Goodness: All for Nothing?

Above is an image of a galaxy taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. To be precise, it's a barred spiral galaxy called NGC 5398, and it's about 55 million light-years away.

Now imagine upwards of two trillion of these. Seems unfathomable, right? But this is actually the latest estimate that astronomers give for the number of galaxies in the observable universe.

Factoring in this number, ask yourself this: Is it possible that we earthlings are the only intelligent life in the entire universe?

I think I'd have to say, sure, it's possible, but not bloody-likely. 

But for sake of discussion, let's say that religion had it right and that we are alone in the universe. Done.

So, whether you believe that we are here because a god set things up this way, or whether you believe that we essentially won the cosmic lotto, one thing we must agree on is that the life-giving energy from our sun is limited. The sun, like any other star, will eventually succumb to star death.

When the sun has burned off all of its hydrogen, it will go through an expansion process in which it will eventually become a red giant. When this happens, scientists say that this could actually swallow "near by" planets like Venus and Mercury.

Bottom line, though, is that at some point the earth will no longer support human life. Humans, who are presumably the crowning jewel of the universe if one accepts religion's explanation for how and why we got here, will become extinct. Gone. Kapoot. If one holds to a naturalistic view, the same---nature will have simply run its course, and death will have become the final result of life, as it is for every other living thing.

But again, regardless of which position one holds, one thing is for certain and that is that a virtual infinite list of potential humans will be ixnayed. Think of it as trillions upon trillions of potential human beings who will never see the light of day(literally), meaning that trillions upon trillions of people will never exist to experience what I, and you the reader, have experienced. They will never experience childhood. They will never experience the unconditional love of a pet. They will never experience a good book, a good moive, an orgasm, having children, eating, sleeping........none of it.

When it comes to the human experience, another thing we can likely agree on is that there are bad experiences along with the good. On the one hand, we are here, when in fact so many potential people just like us will never even get that chance. This is something that, when I sit back and really think about it, it makes me feel extremely lucky. And if you're religious, you might say "blessed". Either way, it's one of the good things to know while we're here.

Conversely, one of the bad things about our human experience here is that the longer we live, the more we will become witness to our loved ones vanishing before our eyes. There is, of course, this idea that our dearly departed aren't really dead at all, but are still "alive" in some otherworldly realm. But so far there is no objective confirmation for this. In fact, the current scientific data on the subject tells us that it's wish-thinking at best.

In my case, I would say that I am cursed to go where the evidence leads when it comes to this subject. I mean, if it was just a matter of willing myself to believe that which I find unbelievable? Hell, I would do just that, and then maybe my human experience would be a little more bearable when it comes to this topic. As it stands, however, I'm left to believe that at some point I will never again see those whom I love the most. And upon my own death, all my achievements and memories, including the memories of the people gone before me, will end up in the abyss of nothingness.

As one might imagine, this doesn't make for very pleasant subject matter on which to ruminate. And if it's not bad enough that I'll never see friends and family members ever again, in many cases I will first watch them wither away from despicable diseases such as cancer or Alzheimer's. That, or they may become witnesses to my suffering the same fate.

That this is unsettling is the understatement of the century. But of course, reality does not give a rat's patooty about what you or I think, nor does it care about what we hope or feel. Nope. Reality will go about its business of being reality. If there's any saving grace at all, the day will come when I, too, vanish, at which point, I won't even know that I'm dead nor that I had ever lived. My "existence" will be on par with those from the infinite list I mentioned earlier, that is, non-existence. And let's be honest, none of us were sad or inconvenienced before we were born, so there's no reason to think it'll be any different after we've died.

But back to our relatively short stay on this earth---another thing that I find unsettling, especially lately, is how the legacies that we may leave behind could be overshadowed by a simple lapse of judgment while we're here. Subsequently, any and all good that we have done in our lives is, for all intents and purposes, for nothing. And no, I don't mean guys like our 45th President who was caught on tape talking about grabbing women's nether regions, the same guy who gives a nod of approval when his daughter is regarded as a "piece of ass".

So, no, I don't mean people who have a long trail of instances when their credibility and ethics were called into question. I mean people who are seemingly decent, caring, smart, talented individuals who slip up and who use poor judgement a time or two throughout their lives.

It's almost like, in the blink of an eye, any goodness that we do in our lives can be wiped off the table. It doesn't seem quite fair. But as mentioned before, life isn't about fairness, and reality doesn't care about how we feel, so I've more or less answered my own question.

We are suppose to be an intelligent race of beings, so I can only hope that the intelligent among us will continue to see the good in people even in spite of our imperfect nature. And I should point out that this is provided that we're not talking about those who are amoral(without morals)...e.g...John Wayne Gacy, Charles Mansion, and the like. The former was an artist, so most certainly his artistic accomplishments will be overshadowed by the fact that he was a serial murderer.

In closing, I want to point out that I do understand that people who choose to be in the public eye have to be more careful. I also understand that there are real victims out there, as in the case of the current situation where women are coming forth and making allegations about certain celebrities and politicians. So none of this is an attempt to trivialize or delegitimize any victim's experiences. But alas, we are all victims of someone else's error in judgment at some point in our lives. Perfection is unobtainable. It's a myth, and chasing myths is a form of insanity. So it seems that doing our best and hoping for the best is all we can do. It's what I will do.

The Stark Difference

Okay, so, you know there's something fishy going on when you're discussing the Problem of Evil with someone - for instance, if you're discussing why, if there is a "God" who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, does a child die of hunger every seven seconds - and the person with whom you're discussing this topic fires back.... "What have you done to help a starving child?!?"

I'm going to venture a guess that most of us see the fallacy of the argument right away. And while it might be true that I've never offered food to a child in need, it doesn't address the actual argument being made. No, it sidesteps it. It's a red herring.

In other words, whether I help starving children or not, is totally irrelevant. Remember, I'm not asking, "Why is there world hunger?"; I'm asking, "If there is a God who is both all powerful and all loving, why is there world hunger?" Two different questions, not necessarily the same implications. 

For starters, I'm not the one claiming to be (or being claimed to be) things like omnipotent and omnibenevolent. No, my resources, and most assuredly my powers, are totally limited. I admit this.

 Furthermore, I'm not the one claiming to be able to feed thousands of people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish. If I had gone on record to claim something so extraordinary, then sure, at that point questioning my motives or powers would be warranted.

So, if God presumably has the above-mentioned powers, but yet, children starve to death daily, why isn't questioning God's powers and motives warranted? How is an individual who mysteriously never has to lift a finger in the way of helping his supposed "children", able to get all the "glory", while we the "children" get all the responsibility and blame? Does that seem right to you? Because if I, and I alone, could stop world hunger and human suffering in general, particularly that of children, I would. I guess that is the stark difference between me and "God".

1 Corinthians 2:14

Welp, as the story goes, the reason that I and other atheists reject Christianity is because we don't understand it. In fact, when certain bible verses are employed, the already eyebrow-raising assertion that we don't understand Christianity is then taken even a step further, as we are told that the reason we don't understand Christianity is because we can't understand it.

I give you 1 Corinthians 2:14

 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit 

To discern the problem with this verse (and hundreds more just like it), you don't need to be given any special powers, or codes, or passwords. You needn't become something otherworldly or non-human. No, you need only do one thing, and that is to use common sense.

But let's back up a bit, first. If I'm told in no uncertain terms that it's not possible for me to understand X, Y, and Z, then what person in his or her right mind would hold me responsible for not understanding X, Y, and Z??? And how about punishment? Punished for not understanding something that I'm presumably unable to understand????

Secondly, even if there was a way for me to obtain the magical or secret component that's required for understanding X, Y and Z, I would still need complete access to this component, now wouldn't I? Yes, I'm damned near certain that that would be the case. If A, B, and C is required for my discerning X, Y, and Z, then I would need to be given access to A, B, and C. Again, common sense.

But alas, where the Christian philosophy is concerned, the creators of said philosophy didn't think things through too well and seemed to forget that some people actually have common sense, because in their attempt to demonize non-members of their club and write them off as things like "heathens" and "foolish", said creators screwed up royally because they employed circular reasoning when it came to membership requirements.

See, if a person such as myself presumably can't know God until/unless I can discern that which is "spiritual", but yet, if I can't discern that which is "spiritual" until/unless I know God, the problem sort of reaches out and smacks you in the face. And that is clearly the problem with the Corinthians verse, which can be brought to light better reading the verse like this...

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit 

So, certain things come from this so-called "Spirit of God", and one those things is evidently the ability to discern that which is "spiritual". Hello?

Folks, this is mental sleight of hand, which is to essentially say that you have to just decide, a priori, that Christianity is true, and then the rest will fall into place. In other words, ignore the circular logic, take the leap of faith, and then and only then will you magically possess the ability to discern that which is "spiritual". How convenient, right?

As Sam Harris would say, this is like playing tennis without the net. And he is being kind, here.

Your Closed Minded!

Okay, admittedly I've never thought about owning a "closed minded", much less what I'd do with one. Ha! :)

But okay, possessive wrongly used for contraction aside, when you call your interlocutor close-minded for merely disagreeing with you, this amounts to an ad hominem fallacy. Yes, because you are essentially suggesting that if I don't agree with your worldview then, oh, my mind must be closed.

Alrighty, let's see how this mindset stacks up if applied elsewhere:

Suppose that a Christian and a Muslim are in a debate and the topic of the debate is which faith's holy writ is truly inspired by a supernatural entity, and which faith's holy writ is a bunch of man-made nonsense.

Okay, so in closing arguments the Muslim tells the guy representing the Christian faith that he is "close-minded" because he was ultimately not swayed by the Muslim's arguments that the Holy Qu'ran is in fact the divinely inspired Will and Testament of the creator of the universe, not the bible.

Question: Will the Christian debater accept the Muslim's charge that he is close-minded? And what about any Christians in the audience? Will they accept that they, too, are close-minded, and all because they remain unconvinced that the Qu'ran holds the power that the Muslim debater and the Qu'ran itself, say it holds?

The answer on both counts of course is NO. The Christian debater is simply not convinced of the claims of Islam or its book, and dollars to doughnuts the same would be true for any Christians in the audience.

So now let's switch it up for a moment: Suppose that the Christian debater was instead an atheist, and suppose that the Muslim made the same charge in his closing arguments, telling the audience, "Atheists reject the Qu'ran, so we must therefore conclude that atheists are close-minded!".

Now, would the Christians in the audience agree with the Muslim debater that the atheist debater is "close-minded" for rejecting the claims of Islam and its accompanying book? If we're honest, we must admit that the answer to that question is "no", because if we can conclude that atheists are "close-minded" and thus write them off for rejecting the Qu'ran, then by extension we ought to be able to conclude that Christians are also "close-minded" for rejecting the Qu'ran. Needless to say, Christians don't like being written-off any more than anyone else likes being written-off.

So, see, when Christians reject the claims of other theists, it's not because Christians are necessarily close-minded; it's because Christians are skeptics just like atheists are skeptics. The difference is that Christians don't apply that same skepticism to their own theistic claims, whereas, atheists apply skepticism to all theistic claims.

In other words, when internet Christians trot out the argument that nonbelievers are "close-minded" for not accepting their bible, this is just another in a long line of intellectual cop-outs. It's also no coincidence that this is nine times out of ten employed as a parting shot, when nothing else in their ministry has worked.

Terms, Conditions, and God-Speak 101

This one is sort of a continuation of the previous post, "Comment Policies", albeit, it dives into something else later on.

So, aside from bloggers having policies set up for guests who may want to leave a comment, there is often times a disclaimer, which is basically letting your readers know your blog's terms and conditions. Most of the time a disclaimer works to avoid liabilities. For example, to attempt to make it so that you can't be held accountable if someone relies on your website/blog content.

Another thing that might be included in the terms and conditions is a copyright notice. This lets your readers know your writings are yours and that they are protected and should not to be copied or reproduced without permission.

Okay, so bouncing around the blogoshpere the other day I linked to a blog on which the blog's owner/operator delineates some copyright terms and conditions. In part, this stated that visitors cannot download or reproduce any part of the website in any way, shape, or form, without written permission. However, it goes on to say that just linking to the website or to a specific blog post is perfectly fine.

So, if, for example, I provide a link to a blog post on the above described website, my readers can then link to it directly and read this blogger's written work(s). However, if I copy that work and paste it here without written permission, I'm apparently in violation of the site's terms and conditions, unless I've misunderstood something.

I confess that I've not taken the time to look into the legalities of it, so I will just post a link to the website and specific blog post I want to address, and then take my chances:

  http://savedbygracebiblestudy.blogspot.com/p/how-can-we-know-god-exists-and-if-well.html

Disclaimer: any and all type herein that is in the color red was not authored by me and I am in no way trying to take credit for it. Furthermore, nothing in this post, "Terms, Conditions, and God-Speak 101" that is in red type reflects the views of this blog/website, Boomslang's Lair.

We know God exists because we see His creation all around us ~ SBG

False. You don't know that a God exists, and claiming that that which exists is "creation" is the fallacy of begging the question, aka, affirming your conclusion in your premise. It is also an argument from personal incredulity, which is a type of argument from ignorance.

It takes this form:

1. I cannot fathom how things can exist without a creator.

2. Therefore, there's a creator

When we see a fine watch, we know that someone had to design it because it is too complicated, beautiful, and high functioning for it to have "evolved" by accident from scrap metal ~ SBG

False. If we're walking around in nature and we come across a "watch" on the ground, whether it be "fine", or a broken piece of junk, we can know that it was designed because we know that watches don't occur in nature. In other words, we can distinguish between things that occur in nature and things that do not  occur in nature. Also, not everything in nature is "complicated"; not everything in nature is "beautiful"; not everything in nature is "high functioning". Rocks can be "beautiful" for sure. But are they "complicated"? Are they "high functioning"? No, and no.

As for "evolved by accident", for starters, how something evolved isn't necessarily the same subject as how it came to be. Origins is one topic; evolution is a different topic. As for "accident," creationists and ID proponents conveniently ignore the "selection" part of the process of "Evolution by natural selection."

 The same is true for the human body, the stars in the universe, and all the miracles of nature -- a Being of unlimited intelligence, power and good had to design and create these ~~ SBG 

False. Once more, calling things (or occurrences) in nature, "miracles of nature", is the fallacy of begging the question. If we observe a tapeworm hanging out of a dog's rectum, have we just witnessed a "miracle of nature"? Or is it simply nature? How about when a tsunami drowns ten thousand people? Does anyone call this a "miracle of nature"? No, of course not---it's just nature, albeit, some people do believe that bad weather is to punish people. This of course is superstition at work, and curiously, some of the worst weather in the U.S. occurs in the Bible Belt. Enough said.

God does not want to force Himself on us, so He made us with the ability to choose Him or to reject Him ~ SBG

We can still choose (or reject) an individual that we know for certain exists. In other words, we're being asked to accept God's existence on faith. So in essence, we're being told that the faith is necessary, because if we knew for certain that God existed, this would somehow compromise our free will and we'd be "forced" to accept him. This notion is as silly as it is false. The "Divine Hiddenness of God" argument has been thoroughly debunked. On top of it all, God was making personal appearances all throughout the Bible..e.g..to "The Twelve" and to over 500 other people, and this didn't harm anyone's "free will". And yet, today the only appearances God makes is on a piece of toast or on a tree trunk.

 There is no evil or darkness in God -- He is perfectly pure, holy, and just ~ SBG

False/false.

a) God created evil [Isaiah 45-7] . To bring evil into existence would require evil. To allow evil (when you can prevent it, but don't), makes you complicit.

b) to be perfectly "just" would require giving the deserved punishment each and every time, no exceptions. Thus, being merciful, aka, granting clemency, even once, precludes "perfect justice".

  So we have all broken the Ten Commandments ~ SBG

Yes? And? So, what? There is no evidence that we get morals (or ethics) from the Bible or its "Commandments". Besides, how would we even know good commandments from evil ones? What standard would you use to tell them apart? And what if God commanded Christians to kill all nonbelievers?? Would killing nonbelievers then become "good"? Is this a command that you'd obey? Be honest, now.

But God found a way to make peace between sinners and Himself. He loves us so much that He sent His only Son, Jesus, to take the punishment that we all deserve ~ SBG

Someone taking the punishment for what someone else deserves? So much for that "perfectly just" stuff. Christianity's Substitutionary Atonement spits into the face of justice.

He paid for all our sins, past, present and future ~ SBG

Then what's the problem? A debt that is paid doesn't usually require any other actions from the debtor. But yet, for some reason in Christianity words and language never quite mean what they actually say, and in the case of Jesus taking the punishment to pay off the "sins" of the "sinner", there are clearly strings attached. Yes, strings attached, aka, conditions. So, in the end, no, Jesus didn't pay "for all our sins"; he paid for the sins of Christians, exclusively, because they are the only ones who benefit from having their sins paid. Christianity amounts to favoritism.

  No matter what good things we do, it never outweighs the fact that we are sinners and deserve to go to hell ~ SBG

And there is it again. "Sinners" deserve to go to hell. The very definition of "justice" is giving someone nothing less than what they deserve. But does God give all sinners what we are told they deserve? No. Thus, the God described in the Bible is not "perfectly just". "Justice" and "mercy" contradict one another. This is how we know that Christians create and speak their own language. Colloquial word meanings are turned on their head. Only in God-speak 101 can an individual be both infinitely merciful and infinitely just.

 It doesn’t matter to God how many bad things we have done in the past or how terrible those things were, because He knows that each of us is guilty ~ SBG

And this is exactly the reason that those who actually care about things like reason, compassion, and justice should be denouncing Christianity, a philosophy by which a serial rapist can feasibly have their crimes swept under the rug and be rewarded a never-ending life of pure, unadulterated bliss, meanwhile, a person of another faith or no faith at all who has never harmed a hair on another human being's head, gets incinerated in "hell." A rapist need only profess Christianity and accept its god into their heart, and they're good to go. Despicable. Utterly despicable. Thank goodness there's no evidence that any of it is true.

Comment Policies

As an atheist and as someone who values truth, from time to time I will check out blogs that are owned/operated by people who hold views and beliefs that run contrary to my own. Even 180 degrees to the contrary. After all, the truth has nothing to hide, so if one of our goals is to accumulate as much truth as possible, in other words, acquire as much knowledge that corresponds to reality as possible; and by extension, if it is our goal to discard as much false information as possible, that being, that which does not correspond to reality, then exposing ourselves to all sorts of views shouldn't be a problem or concern for us. In fact, if we care about truth, we should be inviting views that dissent from our own. We should invite those views, consider them, and be able to entertain the idea that they could be right views and that we could have wrong views. The quote that comes to mind is the one about being able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it.

But yet, conversing/associating with people who think/believe differently than we do is a big no-no for some bloggers. Anyone who blogs on a somewhat regular basis might be able to tell which blogs are run by such people, and one clue is a blogger's commenting policy, albeit an inconspicuous clue.

For those who have no comment policy or disclaimers, it's pretty much a given that comments are welcome and that comments will post without having to pass moderation. This blog, my blog, is set up that way. Since its inception, I've only had to ban one guest, but this was for reasons other than just disagreement.

For other blogs and their bloggers, the commenting policies are short and to the point. For instance, in the comment section, one blogger simply writes...

Your comments are always welcome

 Another blogger writes...

Take Some Time To Share Your Thoughts

So, again, some bloggers choose simple and to the point. With policies such as these, there is a level of trust and confidence exuded, in contrast to, say, exuding distrust and paranoia.

Now let's have a look at an example of a different kind of commenting policy...

Please be as gracious as you would like others to be to you. Thank you. Please try to keep your comments on the topic of the post you are commenting on. If there is a link to an article or podcast, or if there is an embedded video please view these before airing your views on the posting. If you clearly did not watch video/read link I may choose to remove your comment or leave your comment and then not respond to it..particularly if you have a question that is already answered on link or video. Opposing viewpoints are of course allowed here, however, I will limit such discussions to two or at most three further comments on one topic, so do try to get all your criticisms in while keeping that in mind, and don't take it personal.... I just don't want to be bogged down with a constant barrage of replies that go and on like a dog chasing it's(sic) tail in circles.

While it starts off on the right foot, it slowly dive-bombs. Instead of confidence and trust, it exudes an air of superiority, a la, 'I know I'm right, so I won't waste my precious time with you if you don't agree with me.'

Notice that four sentences in, they state, "If you clearly did not watch video/read link[SNIP]"

I would just love to know from this person how they are able to "clearly" know that someone didn't read a link and/or watch a video that they posted, other than that their guest might simply disagree with the conclusions. I mean, it's a sad day if we're not allowed to disagree with some damned YouTube videos, isn't it? Yes, because otherwise, we'd have to believe claims that the world is shaped like a pancake and that large-footed community apes are prancing around in people's backyards.

Moving on, we see a veiled admission that this particular blogger is not good at defending their beliefs with written language. Either that, or they're a lazy-ass. I mean, they're only going to allow and respond to two comments that disagree with their views? Maybe three if they're feeling motivated that day? Good grief.........::eyeroll::

Then, most amusing of all, this person, the one that wrote, "Please be as gracious as you would like others to be to you", caps off their disclaimer with some ad hominem, writing, more or less, that they just don't want to be burdened with having to deal with views that don't agree with their own. You know, views that amount to a dog chasing its tail. How "gracious", right?

I don't know about anyone else, but I see right through the arrogance and inflated sense of confidence exuded in this mindset. What I see is a person who will avoid having to defend their beliefs like the plague, not because doing so would be too time consuming and/or off-putting, but because they know deep down that their beliefs are a house of cards that will crumble from the slightest draft.

It's strange, because those with religious convictions are often the ones with such attitudes, but imagine how many people would be missing out on their profound intellect and wisdom. Imagine how great of a ministry tool it would be for such people to actually use their intellect and wisdom to engage those whom they call "lost".

Lost?

(it stings!)

 

Make Fat thy Bones; Make Thick thy Head

Okay, okay, so, yes, I probably need to disclaim my usage of scripture, since, as a *former believer, I no longer believe scripture is of a "Divine" origin. The bible isn't and never was "inspired" by any "Perfect" or "Divine" beings, and the fact that said book is chock-full of contradictions, scientific blunders, and overall crummy advice, is all the evidence that any person conducting an **objective evaluation of the Christian faith needs to know this. And sure, one could argue that parts of scripture could be inspired by God, and others, not, but that's not what the Bible claims, plus, a perfect being inspiring anything less than perfection is utterly nonsensical.

*former believer.

For anyone skeptical of the term "former believer", please take note of the following:

Former: 1. [attributive] Having previously been a particular thing

(ref: Oxford Dictionary)

Example: Jimmy previously believed that Santa Claus had a referent in reality. Jimmy no longer believes that Santa Claus has a referent in reality.

Applied to the topic at hand: Boomslang was previously a Christian who previously believed that the Bible was the inspired word of God. Boomslang is no longer a Christian, and by extension, Boomslang no longer believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

**objective evaluation

Objective. adj 1. Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

(ref: Oxford Dictionary)

Example: When examining the truth claims surrounding the ancient Egyptian gods, historians tried their best to be objective and impartial, and thus, they were prepared to accept the findings even if they hated those findings. 

Applied to the topic at hand: When examining the truth claims surrounding God, Jesus, and the Bible, Boomslang tried to be objective and impartial, and thus, was prepared to accept the findings even if he hated those findings. 



Note, my apologies if it seems like I'm being extremely meticulous with my wording and sardonic in demeanor, but it's for a good reason. Please bear with this former believer  :)

Okay, since it is Christians, not atheists, not agnostics, not people of other religious faiths, who are bound by the writings/teachings of "Christ", then the words of their "Christ" apply to them. 

In other words, my directing a Christian to their own teachings doesn't require that I, too, believe in their Christ or their Christ's book. I know it might seem like a really unnecessary thing to have to point out, but unfortunately, people have tried this sort of  "Gotcha!" argument before, haven't they? Yes, they have. But I digress.

Here in Matthew 15:8, Christians..i.e.. "these people" are being rebuked by Jesus for only paying lip service to his teachings instead of living said teachings. Did you catch that? Jesus is disappointed when self-professed Christians honor his teachings with their eyes 'n ears, but not with their mouths and keyboards.

For instance, say, like when Christians judge others. Since when do we put credence in a lecture on sin when the lecturer herself is a sinner?

We've heard it before: "Jesus HAS THIS under His control!". They say this, but then they proceed to claim to know what's best for other people, or more outrageous, they claim to know the personal experiences of other people better than the people themselves? What's up with that bull ca-ca? 

Oh, and if only God can know a person's heart, then why do some Christians pretend like they, too, can know another person's heart, whether that person is a current believer, or former believer, or whatever? And speaking of knowing what Christians cannot possibly know, why, oh why, for those Christians who are quick to give mini-sermons on "free will" do they often times in the next breath say things like, "Once saved, always saved!"?? What? once I accept Jesus into my heart I can't change my mind and conclude that "He" was never there to begin with?  So much for that "free will" malarkey.

And if a believer who struggles with his or her faith ultimately loses that faith, isn't God, who is presumably sovereign, knows what's best, and has a Plan, the one IN CONTROL?!? If so, why not give it a rest and just let him be in control already? Why do self-professed Christians who believe in a God that decides everything, read....EVERYTHING, regardless of the will of man, spend their time writing blog posts that second-guess this God? Especially given verses like, "Blessed be God who hath blessed us in Christ, according as He hath chosen us before the foundation of the world".

If God elected who he wanted to elect from the onset, then his mind is already made up and he cannot change it. Meanwhile, you'll find some denominations of Christianity, such as Lutherans and Calvinists, happy to talk at length about what you need to do or avoid to make the cut. Um, no. Stop it. Just stop it.

So, the long and short of it is, maybe there are some people who aren't "true Christians" either in their hearts, or their minds. These things I point out, these pesky attributes and tenets, and so forth, this isn't stuff I'm pulling out of my hindquarters. No, these are things that are confirmed by the Christian book and by the Christian's own words---by their own blog posts.  

And yes, taking one's own advice is always a good move, but this isn't just about taking one's own advice; it's about taking the advice of an individual that you claim to love, worship, revere, follow. 

Selective Design: Revisiting the Theory (and fact) of Evolution

It's chilly and rainy outside here on Florida's West coast, so it's a good day to stay inside and revisit an old topic.

On social media a friend and former colleague posted a video depicting a snake-mimicking caterpillar that inhabits Peru, South America and surrounding countries. When agitated or threatened, this caterpillar, which is the larva of a Sphinx Hawk Moth (Hermeroplanes Triptolemus), pulls its legs in and turns its hindquarters upside down, and the result highly resembles a snake. But not just any snake(and this is key), it resembles a green tree viper. Why is this important? It's important because said viper is a snake that also inhabits that region. This is evolution, aka, adapting to one's environment, in action.

Anyway, I remarked that this was an example of evolution underneath this friend's post, and lo and behold, someone retorted...."Now THAT is intelligent design. Awesome."

Since I had a pretty good feeling that my friend would jump in at any time, I watched and waited, and sure enough, the author of the I.D. comment was challenged by way of comparison, in this case, having it pointed out to him how the human eye, which is presumably "designed" by the same "Designer", falls way short of "perfection". And of course, my friend makes a good and fair point when pointing this out.

It also begs this question: If this caterpillar's defense mechanism is an example of "awesome" design, then can we conclude that any caterpillar that does not or cannot mimic a viper, and subsequently gets eaten by predators in nature, is an example of poor design? If not, why not? Why the double standard?

So, the mistake that I.D. proponents make is that they look at what they call "design" in nature, selectively. This of course is a form of cherry-picking. That is, they look at all the astonishing and/or advantageous attributes of things found in nature and insist the credit must to an "Intelligent Designer", while totally ignoring the seemingly odd or downright shoddy "design" that is also seen in nature. Ironically, this even includes us homo sapiens, who we are to believe are the "crowning jewel" creation of the supposed "Designer".

Let's see, eyesight that craps-out midlife. Intelligent design? A breathing passage that's right next to a passage for swallowing food and water? Organs and teeth that we don't even need? A "tailbone"? Intelligent?

But anyway, when challenged, the I.D. proponent, aka, creationist - because let's face it, what we're talking here is "creationism" all gussied up - resorts to ad hominems and victim-playing. After multiple exchanges, he finally writes....

"These posts can go on for days. I'm just not that interested in putting people down because of their beliefs".

Not surprisingly, not one of the three other people in the conversation put him down. But of course, these are the sorts of things said when someone knows they've been defeated, or at least, it's the sort things said when someone can't produce evidence to back their biblical views. Emphasis on "their", since the views of believers seem to be as unique as fingerprints. In any case, this was no exception, and yet, ironically, we were told that we must not know anything about religion when the subject shifted to the bible.

In this particular case, this Christian accepted that things evolved within their "kinds", but he kept shifting to the whole "something from nothing" argument, which is not related, since one topic deals with origins; the other topic, diversity.

The bible unambiguously delineates that animals that "crawl on the ground" were created as is. Genesis doesn't mention anything about bugs or insects "evolving," much less how some of them developed the wherewithal to mimic deadly snakes. But yet, believers will cite certain passages, then they'll extrapolate until it ends up supporting what they want to believe(and by extension, ignore what they don't want to believe).

This is how apologetics work. But in the end, the I.D. guy was right about one thing, that is, these sort of posts can go on for days. What doesn't go on for days is the part where disingenuous tactics are used. There is no mystery here. A dose of facts usually nips that part in the bud. No one is fooled except for those fooling themselves.

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....

.