept his "point" that, oh, I'm ignoring his "point". But, hey, this is the kind of thing that I've come to expect from Christian apologists, sadly.

Anyway, here's a brief rundown of just two more options that I, a mere mortal with limited intellect, can conceive. And mind you, if I, a mere mortal, can conceive of these sorts of options, then surely a being who's presumably light years more intelligent than I am can conceive of the same... and more.

1) If we think back to the world that EWT's biblegod originally intended - and note, I'm talking about before Adam and Eve's "Fall from Grace" -  it should bring to mind an "Eden", sometimes referred to as a "Garden Paradise", a place in which "God" was to place man and his "help meet"(sorry ladies!) so they and all their offspring could dwell along side "God" for eternity. Note, it was clearly intended to be a "sinless" environment, a place where man could lovingly and peacefully fellowship with "God", without "evil" throwing a monkey wrench into things.

Now, if we go back to EWT's premise, we are reminded that "God" wanted a world with freedom more than he wanted a world without evil.

So, by extension, we are being reasonable to conclude that "God" wanted a world in which people are free to rape children, more than he wanted a world in which children are safe. Moreover, if "God" wanted the former world over the latter, then I am being reasonable to conclude that "God" preferred one world to the other. From there I am then being reasonable to conclude that "God" somehow sees more value in a rapist's freedom to rape children than he sees in children being safe from rapists.

Except when I connected the dots and offered this in my rebuttal, EWT deflected it

He equivocates....

 It's not about valuing one person's freedom over another.

Exactly when/how/why does a child exercise their "freedom" to be raped? Seems we've now got a strawman on our hands, among the other fallacious arguments.

But in EWT's defense, he later offers a third option, and that is that "God" could have chosen to not create at all.

Welp, I actually agree with that. However, it's now a trilemma, because once more, those are NOT the only three options available. In fact, my second example of how "free will" is compatible with an absence of "evil" deals with "God" choosing to not create.

But first, a definition:

Omniscient adj 1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things

So,  by definition, a "God" who is omniscient has absolute prescience of all future outcomes.

Thus, a "God" who is omniscient can look into the future before he creates, and this "God" can know, in advance, which of his creation will choose "good" over "evil", and vice versa.

Thus, a "God" who is both "omniscient" and "omnibenevolent" can simply elect to not create those whom he knows will choose to be "evil"..e.g...rapists, murderers, etc., and this doesn't preclude the balance of his creation having freedom(free will).

Problem solved. The creation's freedom is fully intact; the option to choose "evil" is present, but obsolete.

BTW, this also applies to "Heaven". Christian doctrine states that there can be no "evil" in "Heaven", and for that matter, no "evil" in presence of "God", period. Are we to believe that the occupants of "Heaven" will be robots? No, of course not. This is just one more in a long line of double standards found in Christianity.

Conclusion: The theist's false trilemma is soundly refuted using two different examples of other conceivable options. God, if such a being exists, could prevent "evil" and it would not subvert his creation's free will one flippin' iota. Thus, "God" either doesn't exist, or he wanted evil in "His Plan", and in which case, "God" is a monumental d**chebag not worthy of my worship.

Final Thoughts for the Thoughtless

If you can stomach 3 and 1/2 minutes straight of high-pitched ranting and raving, one thing will become clear at the end of this video: This is not about a black man sitting down; it's about a bunch of pissed off, incensed white people.

See, you can love Colin Kaepernick, or you can hate him, but at the end of the day you must pick one of only two options: Either, a) you support Kaepernick's right to hold dissenting views, or b) you do NOT support his right to hold dissenting views. It really is that cut'n dried.

If you choose, "a", congratulations, because you show that you actually understand "freedom" and how it works, in which case, you know the alternative.

On the other hand, if you choose "b", then you demonstrate hypocrony(the compound word I just made up for "ironic hypocrisy"). If, as this vapid ignoramous points out, people have fought and died for our freedom, then advocating that things like flag-pledging and standing while National songs are sung be compulsory would mean that our soldiers are fighting and dying IN VAIN. Because, after all, what's the alternative to "freedom" again??? Oh, yeah, it's oppression, aka, suppression of dissent.

You can't have it both ways, white, Christian Republicans. 

Christian Morality Revisited

Hi, all,

Been involved in other things. Some things, really cool, other things, not so much. But that's life, isn't it?

Getting right to it, I was on a certain social networking site today, and, well, let's just say that there's a never-ending supply of blog topics to choose from in my news feed at pretty much all times. While I do have some new developments, both current, and on the horizon, to address them right now would be premature. So, instead, I'm going to revisit the subject of "morality", specifically, that of the Christian faith and its Bible.

One might ask, "Well, Boomslang, that varies from believer to believer, doesn't it?," to which I'd have to answer "yes". And yes, I know that I've already addressed this topic many times here. But alas, I'm stiiiiill waiting on any Christian, most of whom(all of whom?) are moral objectivists, to answer just one simple, pointed question.

Here it is:  How would you distinguish between hearing a "good" command from God, and an "evil" command from, say, an evil imposture?

And no, it's not a trick question, but you'd think that it was, because I'm still waiting on a reasoned response, and boy what a great ministry tool it would be to provide us "angry", "immoral" atheists with a reasoned response.

See, it's really quite simple: Christians are in the same subjective boat in which they like to place me, the atheist. While they claim that the command to love one's neighbor as you love yourself, yadda, yadda, is a prescriptive, "good" command, one worthy of imitation, the question remains HOW do they "know" it?? Is it because "God"/"Jesus"/"Christ"/the Bible said so? Or is it because it aligns with an external standard that's totally independent of the Christian's god and their bibles?

Something's got to give. If something prevents "God" from commanding something that we all agree is evil, then we can knock the idea that this "God" sets the moral standard right-the-hell off the table. On the other hand, if nothing at all prevents this "God" from commanding something that we all agree is evil, then the problem is staring right at us.


On social media, one Christian writes....

The truth is, violence, killing, war...has never really fixed us or anyone else. I'm not a fanatical Christian, but Jesus was right when he recommended that we love our enemies. We simply don't have the balls to do that.

So there you have it. A Christian, and a female one at that, opines that we don't have the balls to love our enemies. My, my, my....I sure hope she doesn't have balls. But that's for another discussion.

But seriously, the reasonable among us can see that it's not about "balls" or lack of; it's about applying common sense. It is not practical - and in fact, I contend that it's downright idiotic - to force ourselves to LOVE someone who's trying to cut our effin' heads off. In other words, we have to apply common sense here and examine and weigh out the circumstances before we just set out to obey a bunch of blanketed commands. Christians know this, but many pretend that they don't know it.

Another Christian jumps in and tries to pinch-hit...

we can love our enemies AND crush them on the battlefield at the same time. Jesus was not at odds with his spokesman, Paul. 

Um, whaaaa?!?!? I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this stuff half the time.

 So, let's see, you can simultaneously LOVE someone and be standing on the battlefield about to turn them into red confetti? Oh, really? In what world is loving someone and turning them into swiss cheese with your M-16 not "at odds"? Answer: The Christian world.

See, instead of just taking a position like, "Well, Jesus was probably just trying to say that we should strive to love people, even if some people make that very difficult for us to do" - at least that contains a kernel of reason in it - you see Christians like the one quoted above making bloated rationalizations to avoid having to admit that it's either really, really crappy advice, or it was meant as a poetic truth, NOT an Absolute Truth.

Christian #2 adds.....

I'm sure you don't believe in objective morality. If you did, you'd have to ask where it comes from, and that's just a drag.

Uh, no drags or dilemmas on my end, buddy-boy, because guess what?.. I can do this really, neato cRaZy thing, which is to ask a question under the pretense that something is true, when I don't actually believe that it's true. A rhetorical question? Hello? It's not unheard of. No. See, the "drag" is that each time I ask someone who DOES believe that there is an Objective Moral Standard to square-up the moral dilemma I laid out above, you can hear a rat pissing on cotton.

Instead of squaring it up, they resort to red herrings, such as asserting that if morals are subjective and just opinion, IOW, not objective, then atheists can't say anything is actually "wrong".

Christian #2 continues.....

If morality is subjective, you cannot say murder is wrong. It is only an action committed by someone with a morality different but equal to your own

Poppycock. The minute that you choose to live in a group of people..e.g..a society, as opposed to alone on your own island, that is the minute that you either agree to not kill anyone unnecessarily, or you get your rear end out of that society. That is the minute that you either understand and agree that you don't do anything to another person that you wouldn't want someone to do to you, or you leave. Yes, if you can't agree, then you take your butt to another society, or take your chances and get taken out of that society. You don't agree to that society's rules? Fine. Lose your rights and freedom.


UPDATE:


In a PM on social networking, one of the above Christians has given counter-arguments to my responses. Since I'm fairly certain that he's reading along right here, I will address these below as a continuation of this blog post on the topic of Christian morality(how it's not objective, but subjective). My responses will be in red text.

 Christ commanded us to love our enemies.

Yes, and again, I opine that if it's meant to be an "objective" command..i.e..the moral, "right" thing to do in every conceivable situation, that it's really, really stupid advice. If, on the other hand, it's meant as a poetic truth..i.e..meant to illustrate how we should strive to love others even when they make it difficult for us, then we'd need to apply common sense, and in applying common sense, we are using our own, innate sense of morality, in which case, it's subjective, not objective.

Paul, a spokesman for Christ, said government bears the sword to punish the evil-doer. I can love my enemy, but if he's breaking into my house, and I call the cops, who come and shoot him dead, God is ok with this.

Moving the goal posts..i.e.. logical fallacy. Look it up. Previously we were talking about killing one's enemy one's own self, not calling someone else to do it. Your previous analogy talked about how you can "crush" your enemy on the battlefield and love them "at the same time", meaning, simultaneously. I maintain that that is preposterous... well, unless you have a really perverted, twisted, effed-up definition of "love".  

If you can't square that, I'm sorry.

Don't be sorry on my account. You evidently can't square your original remark about how blasting holes in your enemy's chest on the battle field is an act of "love". You're the guy who's stuck having to defend nonsense. If there's anything to be sorry about, it's that. 

But by all means, pick out a hyperbolic statement I made about loving the enemy and crushing him on the battlefield to give people an idea of what I believe about a very complicated subject.

Pick it out? You gave one example, so if the example that you picked to illustrate your position is a poor example, that's not my fault; that's your fault. But you're right about one thing---it's a complicated subject, and rarely are complicated subjects solved with "one size fits all" answers. In other words, the type of answers that Christianity tries to give.

If a man who believes murder is wrong, goes and lives in a society where murder is acceptable, does that make murder acceptable?

Acceptable to who? The concept of "murder" is applicable to human beings, exclusively. Humans must exist for the concept of "murder" to have meaning. If society X agrees that existing is better than not existing, then society X will see to it that the unnecessary taking of life is kept at a minimum in the case that someone starts to disagree or change their mind. Laws prohibiting murder would seek to accomplish this. On the other hand, if, in society Y, no one agrees that existing is better than not existing, then yes, "murder" could be acceptable..... to them. Remember, I'm not the one arguing for an objective morality. I'm the one saying that morals and ethics are relative. And BTW, a society in which the members of that society can murder someone for any reason at all would eventually go extinct. Thus, to make discussion on this topic meaningful, we must agree that existing is better than not existing.

He's outnumbered after all.

His being outnumbered needn't change his view of "murder". He can roll the dice and stay, or he can leave.

 When a person with one morality goes and lives in a society that has another morality, he can abide by that society's laws or leave. No one is saying otherwise.

Then I fail to see the problem or conflict with my position. 

But all this shows, is that a person has been given the choice of leaving, or adopting someone else's morality. It says absolutely ZERO about who's morality is right or wrong.

Yes, and it's a false dilemma. The only real dilemma is which society this person wishes to be in, and you offered the solution yourself: You either LEAVE, or you stay and you abide by that society's laws, or lack thereof. Each side is obviously going to believe that their policies are "right", so the question about which side is "Right™" is moot. You can't force people to agree that existing is better than not existing. Take people who commit suicide. They reach a point where they think not existing is better than existing.    

Forget about society for a second. You have two people. One believes murder is moral. The other believes it is immoral. Who's right? If you agree with the man who says murder is wrong, it's because YOU believe it's wrong.

Yes! You appear to be "getting" it, by jove! If I agree with the person who says murder is wrong, then it's implicit that we agree that existing is better than not existing. Hence, the unspoken agreement to treat him as I wish to be treated, which would be the avoidance of unnecessary harm. And BTW, we know that killing is not wrong in every conceivable situation, hence, why we make a distinction between killing and murder. If the Bible makes the same distinction, then this is compelling evidence that morals are relative(subjective), not Objective.



And BTW, after all of this, my question still goes unanswered.

Here it is again: How would you, the Christian moral objectivist, distinguish between hearing a "good" command from God, and an "evil" command from, say, an evil imposture? Anyone? How do you distinguish between a slab of commands that are "good", and a slab of commands that are "evil', if they were laying side-by-side? Listening.