A nice summary of why the burden of persuasion ought to rest against governmental involvement in private business:

The essential problem is that very few people spend other people’s money with anything close to the same degree of care and efficiency that they spend their own. This is particularly true of the sort of narcissistic, superficial individuals who are drawn to careers in politics. In the immortal words of PJ O’Rourke, giving money and power to politicians is like giving car keys and whiskey to teenage boys.

Couldn’t have put it better myself.

Libertarians are commonly described as economic conservatives and social liberals.  They typically promote a deregulated, laissez-faire economy, along with a rather extreme (but not necessarily wrong-headed) view of social freedom that permits such things as prostitution and the most harmful forms of drug use.  Thus, many (and probably most) libertarians, as social liberals, favor the Roe v. Wade regime of “reproductive freedom.” 

However, libertarians seem to adopt J.S. Mills’ idea of the “harm principle” (also termed “aggression”) as the sole justification for criminal laws, rather than reference to the common good or a moral grounding for criminal law.  (It is unclear to me whether libertarians generally believe that God-given natural rights obligate the government to limit criminal law in this way, or if libertarians simply prefer this version of social freedom.)  This is why abusing drugs like heroin is legal in a libertarian world: it (arguably) does not harm anyone else, and the law is not to keep you from harming yourself.  This line of thinking, however, would seem to leave ample room for a libertarian to be pro-life, because abortion does harm another human being in the most vicious way imagineable.  Vox Day, a staunch libertarian, provides us with the pro-life libertarian argument:

The reason unborn children have human rights is that they are human. They exist, they are human, ergo they have the same right to life, liberty and property that their mothers and fathers do. As Ron Paul, a fine and upstanding libertarian, has pointed out, there are few acts of aggression more violent and unprovoked than those involved in murderously vivisecting an unborn child.

There is not a single pro-abortion argument that stands up to science and reason. Every single one is not only spurious, but easily demonstrated to be spurious. It is not necessary to bring religious arguments into the debate to conclusively settle the matter in favor of the pro-life position, in fact, the Bible-based arguments against abortion are, in my opinion, weaker than the rational and scientific arguments.

Criminalizing abortion is no more questionable from a libertarian position than criminalizing murder. It is an act of lethal, unprovoked aggression, often state-supported and sometimes state-dictated, of the sort that every libertarian, religious or secular, should vehemently oppose.

Incidentally, as a Christian, I absolutely agree with Vox Day that the Bible-based arguments are weaker than the arguments from nature and reason.  The Bible recognizes the same principles of moral reason that can be applied to the abortion question, but those principles of moral reason do not depend on the Bible.  It is possible to know that murder is wrong apart from the Bible (and indeed impossible not to know that murder is wrong), and it is possible to know that unborn children are human and therefore ought not be murdered through plain reason (with scientific factual support if necessary for rebuttal purposes).  Those who disbelieve in the Bible have no refuge against these arguments. 

(Additionally, note that there is an organization of pro-life libertarians.)

It’s been quite a while since I had my mini fights with Vox Day. Now he has done and made me mad yet again, although this time it is not a skeptical/atheistic issue. This time it is about the Bahamas legislation about marital rape! So what does Mr. Vox think about this issue?

First, there is no such thing as marital rape. Once consent is formally given in public ceremony, it cannot be revoked; the form in which marital consent is revoked is well-established. It is called divorce.

*clearing throat* WHAT? On what planet does Vox live to make such a statement? Does he even understand what rape is? Rape is forcing another person, against their wish, to perform various sexual acts. Anyone can force someone else to do it! Marital status does not have anything to do with it. Furthermore, on what alternate universe does consent mean “unlimited access to my body regardless of my wishes“? I have gotten married myself, and I have been a witness in other people’s weddings and never have I heard the bride consent to her body being the unquestioned property of her husband. Never! The arrogance and stupidity that is betrayed by these words “there is no such thing as marital rape” is gigantic. I’ve known Vox Day was a sexist from his many blog entries, but this puts him right there with Ahmadinejad.

Vox let me educate you on this issue:  People are sovereign over their own bodies. Marital consent does not confer unlimited rights to the husband over his wife’s body. He does not have unlimited access to it. Every sex act requires consent by both parties, during every particular instance. If force is used to get sex it is rape, regardless of who is forcing who. Is that clear enough for you?

This isn’t a religious issue, although many on both sides will attempt to view it that way, it’s a simple matter of when consent is revocable and the specific form that revocation must take. I invite those who believe that consent may always be granted and revoked at will to consent to join the U.S. Army, then attempt to withdraw their consent.

Oh Vox, you’re so full of shit! First, it is a religious issue. Here is how people in the Bahamas are justifying the same position Vox is taking:

“It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don’t think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one – one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?” asked Mr. Sutherland.

“Even if a woman says no to her husband it still can’t be considered rape because she is his wife. He already paid his dues at the church and she already said ‘I do,’ so from then on, even if [a man] forces sex on his wife, it isn’t rape,” he said.

“I disagree with the bill because I disagree that a man can rape his wife. The Bible tells me that a man’s body is his wife’s and her body is his. How could he rape her?” asked Ms. Sweeting.

Do you see a trend her Vox? Each and every opponent is specifically invoking the Bible or the church in their twisted opposing of the law. You’re only being a bit smarter (or more cowardly one may say) than them by not publicly voicing the same sentiment.

Secondly, your army analogy is too stupid to even waste time on it, but alas I must unless I be accused of not addressing your point. Consent takes many forms, but usually what one consents too is specified before said consent is given. In the army case you consent to join with the knowledge that you can only leave under certain circumstances. It is not an at will relationship. In a marriage consent is also given with specific knowledge, and being a sex slave to your husband’s desires is not part of what most women consent to, and claiming otherwise is patently stupid and can only be defended with equally stupid arguments…or religious ones. Pick and choose your poison!

The attempt to create a legal concept of “marital rape” is no less than an attempt to destroy the basic concept of marriage. If the husband or the wife has no more claim to the spouse’s body than anyone else, then the marital vows are meaningless and the marriage is a charade. Once consent is withdrawn, the marriage has ended.

There goes the “they’re redefining marriage” nonsense again! When will you stop with the bullshit Vox? You just contradicted everything you said so far. If once “consent is withdrawn, the marriage has ended” is true as you say, then the moment the wife does not consent to sex the marriage is over, thus the husband no longer can have her; she is no longer his property which is basically the point you’re trying to drive home, thus the using of the force to take her constitutes rape! And this is by using your logic! See this is what happens when you try to prostitute logic and reason to your predetermined conclusions, you get egg on your face! Most sane people do not constitute non-consent on specific occasion to mean marriage is over, thus the term marital rape. Still married and being raped by your husband. Is that really too hard for you to understand?

But, once married, neither husband nor wife has the right to reject the other’s marital claims. This does not mean that it is wise for anyone to abuse one’s marital rights, as doing so on a regular basis will tend to lead to the legally correct abrogation of those rights. One is always free to respect the other’s wishes and refrain from exercising one’s rights in the same way that most Americans fail to exercise their right to bear arms most of the time. But failing to exercise one’s rights is not the same as failing to possess them.

Oh I see, so only raping your wife on a regular basis is an issue, a rape here a rape there are all part of a healthy marriage right? And one is not always “free to respect the other’s wishes” one is bound to respect the other’s wishes, especially when the other’s body is at stake! And stop with these false analogies that only make you look stupider than I think you are. The right to bear arms has been specifically given to Americans; the right to unlimited access to my wife’s body has not been given to me, specifically or not! Come on Vox, you can’t be that dumb!

Men contemplating marriage would be wise to sound out their prospective brides on this issue. If a woman believes in the concept of marital rape, absolutely do not marry her!

Yes Dr. Phil! I actually would like to take this chance to turn this piece of crap advice around. Women contemplating marriage would be wise to sound out their prospective husbands on this issue. If a man does not believe in the concept of marital rape, absolutely do not marry him! Oh, and post Facebook updates on the jerk so no other woman can fall prey to him!

That the “marital rape” concept is not only legally oxymoronic, but deeply undesirable for both sexes, is exemplified by its implications for sex that by definition precludes consent. Let’s face it, any man or woman who believes in the criminalization of wake-me-up sex is not an individual with whom any decently hedonistic being would want to be saddled for a lifetime.

This is moronic! Not being raped is deeply undesirable? Yeah, I remember reading about all those women who had the misfortune of being almost raped and had to live with the void that a missed opportunity at a good rape leaves behind. Now on to the “wake-me-up sex” thing. I can only assume that what Vox means is the practice of gently waking up your sleeping partner so that the two can engage in sweet lovemaking! Sweet!  Unfortunately, reason fails Vox yet again. By definition wake-me-up sex involves waking up the other person, so that one may proceed to have consensual sex with them. He’s talking as if he thinks it means inserting your penis into a sleeping woman without waking her up, or her knowing what has happened, kinda like in the date-rape scenario. The former is perfectly fine Vox, because a recently woken person can still give consent, or not! The second is rape.  Should I draw a diagram for you Vox?

I simply cannot believe that a group of intellectuals supposedly devoted to liberty can see nothing wrong with this.

“A passing police officer sees you and, asking himself how many 1932 Hupmobiles can there be around here, pulls you over. At that moment I can assure you the officer is not all that concerned with trying not to offend you. He is instead concerned with protecting his mortal hide from having holes placed in it where God did not intend. And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.

When the officer has satisfied himself that it was not you and your Hupmobile that were involved in the Piggly Wiggly heist, he owes you an explanation for the stop and an apology for the inconvenience, but if you’re running your mouth about your rights and your history of oppression and what have you, you’re likely to get neither.”

As a description of reality, Dunphy is quite unfortunately correct. However, there is nothing in the tone of his post that suggests he finds this state of affairs even remotely regrettable. As an officer with the LAPD he only confirms everything one would expect regarding cop mentality, especially in the United States. As Vox Day will tell you, the police are not your friends.

The real shame here though is that nobody else at National Review Online thinks to say anything. Dunphy posted at noon on Sunday and The Corner can be something of a ghost town on weekends, but at this point it must have grazed some eyeballs among their 20-plus contributors. Even allowing for that, I have no problem predicting that there will be nary a dissenting voice. Perhaps there would have been a week ago, but now that the Gates arrest, which Dunphy was analogizing, is now tied to President Obama after his ill-considered words at the health care press conference last Wednesday, Republicans and their boosters at NR have no choice but to put their full and unmitigated support behind the police. Even at the expense of liberty.

National Review is far from a strictly libertarian publication, but you don’t have to be Ron Paul to assert the right to speak belligerently to the police, especially while inside your own home.

Vox calls them Stasi, Obama called them stupid. They’re both.

As some of you can remember, I am a fan of voxiversity on Voxday’s blog.  He is starting a new session this time covering Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.  I have started a page where I link to some information and the class sessions.

Ouch, he thinks he has a slam dunk this time. That will show me!

Just one example of why I enjoy the religion/atheism discourse:

VD: “This [move from "error theory" to "compartmental "theory"] hasn’t yet made its way down to the run-of-the-mill internet atheists, whose primary form of “debate” still consists of calling people stupid despite the fact that all of the available evidence demonstrates rather conclusively that the objects of their ridicule are, as a point of fact, rather more intelligent than the atheist himself.”

Skepdude: “Personally from what’ I’ve seen, atheist bloggers mainly go after specific behaviors rather than people.”

Skepdude’s commenter: “Vox Day is a complete idiot. Don’t even waste time or typing on him.”

I suppose this is the point where, if I was an atheist or a left-liberal, I would be expected to make use of that silly, self-aggrandizing, overused, and oft-unjustified metaphor: “the X, it burns”. But it doesn’t, you know, it’s just moderately amusing. Note that I didn’t refer solely to “atheist bloggers”, but rather “internet atheists”, which of course includes both commenters and bloggers.

I must hang my head in shame. Apparently I misunderstood him again.  He meant to include anyone and everyone who ever wrote anything about atheism in the intertubes in his “run-of-the-mill internet atheist” category. Ok, I guess that’s fine. But that’s more of a problem for Vox, no? I wonder how much one would have to read to be able to make a statement about this, now much much larger, group of people. How many blog entries and how many comments does Vox read, in order to make such a confident statement? And on top of that he would have to keep working on his own blog, his upcoming book, obviously read all the comments on his blog…..????

By the way, Vox you keep avoiding the main issue- Where is the evidence you mention? And let’s not forget that now your evidence needs to apply to all “run-of-the-mill internet atheists” including commenter, not just bloggers. Thanks for clearing that out for me!

PS: Vox, my commenter in no way shape or form, said or even implied, that he was an atheist, which he must be for your post to make any sense at all. Remember, this blog is called Skepfeeds, we deal with much more than just religion here. So why do you assume he is an atheist? Can’t someone call you names without being an atheist? You should be careful not to jump to unwarranted conclusions.

I love me a good old intellectual fight, and at times I am shown to be wrong, at which point I must humbly apologize. Luckily that is not the case with Vox Day’s reply to my last entry. The fact remains that Vox refuses to address my challenge, instead he’s chosen to accuse me of committing the Straw Man fallacy. Moi? Impossible. So in order to perform a public service to anyone who may be reading this entry, and as a personal favor to Vox, let us go over the Straw Man Logical Fallacy, and see if I did, in fact commit it. I would like to concentrate on part of his reply here and hopefully the second part on a later entry.

Straw Man Fallacy

Wikipedia gives a pretty good summary of what the Straw Man fallacy is.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted.^[1]
2. Quoting an opponent’s words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent’s actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).^[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments – thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.^[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

If my logic follows the path above, then I have committed the Straw Man Fallacy and I must retract my original argument. Let us examine if that is the case:

Step 1 – Person A has position X. That would be Vox’s position. Here is the full paragraph from his first entry (emphasis added):

Baggini’s efforts are well-placed, but one thing he misses in his essay is that the New Atheists, having seen their “error theory” repeatedly blown away and shown for the logical and empirical nonsense that it is, are in the process of shifting to what can be described as the “compartmental” theory. This hasn’t yet made its way down to the run-of-the-mill internet atheists, whose primary form of “debate” still consists of calling people stupid despite the fact that all of the available evidence demonstrates rather conclusively that the objects of their ridicule are, as a point of fact, rather more intelligent than the atheist himself.

Step 2 – Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y. That would be my interpretation of the above paragraph.

Here is what I said on my first entry (emphasis added):

First, I would like to see what evidence he is referring to when he says that “all of the available evidence demonstrates rather conclusively that the objects of their ridicule are, as a point of fact, rather more intelligent”, because I suspect he’s using a very unorthodox definition of evidence here.  Second, I consider myself to be one of those ” run-of-the-mill internet atheists” they are referring to here, and while I have done my fair share of calling stupid people out, I think, and hope, I’ve only done it when they actually said or did something stupid, not solely because they believe in God. I don’t think that believing in God makes people stupid. It makes them wrong and misguided, but not stupid. Nevertheless that is not the point I want to concentrate on in this entry.

Ok, so far so good; I only called him out on the claim he made. This in no way can be interpreted as falling under any of the 5 sub-categories on Step 2 of the Straw Man Fallacy.

Then on my second entry I wrote the following:

First, Mr. Vox wants to take a shot at my challenge of his claim that they (religious) are more intelligent than us (atheists). While it is quite ridiculous to make that statement for any group in relation to any other group, nevertheless he clearly means to say that religious people are smarter than the atheists. Here is the original statement from his first entry:

The bold part is what he’s latching on to claim that I committed the Straw Man. It is clear, I think, that what I said does not fall under categories 2-5. Anyone wants more details why, I’d be happy to explain, but I think it is self evident. So that leaves Category 1-Misrepresentation of the other person’s position. What is Vox’s position that started this whole thing?  It was his original statement that “This hasn’t yet made its way down to the run-of-the-mill internet atheists, whose primary form of “debate” still consists of calling people stupid despite the fact that all of the available evidence demonstrates rather conclusively that the objects of their ridicule are, as a point of fact, rather more intelligent than the atheist himself.”

Now who are the run-of-the-mill-atheists he’s referring to? Well it would be people like me, Atheist Revolution, The Friendly Atheist, The Atheist Blogger, Unreasonable Faith, Rodibidably, etc. etc. Who are the objects of our ridicule? Anyone and everyone who did anything ridiculous in the name of their religions, such as the Pope saying condoms make AIDS worse, the faithful parents that let their children die because they rely on prayer, the person that blows up buildings in the name of his God, the pilot that lets the plane crash because he was too busy praying rather than trying to actually do something, etc. etc. etc. Those people dear Vox are the main objects of our ridicule, they are in fact religious people of all pins and stripes, and sometimes stubborn refusal to face reality is also ridiculed, statements that amount to “I know it does not make any sense, but I still want to believe it”, which come to think of it covers a large portion of the believers that I have known anyway.

In a nutshell Vox, internet atheist bloggers are criticizing religion, religious people and their religion inspired behavior. It is untrue that we are ridiculing them all the time, but I will assume that you’re also including critiques under the term “ridicule”. So it seems to me that I am not misinterpreting anything in claiming that your words mean that “the atheists are less intelligent than the object of their ridicule (the religious)” or vice-versa that the religious are more intelligent than the atheists. If anything your statement was ambiguous so that it left open the possibility of it being interpreted that way. I can’t see how you can deny that my interpretation is valid. It may not have been what you meant to say, but, in that case, you ought to be more careful how you word thing, and you should simply clarify what you meant to say and re-word your statement so that it is not ambiguous. If you did not mean to say that , please let us know. Either way, you can’t say that I was the one to commit a fallacy.

Ok, so we don’t need to go to Step 3, because without Step 2 you can’t go to #3. So I think this conclusively handles Vox’s pathetic statement:

Read it again, o valiant black knight of atheism. The fact that I have repeatedly explained, both in TIA and on this blog, why atheists are more intelligent on average than theists, is sufficient to demolish your attempt to construct this demonstrable strawman.

Ok, if I’m gonna be a a knight, I think I ought to be referred to as a knight in shinning armor! Second I have not read TIA and I have not read everything you’ve ever written (and you haven’t read everything I’ve written either, so I guess we’ll call that a draw). I made it clear that what I was criticizing was what you said in that first entry, the portion that I keep going to over and over, the run-of-the-mill atheist sentence. You are now engaging in what is known as Moving the Goal Post, trying to say that what I am trying to deconstruct is your body of work, when in fact I am taking exception with that one statement, in that specific entry, so let’s not start jumping around from one topic to the other.

But if your body of work does in fact make it clear that you think that “atheists are more intelligent on average than theists” how can you explain your statement? How is it that you think that atheist are on average smarter than theists, but then turn around that the internet atheists are less intelligent than the theists? Do you think there’s something wrong with those of us who speak up on the internet? I don’t know, and since I don’t want to be accused of a Straw Man Fallacy, I think I’ll let you handle that one.

PS: By the way Vox is still dancing around the first challenge.  Maybe third time is the charm: Vox Day, can you or can you not provide us with the evidence that you so boldly proclaim “demonstrates rather conclusively that the objects of their ridicule are, as a point of fact, rather more intelligent than the atheist himself.“? Where is the evidence? You say you’ve seen it! Show it! Point us to it! Give us links! If not, don’t you think you should not use the word “evidence” and replace it with “it is my opinion”?

And I must oblige. It appears I have ruffled the feathers of one super-intelligent (at least according to him) Vox Day. Apparently my entry was lucky enough to attract his attention and not only that, but he felt like he had to reply and put me in my place. Well I can’t let a challenge go unanswered, now can I? What kind of run-of-the-mill atheist turns the other cheek? None that I know of. Se let the spanking begin.

First, Mr. Vox wants to take a shot at my challenge of his claim that they (religious) are more intelligent than us (atheists). While it is quite ridiculous to make that statement for any group in relation to any other group, nevertheless he clearly means to say that religious people are smarter than the atheists. Here is the original statement from his first entry (emphasis added):

This hasn’t yet made its way down to the run-of-the-mill internet atheists, whose primary form of “debate” still consists of calling people stupid despite the fact that all of the available evidence demonstrates rather conclusively that the objects of their ridicule are, as a point of fact, rather more intelligent than the atheist himself.

Which I immediately challenged, since we know well that there is no such evidence, thus he must be relying on some “unorthodox” (my exact word) definition of evidence. Mr. Vox took exception to that.

Logical and empirical evidence. Or, to be more specific, logical, documentary and statistical evidence. Let us consider the most readily available example: Since I am known to possess, at a bare minimum, a Mensa-required +2SD IQ, it is obvious that most of my atheist critics are statistically bound to fall well short of that not-terribly-impressive level.

Ok, ignoring the fact that, by the very same rules of statistics, so would most religious believers, it is quite ridiculously childish to argue that a sample of one constitutes evidence when one is comparing two groups as large as atheists and believers.  I am not American (although I have lived in this county for 10 years I learn new things about it every day) so I am not that familiar with IQ tests, nevertheless it is my understanding that regardless of your IQ score, stupid statements remain stupid statements, religious and atheists alike. A high IQ does not inoculate one from saying stupid stuff, now does it? And replying to a direct question of “where is the evidence you mention” by saying “sure there is evidence“  and leaving it at that without pointing to said evidence, does not do you much good on the stupid department.

Basically Vox thinks that “I think so” should be considered good evidence.  Well, personally I would expect something a little more firm such as say, at the very least, an article in a major wold newspaper, referring to some survey/study with a title of something like, oh I don’t know “Intelligent people ‘less likely to believe in God” perhaps? Or this one maybe? Now that is what I would  consider as evidence, but Vox’s word, unfortunately does not count. Sorry Vox but that’s just the way it is and it doesn’t matter how much you deny it, evidence will never be defined as one person’s word in any dictionary!

Now personally I must say that I consider this to be an exercise in futility because it is quite stupid to proclaim any group of people smarter than any other group of people, especially when the groups are not formed based on intelligence standards to begin with. There are very smart people that are atheists and there are very smart people that are religious, and then there are stupid people on both sides. Their level of intelligence is not at stake here though, even though Vox seems to want to make it about that. What is at stake is their behavior with respect to one issue and one issue only, belief in God. You could be an astrophysicist and still believe in God. I don’t know how you’d rationalize that, but whatever, it’s your choice. But I can’t help but call you stupid if you say something stupid in an attempt to defend your belief, solely because you happen to be quite smart when astrophysics is concerned. Smart people do stupid stuff all the time and guess what their stupid actions are called….stupid.

It is, of course, amusing to see an atheist suggest that I might elect to make use of an unorthodox definition of evidence, when almost every single atheist claim that “there is no evidence for God’s existence” requires ignoring the standard definitions of evidence provided by every English language dictionary from American Standard to Webster as well as the definitions used in the American legal system.

No Mr Day, having strict standards for evidence is not a shortcoming of skeptics and atheists as you would like to suggest, at the contrary it is a virtue. Some very intelligent men have said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and is there a more extraordinary claim than God? Vox uses the typical strategy of most anti-scientists, more specifically trying to use the everyday use definitions of certain words in an effort to minimize or avoid the more rigorous requirements that a scientific approach demands. Ever heard the “it’s just a theory” slogan? Vox is doing the same here with the word evidence. And why stop at the American legal system I wonder? Why not look at other legal systems? How about Sharia? How about evidence from a woman is half as good as evidence from a man. Maybe we should look into that?

The evidence that Vox has in mind is useless, for that same “evidence” can be applied to any God that ever lived (figure of speech of course). Does that make you a Muslim Vox? Does this mean you believe in Allah? Surely the evidence the Muslims present for him is no less than the evidence  you think you are presenting for your God, so which hypothesis does this evidence support? Which God? Evidence that supports no hypothesis or all hypotheses is not good evidence at all. Surely, you must know that.

Then Vox bravely takes on my hypocrisy charge. If you remember from my first entry I had said (apparently I misspelled the word hypocritical. Bummer!):

Bit hypocritital no? First he says that our primary form of “debate” is calling people stupid, which of course must be wrong, then he turns around and presents his argument/debate which basically amounts to nothing more than calling us fools. Now, I’m nothing but a mere run of the mill internet atheist, who is mentally inferior as demonstrated by all the available evidence, but this sort of reasoning sounds a little….well…..stupid foolish to me!

Vox obviously does not like that. Who likes to be called out on their hypocrisy? So he counters as such:

This is precisely the same sort of thing we have seen so often before. Call it the First Law Fandango. Because Skepdude possesses an above-average intelligence, he assumes that because he does not understand what an individual of superior intelligence has written, that individual and/or his reasoning must be stupid, foolish, hypocritical, etc. But there is a basic logical flaw in his errant attempt to find hypocrisy here, because it is eminently obvious – based on the readily available documentary evidence – that a single reference to a well-known Bible verse is neither a) an argument, nor b) my primary form of debate. So, no, not in the least bit hypocritical.

I posses an above-average intelligence? Thanks, that’s quite nice actually, but I guess this guy is quite trigger happy with compliments (he does refer to himself as an individual of superior intelligence after all), so I will take that with a grain of salt. Well thanks to my above-average intelligence I know that hypocrisy means preaching one thing and doing the opposite, such as for example complaining of one’s use of the word stupid while using the word fool yourself. That’s pretty straight forward, as far as I can tell and where you’re getting your words/ideas from (the Bible, the Quran, the Yellow Pages) makes no difference. See the hypocrisy lies in the conflict between what you say and what you do, not where what you say comes from. Come on, didn’t they have a section on hypocrisies on the IQ tests?

Even if I had been making an argument there in the second of those two sentences – which I was not, I was merely offering scriptural support for my assertion that atheism has been around for a very long time and will probably always exist so long as there is conceptual space for it – a single argument does not dictate any specific form of debate, much less define my primary form of debate.

He’s right that I was too generous to use the words argument and debate, it would have been more accurate to say his statement, so I guess I stand corrected on semantics there. Nevertheless, let us look at the specific sentence in his original post:

Atheism will always exist. As it is written, there have always been fools who have said in their hearts that there is no God.

So did he make an assertion that atheism has been around for a long time? Sure he did. But did he not also call all atheists fools? See it is right there, in the middle of the second sentence. He is paraphrasing the Bible, but it is clear, I think, that this is a statement that he agrees with. How do I know he accepts what the Bible says on the issue? Because he is using that paraphrased verse to support his statement, namely that “Atheism will always exist”. You don’t use an untrue statement to support your own claim now do you? So I don’t know why Vox is embarrassing himself implying that he doesn’t think we’re all fools over here. I don’t know what Vox is thinking. Pointing at claim/statement #1 does not negate that you made claim/statement #2.

So to recap, Vox Day did not address my specific challenge of where this evidence of his that shows the regligious to be more intelligent than us. Instead he gave us what I am going to call (and trademark) as the Argument From My Awesomeness. Then he proceeded to make a complete buffon out of himself by claiming that saying on his blog that we are fools somehow does not mean that he’s saying on his blog that we are fools (a stance he must take I think if he is to even try to not to look hypocritical). Instead, as usual with anti-scientists,  you get rhetoric, dancing around the questions and some failed attempts at humor. The fact remains that his original claim that “all of the available evidence demonstrates rather conclusively that the objects of their ridicule are, as a point of fact, rather more intelligent than the atheist himself” is as unsupported one entry later as it was when he first made it. I am still waiting for Mr. Day to be generous enough and point us to this evidence so we may evaluate it for ourselves.

Ball’s on your cort Vox.

THE TRINITY

Having recently completed a mini Comparative-Religions offered at my school, I’ve realized that many concepts I had thought to be shared and understood in most, if not all, religions, or at least in the Abrahamic faiths, were in fact unique to Christianity.  In light of this discovery, my next few posts will be dealing with sin, the afterlife, and the nature of God.  And what of God’s nature is more important to Christianity than the Trinity?

To explain the Trinity, I will be borrowing from the content of Vox Dei’s argument against the Problem of Evil by eliminating Omniderigence (Which is to say, the purported trait of God foreordering all things) This is a brilliant article, which can be found in the fifteenth chapter of his book, “The Irrational Atheist” in which he points out the factual errors found in the “New Atheist’s” books.  The whole thing can be found online for free from his website, but be warned- he doesn’t really get to the point of his book until the fourth chapter.  The first three chapters are really just him patronizing Dawkins (“wrong”), Hitchens (“drunk, and he’s wrong”), and Harris (“so superlatively wrong that it will require the development of esoteric mathematics operating simultaneously in multiple dimensions to fully comprehend the orders of magnitude of his wrongness”).  Once he gets around to it though, the depth of his research is amazing and an invaluable resource to anyone trying to argue with the “new” atheists.  But back to my point…

Imagine that you’re a game designer, creating a virtual world populated with AIs.  You are in complete control of the world- you can read every line of code when ever you want to, see the very “thoughts” of your creations at will.  You create your own AI character in order to change the movements of your programming.  Your avatar is completely digital- it would be ridiculous to assert it’s flesh and blood.  And yet, it is in every sense you, since your will is in control of it’s AI.  You and the avatar act in complete sync.  You are both undeniably distinct, and yourself much “greater” then the avatar, but at the same time you are exactly the same.  You can also act apart from your avatar, whether through subtly tweaking lines of code in the NPCs, influencing the conditions in your virtual world, or by just causing the NPCs to act in accordance with your designs.  Your influence can’t be directly observed or noticed by the NPCs, but it is there.  That is, in a sense, how God works.  He is all at once Heavenly Father, creator of the world, Jesus Christ, God made Man, and the Holy Spirit, acting through believers.  It’s not a perfect metaphor- it can’t account for the Ascension, the Love between the Father and the Son, or the fact that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each distinct in will.  But at the very least, it’s not the usual heresies (I’m looking at you, water-ice-steam-one-substance and the “I’m a father and a son and a thought but I’m one person” metaphors).

-Sarah

Αγαπημένοι μου συνοδοιπόροι στο δρόμο του Θεού (ή των Θεών),

επιτέλους με αυτό το βιβλίο μπορούμε να ξανακοιμηθούμε ήσυχοι τα βράδια. Οι εφιάλτες, η ανησυχία και οι αμφιβολίες που η ανίερη τριάδα των Dawkins, Harris και Hitchens προσπάθησε να ενσταλλάξει στις ψυχές μας συνάντησε τη ρομφαία της. Ο ευσεβής Vox Day με το βιβλίο του “Ο παράλογος άθεος” καταφέρνει τα τελειωτικά χτυπήματα σε αυτούς τους αποστόλους του σατανά, που ντυμένοι τον μανδύα της λογικής και της, φευ, ελεύθερης σκέψης – που όσοι πιστεύουν στον ένα και μοναδικό Θεό (ή Θεούς) γνωρίζουν πως δεν υπάρχει τέτοιο πράγμα – προσπάθησαν ανεπιτυχώς να προσελκύσουν τους πιο ασθενείς στη σκέψη και ψυχή αδελφούς μας. Αλλά ο Πανάγαθος – ή οι Πανάγαθοι – φρόντισε για το πλήρωμά του και μας έστειλε αυτό το βιβλίο. 

Το πιο καταπληκτικό σε αυτό το βιβλίο είναι η καταγραφή ενός θαύματος που ο ίδιος ο ευσεβής Vox βίωσε και που αποτελεί ατράνταχτη απόδειξη της ύπαρξης του Θεού και της αληθείας του θεϊκού λόγου. Αντιγράφω από την σελίδα 256, δυστυχώς εις την αγγλικήν:

THE ARGUMENT FROM FICTION

This argument states that because the Bible and every other sacred text are wholly man-made and as fictitious as anything by Shakespeare or any other classic from the literary canon, there is no reason to take them seriously, much less base moral systems or societal structures upon them. The problem here is that the Bible has not only proven to be a more reliable guide in many instances than the current state of secular science as well as an accurate historical document, but sometimes a better predictor of future events than the experts on the subject. I bought euros back when they were worth just over ninety cents on the dollar because of the eschatological interpretations of the Book of Revelation that the European Common Market would one day become a single political entity, the endless vows of the European elite to the contrary notwithstanding. Now, the EUR/USD rate is bouncing arround 1.45. Maybe it was just a fortuitous coincidence, but on the other hand, if a northern country shows signs of invading Israel, let’s just say I won’t hesitate to short their currency. 

Ιδού. Ουχί μόνον ο ευσεβής Vox καταποντίζει με ατράνταχτα επιχειρήματα τους Νεο-άθεους στα τάρταρα της απιστίας τους, αλλά μας παραθέτει και πώς βίωσε στην επίγεια ζωή του τη Χάρη του Κυρίου. Γιατί, μέσω αυτού ο Κύριος μας δείχνει πως πλέον οι ευσεβείς δε θα αμοίβονται μόνο μετά θάνατον, αλλά και σε αυτήν την ζωή. Αν δεν είναι αυτό θαύμα, τότε ποιο είναι;

Ας μας χαρίζει ο Κύριος – ή οι Κύριοι – τη δύναμη της πίστης που χάρισε στον πιστό του Vox και ας χαρίσουμε εμείς αυτό το αληθινά εμπνευσμένο βιβλίο στους αδελφούς μας τις Άγιες αυτές Μέρες. 

Καλά Χριστούγεννα

Per pigrizia copio e incollo dal sito www.voxday.com :

Karel Music Expo, seconda edizione.
Una straordinaria occasione di incontro e confronto fra etichette discografiche, artisti, media e pubblico, tutto dedicato alla musica indipendente della scena sarda e le massime espressioni della musica d’autore internazionale, con ospiti in arrivo dall’altra parte del Tirreno, dall’Europa, dagli Stati Uniti.

Saranno venti giorni intensissimi in una Cagliari che si nutrirà di cultura musicale; venti giorni carichi di appuntamenti, laboratori, incontri, anteprime rigorosamente dedicati al mondo della musica indipendente e d’autore, e naturalmente tanta musica dal vivo, con più di 150 artisti a succedersi nelle più suggestive location di Cagliari su due palchi, dalle 21 fino a notte fonda ed a seguire negli Aftershow elettronici del Palazzo Floris Thorel.
150 artisti sul palco
40 concerti dal vivo
15 label discografiche nazionali ed internazionali presenti all’Expo
20 giorni di programmazione
i più importanti giornalisti nazionali di settore all’interno della giuria di qualità
diffusione internazionale dell’iniziativa
media partners nazionali
laboratori tecnici
interventi d’arte
rispetto dell’ambiente

ARTISTI CONFERMATI PER ORA:

TAMBOUR DU BRONX,
TRICKY (unica data in Italia),
ZITA SWOON (ex Deus)
MEG,
BISHOPS (UK)
BEN PARKER (uk)
Luci della Centrale Elettrica
Offlaga Disco Pax
JOE LALLY(ex Fugazi)
MARTA SUI TUBI
DAVE MULDOON (uk)
DENTE
BABY SUN (Ireland)
THE BOY BATHING (usa)
BLACK SESAME (sydney)
MANGETOUT (France)
APRILE IN SUPER8
DAINOCOVA
NIELSA

Attempting a defense of the indefensible:

There is nothing as honest as pure capitalism.

UPDATE: Proving that she’s not merely skating by on cuteness and dog-blogging, Miss Lucas adds an update to advise:

I’m sorry ladies but there are only so many lectures about the MomBlogging Revolution and Powerful Womyn and all that happy horses–t that a person can take. It’s not only tiresome on an intellectual level, most of it is the precise opposite of entertaining. Which in my mind, is what blogs are for. Entertainment. Even if they’re educational too, they have to be entertaining on some level to get anyone to come back. Otherwise we’d just read books.

Entertainment? You mean like punkabilly, Harleys, hotrods, hot babes and classic pop swing?

Allarme in Vaticano: un matrimonio fallito su 5 annullato dalla Sacra Rota

Questo scriveva su corriere.it Paolo Conti il 15 marzo 2008, cioè quasi il 30 giugno 2010! Ma lasciamo stare Il Matematico ai suoi dilemmi sull’algebra teorica e passiamo invece al vero eroe della giornata, uno di quei personaggi che davvero rappresentano lo spirito del nostro tempo e vorremmo avere sempre in redazione: VOX DAY, libertarista cristiano e scrittore di “The irrational atheist” (e si noti la squisita finezza nel gioco di parole vox day – vox dei).

“Come ho dimostrato in The Irrational Atheist, la religione non è una minaccia per alcun aspetto della scienza: non attenta alle basi del sapere, non attenta al metodo, non attenta alla professione. Non lo ha mai fatto.

Ciò non significa che oggi non esista una minaccia seria per quegli stessi aspetti. Neanche a dirlo, viene dalla stessa forza che per prima mette a rischio la sopravvivenza della civiltà occidentale: l’egualitarismo femminile“. Che lui chiama equalitarismo, ma tant’è. Se le egualitarie riuscissero nel loro intento, sostiene, fra trent’anni “la comunità accademica scientifica in America non sarebbe più intellettualmente rispettabile o rilevante di quanto lo siano oggi gli studi delle femministe”.

E continua: “l’idea di lezioni di biologia fatte da professoresse lesbiche che credono che la procreazione eterosessuale sia un mito o di corsi di algebra tenuti da donne che non sanno fare le divisioni può sembrare impossibile, oggi. Ma se parlassimo con uno sviluppatore software, egli sarebbe senz’altro in grado di fornire numerosi esempi concreti di ingegneri informatiche, alcune laureate, che non sanno neanche da dove si inizi a scrivere un programma.

Le donne adorano l’educazione; è l’applicazione pratica che non va loro particolarmente a genio.”

In sostanza, le istituzioni crolleranno e sarà la catastrofe. D’altra parte “è scritto: ‘le donne sono la rovina di tutto’. [...] E così, in un futuro non troppo lontano, due più due farà finalmente cinque se una donna penserà che debba, o quantomeno lo farà finché gliene durerà l’estro“.

Puttane.

This is one of those posts where I tell you I am too ignorant and do not have nearly enough time to write for myself about something that is incredibly important and relevant in today’s culture.  Christians have always been in the business of defending the faith once for all handed down to the saints.  Peter tells us to be ready to give answers to anyone with questions or objections about the hope that we have in Jesus.  There is a new crop of apologists today that are actively seeking to “convert” God believers into atheists (or non-God believers).  This is sort of reverse conversion.  They are loud, arrogant, and maybe more than any other time, popular.  There are about a handful of prominent new atheists (new because the proselytizing by atheists is not the historical norm) who have written books on a popular level basically attempting to convince anyone reading that faith in any God at all is irrational, stupid, insert whatever pejorative term you like.  SO, to the point of the post.  If you are interested in this type of thing, then I stumbled on an excellent resource that soundly criticizes (I believe spanks) 3 of the most prominent new atheists.  The website is here.  You can download for free this guy’s book.  It’s a few hundred pages, but worth the read.  It is well-argued, fairly witty and entertaining, and very informative.  The blog itself is highly entertaining, but the meat is in the book (“The Irrational Atheist”).

I have decided to put some more web/blog links  list (on the lower right hand corner)on my blogsite that have been long overdue.

The Painful Truth, now under the domain John B (for some time now). A tough, no-nonsense type of guy who gets the job done. I also put the website where anyone can have their own personal download of The Ambassador Report by the late John Trechak put together in digital form by The Archivist. Those who are still trapped in the Armstrongist nonsense today can still find liberation and peace of mind (and sanity) that HWA was not God’s Apostle and God have nothing to do with the WCG (as an organization) in the first place—dispite that these archives of reports are at least 9 to 33 years after the fact.

I have mentioned Aggie’s Purplehymnal Weblog but have never got around putting on my list of links. Now it is. A note of caution: at this time she (Aggie) is taking a break from new posts until the Passover season (April 2oth). I believe she working on a project (called Weinland Watch) on exit counselling members and/or associates of Ron Weinland’s ultra-conservative fundamentalist XCG splinter at http://weinlandwatch.wordpress.com/. Note about Mr.Weinland, I heard him speak at the Feast of Tabernacles during my years in the WCG. For some reason, there was one sermon on “The Healing of The Mind” I couldn’t  find inspiration (I even tried to listen to the tape for a second time and was still not inspired). Ironic that there are those who disagree. It is my hope and prayer that Aggie CAN convince these people otherwise.

There are a fair numbers of ex-WCGers (or ex-XCGers for that matter) that are now atheist. Don’t let anyone tell you that they are  a monolithic group. Some are very kind, gentle and compassionate (I can think of “ex-believer”of Gary Scott’s defunct XCG blog).  My friend Ron, who is atheist can teach me that religious people can be the biggest  a–holes not just atheists and boy, you better believe he can be right! Others who believe that religion and atheism can  and should co-exist in a secular pluralistic society (mythology is not bad it has moral lessons for everyone) but believe that ultra-literalism and fundamentalism in all religions must be battled and defeated.  Of course there are others that are usually rude, vitrolic, humourless, manipulative (and trust me I have had my share of some, so I know where I speak). These significant “others” are “millitant” atheists (and of course, they dare you to label them “fundy” or “fundamentalist” atheist because the word fundamentalist has something to do with religion and ATHEISM is NOT a RELIGION!!!). They like Richard Dawkins (which I whom admired for telling off the creepy Ted Haggard), Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris who are called “The New Atheists”. Do you feel that these type of people can make you feel small? Trust me—I have had the feeling. Never fear, there is a blog site called Atheism Sucks!  According to the blog, they state, “We are students, activists, and independent thinkers who reject atheism. The purpose of this blog is to promote reason and intellectual responsibility; in doing so, we aim to counteract the manipulative, dishonest, and fallacious tactics of atheist apologists.” I also have a link where you download their book  The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day for free, of course.

…and finally but in no means the least, a blog from a very unique but a very brilliant and insightful personality. Blunt, politically incorrect (thank God!) and most of paramount importance makes you think! This man’s name is James Pate, a  Ph.D. student at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati, OH. In which he  studies the History of Biblical Interpretation, which includes Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.  He has grown up in a WCG background. Like myself, he has no patience (but probably a little more merciful than I am) of the “clap-happy-happy”, anti -intellectual variety of Evangelical Christianity. What is special about this guy that he openly states about his neurological disorder which Asperger’s syndrome which is considered a form of autism on the autistic disorder spectrum. As one who was diagnosed with a neurological disorder myself at a very young age (I am simply not ready nor I do not wish to go in details about it this time)I sympathize with James greatly and share a special bond with him. Let’s put it this way, your life can be like a war and there are people who do not have the compassion nor patience to understand you.  It seems the outside world has the 24-7 non-stop olympic sport of simply misunderstanding you and this is the world that James and others like him face every single day of his life. I love James raw honesty that he feels a variety of emotions in his Christian walk: anger, sadness, passion, strong desire—yeah the emotions that “evangelical Christians” shouldn’t have. He takes on controversial issues like atheism,the faults of evangelicals,evolution vs. creationism,sex, politics–you name it. He gives you a piece of his mind on all of them and if you don’t like it, there is only two options: take it or leave it. You don’t know what your missing by not reading his blog and like J’s  Shadows of WCG blog, I hope James’ blog is here for years and decades to come.

Aber es gibt ja auch die andere Art von Blogger, die ihren Mangel an Fachwissen mit einer sehr großzügigen Selbsteinschätzung ihrer Fähigkeiten wettmachen — also auch jenseits dieses Blogs hier. Als solchen könnte man wohl Vox Day beschreiben: Libertarianer, Fantasy-Autor, Christ und eben Blogger, der durch seinen, nach Selbstbekundung, einzigartig hohen Intellekt, aber vielleicht auch durch seine schon absurd christlich-konservativen, antifeministischen und allgemein konträren Ausführungen eine treue Fangemeinde in der eher rechten amerikanischen Blogszene für sich gewinnen konnte. Was liegt für so einen näher, als auch noch eine Erwiderung auf die in den letzten Jahren erschienenen atheistischen Veröffentlichungen zu schreiben? Das Ganze natürlich mit dem Anspruch, Atheismus damit endgültig widerlegt zu haben:

The Irrational Atheist
Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens

Man könnte das natürlich ignorieren — wer kennt schon Vox Day, und eine Veröffentlichung des Buches hierzulande steht wohl nicht zu erwarten: das ganze ist eher ein amerikanisches Phänomen, wo sich Bücher blendend verkaufen, mit denen hier niemand in der U-Bahn gesehen werden wollte. [1] Aber Vox Day, in vorbildlicher Manier des Web 2.0, stellt sein Werk auch noch als kostenlosen Download auf seiner Webseite zur Verfügung. Wie er selbst sagt: damit Atheisten keine Entschuldigung hätten, es nicht zu lesen. Denn dass sein kleines Büchlein schließlich all der Gottlosigkeit den Todesstoß seiner reinen, überlegenen Logik versetzen wird, das meint er durchaus ernst.

Ich hab inzwischen immerhin ein Viertel des Buches gelesen. Und lobend muss ich sagen, dass es vom Sprachstil her nicht unlesbar ist, mit der Einschränkung, dass die Fußnoten offenbar ungefähr zwanzig Prozent des Gesamttextes ausmachen. Schön auch, dass, öh, Herr Day gänzlich auf Bibelstellen oder glaubensimmanente Argumente verzichtet. Aber ansonsten…? Einerseits die üblichen Missverständnisse über die Begriffe atheistisch und agnostisch. Die üblichen Auslassungen, wie religiös und erfolgreich Wissenschaftler doch früher waren, und wie atheistisch und erfolglos heute. Die üblichen persönlichen Verspottungen der besprochenen Autoren, wie man sie aus Blogs kennt und wie ich sie hier ja auch gerne praktiziere. Die üblichen Insinuationen über Hitler, Stalin und Atheismus. In dem Sinne nicht viel Neues.

Bis es dann halt doch ganz amüsant wird, weil Vox Day unbedingt originell sein will. Oder weil seine kleine Polemik sonst so schnell zu Ende wäre. Das dritte Kapitel, The Case Against Science, ist schon ein Genuss. Wenn moderne Technologie in den Händen religiöser Fundamentalisten eine tödliche Gefahr darstellt, wessen Schuld ist das offensichtlich? Natürlich die der Wissenschaft. Schließlich gibt es Religionen schon seit Jahrtausenden ohne die Welt zum Untergang gebracht zu haben, und kaum taucht Wissenschaft auf, schon haben wir die ganzen Salat. Islamischer Fundamentalismus ist kein Problem, weil Muslime seit 1200 Jahren keine Fortschritte in der Waffentechnologie zustande gebracht haben — und dann kam die Wissenschaft. Sicher, Gläubige produzieren mehr Nachkommen und tragen so deutlich mehr zur alles bedrohenden Überbevölkerung bei. Aber war das ein Problem über all die Jahrtausende, bevor Wissenschaft daherkam und die Lebenserwartung drastisch erhöht hat? Wohl kaum. Was waren das noch für Zeiten, als man sich mit Überbevölkerung nicht rumschlagen musste, weil man anstelle von Medizin und Pharmazie gegen Infektionen und Seuchen nur Gebete hatte, mit bekanntem Erfolg? Glückliche Zeiten. Sagt Vox Day. Wenn auch nicht so deutlich.

Ich kann das Buch nur empfehlen. Das ein oder andere Argument schafft es bestimmt auch noch mal über den großen Teich hierhin. Und es ist schon fast amüsant, mal dumme Apologetik ohne evangelikalen Hintergrund zu lesen. Es bietet sich die gleichzeitige Lektüre des Weblogs an, um die sehr unterhaltsame Selbstüberschätzung des Autors mit den tatsächlich vorgebrachten Argumenten abgleichen zu können. [2]

Also bitte, immerhin ist Fastenzeit. Da gehört ein bisschen Stolz im selbsterwählten Leiden schon dazu. Schon aus Tradition.

[1] Amazon.com dazu: Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought — Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning — Darwin Day In America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science.

‘You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you. For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the LORD your God.’  ~ Deuteronomy 25:13-16  

 ——————————————————-

Pastor Anderson raised a very important point in his sermon this past Sabbath (I do love to hear him preach): When the trials and travails of life arrive at your doorstep, what do you turn to? More importantly–who do you turn to? If you are a Christian and you do not turn immediately to God for strength and succor, you may want to examine where you are in your walk. There is no other place to go, especially if you are a Believer.

For this reason I was struck all the more by a ridiculous story I saw on the news this morning (or was it yesterday?–they run together when your daughter awakens you in the four o’clock hour of the morning). With the housing market tanking as it is (Dr Paul warned us about this years ago), it appears that folks, in their desperation, are not relying on God and His timing; instead, they have turned to idolatry to see them through the storm. 

There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead … ‘  ~ Deuteronomy 25:10, 11

——————————————————-

‘Imagine the following scenario in your family. For the past 10 years, your family’s annual income has been $80,000. Each year, you have spent $100,000. To cover the excess, you have run up credit-card charges of $20,000 per year. You now have a credit-card balance of $200,000. It is becoming increasingly difficult to service the debt on the credit card, let alone pay down any of the principal. To make matters worse, you continue to spend $100,000 per year while your income remains at $80,000.

What is the solution to your family’s problem? Obviously, the solution is not simply to “cut” spending. If you simply “cut” spending to a point where spending continues to exceed income, you haven’t really solved your fundamental problem.’

——————————————————-

The so-called ‘Economic Stimulus Package’ is merely hacking at the branches of the problem, rather than striking at the root.  Dr Paul made a prescient point in the recent debate when asked how, as President, he would manage the economy.  ‘It is not the job of the President to manage the economy!  It’s the people who manage the economy.’ 

——————————————————-

 In our discussions regarding how best to put our faith in action, Jon and I have jointly arrived at the following maxim: Just because you can do something, it doesn’t mean that you should do it.  I can think of no better example than this: Cheeseburger in a Can.

——————————————————-

Having been summarily taken to the woodshed, an atheist responds to Vox Day’s tour de force in opposition of the godless argument:

‘I am not going to go into a point by point review of the various arguments that Day addressed in ‘The Irrational Atheist.’ Suffice it to say that by the end of the chapters dealing with the individual [atheist] authors, I was happy that it was over. It was a thorough, detailed, dispassionate (with a little snarky levity thrown into the footnotes for flavor), and completely disheartening take-down of some of the best arguments that the godless have put into print – on their own terms, without using the Bible (in the first part of the book, that is), or any other sacred text to do it with. Amazing. And depressing. It is not my place to defend their books. I truly hope that they do find time to defend and clarify their books, specifically to the counter-arguments and claims made by Vox Day in TIA, though, because they really need to. Trust me, it wasn’t pretty.”’ ~ Atheist Brent Rasmussen [No link provided due to very foul language on his blog.]

——————————————————-

Heard from a dyslexic atheist: ‘There is no dog.’ 

——————————————————-

 As the drums of war and the screaming for blood continues, keep in mind the cost of war, such as the Forgotten Holocaust.

——————————————————-

The media-driven idea that a presidential candidate’s campaign success is determined by success in the first three or four primaries is not only fallacious and devious–it is dangerous.

Dr Ron Paul’s strategy has always been to run a steady, consistent—and 50 state—race. It appears to be paying dividends as the other candidates fall by the wayside. With less white noise and chatter, his message is beginning to gain traction as it is in sharp contrast to the phony and contrived campaigns of McCain and Romney. With less competition, Dr Paul can easily draw the distinctions between his message of peace, prosperity, and liberty and those of the Establishment candidates which are more of the same old same-old.

Even Joseph Farah is coming around on Ron Paul: ‘But there are two men left in the race that deserve further scrutiny and consideration. Neither is perfect. Neither was my first choice. But if you insist on playing the lesser of evils game, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee should be considered.’

——————————————————-

To-day’s 1980’s Moment is brought to you by: Electric Light Orchestra