PZ Meyers is the International Humanist of 2011. Such a paragon of Humanist tolerance and respect for the Other; a perfect example of Humanism, the Humanists are proud of PZ.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Quote of the Day 08.13.11
Barack Obama, who 2 1/2 years ago was the greatest orator ever, who could save the world with his presence alone; Barack the Messiah, the One, Ready to Rule, Come to produce a sea-Change and provide Hope:
”Like a leaky balloon, Barack Obama keeps getting smaller. “The president is declaring to the world that he is simply too weak to govern,” Peter Wehner observes. “Not only that, he wants all of America to know that he’s darn frustrated about it. You can even hear it in his voice.” That last comment isn’t Wehner’s evaluation but a paraphrase of the president’s own words: “Maybe you hear it in my voice–that’s why I’m frustrated. Because you deserve better.”
Wait, it gets worse. Last night Obama was in New York for a fund-raiser. At that event he elaborated on the “you deserve better” theme: “What was remarkable was to see outside of Washington the enthusiasm, the energy, the hopefulness, the decency of the American people. And what I said to them is you deserve better. You deserve better than you’ve been getting out of Washington over the last 2½ months–for that matter, for the last 2½ years.”
For the last 2½ years. Is that not as explicit an acknowledgment of failure as has ever been heard from a sitting president?”
James Taranto via Glenn Reynolds
Friday, August 12, 2011
Vox Day Takes On PZ Meyer,"The Fowl Atheist"
Vox Day and PZ Meyer have been going at it for a while on the subject of evolution as science. Vox subscribes to a view that is close to mine, which is that evolution does not get held to the highest standards required of the physical sciences, to wit, experimental replication. And that real biology owes nothing to evolution in its dizzying charge forward. PZ defends evolution with his understanding of scientific methodology and philosophy of science. It's best to read the discussion in full, but here are some of Vox's comments which I liked:
Vox:
Again, Vox:
There's more; read it over at Vox’s place.
Vox:
” When an astrophysicist or an economist gets a prediction based on a hypothesis wrong, his consequent assumption is usually that the hypothesis is incorrect. When an evolutionary biologist gets a prediction based on a hypothesis wrong, his consequent assumption is always that the hypothesis cannot possibly be to blame, there must be some missing factor that has not been properly taken into account. If evolution by natural selection has not taken place, then evolution by some other mechanism must have taken place; the logical conclusion that the core hypothesis is simply incorrect and evolution did not take place is seldom, if ever, considered an option.”The deifying of evolution is a result of Philosophical Materialism, which is a rational fallacy. The functional materialism of science does not in any way predict the necessity of total materialism as a philosophy much less a worldview, regardless of the poverty of logical understandings of the Philosophical Materialists (who generally are also scientismists). But evolution cannot be questioned under Philosophical Materialism, and anyone who does is attacked and punished by excruciating peer pressure which is asserted by the likes of PZ who attaches a lot of name calling and other juvenilia. In the world of evolution, there are individual facts, and the connecting "facts" are made up, extrapolated from “mountains of evidence” all of which does not provide any absolute proof of the extrapolation other than circumstantial. The extrapolation is declared True. But there are hitches, such as the inability to justify abiogenesis. Even the concept of “life” itself is frequently denied, because it cannot be justified under materialist rules of reality. So life has no essence, as declares Materialist/Evolutionist Massimo Pigliucci. Materialism requires denying the obvious when the obvious gets in the way of the narrative.
Again, Vox:
” PZ's answer is completely irrelevant. There is zero evidence that abiogenesis ever took place, robustly imagined mechanisms for it notwithstanding. To claim that because there was no life before, but there is now, ergo abiogenesis occurred, is the very sort of philosophy that science has largely come to supplant. Evolutionists tend to wisely punt on the logically-dictated abiogenetic foundation upon which their materialist assumptions rest, but there is no reason anyone should permit them to do so. It's rather like economists who attempt to leave debt out of their equations. The numbers may all add up nicely without it, but leaving out the most important element tends to call the entire model into question.”That abiogenesis had to have happened is again predicated simply on the Materialist Fallacy: there can be no other answer – By Definition (regardless of how erroneous the definition). And that is as anti-science as one can get, even if one tries to define it as "science" in order to justify one's erroneous Philosophical Materialism.
There's more; read it over at Vox’s place.
The Unsymmetrical War of the Feral Children
In Britain there is more emphasis on controlling the non-perpetrators than the perpetrators. If a person defends himself inappropriately, he will be jailed for up to life. If a person defends his property, there is no “appropriate” defense and again the victim, the property defender, is jailed. The police should handle these things; but the police are inefficient and unarmed to the point of complete emasculinization. These points are not new, except in their deviation from British law from a century ago.
What is new is the entitlement generations that have grown up in western nations. Entitlement cultures have led to the breakdown of the family, the disappearance of father figures, and the expectation of government support regardless of any effort at self-improvement or contribution in return. Entitlement is a dangerous thing. It leads to the expectation of equality without effort, and in the case of Leftist society, the equality is to that of the hated rich who are railed against constantly. So there is no reason not to speed up the egalitarian process by just taking what you want: it is a natural extension of entitlement; in that worldview it is entirely rational.
Combining these two situations, the impotence of the state against anyone other than the peaceful, and the entitlement of idle, rootless youth, the warfare seen in Britain is a natural outcome. Even the manner in which the warfare is executed could be predicted: the youths using Blackberries calling mobs together for attacks on merchants and homeowners, and the police unable to respond except after the fact, and then charging property defenders with the crime of property defense.
The war is entirely unsymmetrical in favor of the feral children, with the productive citizens left bereft and fuming in their wake. It is an unsymmetrical war of both numbers and regulations which favor the feral children including the inability of unarmed authorities to engage their mobs even with water cannons, which might put out the feral’s torches and possibly cause them to fall and scrape an elbow.
It is a disgusting display of Leftist principles which excuse the criminals because they are not responsible for the problems of their social position: society is responsible and has not given them enough. But there is never enough, it would seem: the ferals are wearing expensive clothing and bearing modern electronics which they use to co-ordinate their flash attacks. They are not emaciated victims. They are merely entitled to their idleness, their lack of educational drive and hence their lack of marketable skills, and their ultimate irascibility. The poor dears don’t have a chance and are entitled to, well, to more of everything. So they are taking it.
Such wars are an obscenity on civilization. If there is to be any non-symmetry, it should not be in the favor of the barbarians we create with entitlements. There should not be any entitlements. There should be benefits that are accompanied by responsibilities, such as to get an education, at least to the point that one is employable and productive. This is no longer an entitlement, it is a system of action / consequence, one of cause and effect. The idea of entitlement is that one gets without giving, consequence without any attached action, an effect without a corresponding cause. So the consequence has no measurable limit since it is not measured against a comparable requirement of action from the entitled recipient. A consequence of this nature, then, is unlimited, at least in the expectation of the entitled.
According to Leftist cant however, no action is required for enabling entitlement: society caused the problem and the recipient has no responsibility in the matter. Thus the Leftist method of non-symmetrical gifting without any responsible action in return results in the expected: non-symmetrical expectations from the entitled.
We will undoubtedly hear about how more gifting of one type or another is the answer, that more gifting to banks for more jobs, or more gifting to increase entitlement programs, or more gifting for direct payment to the entitled, that these burdens on the peaceful, productive members of society are required in order to pacify the feral indigent children.
It’s virtually guaranteed.
What is new is the entitlement generations that have grown up in western nations. Entitlement cultures have led to the breakdown of the family, the disappearance of father figures, and the expectation of government support regardless of any effort at self-improvement or contribution in return. Entitlement is a dangerous thing. It leads to the expectation of equality without effort, and in the case of Leftist society, the equality is to that of the hated rich who are railed against constantly. So there is no reason not to speed up the egalitarian process by just taking what you want: it is a natural extension of entitlement; in that worldview it is entirely rational.
Combining these two situations, the impotence of the state against anyone other than the peaceful, and the entitlement of idle, rootless youth, the warfare seen in Britain is a natural outcome. Even the manner in which the warfare is executed could be predicted: the youths using Blackberries calling mobs together for attacks on merchants and homeowners, and the police unable to respond except after the fact, and then charging property defenders with the crime of property defense.
The war is entirely unsymmetrical in favor of the feral children, with the productive citizens left bereft and fuming in their wake. It is an unsymmetrical war of both numbers and regulations which favor the feral children including the inability of unarmed authorities to engage their mobs even with water cannons, which might put out the feral’s torches and possibly cause them to fall and scrape an elbow.
It is a disgusting display of Leftist principles which excuse the criminals because they are not responsible for the problems of their social position: society is responsible and has not given them enough. But there is never enough, it would seem: the ferals are wearing expensive clothing and bearing modern electronics which they use to co-ordinate their flash attacks. They are not emaciated victims. They are merely entitled to their idleness, their lack of educational drive and hence their lack of marketable skills, and their ultimate irascibility. The poor dears don’t have a chance and are entitled to, well, to more of everything. So they are taking it.
Such wars are an obscenity on civilization. If there is to be any non-symmetry, it should not be in the favor of the barbarians we create with entitlements. There should not be any entitlements. There should be benefits that are accompanied by responsibilities, such as to get an education, at least to the point that one is employable and productive. This is no longer an entitlement, it is a system of action / consequence, one of cause and effect. The idea of entitlement is that one gets without giving, consequence without any attached action, an effect without a corresponding cause. So the consequence has no measurable limit since it is not measured against a comparable requirement of action from the entitled recipient. A consequence of this nature, then, is unlimited, at least in the expectation of the entitled.
According to Leftist cant however, no action is required for enabling entitlement: society caused the problem and the recipient has no responsibility in the matter. Thus the Leftist method of non-symmetrical gifting without any responsible action in return results in the expected: non-symmetrical expectations from the entitled.
We will undoubtedly hear about how more gifting of one type or another is the answer, that more gifting to banks for more jobs, or more gifting to increase entitlement programs, or more gifting for direct payment to the entitled, that these burdens on the peaceful, productive members of society are required in order to pacify the feral indigent children.
It’s virtually guaranteed.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Atheists Are Guud
Wandering around fairly aimlessly I came across the following explanation of both Atheist morals and Christian morals as understood by an Atheist. The site is BackyardSkeptics.com, which is the group responsible for advertising their We Have Doubts and Good Without God Skepticism on bus stops in Southern California. The following claims are so non-coherent that I couldn’t resist taking them up here.
And yes, they will decide when it is ethical to lie or cheat. Or what ever. And that is why they are not trusted by anyone else. Who knows when they are going to decide to lie or cheat or whatever their momentary urge might be? In other words, they cannot be trusted to produce a single, stable set of behaviors, even for one of them, much less an entire group of them. So this is not an ethic at all.
However, we can depend upon them to distort the Bible, because they think that works in their favor every time they do it. The example above is a beauty. If your recollection of Numbers 31 is dim or non-existent, as was mine, then grab up a Bible and read, but start at Numbers 25. I don't usually take on biblical distortions by atheists, because that doesn't disprove the existence of a creating First Cause in any way. However, this guy first distorts and then claims it as a reason for believing that there is no God, which is another non-coherence in his statement.
The Atheist accusation is that the Israelites kept virgins as sex slaves, and the self-righteous moral outrage at the Bible is based on that accusation. But the verse in question doesn’t say that at all. It says, “save for yourselves every girl that has not slept with a man.” Now why would they do that?
Back at Numbers 25, is the answer: the Midianites had seduced the Israelites into sexual perversion and idolatry, and the some of the Israelites had been morally compromised and befouled beyond recovery. There is an order to slaughter all those involved, but the Israelite army did not kill the women and boys; so the order went out to complete the task by killing the non-virgin women and the boys, but to keep the virgin females. Now why keep them? The non-virgin women were a threat because they were seductresses. The boys would figure into inheritances and were a threat to family stability. But the virgin girls were not a threat. But were they kept as sex slaves? After the killing of thousands, including seduced Israelites, sexual immorality would not have been an option. So no, not as sex slaves, it does not say that and it is not a logical conclusion. However they might have been kept as household servants and treated with the legal protections afforded those. Or they might have been kept as de facto daughters.
But there is absolutely no possible way to conclude that they were sex slaves, if one reads more than just the one verse. Atheist versions of the Bible are based on searches for verses that offend them, which is odd, because they admit to having no morals dictated by their belief. In fact, the entire Midianite episode is entirely within the Consequentialistethic tactic that tumbles automatically out of the Atheist moral vacuum.
Bottom line: Atheists are always good, by their own definition that Atheism = good. In other words, it is tautological in their minds. They decide what is good in their own minds, so when they do it, they are good QED. Maybe in the Atheist case it should be spelled differently, maybe guud. Atheists = Guud. That’s definitely better.
Afterthought: usually Atheists take offense at the entire idea of God ordering the eradication of offensive cultures. Interesting that this particular one took offense only at the “sex slave” interpretation, which wasn’t even a valid complaint. One never knows just what it is that their morality of the day will find offensive. Or acceptable, for that matter. You just can't know what to expect from an Atheist, so as the old Boswell quote goes, "when he leaves, we should count the silverware".
“Many atheists feel it is the harder choice to not have a 'moral rule book' in their lives. Atheists take each situation separately and decide what is the moral thing to do. Many times it is very ethical to lie or cheat - for example, to defend your family, or to protect an innocent person. Some say this is a harder choice because atheists have to look at Christian's value system as will as everyone else and decide if their choices are moral. This is another reason I have chosen to be an atheist. – the Bible has so many unethical an immoral stories of death and destruction - it boggles the mind how Christians can believe such nonsense. See Numbers 31 and tell me that the taking of virgins for sex slaves is ethical. Amazing!”Yes, that is true: Atheists do take each situation separately and decide for themselves what is the moral thing to do. That is called relativism, and it is the position that Atheists can and do change morality on the spot, because it is convenient and they are extra- moral anyway. Relativism is highly unpredictable and cannot be considered an ethic, at least not if one expects consistent decisions of an ethic.
And yes, they will decide when it is ethical to lie or cheat. Or what ever. And that is why they are not trusted by anyone else. Who knows when they are going to decide to lie or cheat or whatever their momentary urge might be? In other words, they cannot be trusted to produce a single, stable set of behaviors, even for one of them, much less an entire group of them. So this is not an ethic at all.
However, we can depend upon them to distort the Bible, because they think that works in their favor every time they do it. The example above is a beauty. If your recollection of Numbers 31 is dim or non-existent, as was mine, then grab up a Bible and read, but start at Numbers 25. I don't usually take on biblical distortions by atheists, because that doesn't disprove the existence of a creating First Cause in any way. However, this guy first distorts and then claims it as a reason for believing that there is no God, which is another non-coherence in his statement.
The Atheist accusation is that the Israelites kept virgins as sex slaves, and the self-righteous moral outrage at the Bible is based on that accusation. But the verse in question doesn’t say that at all. It says, “save for yourselves every girl that has not slept with a man.” Now why would they do that?
Back at Numbers 25, is the answer: the Midianites had seduced the Israelites into sexual perversion and idolatry, and the some of the Israelites had been morally compromised and befouled beyond recovery. There is an order to slaughter all those involved, but the Israelite army did not kill the women and boys; so the order went out to complete the task by killing the non-virgin women and the boys, but to keep the virgin females. Now why keep them? The non-virgin women were a threat because they were seductresses. The boys would figure into inheritances and were a threat to family stability. But the virgin girls were not a threat. But were they kept as sex slaves? After the killing of thousands, including seduced Israelites, sexual immorality would not have been an option. So no, not as sex slaves, it does not say that and it is not a logical conclusion. However they might have been kept as household servants and treated with the legal protections afforded those. Or they might have been kept as de facto daughters.
But there is absolutely no possible way to conclude that they were sex slaves, if one reads more than just the one verse. Atheist versions of the Bible are based on searches for verses that offend them, which is odd, because they admit to having no morals dictated by their belief. In fact, the entire Midianite episode is entirely within the Consequentialist
Bottom line: Atheists are always good, by their own definition that Atheism = good. In other words, it is tautological in their minds. They decide what is good in their own minds, so when they do it, they are good QED. Maybe in the Atheist case it should be spelled differently, maybe guud. Atheists = Guud. That’s definitely better.
Afterthought: usually Atheists take offense at the entire idea of God ordering the eradication of offensive cultures. Interesting that this particular one took offense only at the “sex slave” interpretation, which wasn’t even a valid complaint. One never knows just what it is that their morality of the day will find offensive. Or acceptable, for that matter. You just can't know what to expect from an Atheist, so as the old Boswell quote goes, "when he leaves, we should count the silverware".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)