Should I protest?

Today I went to a management training seminar thing, and on the whole it was rather interesting and entertaining.  The presenter was an independent contractor with a good sense of humor & paced things really well.  Also...
NO POWERPOINT!

So I'm all smiley and happy at the end, and have a few thoughts about what to do next with a situation at work.  Everyone is packing up their bags.  I put the presenter's business card in my bag.  I'm telling the other people at my table that it's been nice to meet them. I decide to sign up for the presenter's weekly e-mail.  It's all good.

...and then the presenter's final words to us are "God bless you."

Nobody had sneezed.

So... I'm totally offended like, why end a good session with an insipid Christian sentiment?  I could complain to our HR department guy who runs these things, or send an e-mail to the presenter, or I could keep quiet about it. It was just the one line when half the room wasn't really paying attention anymore, but it was uncalled-for and irrelevant to the session.  Any thoughts?

William Lane Craig is a Dumbass

It had to be said.

Some atheists have taken this fool so seriously that they engage in formal "debates" with him.  Why bother? 

The basic idea here is that debates can prove something, which of course they can't.  They are like football for dickless geeks.

There, I said it.  Debates are stupid.

The entire field of Philosophy, which spawned the "debate" format, is bullshit.  Engaging in the sport of philosophical "debate" is a waste of time.  People who make their reputations in this sport are dickless geeky dumbasses. How do I know this?  It's properly basic, of course.  It requires no basis in other beliefs.  Facts, either.  Why? Because I say so.  If I assert it, it is true.  Word.

N.B.:  Please note that the people who engage in this sport are *NOT* women.  That alone should tell you that the sport is a waste of time.

The basics of debating are thus:  Something is proposed.  The opponent attempts to smack it down.  Onlookers then argue about who won: their guy or the other side's guy.  It's always "our" guy.

There are two sides.  The winning side and the losing side.  Neither side is the "right" side.  And of course there can't be a third side, because philosophers can't count past two.

Take for example, the two-hour marathon of William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens, introduced with sports analogies, held in a basketball gymnasium at a Christian "college."  WLC says he is a "professional philosopher" here.  That alone should disqualify him from the realm of "People Worth Listening to."

I forgive Hitch and other atheists for engaging in this sport, because nonsense like Craig's opinions shouldn't go unchallenged.  WLC's fan club uses his hackneyed arguments to hide from the reality that they are believers because they have been born into a believing society.  If all they have to fall bac on is WLC's position, then watching someone with a mind take on his simplistic ravings may deconvert them.

Having heard a lot about WLC's debating skills, I decided to watch this video.  I really don't see how anyone could say he's a good debater.  Must be something in the rules.  Maybe he's the designated shitter and he's making four-point baskets before the checkered flag comes down.  Some arcane rule that isn't self-evident.

To spare you the agony, I'll summarize his performance:

Despite being a "philosopher, within a few minutes Craig's referring to astronomy and the Big Bang, which can't be uncaused because it's absurd to think of something being uncaused.  Of course something can't come from nothing, except God, which can come from nothing because uhhh god is nothing?   He'll cite science then delude himself that he's debunking it by logical argument rather than scientific observation.

Well isn't that conveeeeeeenient.

I think it's absurd that a "professional philosopher" has an opinion on astronomy.

This is the Cosmological argument.  Oh wait, that's what he calls it.  It's also called the Kalam argument, named after the medieval people who came up with it hundreds of years before Mr. Brilliant said it.

His other trick is unsupported "musts."  The universe must have a cause, and that cause must be beyond space and time, and it must be personal (because it would have to be either abstract numbers or a mind - there is no third option of course).  I guess all these "musts" come from his assumption that to believe otherwise is absurd.  My answer to all these "musts" is "why not?"  Well, no, my answer is really "You're such a fucking dumbass."  (This is why I can't be a debater.  Sometimes the ad hom attack just rolls off the lips)

Then he introduces the Teleological Argument, which then morphs into the Cosmological argument, because that's really all he has.  He's probably aware that "teleological" is often followed by the word "fallacy."  The fine-tuning of the universe to create things just as they are is something he believes has to come from a mind.  He throws around scientific concepts and constants, and claims life could not exist without them.  Apparently, in his smarter-than-you thinking there couldn't possibly be another universe in which life doesn't exist.

Physical necessity, chance, design.  (He uses his thumb plus two fingers to count them!)  He claims the life-supporting universe couldn't possibly exist by chance.  Apparently, while pursuing his philosophy degree he has studied statistics and astronomy such that he knows more than statisticians and astronomers.

Then we move on to The Moral Argument. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.  Objective morals exist.  Therefore God must exist.

Yes, he said it with a straight face.  He apparently believes that his morality can't be the product of his culture or genetics.  Note, he is wearing a wedding ring, which my coworkers have told me is forbidden in many churches because of some quotation in Timothy and Peter (books that Bart Ehrman says were forged, btw).  He is violating someone else's objective morality right there!

So...  it's "absurd" to believe that something came from nothing but it's not absurd to believe that a supernatural being with a big ego and a bad temper whipped it all up just for our amusement so he could test us with temptations he knew we couldn't resist (because he made us and he knows everything so he knew we'd fail) just so he could be born and then let himself be killed so he could tell himself to forgive the creatures he made for being as he made them.... something like that.



By his "reasoning," it's not absurd to believe those things. 

But apparently it is absurd to believe that storytellers, scribes, scholars, popes, or anyone else involved with the compilation of the Bible could have made shit up.  He takes the stories of the gospel as sufficient evidence that the Christian deity is in fact the one that fits the needs he laid out in the other "arguments."  He doesn't bother to lay out the shortcomings of the dozen or so other creators of the universe.  This would go against he black-or-white thinking of the well-honed debate skills of Mr. Absurd.  If G is true then G's book is true.  G's book is true, therefore G is true.

Yes, his arguments really are that stupid.  And improperly basic.  You'd think that somoene who has devoted his life to apologetics and philosophy would come up with something more original.

His arguments boil down to "God is true because I believe God is true."  I remain unconverted.

So now that I've summarized the dumbass's "points" for you, you can skip over the bullshit and go right to the Hitchslaps:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

God Cares About Stolen Cars

http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-couple-thanks-god-for-leading-them-to-stolen-jeep-20120102,0,7632994.column

Indianapolis, Ind.

A Crawfordsville couple's Jeep was lost but now it's found, and they say God is to thank.

On December 9th, Jared and Angela Pickett's Jeep disappeared from their Crawfordsville apartment.

"It was like I wanted to cry and then I wanted to be mad," said Angela Pickett. "But I'm like, 'who can I get mad at?'"

They were partially mad at themselves. Jared Pickett left his keys inside the Jeep between running errands, and he couldn't lock his driver's side door because he'd just replaced it with mismatched a dark green one...
After a week of praying for the best, the family began to lose hope...
"I had just come to the conclusion that we weren't ever going to get it back," Jared Pickett said. "We were going to have to cancel our family vacation that we were going to take this summer, so that we could replace the vehicle that we had got stolen."

Those plans changed Friday. Angela Pickett was at a youth convention at Calvary Tabernacle in Indianapolis. Before worship, she got lost while driving in search of breakfast. Her GPS took her to I-465 and she decided to get off at 10th Street. A few minutes later, she drove past Allison transmission and saw what appeared to be her husband's Jeep parked in a small parking lot.

... "I was in shock. I just texted all my friends. I'm like, 'I just found my husband's Jeep,'" Angela Pickett said. "It was a miracle. God led me to his Jeep."

Jared Pickett admits he had a hard time believing it until he saw his Jeep completely intact. Despite a mess left inside, he also found some valuable tools and his National Guard helmet left behind.

"Thank goodness," Jared Pickett said. "I couldn't believe that they didn't steal anything."

uhhh they stole the Jeep!  Maybe the GPS in the Jeep was as lame as the GPS in their car and the theives got lost too.

This was a very lucky thing but eventually that Jeep would have been recovered.  They would have credited Gawd if the cops had found it too.

I think the thieves prayed for a Jeep to ride around in while they smoked their weed or looked for their dealer.  Then, they came across this Jeep with the keys inside and thought "Hallelujah, God wants us to steal this Jeep."  So then they took their joyride, got lost, and parked it in a lot where a better vehicle was there for the taking.  God led them to that vehicle too.

The Indiana Taliban wants YOU!!!! (if you're a child)

Well aren't they special?  They want to make it possible for schools to force children to say the Lord's Prayer... unless they or their parents object, which of course any child would be willing to do despite facing rejection, bullying, and discrimination...   I look forward to the inevitable dispute over which version to use.  Debts or sins?  Forever?  Or forever and ever?

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/11/10100687-this-is-what-theocracy-looks-like

or read the original bill:

SENATE BILL No. 251
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning education.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SOURCE: IC 20-30-5-4.6; (12)IN0251.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 20-30-5-4.6 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2012]: Sec. 4.6. (a) In order that each student recognize the importance of spiritual development in establishing character and becoming a good citizen, the governing body of a school corporation or the equivalent authority of a charter school may require the recitation of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of each school day. The prayer may be recited by a teacher, a student, or the class of students.

(b) If the governing body or equivalent authority requires the recitation of the Lord's Prayer under subsection (a), the governing body or equivalent authority shall determine the version of the Lord's Prayer that will be recited in the school corporation or charter school.

(c) A student is exempt from participation in the prayer if:

1.  the student chooses not to participate; or
2.  the student's parent chooses to have the student not participate.

How does a child choose not to participate when we socialize them to obey their teachers?  How does a Catholic first grader know that they are reciting the "wrong" version of the Lord's Prayer?  How does a child recognize spiritual development from parroting words they don't understand?

...and What the FUCKING FUCK FUCK?????   Someone voted for these idiots who are proposing a bill that can't possibly pass.  What traction will they get from that?  "Hey voters, instead of trying to attract factory jobs so you ignorant slobs can buy bigger TVs, I proposed an unconstitutional bill!"

 

Take *that* William Lane Craig!

A brilliant smack-down of the Cosmological bullshit argument, especially as parroted represented by the bullshitter philosopher, William Lane Craig:

Another Take on "It's A Wonderful Life"

Last year I took on America's most favorite Christmas movie, which has dubious values.

This year, Craig Ferguson dissects it in a very post-modern way (starting at 5:10):

Book Review: The Religion Virus

The "New Atheists" have described religion as a delusion, a poison, and now apparently a virus.  The author says at the end that he hoped people would view their religions differently, but I doubt many religionists could get past the title of this book:  The Religion Virus: Why We Believe in God, An Evolutionist Explains Religion's Incredible Hold on Humanity.

Craig James applies Dawkins' theory of memes to the main concepts of religion.  In many ways I found this convincing, but he tries a little too hard to force the meme concept onto the book.

The concept in this book that has stuck with me most of all is the transition from pantheons of single-function gods to almighty, multi-dimensional single gods.  The All-Powerful god meme, which replaces the Warrior God Meme, the Protector God Meme, and the Loving Father God Meme, or rather conflates them all into one god-meme.  This transition wasn't ever complete with Catholics, at least.  They continue to pray to patron saints for help with their specialties. 

Still, it's a powerful idea.  It explains how God could be so contradictory, taking both sides of a football game for instance.  It also explains how the various stories and phases of the Old Testament portray different concepts of God.

The memeplex lost me a bit, but I get the concept of multiple memes sticking together and supporting each other.  I imagine a herd of gazellish ideas sticking together, which would be very adaptive.

Essentially, the analogy states that ideas that are advantageous to themselves will survive.  The most obvious is missionary work, of course.  Religions that prosletyze survive and those that don't, won't.  Christianity & Islam prosletyze and they number in the billions.  Judaism doesn't, and hence comprises a tiny minority in the world.

The virus analogy enters only at the end: religion is a parasite on society, needing to be passed from person to person to survive and yet destroying some of them.  It survives for its own purposes more than for the benefit to society... or something.  I found this part a little bit of a stretch.  A virus spreads through unconscious mechanisms, and religion spreads through prosletyzing, brainwashing, and "educating" young children.  Some of the memes seem to infect other memeplexes a.k.a. religions, though.

Some of the book oversimplifies, especially the virus analogy.  Religion has helped or hurt its societies to varying degrees.  Of course you can claim that there are beneficial parasites as well as destructive ones, and some that are only destructive under the right circumstances.

It's definitely a thought-provoking book.  Anyone who has read the Bible knows that the "unchanging" God has changed quite a bit from the beginning to the end.  Even the commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" implies that at one time Judaism was not monotheistic.  "The" God just wanted to be Numero Uno.  The warrior god seems to have softened his approach.  He wiped out the world, then he wiped out entire peoples or countries in genocidal rampages, then honed in on cities and eventually individuals.  "An eye for an eye" was a big moral improvement over genocide.  Then later there's no payment at all thanks to penal substitution.  God went from destroying the whole world to saying "fuhgeddaboudit."  This book frames a theory that explains these changes.