Two Things

Okay, I've got two things I want to talk about.

First, today is the National Day of Reason. This day is observed in response to the National Day of Prayer, the national holiday declared in 1952 when Harry Truman and the 82nd United States Congress decided that pesky First Amendment was just getting in the way of all the state-sponsored religious fun they could be having. Personally, I'm going to celebrate it by telling random strangers that I think that the separation of church and state is super neat-o keen! So go out and proclaim your love of the Establishment Clause today (and if someone tries to pull the "fact" out of their ass that the Constitutional Convention began with a prayer, you can tell them that was a myth, and what really happened: that Benjamin Franklin suggested this and the rest of the representatives did their best to ignore him and move on). And for those who can't see how having a state-funded day of prayer is offensive, apply this simple test to see if your religious authority has overstepped its bounds. Simply change all references to the religion in question to references to Scientology. If you are appalled, then now you know how the rest of us feel. Please enjoy your Scientology Day of Thetan Acquiescence Auditing.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I am now the top result in the Canadian version of Google for the search string "is there such thing as a purple cat" (in American Google, I'm only the second, boo). I know this because some enterprising young Canadian (I'm actually just assuming on all three of those, actually) found my blog using just such a string, and being so enterprising, and young, and Canadian, clicked on the first link and found themselves on this very blog. Of course, they didn't stay long, as the only thing on the page was a ridiculous short story about doobies and detectives, and absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the existence of violet-colored felines, and thus exited the page, perhaps cursing themselves for being a bit too enterprising for so quickly clicking on such obvious twaddle. Well, nuts to you, my annoyingly enterprising friend from the Great White North, but thank you for bringing to my attention my prominent status in those fine frozen servers that make up Canadian Google. In celebration of this event, I have created the following graphic:







People of Canada, consider this picture to be my gift to you. Here at last is the proof that not only does the purple cat exist, but it is Canadian too! And for your generosity, perhaps I'll mention something about Alberta in my next Shandley short.

Okay, I know it seems like I've been having a bit of fun at the expense of Canada, so as a show of good faith I would like you all to please rise for the Canadian National Anthem. This is definitely not a joke.





See? What could possibly be more serious than that?

On 'Athiests'

Here’s the thing: I love a good argument. This is because I don’t see them as a clashing of people, but as a clashing of ideas. History is made through arguments; new ideas are defined by pitting them against the old ones. More can be learned through the meeting of the minds than by any other method. Arguing with someone is inviting another thought process into your life, to present a point of view that you might not have considered. Mind you, I’m not talking about some kind of namby-pamby lovefest where everyone is right and everyone’s ideas are considered worthwhile and valuable, no matter how dumb they are. No, the most useful argument is one where no one holds back, and if you say something, you’d better be prepared to back it up. I say this so that when I say that I’ve been known to hit up religious message boards or chat rooms, you know that I’m not just some jackass looking for trouble.

On these message boards, an interesting misspelling crops up fairly often. The word, as depicted in millions of online message, is “athiest.” It is interesting to note, that it is always the religious who spell it this way, apparently all the atheists in the world know how to spell their own ideology. Now, one could take the easy way out and conclude that all believers are idiots (in fact, many do), but that doesn’t quite explain such widespread misuse of the word; after all, surely even some idiots own dictionaries. No, the answer is not intelligence, but rather the exercise of said intelligence. They misspell the word, because they are not used to using it. You see, these people don’t like arguments.

To love an argument is to not have any personal stake in it. My opinions are fluid, they can be changed. Not easily, mind you, I do have certain convictions that are powerfully cemented from years of observation and experience, but they can, and occasionally have been shifted. This cannot be said of the most vocally religious. These people are not fun to argue with. Anything you say to them will either be ignored or quickly forgotten. Instead of arguing a point, they will turn antagonistic, and either attack you directly or unpack their straw man and have a go at him.

I had an argument a little while ago with a mormon missionary when he mentioned he supported a certain upcoming ballot measure in the state of California that would outlaw gay marriage. Out of curiosity, I asked him what the difference between straight marriage and gay marriage was. He replied by pointing out the most obvious difference, which I guess is what I get for wording the question the way I did. I refined my query to “from a legal perspective, how is a marriage between two persons any less valid than a marriage between two other persons?” He replied that marriage is classically defined as between a man and a woman. That didn’t exactly answer my question, but I continued the debate anyway by pointing out that, in fact, marriage in this country was classically defined as between a white man and white woman, so obviously tradition is not a substantial reason to preserve an archaic law. He then said it was because homosexuality is unnatural, and no doubt in anticipation of my impending “how so?” elaborated that two persons of the same sex cannot have a baby. Well, obviously that was contrary to the facts, because there are lots of gay couples with babies, and I asked him if he thought that the “unnatural” practice of adoption was immoral. It went like this for a little while longer, until finally so many of his excuses had been shot down that the truth finally came out. It was because a preacher at a pulpit had said it was wrong. He said, “I know as an athiest (okay, it was a verbal conversation, but I could swear that the way he spoke it he put the ‘i’ before the ‘e’) that you wouldn’t understand what it’s like to have faith.” I replied that the only thing I didn’t understand was how we had talked for over an hour without the topic of religion coming up, when this was clearly the basis for his decision.

Faith, it seems leads people to duplicitous actions. Or, then again, maybe not. After all, what is faith? I would define faith as a confidence that is not based on proof. The religious use the words ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ interchangeably, but I do not think that they are. You can believe in something without having faith in it. Faith implies more, that not only what you believe in exists, but that it has the power to make everything okay. I do not think this young man had faith. I’m fairly certain he believes in his god, but he does not have faith in him. If he did, he would not be using half-assed, poorly thought out “logic” to try to convince me. He would have spoken from the heart, secure in the knowledge that eventually god would sort everything out.

If you believe in god, then you have one of two things: faith or fear. In my experience, it is the ones who have fear who are the most outspoken. These people are so frustrated by every little thing that dares contradict the thing that they so desperately desire, that they will spit out the most hateful, vitriolic nonsense you will ever hear in an attempt to destroy it. If you truly have faith, there should be no need to destroy anything. No pastor delivering an angry sermon, no street preacher crying judgment day, no evangelical speaking in tongues, nobody in a suit handing out flyers, no shouting conservative on cable news, and certainly no boy with a name tag and bicycle, none of them truly have faith. If they did, they would not need to rely on cheap theatrics and social pressures. In fact, they would not need to do anything, because they should already believe that everything is going to end well.

I’ve talked to people who have faith. They are generally much more productive than the believers who lack it. I’ve had some interesting, and much more honest arguments with people of faith. They haven’t been able to convince me to change my views, nor I them, but in the end we’ve usually learned something about each other. For those of you out there who believe in a god and have faith, real, honest faith, then let me say how much I respect you for that. I still disagree with you, and I will defend that position with everything I’ve got. But if you’ll allow me, I’ll buy you a nice cup of tea and we’ll sit down and have a good argument about it.

Anarchy For Dummies: Weighing In on Gun Control

I do not own a firearm, nor do I have any plans to ever purchase one. I do not trust myself to operate a firearm safely, so I just don’t want to have one around. I don’t see the point of hunting, and I don’t shoot recreationally. I like John Woo movies, but that’s pretty much the extent of my personal appreciation of guns. Given this, I don’t think I could possibly be labeled as a gun enthusiast, or whatever euphemism or pejorative your personal preference would dictate. I mention this because I have a rather strong, perhaps even unique, stance on gun control, and I don’t want to be dismissed out of hand. My stance is this: there should be no gun control whatsoever.

Pro-gun lobbyists have their points about defense and protection, and the anti-gun lobby has its points about safety and crime. These arguments don’t really intersect in any meaningful way, so this line of inquiry is mostly moot, becoming little more than an overblown shouting match. Like most people, I think one side has a better argument in this regard, but my opinion isn’t really important. Facts are important. Watching people argue their opinions on gun control is a lot like watching a debate between Coke and Pepsi; it’s a matter of personal preference, and not likely to be resolved in this way.

Perhaps realizing this, both sides scramble to find an authority to support their claim. And when discussing possible legislature in this country, there is no higher authority than the Constitution. Thus arises the battle over which side is supported by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Before going any further, let’s take a look at the text of this troublesome clause. The Second Amendment, in its entirety, reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The point of contention here is that some people feel that “shall not be infringed” can be interpreted to mean, “can be infringed if you feel like it.” Some people think that it only applies to the military, despite the fact that it protects “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.”

Now, maybe you think I’m not being fair. Maybe you think there’s some subtle nuance I’m missing in the wording, or that something is lost in the translation due to antiquated language. I’ll be the first to admit that the Constitution is not perfect. That’s not just a figure of speech, I mean that you’d actually be hard pressed to find someone who thinks the Constitution isn’t perfect. Despite this, no document is going to be completely relevant to its people 200 years later. In this case, however, it may be more relevant than ever.

Maybe the reason there is so much quibbling over the wording is the fact that it seems to equate the militia and the people. One side or the other of this debate feels the need to emphasize one aspect, either militia or people, over the other. To attain a deeper understanding of the meaning of the, one must evaluate the cultural context. Militia and people are equated in the document because in the 18th century, they were the same thing. One notion that is mistakenly made is that their usage of the word militia means the same thing as “military.” This could not be farther from the truth. When the Constitution was in the process of being ratified, there was great concern over the power of the federal government going unchecked, which is why the Bill of Rights was drafted. Representatives were nervous about the possibility of a large national army gaining too much power, so they insisted that the citizens be permitted to fight back should the occasion arise. The dangers of excessive force were still fresh in their minds.

Historically, the most fascist governments are the ones that earned their power on the good will and confidence of their people. The banner of freedom can easily be made to prop open the door to tyranny. Our country was never meant to meddle outside its own affairs. We were never intended to be a major player on the world stage. Our current policy of expansionism requires a large military force, a force which has no problem placing a towel over someone’s face and forcing water down their throat. How long can such a force maintain our best interests? It is not unreasonable to think that in 50 or 100 years that power could be turned inward to suppress its own people. This is the real reason the framers of the constitution sought to arm the people of their country, to protect citizens from their own government.
It has been pointed out that countries that have strict gun control have not slid into fascism, but none of these countries have the most powerful military in the entire world. Australia, Canada, Spain, Germany, these are not the countries you think of when you hear the phrase “military might.”

The idea of overthrowing the US government is certainly not a popular one, and I’m not suggesting it. The first amendment is still alive and kicking in this country, though privacy has certainly taken a hit. And while I hope that our freedoms continue to be protected, we shouldn’t just assume they will. Obviously the decision to enact violence is not one to be taken lightly. We should take our cues from the early days of our country, which suffered years of abuse and pursued every possible peaceful resolution before finally taking up arms. However, if the government fails us, and we have no options left but to organize a militia, I’d like for them to be armed with something better than single shot hunting rifles.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” This quote has been taken out of context and used to justify just about every war our country has entered since these words were published after his death. What Jefferson actually wrote those words in regards to was Daniel Shays’ rebellion in Massachusetts. He felt that the revolutionaries had been misinformed, however he applauded their resolve. Their passion served as a warning to the government that its people were not complacent, and would not allow themselves to be suppressed. A progressive government is one that fears its people.

I’m not a frightening person, and I don’t know any one person that the government would be afraid of. But if the power structure ever grows too big and threatens to trample us, we will stand united against it. And if that fails, we’ll stand united with some really big guns.

A Mini-Play Not About Al Gore

NATHANIEL
Say Brian, have you heard the latest news?

BRIAN
I am unsure as to which news you are referring.

NATHANIEL
It seems that 99% of all homicides are, in fact, committed by rabbits. They’ve got to be stopped, Brian, we’ve got to bring an end to the killing.

BRIAN
That seems like a dubious claim, Nathaniel.

NATHANIEL
Ah, but I’m afraid it is true. Why there could be rabbits in your house RIGHT NOW, killing your children.

BRIAN
Perchance do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

NATHANIEL
Of course I do. Do you honestly think I’d say something like that without evidence?

BRIAN
…

NATHANIEL
…

BRIAN
Well?

NATHANIEL
Fine, since you’re so insistent. It was in a recent scientific paper.

BRIAN
By whom?

NATHANIEL
A well respected scientist.

BRIAN
Which one?

NATHANIEL
Look, I can’t be expected to keep track of everything and cite every little thing I say. I’m not Superman.

BRIAN
Well, you do seem to be trying to save the world from deadly bunny rabbits.

NATHANIEL
Oh, so it’s like that, is it? This whole thing is just a joke to you?

BRIAN
Owing to the nature of your claim, it is somewhat amusing.

NATHANIEL
Well, if you’re so clever and bright, why don’t you back it up? Prove that I’m wrong.

BRIAN
Are you serious?

NATHANIEL
I certainly am, Brian. If you can’t just admit that you are wrong, then come up with something to prove your claim.

BRIAN
You mean my claim that the overwhelming majority of homicide cases aren’t perpetrated by rabbits? Shouldn’t you be the one to prove your case, since yours is more extraordinary, and appears to be transparently made up on the spot?

NATHANIEL
Ah, but I’ve already proven my claim, haven’t I?

BRIAN
No.

NATHANIEL
I knew it, you can’t disprove my point, and you’re simply attacking me because you can’t admit defeat.

BRIAN
This is growing tiresome. Why don’t we just solve this debate by going down to the police station and asking to see their statistics?

NATHANIEL
Oh please, you honestly trust their statistics?

BRIAN
Well, yes. Why wouldn’t I?

NATHANIEL
Well, there are a number of homicides that go unreported, or unsolved. Also the police don’t process rabbits, only humans.

BRIAN
What percentage of homicides go unsolved?

NATHANIEL
Oh, I would say… about 99%.

BRIAN
Even if that were true, which it is not, then how do you conclude that the murderers are all rabbits?

NATHANIEL
Look Brian, no accurate rabbit census has ever been taken, and we already know these things procreate like, well, like bunnies. If we’re not careful, we could soon be up to our eyeballs in duplicitous, murdering long ears.

BRIAN
You just completely changed the subject, and now you’ve moved on to meaningless fear mongering.

NATHANIEL
According to my calculations, in ten years, the rabbit density in New Mexico will increase to 13 rabbits for every square foot. Imagine a giant fuzzy blanket of cottony tails, whiskers, and HORROR.

BRIAN
Are you even listening to me anymore?

NATHANIEL
I’ve prepared a PowerPoint presentation, and I’m going to use it to spread awareness of this issue around the entire world.

BRIAN
Yeah, guess not.

NATHANIEL
Then, hopefully with a little luck, I’ll win an Oscar for it somehow, and I’ll be able to have people who disagree with me kil--

BRIAN
Well, good luck with your mental breakdown there, I’m going to go get some lunch.

NATHANIEL
And then no one will ever be able to call me “Mr. Poopypants” again! For I will be a respected humanitarian! BWAHAHAHAHA!


Epilogue: Two minutes later, Nathaniel blew out his O-ring and his trousers sadly perished of an extreme case of butt poisoning.


ADDENDUM

A Variation

A historian, a scientist, and a mathematician are sharing a cabin on a train traveling through Scotland. The train suddenly stops, and the conductor announces that the train will be delayed for some time, so they talk to pass the time. As the historian glances out the window, he notices a lone black sheep standing in a field. "Ah, all Scottish sheep are black," he exclaims. The scientist corrects him. "No," she says, "it is far more likely that some Scottish sheep are black, and others are white." They both naturally turn to the mathematician, who silently contemplates the sheep for some time. Eventually, he says, "In this particular field, on this particular day, at this particular time, there exists one sheep that is at least half black."

Meanwhile, a priest walks by, and the group inquires his opinion on the matter. The priest replies, "All Scottish sheep are white, that black one is a forgery made by the devil."

---

Plus: a bonus fallacious proof of the existence of unicorns:

Einstein showed that space and time are closely related.
There was no space before the universe existed.
Thus, there was no time before the universe existed.
Space is infinite.
Therefore, time is also infinite.
Thus, time has always existed.
Thus, before the big bang, time both existed, and didn't exist.
Therefore, if something exists, it also doesn't exist.
Unicorns don't exist.
Thus, unicorns exist.
QED

A Broken Mind Part 2: Playing Dress-Up

As should be readily apparent, I am a great admirer of science. I think the scientific method is THE crowning achievement of mankind (sorry to disappoint you, figure skating, but you’re just kind of lame). But I also think science is one of the most misunderstood concepts in today’s society. To most people, the word conjures up some sort of image of people standing around in lab coats, fiddling with test tubes, and figuring out how much an atom of beryllium weighs, and other information which couldn’t possibly be of interest to them. Others see it as something not unlike voodoo, all the while standing around cursing the bureaucratic bean counters for holding back production of their flying automobiles.

It is this second group which the charlatans feed off. People who wouldn’t know true science if it punched them in the face and shat on their tuna fish sandwich. These people are fair game for psychics, chiropractors, mediums, new age anythings, messiahs, alien abductees, missionaries, ghost hunters, gypsies, tramps, and thieves. These people, who hold up science as some sort of treat, enticing the hoodwinkable with hard to understand concepts like energy, and dazzling them with big ten dollar words (adjusted for inflation), are just making speed bumps on the road of our cultural evolution by confusing people with fake science.

Now, I’m not faulting them for being opportunistic. I see nothing wrong with attempting to make a quick buck. I’m just saying that if you have to lie to sell your product or service, you shouldn’t be selling it in the first place. Anything you have to offer society must stand on its own or not at all. You can’t pack your excrement into bars and then tell me it’s chocolate, that’s immoral. If you want to sell it with a big ol’ sign that says, “Feces for Sale, RIGHT HERE!” I’m okay with that. It’s when someone not only resorts to dishonesty, but also drags the good name of science through the mud that makes me want to pull out my switchblade, snap my fingers, and get ready to rumble.

Claiming to play in the realm of science when you obviously don’t is a serious offense. It’s like printing a fake review on the back of your book, and attributing it to a real critic. It’s utterly dishonest, and you just shouldn’t be able to get away with it. Science is very clearly defined, it’s never vague, and you can’t make statements without supporting them. Science is also peer reviewed, so on the off chance someone’s judgment is clouded on a particular issue, it can be caught and corrected. Those are some big shoes to fill, and that’s the reason I’m not a scientist, merely a cheerleader for science. The amount of responsibility required to enter that arena is substantial, unlike the claims of the aforementioned charlatans.

Okay, fine, not all of them are charlatans. Some actually do believe in the shit they’re selling. But that’s only because somebody else sold it to them first, and that’s part of the problem. You’ve got otherwise trustworthy people spreading disinformation simply because someone gave them a good price on a fake bridge. Since not everybody peddling this shit is a fraud, it becomes harder and harder to figure out what’s true and what isn’t. And that’s exactly what the dishonest people want.

They want fact and fiction to mingle together into an inseparable mess. This legitimizes them, which is an attractive quality for the consumer. In no uncertain terms, they seek to destroy science in order to make money. Not only does this mean they’re stepping on the customers, and the people they con into propagating their spurious claims, by weakening the position of science they are diminishing the quality of your life, the lives of your family, the lives of your friends, the lives of your neighbors, of your countrymen, of the entire population of the world and every generation yet to come. They are fucking over billions of people, and for what? To make a few bucks? That is utterly repulsive.

There will always be repulsive people in the world, people who will have more power than they should. There will always exist people who will lie and swindle, and get away with it; but these people don’t have to get away with it. It is so incredibly easy to catch them in their lie, yet they maintain power because most people don’t even try. They always come up with excuses, like “I can’t make this distinction, I’m not an expert!” or “science is too complicated for me to understand.” These are, of course, untrue. I mean, it’s not like you have to do the research yourself, there are plenty of other people willing to do that for you. All you have to do is recognize the signs of true science, which is why I’ve taken the time to create the following list to help you out. If the claim you’re examining is missing any of these elements, chances are you’re holding a big old vial of snake oil:

Observation
This is pretty basic, if there’s something you want to understand, you first have to observe some kind of result that doesn’t have an adequate explanation. If your claim is based on a theory instead of an observation, you’ve probably been flim-flammed. For example, holistic medicine is based on some kind of theory about vibrating particles, which is currently untestable and thus, unobservable. Where the supposed good effects come into play, I have never seen.

Prediction
This is perhaps the most misunderstood part of the scientific method, because what it isn’t is a wild guess about what is going on. This stage involves taking what we do know about the world around us and combining it with what we think we know, in order to form a way to move the latter category into the former. The way the fakers usually twist this one is to move things between the two categories before they’ve been proven, they make the effect into the cause and the cause into the effect. Unless a hypothesis is founded upon hard fact, it’s just a guess.

Control
This is the big one. It’s where most psuedosciences fuck it up, because this is a difficult one to fake. This is a group of experimental subjects who are exposed to all the same conditions as the others, except for the one you’re testing for. It doesn’t weed out all inaccuracy, as some conditions can be difficult to separate, but it’s considered a requirement because it eliminates a huge group of possible alternative explanations in one fell swoop. If the only results you see are from people who received the so-called treatment, then I absolutely guarantee it’s a con job.

Falsifiability
If something can be proven to be true, it follows that there should also be a test that can prove it false. Now, if the scientist left out one or two possible explanations, then it’s possible you’re simply dealing with a lazy scientist. But if other possibilities never even come up, then that person is trying to take your money. Because when you’re scamming people, you don’t ever want the possibility of you being wrong to ever come up, because doubt hurts the bottom line. In the pursuit of truth though, assumptions have to be questioned every step of the way.

Experimentation
That’s right, once you’ve worked out a theory, and where the weak points in it are, you’ve got to test the damn thing. And testing means data, completely quantifiable and measurable. The tricky thing about data though, is since it doesn’t exist in the physical world, it’s so easy to fake. Bad data can be hard to spot, but a good rule of thumb is if it’s too good to be true, it’s probably not true. If your study does have data though, and it fails on any of these other counts, then at least you know they just pulled it out of their ass, and now you know the magnitude of the malfeasance being performed on you.

Repeatability
Repetition builds a theories strength, especially when performed by others. In order to allow others to reproduce your experiment though, you have to very clearly outline your method. If something about the method seems unclear or slightly off somehow, chances are they’re covering their tracks, because they don’t want people to verify their lies.

Explanation
Time to wrap it up, and for the real scientist, this is where you have to go all in. You have to form a conclusion, but not just any conclusion. Your conclusion has to be supported by every single one of the steps outlined above. If you come up short in any single area, everything you’ve just attempted is all for nothing. As you can see, this is no small task, and this is the reason I could never be a scientist. You could devote years of your life to something only to find out one day that everything you’ve accomplished has been refuted because of some tiny concept that you failed to observe. And if you go into that field, this IS going to happen to you, and probably more than once. Is it cruel? Without a doubt. But it is also the fastest and most reliable way of attaining accurate knowledge. And if you claim to be a scientist but don’t allow yourself to be exposed to that, then you’re just a kid stuffing your little feet into a parent’s enormous shoes. Science is about bravery, valor, and humility. And to undermine it is to undermine all those things.

I beg all who would listen, to stop letting people get away with this kind of cockery. Use this guide, and learn to tell real science from the money-grubbing schemers. Because if you’re not a part of the solution, you’re a part of the precipitate.

A Broken Mind

In my last post, I discussed how to set up a rational method for handling your decisions. In this post, I'd like to take a moment to lament those who are no longer capable of accessing those basic tools. The people who have dedicated their life so fully to a wrong idea that to even question it slightly would completely destroy them. I am talking about those defenders of the indefensible, ecclesiastical apologists.

I've never quite understood why these people exist. I mean, what idea could possibly be so important that you still cling to it, even after logic comes in and kicks its ass up and down the courtyard and pisses on its limp, unconscious body? What kind of person invests themselves that fully in an unproven concept? Certainly not a normal person. And it's true, these people are indeed far from normal. Obviously they believe, because otherwise why would they be defending such a ridiculous idea? Except that deep down, not a single one of them does. A person who truly believes does not need to resort to apologetics, because they have their faith to fall back on. If you are a religious person, and you have need to answer the claims of critics, it's only because somewhere inside of you, you hold those same concerns.

It's a shame too, because often these people are quite intelligent. They waste so much potential chasing logic in circles, melding lies and truth until they can no longer tell the difference between either, and paralyzing their minds with an astounding level of cognitive dissonance. For example, obviously an apologist knows what a logical fallacy is, they are quite adept at pointing them out, even when one doesn't actually exist. Yet to read their work, almost every significant statement contains at least one blatant fallacy. Or often they will play the post-modernist card, that nothing in life can really be known, so how can you prove my religion is false? This, of course, is the rhetorical equivalent of running out the door, turning off the lights, and shouting, "case closed!" as you disappear into the distance. And of course, there's the old uncited historical source routine. This is where they make a dubious claim, as if it were common knowledge, straight off the top of their heads, with absolutely nothing to back it up except maybe for a derisive guffaw. Do they not realize that they're using such weaselly methods? Hard to say, actually. It may just be another effect of the cog dis, or maybe they feel the need to lie to serve their end, although either way the intention is still about the same. To desperately defend this apparent lynch pin of your life, at all costs.

True, these people are to be pitied, but does that mean they are not to be mocked? Absolutely not, by all means, mock away. There's no need to poke holes in their arguments, because the holes are already there, and they're huge. These people aren't human, the more logic you throw at them, the more deranged and unpredictable they get. All your pity and good intentions will do is anger them. So just have a laugh with your friends about their flimsy argument, then move on and go about your business. And to help you feel better about what is essentially making fun of the mentally handicapped, let's take a moment to grant them more respect than they deserve. I propose ten seconds of silence, for the lost minds of the Christian apologists.

Starting now.








































Ok, that's plenty. Fuck those guys.

A Reasonable Challenge

They say the two things you should never argue with anyone are religion and politics. These are said to be the two topics most likely to cause strife amongst otherwise friendly individuals, because in most cases the person has already made up their mind. But why would you make up your mind about something before you've even heard all the facts? And why bother even making up your mind in the first place, when new information could always come up?

The world is a complicated place, and it is often difficult to arrive at the truth. So, most people prefer to have the truth told to them. They latch on to the first person or group that seems to know what's going on and they parrot that entity's opinions as their own. And the worst thing is, everyone alive today has likely done this at one point or another.

Which isn't to say borrowing an opinion or two is a bad thing, far from it. There's a good chance that if you have any opinion on anything, there's going to be a decent number of people who share it with you. Hell, it's pretty likely that you'll find some people that agree with a lot of your opinions, which is fine, the problem is when you take it to the extreme.

The problem is compounded when we decide to make compromises. Maybe your affiliated political party takes a stance on social issues that you strongly agree with, and though you disagree with their economic stances you still support them because of how strongly you feel about their social agenda. Listen to me, you don't have to do this! Supporting the lesser of two evils only perpetuates more evil, it makes it easier for the evil to slip in. We've lost ourselves so much in the process of governing, and all the posturing that goes with it, that we've forgotten that it's supposed to be about results. We are no longer a government by, for, and of the people, but by the people, for the majority, and of the status quo. This is not how civilizations advance, this is not how we forge new truths about ourselves and our world. But we can get back on track, if we follow some simple steps.

First off, we need to forget the phrase, "I can't make a difference, I'm only one person." This is the rallying cry of the anti-revolutionaries, the banner of the banal, the perpetuator of the pragmatic. This is the reason we have two big political parties who justify their existence mainly as an attempt to piss off the other one. These people are so concerned with garnering votes and perpetuating their public selves that they no longer have any souls. They make all their decisions based on being as inoffensive as possible, and to get your vote they will lie straight to your face. And if you're casting your vote based on who is more likely to win, then guess what, you're one of them. Besides, if you believe your vote is just a drop in the sea anyway, then it doesn't matter where you put your drop, right? Better to vote for what you believe in, and wait for the world to do the same.

But what do you believe in now? Not so easy now that you're thinking on your own, is it? Well, don't sweat it too much, just do what you should do in any difficult situation, start small. Pick any single, specific issue, and just research the fuck out of it. Read the arguments of both sides, and read the rebuttals to those arguments. Try to search out anything you can find on it, no matter how small, no matter how crazy the opinions you find. Just bury yourself in information about this one thing, and eventually things will start to look clear. Don't worry, you don't have to do this every time, because eventually you'll start to see patterns. You'll recognize phrases that should raise a red flag, or you'll discover what kind of wording someone will use when they're trying to hide something. And it will get easier and easier to craft an informed opinion.

Now, as I mentioned up front, the hardest thing to do in the world is to change a person's mind once they've already made it up, so I'm not deluded enough to think that I'm going to make much of a difference here. In fact, there's a very good chance I'm simply shouting into the dark. But here I am, because even if I can't solve the problem, at least I don't have to be a part of it. If I can get through to even one person, that's fantastic, but even if not, I can rest easy tonight knowing that at least I tried.