atheistblogroll

Fewer White People than Other-Than-White-People are being born in the US, which means eventually there won't be too many white people. It's about time.

Almost all societies in the world allow, often encourage, marriage between cousins. There are reasons for this which I shall blog about if you remind me to. But for now, here is a discussion on the topic you will find interesting.

More on those climate change billboards.

Read the comments on this post...

Federal judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York provided a tremendous, though rare, victory for those who believe in basic civil liberties, which have taken a massive beating in the context of the alleged “war on terror.” Amy Goodman and her guests (Chris Hedges, a journalist who filed the suit challenging the NDAA along with six others, and Bruce Afran, the group’s attorney) offer insight into the ruling:

In a rare move, a federal judge has struck down part of a controversial law signed by President Obama that gave the government the power to indefinitely detain anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world without charge or trial — including U.S. citizens. Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York ruled the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of U.S. citizens. . . . “This is another window into … the steady assault against civil liberties,” Hedges says. “What makes [the ruling] so monumental is that, finally, we have a federal judge who stands up for the rule of law.”

Related posts:

1. Barack Obama again fails to take a stand for individual protections
2. Time to shine more light on the Federal Reserve
3. Federal Court rules that the “National Day of Prayer” violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause

When I posted last, it was about the first inkling that I had that the common god was not for me, an artifact of the supposition that god was both all-powerful and good, and the obvious illogic of those suppositions in actual practice. That is to say, the god with which I was being presented in church was clearly not a force that was operating in the real world. What struck me as I analyzed this again was how much … Read on...

Carter and I have both been addicted to Minecraft since it came out on XBLA. I know that it has been around forever on the PC, and that that version is vastly superior. Well, I’m happy to report that I’m ruining my life just fine with this version.

Figured it could ruin the comic for a minute too. You know, since the gremlins live underground. Now, if you’ll excuse me, theres a giant boner made of dirt that isn’t going to build itself.

*runs to xbox to play*

*falls down stairs*

*breaks neck*

*stacks shoes before dying*

At some point, while I was in graduate school, it became apparent that I was going to study the problem of finding one's way around. Navigation, orientation, mental maps, sense of direction, knowledge of the landscape, and related ideas must be linked to how people who live off the land survive, and I was studying the foraging ecology of Efe Pygmies in the Ituri Forest. One of the things I realized early on is that it is very easy to find something in the rain forest, as long as one simple thing is true: You already know where it is. Otherwise, you are sunk.

Wait, what does this have to do with tiny compasses in bird brains? Click here to find out.

Read the comments on this post...

One more example, two actually, of how Government Poisons Everything:

Is there anything Star Wars can’t do? Not I think because I believe in the Force, and an ally powerful it is, yes? Hmmmmm.

Also, relationships are hard.

Suddenly it occurred to me. Star Wars can help. In fact, it’s easy. All you have to do is speak nothing but Star Wars quotes incessantly. Viola! Relationship all better.

Yes, it’s just that simple.

Let’s see some examples of this powerful technique in action.

Partner: Do I look fat in this? I’m thinking about going on a diet. Jedi Knight (You): One thing’s for sure. We’re all gonna be a lot thinner!

If that doesn’t put a fun spin on serious issues, nothing will.

Help yourself to these freebie tips. Use them as appropriate when your relationship needs saving. P: Look what I made in art class. JK: What a piece of junk!

—

P: I need help with these taxes. JK: Truly wonderful the mind of a child is.

—

P: There’s the rest area. Should I pull over? JK: Evacuate in our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

—

P: Oh. I almost forgot. My mother will be joining us for brunch. JK: I’ve got a very bad feeling about this.

—

P: I’m sick and tired of you undermining me with the kids. JK: You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take her away!

—

P: [CENSORED.] JK: This is Red 5. I’m going in.

—

P: This is so romantic. I’m glad we decided to do this cruise. JK: Watch your mouth kid, or you’ll find yourself floating home.

—

P:  Do you think that’s a good idea? Putting bacon on a hamburger? JK: Don’t call me a mindless philosopher, you overweight glob of grease.

—

P: Do you think I talk too much? JK: Close the blast doors!

—

P: [CENSORED] JK: You’re all clear, kid! Now let’s blow this thing and go home!

—

P: Your portion looks bigger than mine! JK: There’s always a bigger fish.

—

P: I know how to get there. I’ll drive. JK: Who’s the more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows him?

—

P: [CENSORED] JK: Your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough, but your uncle wouldn’t allow it.

—

P: If we’re having poker here, I want this house clean. You’re gonna have to help. JK: Mudhole? Slimy? My home this is!

—

P: We should play the lotto today. My horoscope says I’m lucky today. JK: There’s no mystical energy field that controls my destiny.

—

P: Hurry up. We’re gonna be late! JK: Ready are you? What know you of ready?

—

P: Did you put in the request for days off for our anniversary? JK: Always in motion is the future.

—

P: [CENSORED] JK: Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you?

—

P: Would you let me pose nude for an art class? JK: I can arrange that. You could use a good kiss.

—

P: Have a good weekend by yourself. By the way, I left you a list of chores. JK: NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

—

P: Do you have directions to the restaurant? JK: Would it help if I got out and pushed?

—

P: Don’t you even know how to replace a fuse? JK: I’m not supposed to know a power socket from a computer terminal.

—

P: Who was the woman I saw you having lunch with today? JK: You’ll find I’m full of surprises.

—

P: [CENSORED] JK: You’re lucky you don’t taste very good.

—

P: Dinner is served. JK: How do you get so big eating food of this kind?

—

P: Why do you always fuck everything up? JK: I’m just a simple man, trying to make my way in the universe.

—

P: (whispering) Are you enjoying the party? Do you want to stay a little longer? JK: I want to go home and rethink my life.

—

P: I love you. JK: You love me? I thought we had decided not to fall in love. That we’d be forced to live a lie and that it would destroy our lives.

—

P: [CENSORED] JK: It may be difficult to secure your release.

—

P: Did you see that? He just flipped me off! JK: Excellent. Our first catch of the day.

—

P: [bending over] JK: That’s no moon! That’s a space station!

—

If none of these save your relationship then I don’t know what to do!

When MSNBC fired Keith Olbermann and replaced him with Lawrence O'Donnell, I was a bit annoyed. But now that Olbermann had crashed and burned over at Current TV, and O'Donnell has turned into a pretty effective pundit, I have changed my mind. For an example of why I like O'Donnell so much, consider this depressingly accurate tirade about the Newsweek cover with the headline, “The First Gay President.”

“We live in a wicked stupid country, okay,” O'Donnell said. “This is a country that believes, in a very substantial proportion, that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Huge number, millions and millions of people...like 30 percent, think he wasn't born American. They think he's Kenyan. Crazy, crazy beliefs. And Newsweek, it seems to me, has to consider the responsibility of sending out into such a collectively stupid country and stupid electorate this thing, which is the only sentence in Newsweek that most people are going to read this week - the sentence on the cover.”

O'Donnell added that the cover and headline could perpetuate more misinformation about the president. “The 'Obama is gay' number is now going to go up to 35 [percent],” O'Donnell said, referring to the portion of the population that could mistake Newsweek's headline for fact.

Anyone think O'Donnell is wrong?

Read the comments on this post...

I haven’t posted in a while, but I’ll make up for it by offering a two-fer today. First up is an item from Talking Points Memo about Jim Bakker, who, apparently, is still alive and kicking, and swindling the gullible.

When I was a kid, I thought Jim Bakker looked creepy. Now I know enough to judge people by their deeds rather than their looks. My mature verdict: he’s a creep.

The second item is from The Washington Post.

Some may be relieved that the world isn’t going to end on December 21. Others may be disappointed that they won’t be able to have amazing End-of-The-World parties. Still others who were thinking about buying Jim Bakker’s End-of-the-World survival gear may be pleased that they can hang onto their cash a little bit longer. They can spend it on Christmas gifts instead. But I’m pretty that most people don’t give a damn about any of it. Except, perhaps, the Christmas gifts.

– the chaplain

Filed under: history, life, rationalism, religion, society

The World Championship continues to be a snooze. Five games down, five draws. Only one game has made it past the thirtieth move. Both players seem very hesitant and completely uninclined to take any risks. Still seven games left, though, so we will see what happens.

Happily, the U. S. Championship continues to produce one nail-biter after another. Today's tactical exercise comes from the game six match-up between Gregory Kaidanov as white against Robert Hess as black. As you can see, we have a rather unusual material balance:

If you remember your basic point-counting (Pawn=1, Bishop and Knight=3, Rook=5, Queen=9), then you see thatblack's three minor pieces are effectively equivalent to white's queen. On paper, at any rate. In practical play the three pieces are generally better, so long as they can cooperate effectively. In the diagram, white has just moved his rook to d1 A trade of rooks would definitely be to his advantage, since it would make it more difficult for black to organize an attack on the white king. But black is not forced to trade. He has a shot in this position that clarifies things immediately.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

The first phase of Swinburne's case for God is in his book The Coherence of Theism, where he argues that the sentence 'God exists' is a meaningful declarative sentence that makes a coherent statement.  The middle section of this book covers his concept of a 'contingent' God, which is basically the God of traditional theism minus the problematic belief that God is a necessary being. I won't try to give a blow-by-blow account of these important chapters, but will give a general description of how Swinburne goes about defining and defending the coherence of the idea of the idea that a 'contingent' God exists. Definitions are an important part of Swinburne's defense of the meaningfulness and coherence of the sentence 'God exists'.  To the extent that Swinburne provides a clear and pausible definition of 'God' in ordinary words, he shows that this sentence makes a meaningful claim.  Swinburne provides both a high-level definition of 'God' in terms of divine attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, perfect freedom, etc.) and also lower-level definitions and clarifications of each of the various divine attributes in his high-level definition. Since both Swinburne's high-level definition and his lower-level definitions appear to be clear and plausible, I don't see any obvious problem with his conclusion that the sentence 'God exists' is a meaningful declarative sentence that makes a claim.  The real question here is whether the claim is coherent, whether there are any internal logical contradictions (i.e. whether any of the individual divine attributes contains a self-contradiction) or any external contradictions (i.e.  whether possession of one or more of the divine attributes logically precludes possession of some other divine attribute). In addition to providing a high-level definition of 'God' and lower-level definitions of the divine attributes, Swinburne considers various objections to the coherence of the claim 'God exists' understood in terms of his proposed definitions.  In some cases he rejects the objection and argues that the objection is in error.  In other cases, he accepts the objection and then modifies or qualifies the definition of the problematic divine attribute in order to avoid the problem raised by the objection. The primary method for establishing the coherence of the claim 'God exists' is to show that the claim that a person who possesses some of the divine attributes (which in turn are used to define the word 'God') is a coherent claim.  For example, Swinburne tries to show that each of the following sentences makes a coherent claim: There is a person who is omniscient. There is a person who is omnipotent. There is a person who is perfectly free. There is a person who is eternal. In order to show these claims to be coherent, Swinburne provides a definition of each of these divine attributes, answers objections about the coherence of each divine attribute, and describes a set of circumstances in which the claim would be true.  There is a further step required, which is to show that there are no logical contradictions between the various divine attributes (or to qualify the definitions of the attributes as required to avoid any such contradictions).  Swinburne does not do as well in describing a set of circumstances in which many of the divine attributes apply to a single person.  Sometimes this step of imagining a person with multiple divine attributes gets glossed over a bit too quickly. One objection that Swinburne accepts is the claim that there is a logical contradiction between omniscience and perfect freedom.  If a person is perfectly free, then their future choices cannot be determined in advance.  But an omniscient being (in the sense of completely unlimited knowledge) would know what choices any given person (even himself) was going to make in the future.  Thus, an omniscient being cannot also be a perfectly free being.  Swinburne accepts this objection, but instead of tossing out omniscience or tossing out perfect freedom, he retains both divine attributes in his definition of 'God' but modifies the concept of 'omniscience' to avoid the logical contradiction.  Roughly speaking, an omniscient person is one who knows everything that it is logically possible to know in view of the constraints placed on knowledge by the fact that one or more beings are perfectly free. In other words, God's perfect freedom creates a constraint that limits what God can know about the future.  God, as a perfectly free person, cannot know in advance the choices that God will make in the future.  And, to the extent that humans are capable of making free choices, God also cannot know in advance what free choices humans will make in the future.

Mid-wedding ceremony.  The envelope had our wedding license in it and also had notes on our vows: [Name], I promise to be your trusted friend, loving companion and equal partner. I promise to love and support you, through life’s successes and failures, for rich or for poor, through sickness and good health. I promise to love you not only despite your flaws, but also because of them. I promise to stand by you through the good times and the bad, for you make the good times all the more enjoyable, and the bad times all the more bearable. I promise to honor and respect you as my husband/wife, now and for the rest of our days.

Longwood Garden is the best known and largest of the gardens included on this geek tour.  It does not disappoint.  Longwood has lots of everything, lightly managed natural appearing areas, vistas, a pretty good diversity of plants, a few impressive specimens but nothing extraordinary, manicured formal gardens, fountains and water features (my favorite was water gushing down a now re purposed broad cement staircase), topiary (and you known my feelings about poodling shrubs - some of these were poodles!), and acres of pretty impressive conservatory specimens.  Of course if you had DuPont money to fund your garden it could be pretty fancy too.  While a bit of a Disneyland of gardens, Longwood is worth a walk around, once, and without doubt you'll find something of interest, something that charms you, something very attractive. You want trees; they got trees.  You want azaleas; they got azaleas.  You want fountains; they got fountains (set to music).  You want orchids; they got orchids.  And so on down a long, long list. It is pretty spectacular when you see many gardens there are and how much TLC is lavished upon them, pretty much the complete opposite of Bartram's Garden, and that's the long and short of this BGT.  It is worth mentioning that their cafeteria/lunch counter is way above average in terms of food quality (e.g., a brie and smoked turkey on a whole wheat hoagie).  So if you go, make sure you have your walking shoes on.  No figuring out what single image best illustrates this garden.  None of them, really, so here's an artificial vista albeit a very nice one.

I was rather shocked to learn that the Queen of Disco, the Diva herself, Donna Summer succumbed to lung cancer today.

I was too young to hit the clubs when she had her heyday but I had a radio, I had money and was buying her LP’s at a Tower Records and Strawberries. A distant memory – splashing around in the pool, I was 14 years old and this song blasting away and the year was 1979:

Now one of notable things about Summer was that most of her music was done by the King of Disco himself, Giorgio Moroder, here he is with Chase:

Notice the similarities, it’s most evident in this Donna Summer song from 1977:

From 1975 here’s Love to Love You Baby, to me this is classic U.S. disco, and I was 11 years old when this one hit the airwaves.

I’ll end the video retro look with her 1978 hit, Last Dance:

And it’s been a sad month or so, first Whitney Houston, now Donna Summer. We’re losing all our greats! Believe me, Donna Summers music, it resonated with this gay teen back in the late 1970′s.

Today is my third wedding anniversary (original post about it here with a link to my vows here). So, I figured this would be a good time to look at some relationship clichés, shall we? It’s not great being married, but it’s easier than being single. Marriage is one of those things people do not because they like doing it, but because it beats the alternative, like immunization shots or voting Democrat. Even people who are recently married aren’t excited about it. That’s why on the back of their car they write, “Just Married.” You know: nothing special, just married, no big whoop. I also don’t think of my wife as “the one.” That whole idea seems very odd and borderline religious. It implies destiny or fate, but I think that takes away from what my wife and I have. We had to work to make our relationship last, and I’m not about to share the credit with some mystical force that supposedly brought us together when I know it’s my amazing skills in bed that did it… clearly. My wife and I never use the terminology “making love.” That sounds like how grandparents have sex. We “do it.” “Making love” also sort of seems to me like love is based on sex, and that’s not a healthy way to view sex or love. “You can’t change someone.” Now that one’s a huge load of bullshit. Don’t get me wrong, you can’t change some things about some people, but if someone will not change something they do that bothers you to your core, you should leave them sooner than later. If you’re with someone who won’t change at all for you, they’re a pretty selfish and irritating person. I guess this idea that you are perfect just the way you are comes from this one… “You have to love yourself before you can love someone else.” This one’s an even bigger, hotter, smellier, more fly-ridden heap of bullshit than the last one. You should never love yourself, ever, for any reason. You can like yourself, and it’s certainly not healthy to hate yourself, but if you love yourself, you can’t possibly love anyone else. I’ve tried to love people who loved themselves, and they never loved me; I was only an accessory for them. People give awkward and often creepy advice when a relationship ends. The worst I ever heard is, “Well, now you’re single, so you can sleep with anyone.” Really? Anyone? Okay Mr. Rapist… let’s look at that realistically. You aren’t going to sleep with people in relationships, you aren’t going to sleep with people you aren’t attracted to, you aren’t going to sleep with people who aren’t attracted to you, you aren’t going to sleep with people who live vast distances away from you, you aren’t going to sleep with people you never even met… so basically, that narrows it down to your ex. I think it should be legal to punch someone in the face if they say, “There are plenty of other fish in the sea.” Like the last one, this bit of pseudo-wisdom implies that once a relationship is over, you are (or should be) thinking about other people. It’s been my experience, however, that when a relationship ends, usually one person already has someone lined up while the other person will pine for their lost love for a while afterwards, to sort of mourn the relationship. So really, after a relationship ends, neither party is probably looking. And let’s be honest: if you wanted to be single (and therefore able to be with other people), you wouldn’t have been in a relationship in the first place. Maybe the biggest cliché I hear from people initiating a break up is, “It shouldn’t be this hard.” There may be examples to the contrary… but really, all relationships are hard. They all require vast amounts of conscious effort and constant attention. Relationships are built on self-sacrifice and mutual respect forged in the fires of unspeakable anger. If you haven’t honestly thought about killing the person you are with, you have no idea what a real relationship is. A real relationship is when each person opens up and is comfortable dropping the mask of polity to a point where murderous rage is inevitable. The relationship isn’t built on this rage, it’s built on the fact that you would never act on it, because you know you love that person, even when you want to gouge out their eyes. I hear this is good practice for having children. Another common complaint of people in a relationship they are thinking of ending is, “I’m just not happy.” Tough shit. Try waiting a while, and I bet you’ll find that it passes. A relationship isn’t a non-stop joyride. Those first two months of constantly having sex and learning new, exciting things about the other person can’t last forever. If you leave relationships at the first sign of a low point, do the world a favor and just kill yourself now. The planet doesn’t need another self-absorbed, piece of shit quitter. Anyone who says that it was “Love at first sight,” is really saying: “We got together because we made each other tingly in our genitals.” It should be “lust at first sight.” Some guys talk about going home to the “old ball and chain.” I never understood this one, because I’m the only one in the relationship with anything remotely resembling a ball and chain. I used to love the sentiment that, “You can’t choose the ones you love.” It’s so true, and it has so many interesting implications, but it’s not really justification for anything. I think gay people should be allowed to be with whoever they want, and I think people who practice infidelity are adults capable of making their own decisions, but this can be taken too far. Namely, I think it’s fair to say that no one chooses to be a pedophile, but their lack of choice on the matter doesn’t justify anything. As with all impulses, what is actually important is not where the urge comes from, but whether it’s harmful or not. Those who do cheat should never use the phrase, “It didn’t mean anything.” If it didn’t mean anything, then why do it? Better yet, if it didn’t mean anything, why feel compelled to even present such an argument? Any sort of infidelity does mean something to a partner or spouse who has not consented to such an arrangement. No one cares if it didn’t mean anything to the cheater. If anything, I would hope it did mean something to my wife if she cheated on me, because if she’s going to hurt me that much, it better mean something. This cliché is really an appeal to take them back, and what they really mean to say is, “I didn’t get out of it what I thought I would, and I regret doing it.” If they say, “I think we should see other people,” they already are. As grim as these are, being in a relationship and risking a break-up is more or less universally recognized as being preferable to being alone (with a few ironically paired chauvinist and feminist hold-outs). Maybe this is because the clichés of the single world are even worse… Ladies, how many times have you heard, “I really like you, but I’m not ready/looking for a relationship right now” from a guy you just slept with? What he really means is, “I want to fuck you until I find someone better, but you should know that you are well below my standards. However, I’m a guy and will stick my dick into anything, and you will do for now.” Guys, how many times have you heard, “I love you, but I’m not in love with you” or “You’re like a brother” from a woman who just emotionally dumped all over you? What she really means is, “I want you as an emotional crutch, but if I had to fuck you, it wouldn’t be worth it.” Being single sucks. Single people don’t care how many fish are in the sea, because when you’re fishing alone, this is what it feels like:

Look man this is bullshit. Where is my baby. Really, I look at people like me, my brother and sister and I look around and I don't see any fuckin' babies, bro. But you know who has babies...Catholic priests.

Kriss, err Daddy. Look I'm a bunny. Ha ha.

I guess the most shocking part of this specific episode, from the creators of "under age boy fucking", is that no real crimes were committed. There was no under age boy sex (this time)  dude just led a double life. All dude did was break his promise to god and his congregation, you know to be *pure* (whatever the fuck that means).

I don't even have a puppy much less a baby. Bullshit. BULLSHIT

.Scandal plagued Legionnaires of Christ, yes THAT Legionnaires of Christ, did what they do best and went...all scandal, again. Previously, the founder of this order created controversy when it was discovered that dude was a "sexual abuser with two secret families." Carrying on in this orders tradition to be douche bags, a one Father Thomas Williams, guess...had a secret family. What the fuck. I don't know how to feel. Clergy that are supposed to be celibate are having babies and I do not have any. Is it them..or me. Anyhoo...this is not even the end of it. Fer Christs sake we're dealing with the Catholic church here, so of course there is always more.

Kriss, I mean dad, I'm ready to come out and be with you now. We can watch the Forty Niner's. Ok...

What is it that the Catholic church does better than anyone, even the government. No not boy fucking, this time. Cover ups. It's no surprise to me the church officials tried to 1) ignore it and then 2) tried to cover it up. There is an investigation going on right now but we already know what the conclusion will be. Some clergy will say "I don't remember that particular incident," or "that was not on my watch," or "I told the higher ups and I thought it was taken care of...Amen."

I would even love my Hitler baby. (In a sing song voice) Hitler baby, Hitler baby, Hitler baby.

The other day I wrote about how the church never changes. This is a good example. It is unnatural to gives ones self to God and only God (celibacy). Perhaps if the Catholic church was more liberal, then they would let their clergy "do it" and perhaps there wouldn't be an sexual scandals...perhaps. I see other Christianity's that let their clergy have teh sex and they don't...err, wait they do, never mind. Anyways... If more priests were like father Cutie (yes, that is his real name) then perhaps the church would evolve and become, gee I dunno-relevant again. Who fucking cares right. At the end of the day I'm still... babyless. Le sigh. * Article * Father Cutie...you know you're interested.

(via fakescience)

The Power of Compelling TV.

The beautification of Preliator continues, now with my first custom-order banner:

As with yesterday’s addition of the purdy new background image, all thanks go to Michael Valenti. The banner has been added in with the others in random rotation, so keep reloading the page until you see it. (Why, no, that’s not a convenient excuse to give me more page views. How dare you suggest such a thing.) Expect more to come in the near future.

That’s right, I’ve got my own personal pet graphic designer, now. Admit it, you jellin’.

---

UPDATE: 05/17/12 5:09 PM ET —

I’ve gone ahead and created a page with all the blog’s header banners for your viewing convenience. It’s also linked to on the About page.