We Be Squaredancin'!

Star in Your Own JibJab! It's Free!JibJab has done it again!

In case you forgot...

In a place where only 1/2 of us vote and we have the politicians in place to prove it, in a place where Lindsey, Paris, Brittany, and Brad are more important than our Sovereignty, our Security, our History, and our Posterity, in a place where freedom is conflated with license, in a place where basic rights are confused with special privileges, in a place where our best volunteer for war while we go to the mall, in a place where spiritual fulfillment is pursued in all directions as God Himself is ignored, we have this day to remember. It can all be gone, all of it...good and bad...in an instant. For nearly 3,000 people and their families, all of it disappeared in a violent combination of jet fuel and buildings' collapse.

The next time there's an election, the next time there's an opportunity to make your voice heard about our Sovereignty, Security, our Posterity, or any other burning issues of the day, the next time you're watching an insipid 'entertainment news' program, the next time our military takes on another foe bent on our annihilation, the next time you go to the mall, the next time there's a chance to let others know where God stands in your life, remember this day.

Caption Contest: "Norman Hsu...who knew?"

AP reports that Hillary Clinton is giving back ALL the money related to Norman Hsu's fundraising activities rather than the paltry $23,000 she donated to charity earlier. Trying to get ahead of the FBI on all those straw donors.

Ya' gotta love the picture...what's your caption?

Are you scared yet?

If you never paid attention to national politics before, maybe now's the time...this from William Katz via PowerLine on what could be:

January 20, 2009. It is the U.S. Capitol, outdoors. Chief Justice John Roberts rises from his seat and takes his place. The president-elect then stands and faces the chief justice. The presidential spouse places a Bible between them.

CHIEF JUSTICE: Please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, Hillary Rodham Clinton...

HILLARY: I, Hillary Rodham, and, when I need it, Clinton...

CHIEF JUSTICE: do solemnly swear...

HILLARY: do vaguely commit...

CHIEF JUSTICE: that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States...

HILLARY: that I will be President of the United States, and execute whom I please...

CHIEF JUSTICE: and will, to the best of my ability...

HILLARY: and will, with my charm and cash...

CHIEF JUSTICE: preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States...

HILLARY: get Scalia's butt off the Supreme Court, followed by yours, pal...

CHIEF JUSTICE: so help me God.

HILLARY: So help me me.

CHIEF JUSTICE: Congratulations.

HILLARY: Now take off the black dress and sit down.

Cannons fire their salute. The Marine band plays "Hail to the Chief." Bill Clinton cabs to the White House to check the fridge.

Vote early, and often...

Anything for a headline

This according to the Associated Press

"Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R4H0Q00&show_article=1&catnum=-1

Sounds impressive, eh? I mean, if we can build life from scratch, who needs God?

Hold the phone. Lets look at this just a little bit closer...

"It's going to be a big deal and everybody's going to know about it," said Mark Bedau, chief operating officer of ProtoLife of Venice, Italy, one of those in the race.

Bedau figures there are three major hurdles to creating synthetic life:
—A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply.
—A genetic system that controls the functions of the cell, enabling it to reproduce and mutate in response to environmental changes.
—A metabolism that extracts raw materials from the environment as food and then changes it into energy.

Hmm, is that all that's holding us back? Essentially all you need is, uh, everything...and a way to make it work. How stinkin' hard can that be?

Jack Szostak at Harvard Medical School is optomistic. His idea is that once the container is made, if scientists add nucleotides in the right proportions, then Darwinian evolution could simply take over.

"We aren't smart enough to design things, we just let evolution do the hard work and then we figure out what happened," Szostak said.

What? Not smart enough at Harvard to design things?

What HAS happened to our institutions of higher learning?

Sheesh...

Letting Darwinian evolution just design something? Figure out what happened later?

Is this science or the Red Green show?

I. can't. wait.

A Glutton For Punishment: Part V

So, what else have I found in my travels?

• Non-belief in God is genetically determined, no kidding!

As to the non-belief gene, here's a quote from a blog:"I may contest that the chance of god is a small percentage; however, that is not my predisposition. It's not incorporated within me. Belief isn't something one can choose to do." Now when pressed a little, my atheist counterpart allowed that it might be a combination of nature and nurture.

Even so, she repeated her earlier declaration this way: "You simply cannot choose to believe in something." There were other posters on that blog that agreed.

Wow. I was stunned, baffled, flabbergasted, taken aback, dumb-founded, flummoxed!

I don't think she actually thought through the implications of that statement. It would stand to reason that the converse should be true, that one simply can't choose NOT to believe.

Its not up to us..."well if I was born that way, I'm not responsible for what I do or don't believe."

Zero accountability! Y'know, they may be on to something...

Speaking of genetics, there was one other thing I found interesting in that post:

"Yet I wonder what's the obsession with calling something "god"? "

If we can point to something genetic, inborn if you will, I think that'd be it.

• Atheists are trying to come up with some type of iconic representation of their non-belief.

I saw a red "A" which I think Professor Dawkins came up with. I think the obvious reference to Nathanial Hawthorne's tome would confuse the issue. I'm sure they'll come up with something. After all, there's the Cross and the Star of David. Why not something representing um....well, what do you have really? I'm thinking a blank slate. There's nothing on there to begin with, and you can put anything on it you want...

Please be Patient, Y'all. He's got something to say...

No comment needed

Agenda driven science exposed...again

Check this out:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/09/did-media-or-nasa-withhold-climate-history-data-changes-public

Throw that in with the previous posts on the hominid neighbors that were supposed to be ancestors and descendants, you can see the human aspects of science:

• Smart guys producing scientific data with pre-conceived notions of what it should look like.
• Other smart guys with their pre-conceived notions about the other smart guys' pre-conceived notions producing scientific data, proving them wrong.
• The first smart guys starting the cycle all over again.

To quote again Dr. Anton: "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."

Well, Dr. Anton, it seems that with scientists behaving like they do...y'know...like ordinary people + lab coats, the truth kind of winds its way along a crooked path.

And, maybe that's the way it has to be. What I'd like is a more even-handed approach to how the data is publicized. Dr. Hansen thru NASA has been trumpeting about global warming for some time now. Seems like a fundamental shift in what the data actually shows would be worth an equally publicized news story to that effect.

Still waiting...

Well, there goes the neighborhood...

Looks like this is getting some widespread attention:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

So, what we have is two species of hominids not behaving well. For one, they're supposed to have evolved from one to the other, in classic evolutionary linear fashion. Instead, it looks like they were neighbors. That is to say they co-existed at approximately the same place, at the same time. On the face of it, it does fly in the face of heretofore accepted anthropology concerning the evolution of man as we are now.

So, now what?

• There'll be more questions, more research, other evidence reviewed and presented, but in the meantime, we get this:

"Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory."

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."

Well, duh.

I would expect science to continue to do what it does and religion to do what it does. What' s telling here is that Dr. Anton is proactively defending current theory from...whom? Is she worried about other scientists that would challenge the conventional wisdom and her research.? Nooooooooooooo. She goes after religion first, with a warning: it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory. I'm thinking she and Meave Leakey have done a pretty good job of showing the flaws all by themselves. Is this going to be the same thing as science thinking we evolved from Neanderthals, then come to find out we didn't? We'll see...

Where I think science has gone haywire on all of this, is shifting its position of, "We can't include God in, we have no evidence indicating that", to "We have to pre-emptively, completely include God out, and don't ever mention that so-called creative entity again".

If they'd only worry about the how, what, where, and the when and stop insisting there's no 'Who', they could spend a whole lot more time figuring out the stuff science figures out.

A Glutton For Punishment: Part IV

So what else have I learned about Atheists?

• They're an oppressed minority.
• Its high time they came out of their atheist closets.

A common theme I'm seeing in atheist websites here is this concern that western countries like the US are mimicking the Taliban in creating an oppressive, all encompassing theocracy. Between fundamentalist politicians setting the ten commandments out in the public square and crackpot pseudo-scientific-warmed over creationism nutjobs wanting Intelligent Design taught in schools, they're feeling the noose of religious intolerance slowly tightening around them. The total takeover by religious fundamentalists of every aspect of American life is just around the corner! Can public stonings be very far behind? They shudder at the prospect.

sigh...

Now, taking a page out of the 'oppressed minorities that have no ethnic or racial component to designate them as such' playbook, they have this compunction to 'come out' as it were and tell people they're atheists, and darn proud of it.

double sigh...

Praying to a Milk Jug?

One could probably write a tome about how bad this analogy is, but I'll just go with this: unlike the immutable word of God, milk will go bad in a few days, and you'll have to throw it out.

As the risk of a very bad pun on a very good hymn, "Great Is Thy Faithfulness", the second line says, "there is no shadow of turning with Thee"

A Glutton For Punishment: Part III

Still at it. I have to admit, I've had to do a little homework relative to the claims atheists often make to at least better understand their arguments.

So what else have I learned from atheists?

We're all innately good. We're born that way.

When it comes to morality, black can in fact be white

Its pointless to study the Bible. Its obviously full of bad stuff.

I got into an extended discussion with an atheist over morality. The argument was that God, or more to their point, religion (not mutually inclusive, btw) is not required in order to be moral. Moreover, to follow the Hitchens line of reasoning, we're born with innate goodness. Hey, if you're innately good, then it stands to reason you will be moral, irrespective of what you believe or not believe. Children only require friendly reminders from time to time to stay on the moral track and follow the 'golden rule'. How many of you with actual (not virtual) children have had this kind of interchange:

"Now Johnny, you haven't forgotten about the golden rule when it comes to sharing toys with your little brother have you?"

"Ooops, I'm sorry, dad. Just slipped my mind for a second. Here unnamed little brother, you can have my toy. I sure as heck want to treat you as well as I'd like to be treated. Wow, dad! It feels so much better now that I'm totally back in line with my innate goodness... thanks!

"Anytime son. Better get cleaned up for dinner. Mom's making pot-roast!"

Now most likely, my atheist or anti-theist friends won't find a whole lot of humor in that. Please refer to Part II as to why.

What I found particularly interesting in a couple of exchanges were these statements about adultery and morality. For the sake of clarity (heh), I'm 'me' and my atheist counterpart is 'him"

him: "There are really only three possible crimes... Theft (fraud, which is indirect theft), force and the threat of force and that's it."

me: So only those things that are criminal offenses are immoral? Here, at least, adultery is not a crime, but would that be considered immoral, or does that not count? Maybe you could clarify.

him: "Now, is adultery immoral in general. That is a difficult question to answer... "

Now that wasn't all of the answer, obviously. There was a lot of science related our propensity to spread our 'seed' and how that competes with marital fidelity from a philosophical standpoint. In other words, it was a non-answer.

Wait! It gets better...

me: Let me make sure I've got this right. You're telling me that when it comes to morality, cheating on a spouse "...is a difficult question to answer..."?

him: "No, I never said it was OK for a spouse to cheat. "

I'm guessing 'OK' is equivalent to 'moral' at this point. Further down in the SAME post:

him: "Now I certainly was not condoning adultery..."

Further down in the SAME post:

him: "Now in certain circumstances, I would even call adultery a moral act."

At this point, my atheist counterpart was trying to explain that certain circumstances would allow adultery without it being considered an immoral act. I think guys have pretty well been trying to explain that very same thing to their wives for centuries:

" Hey honey...I know you've been SO tired lately, it would have been immoral for me to expect you to satisfy my sexual urges, so I visited a prostitute instead. It was the only right thing to do!"

When I called him on that obvious contradiction, he responds:

him: "Now there is no contradiction in me saying I do not condone adultery but then adding a caveat...Again you are totally misunderstanding me... By me describing why people behave in a certain way, is not the same as condoning it."

I pointed out again that he in fact said that, "... in certain circumstances, I would even call adultery a moral act." Seems to me that calling something moral, under whatever circumstances IS the same as condoning it.


Well, that never really got resolved. I did suggest that he hadn't made a serious study of the Bible. I did get the 'standard list of Bible quotations related to stoning people' he pulled off the internet, sans context. I suppose it would have been more civilized if they'd gotten lethal injections instead?

And this:

him: I have read it, but no I'm not an expert on the Bible... Does one have to be an expert to know that there is some pretty horrible stuff in it, rather a lot actually, of course not... No more than one has to be an expert to know that Mien Kampf is full of horrible stuff too...

Well, I never said the guy HAD to be an expert, just study it. I don't think I'd want to stick my intellectual neck out on the content of "Mein Kampf" unless I'd had an opportunity to read and understand said content, but that's just my opinion, and I might be wrong.

A Glutton For Punishment: Part II

Well, it sure has been a busy time for me lately. Some of these atheists are pretty prolific writers. Its hard to keep up. With all that, here's some other things I've picked up on...

• They use flying pigs, the Tooth Fairy, milk jugs, and pretty much anything else as the functional equivalent of God. That is to say, that believing in God makes no more sense than said flying pigs, or fairies. Literally, there is no difference for them.

• Humor: There just doesn't seem to be a lot of joking around allowed with these guys. Its like, "If I laugh at this Christianist's jokes, it'll be tacit approval of his beliefs!".

One method of discrediting an opposing position is to equating it with something unrelated that doesn't deserve serious discussion. Hence, the "God is no more real than flying pigs" argument. In this wide, wonderful world of ours, there may be some group out there that believe in and worship flying pigs, but they ain't in Google anywhere. No flying pig Bible, either. No claim by a flying pig that he created the universe. No flying pig commandments. No flying pig cable programming. Where's the equivalency?

One area of many where there is no equivalency are the twelve disciples. You'd think after a couple of years on the road with Jesus, day in and day out, they would know Him better than anyone, right? Out of those 12, ten were martyred, and one exiled for life, because they wouldn't renounce their beliefs. Now you'd think that if your life was on the line, and you KNEW that this whole Jesus thing was actually a sham, you'd give it up and say, "OK, ya' got me. The water into wine, loaves and fishes, raising from the dead, healing the sick, controlling the elements, Son of God, and especially the Resurrection...all smoke and mirrors, just don't kill me". You'd think that after Jesus was crucified, that would've been the end of the road trip. Peter would have been on the Roman equivalent of 60 Minutes saying, "Jesus? Oh, that was a long time ago. I'd rather not talk about it. I've been able to put that aaalll behind me, and move on with my life. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got fish to catch." Point is, they didn't. People will die for what they believe. Got enough Jihadists out there to prove that. What they won't do, is suffer and die for something they KNOW is not true.

A Glutton For Punishment: Part I

Somehow or another, I've taken to surfing atheist websites. I guess its like driving by a car wreck or a burning building, I just can't help but look. Now, I've been able to understand someone believing something different than I do, especially if 'they wuz raised that way', but I for the life of me couldn't understand how a person can believe in...well, nothing, in terms of how we got here, why we're here, all that stuff. I was thinking I could understand the whole 'god is bunk' thing by cruising the seemingly endless number of atheist blogs out there. Here's the first thing I've found in the short time I've been surfing:

• Atheists are generally mad about stuff.

It seems that atheists are generally pretty mad, mostly at theists. They're especially mad at the Christian variety. If we narrow it down to fundamentalist Christians, well...the reaction borders on apoplexy. Let me say that it doesn't seem to take much to get them riled up. Christopher Hitchens seems nice enough until he starts talking about religion, then the gloves come off. I guess if I was told I was wrong all the time and that I was going to Hell, I'd probably be a little miffed at theistic folks too. Evidently some atheists are aware of the perception that they're mad all the time. One atheist blogger in particular exhorted his fellow atheists to be more calm and rational as a way to prove they could be nice, without God. Peculiar too is alot of these atheists were evidently involved in churches to varying degress and somehow the wheels came off on the Faith Wagon. It stands to reason that when a relationship breaks up, especially one with God, there's gonna be hard feelings for a while. It shows...