Monthly Archive for June, 2009Page 3 of 5

Does the Euthyphro Dilemma Argue For Theism? (Part Two)

Published

on June 19, 2009

The first philosophic move of the theist is to pass through the horns of the ED by locating the Good as the nature of God. In effect, the theist answers the dilemma by saying “neither.” Hence, the theist claims that the good is not independent of God, as posited by horn one, nor is the good commanded by God, as claimed by horn two. In effect, a tertium quid is presented: God’s nature is the paradigm of goodness. God’s nature is the good...Note, the theist objection does not say that God’s nature is good; it says that God’s nature is the good.

(The emphasis on the final sentence of that quote is solely mine.)

MS Quixote tries to argue that the paradigm of goodness is embedded in God's nature; but he is simultaneously arguing that God's nature is "the good" rather than good. So he seems to be arguing that there is, in fact, no way to tell whether the paradigm of goodness really is, in and of itself, actually good.

Let's try to use your argument for a thought experiment:

Goodness is embedded in God's nature necessarily, since God is the paradigm of goodness. God's standard for goodness is not a coherent concept - because God is the standard. But why is God good? Because he is; it's a brute fact of existence - deal with it. But what if God's nature was malevolent: if God's nature is the paradigm of goodness, and God's nature is malevolent, then is malevolence actually goodness? God could've been anything, but he just is good. We just got lucky that he isn't apathetic or malevolent or bipolar. God's the standard for goodness because he is - through God, all things are. We know God is good because all things are patterned from him - we can tell that all things are patterned from God's goodness, we can tell that he is the ultimate paradigm, because that's just exactly the kind of world we seem to inhabit:

No random, indiscriminate earthquakes, volcano eruptions, mudslides, or tsunamis,

No rampant diseases such as polio, typhoid, smallpox, or the Black Plague,

Just goodness. We know God is good because that's just the way the world works.

You want evidence, you say? You want to know if this assertion really means something?

Just examine the world around you. Then you'll know.

Why do we really say that God is the paradigm of goodness? Why do we really believe in a maximally great being?

Perhaps it's comforting. Perhaps it's disorienting to believe that we are here on this planet, in the middle of this universe, lacking guidance, lacking care, and lacking supervision.

Perhaps that was the best explanation we had at one time. Perhaps it helps us derive meaning from our existence. Perhaps we feel that it keeps us in touch with the traditions of our families and our communities.

It doesn't mean anything to say that any God is the paradigm of goodness if we refuse to define a standard for goodness. So you say that God is the standard? Fine, judge God by his handiwork, if that's what you believe.

God is "the good", you say. God is "maximally great", you say. How do you know?, I say.

Do you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is good, or do you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is his nature, by fiat?

If you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because of some outside standard, then your God is inferior to that standard. If you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is - by fiat - then you've admitted that you have no basis for interpreting God's nature as "good" or "evil".

Whatever God's nature becomes (or rather, what it has become) is the good; whatever it does not become (or rather, what it has not become) is not the good. As a consequence, you have absolutely no idea what the good resultant from God's nature should be, nor what it is, nor what it means.

Anyone can say, "this comes from God, it must be the good!"

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you believe atrocities." - Voltaire

Does the Euthyphro Dilemma Argue For Theism? (Part One)

Published

Teleprompter

on June 19, 2009

Marc Schooley, author of the The Areopagus, (who also comments as MS Quixote) argues adamantly in a post on his blog that the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. MS Quixote referenced this argument during a discussion on the reasons why people are theists or atheists at the blog Daylight Atheism.

I intend to present a comprehensive case as to why the Euthyphro Dilemma advances atheism, but to do this, I must substantively and seriously address the reasons given by MS Quixote as to why he believes the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. This is my goal, and I intend to demonstrate my case thoroughly and convincingly.

First, I must commend MS Quixote for his well-written and well-argued critique of ED. I recommend his summary of ED and the surrounding controversies to anyone who desires to obtain a solid understanding of what exactly the dilemma is, and what is meant by it, when both theists and atheists refer to it.

Because MS Quixote has done such an excellent job covering the historic origins of the Euthyphro Dilemma and the traditional use of ED by atheists, I will not delve into those sections of his essay here. I hope that my readers of this entry will already have some knowledge of the dilemma, and if they don't, I recommend MS Quixote's summary of it, because he does a much better job of summarizing it then I could have done.

Let's cut right to the meat of this discussion: Quixote's critiques of the dilemma.

MS Quixote asserts that:

Another nemesis of the dilemma is the tertium quid, the third option. If a viable third option is presented, the dilemma is rightly deemed a false dilemma. The dilemmas above appear to be true dilemmas; there do not appear to be other alternatives to dead/alive and pregnant/not pregnant. However, if a dilemma states that children like either football or baseball, it is rather simple to provide other options, say, basketball. Thus, the dilemma is defeated. This is commonly referred to as “passing through the horns of the dilemma.”

Lastly, one may “grasp the horns of the dilemma.” If it may be shown that one or both of the premises of a dilemma is false, the dilemma is successfully defeated. With ED, the theist is able to both pass through the horns and grasp them.

So, is the theist really able to both pass through the horns of the Euthyphro Dilemma and grasp them? This is the bedrock of MS Quixote's argument: if I cannot demonstrate that his arguments (which purport to demonstrate that the theist can pass through and grasp the horns of the ED) are invalid, then I cannot state that MS Quixote is incorrect when he claims that the ED argues for theism rather than atheism.

MS Quixote's first step is to demonstrate that the Euthyphro Dilemma is, in fact, a false dilemma, by presenting a viable alternative, a third option, in addition to the two horns of the Dilemma as summarized:

The first horn of the dilemma—Is good willed by God because it is good—locates the good independently of God. The good is conceived of as some standard or other that God recognizes in determining what is good. If this state of affairs obtains, God is subservient to standard independent of his eternal being; there is at least one entity He is not sovereign over. Moreover, he becomes the mere messenger of goodness. Admittedly, this position is untenable for Christian theists.

The second horn of the dilemma—or is it good because it is willed by God—tends to render the commands of God arbitrary. The ED proponent argues with this horn that God could have just as well commanded rape and murder as goods, and that they are evils is only at the whim of God’s command. Furthermore, under the second horn, often referred to as Divine Command Ethics (DCT), it is difficult to make informative claims about Gods goodness, if goodness is solely based upon what God says it is. What does it then mean to say that God is good?

While acknowledging that both horns of the original dilemma are untenable for Christianity, MS Quixote presents his third option:

The first philosophic move of the theist is to pass through the horns of the ED by locating the Good as the nature of God. In effect, the theist answers the dilemma by saying “neither.” Hence, the theist claims that the good is not independent of God, as posited by horn one, nor is the good commanded by God, as claimed by horn two. In effect, a tertium quid is presented: God’s nature is the paradigm of goodness. God’s nature is the good.

Ah ha, the ED is clearly bunk, then! So we're finished, right?

Not necessarily.

As MS Quixote aptly recognizes, many proponents of the Euthyphro Dilemma are not prepared to accept this alternative as an answer to the dilemma. In fact, these critics argue that this framing only moves the dilemma one step farther back:

ED is re-erected around the theist’s contention that God’s nature is the good: Is God’s goodness good in relation to some independent standard, or it is good because God’s character is good? The former presents the same problem as the first horn of the original dilemma, the latter, the same problem as the second horn of the original dilemma which again seems arbitrary or whimsical. After all, God’s character could have been anything.

MS Quixote responds that those critics who reply to his offered alternative with this response fail to understand exactly what he really means with his third option:

Theists generally consider the reformulation of the dilemma a clear indicator that the ED supporter has misunderstood the theist contention that God’s nature is the good. Note, the theist objection does not say that God’s nature is good; it says that God’s nature is the good.

The ED supporter has attempted to establish an infinite regress with the reformulation of the dilemma; however, the theist response precludes this outcome by positing God’s nature as a metaphysical ultimate, a brute fact of existence. Brute facts are explanatory propositions that require or admit no explanation themselves.

So God's goodness is a brute fact of existence. But wait, God's nature isn't good; it is the good, according to MS Quixote.

So how we can call God "good" if we have no standard for what is "good"? If "the good" is defined as God's nature, then anything that is God's nature is "the good". But God could be entirely malevolent, and since it is his nature, then complete malevolence is "the good". For who are the pots to question the potter? God can smash all of them if he wants, err, if that's his nature.

And why not? What's preventing God from being completely malevolent? And how do we know that if there is a God, that he isn't entirely malevolent? If God's nature is "the good", and we cannot define "the good" apart from God's nature, then how can we ascribe any qualities at all to this nebulous concept known as "the good"?

If we agree with MS Quixote's definition of "the good", then we now have no coherent standard for whether something is good or evil. In fact, good and evil become meaningless and obsolete; things are either part of "the good" or they are not part of "the good". God's nature defines what is "the good". And those who speak in the name of God get to define what is God's nature!

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

Yo Ho! Yo Ho! Go Ahead And Die!

Published

TPO

on June 19, 2009

Health care crisis as depicted by pirates - music by Austin Lounge Lizards

Go Ahead And Die! (Pirates Of The Health Care-ibean)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNuCfD5bICQ&feature=player_embedded

Sometimes humor is the best medicine...Yo Ho! Yo Ho! Go Ahead And Die!

H/T to onegoodmove

The Unit

Published

possum_momma

on June 19, 2009

I read a neat book called "The Unit", by Ninni Holmqvist. I say "neat" because it has an Orwellian, Handmaid's Tale sort of skeevy-ness about it. The book is set in the future, though not the far off future. Perhaps a generation forward. The Party (government) sets up a system in which "the dispensable" (childless women over fifty and childless men over sixty) are placed into a Reserve Bank Housing Unit. All of their needs are met (food, clothing, shopping, movies, activities, hobbies, housing, and medical). In fact, their needs are met so well that most live more affluent lives in the unit than they did outside. This is partly because the government has turned the country into a purely economically driven economy where families are, supposedly, the most precious resource. They did this to ensure that the GDP would stay on an upward trend. Mothers and fathers have to split maternity leave. There's a law stating moms must return to work and the government subsidizes child care from six months on. Those who do not have children, as I said, are dispensable. They are seen as a drain on the economy when they reach fifty, under the assumption that they won't be working much longer and have no one to care for. They go to the Unit. The Unit sounds like a pretty cool place (having all your needs met and all) until you understand the caveat. While you're being pampered and have every available comfort, you also are used for biological and medical experiments. You're also used as a donor. At any time, you might have a cornea or kidney or other organ taken. These organs are given to the "needed people" of society. Ultimately, after a few years, you make your "final donation" (heart or lungs). But, what happens when a dispensable gets pregnant (because, yes,...you can hook-up as much as you want in the Unit)? The powers that be assume women over fifty are pre-menopausal or menopausal, so this is a rare occurence. But, what if? This is what happens to the book's protagonist. I won't ruin the ending, but it's unexpected and thought provoking. I highly recommend checking this out! I don't like fiction and I blew through this in a day. Let me know what you think.

The Holy Gospel of the Easter Bunny

Published

nullifidian

on June 19, 2009

‘Tis a very sad but obviously true tale. I also now know why dogs can’t have chocolate.

/hattip: Atheist Movies

Possibly related posts:

Here’s to you, Iris Robinson You just know you’ve made it big when someone writes...
Christian fundies vs Star Wars This is just too funny! What is the better vessel?...
Genesis Revisited /hattip: The Atheist Mind ...

Most Canadians Aren’t This Stupid

Published

Baconeater

on June 19, 2009

At least I don't think we are.

The very first part of the video is true. I don't remember ever discussing the Holocaust in school. Outside of the home or TV documentaries, the Holocaust was not brought up. We did have history classes, but generally history focused only on Canadian history.

The Angry Canuck then goes on to make a complete fool of himself. I will take it on his word that he actually tried to research the Holocaust. However, he must have either been directed or attracted to Holocaust denier material and neo-Nazi websites to get all of his information.

I did send him a message to his Youtube inbox:
You researched from anti-semitic sites, the video at the end is proof of that. That person is a known Jew hater.
Unfortunately Google links to Holocaust denial sites so if you sincerely researched it, you went down the wrong path.
You could easily fall for idiocy researching 9/11 as well.

Here are some real sites:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar39.html

http://www.nizkor.org/

Watch this video:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2972691n&tag=related;photovideo

And watch this video too made at the end of the war:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?sourceid=mozclient&oe=utf-8&q=holocaust%20hitchcock&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#

I haven't received a follow up from him. Hopefully has gone through some of the material I sent him. He also has been silent on the video site too, but to his credit, he isn't deleting any posts. And to the Youtube communities credit, his video is getting a ton of one star ratings, and many angry comments.

The disturbing part is (assuming this guy is sincere) how easy it is to erase the Holocaust from the history of the newer generations. Kind of a light at the end of the tunnel for anti-semitic Joooo obsessed internet circus freaks. In order to prevent Revisionism from getting an upper hand, it is important to fight Holocaust denial as much as possible.

To leave your own comment on his video click here.

I get published

Published

Psychodiva

on June 19, 2009

On Raving Atheists I have regular knock-down drag-out verbal fights with an idiot called Calpurnpiso- who think he knows a bit about psychiatry, psychology, neurology etc etc - anyhoo- he gets soooo annoying sometimes I just have to take the piss out of him because he really is not at any level of knowledge in any of the subjects other than what he has read in a few papers and text-books to have any real intelligent and useful discussion or debate with - he just thinks he is- and when I refuse to debate him he always assumes I am backing down - he has an 'idea' about religion and psychosis being connected in some way- which I'll admit is an interesting idea- but he just reads loads of random things and connects the dots in his head in a very random fashion akin to those conspiracy theorists and woo-merchants and well- homeopaths. If he actually came up with a coherent theory or hypothesis it may be worht talking about- but he doesn't- and every time I ask him- he gets abusive.

So I got mad one night and sent off a thing to the Urban Dictionary- not expecting it to be accepted - and it was!!! so here we are- I have defined a new word - to calpurnpiso is to be:

an annoying person addicted to and obsessed by a single theory, for which they have no evidence and to which they stick despite all evidence to the contrary.

See: RavingAtheists forum for hundreds of similar- if not identical posts:

Calpurnpiso says:"This is exactly my point. Religious-psychosis attacks brains susceptible to this form of schizophrenia mixed with temporal lobe epilepsy disease. This is my hypothesis since the cause of about 90% of neurologiocal disorders, including schizophrenia, TLE is unknown. If the cause of schizophrenia or TLE was known I would not be so certain religious DELUSIONAL BELIEFS, which are not unlike those produced by the schizophrenic, TLE, Drugged, Traumatized brain, are a form of mental illness!.

The brain is an organ like any other organs of the body, and they ALL are susceptible to illness some genetic and some acquired. Aren't some people born with underdeveloped optic nerve? Though having normal vision the brain can't interpret them correctly. Only over 50 years ago, these people would be labeled mentally retarded!"

it can be seen on this page here

the one thing I regret is- he will probably lap it up - and he is one of the biggest arseholes and wankers I have ever met in the decade or more I have been on the net.

ah well- I still got published in the UD !!!!!!

Gold mania

Published

Kazim

on June 19, 2009

Via the Freakonomics blog I just learned that there's a racket going on in Germany where they have vending machines that sell gold coins and bars at 30% above the current market rate. Brilliant!

When economic times get tough, the tough think of creative new ways to steal from the fearful. I've been noticing with much bemusement how full show-length advertisements on Christian radio loudly exhort their listeners to buy gold, and before that I've been fascinated by a precious metal pyramid scheme known as "Liberty Dollars."

Now this one... you really have to stand and goggle in awe at the sheer unmitigated chutzpah of a company whose business model provides a service that is so utterly worthless, and which displays so much naked greed.

Let me explain this again. Gold is an investment. Maybe it's a good investment right now, and maybe it's a bad one, but that's not the point. The point is that [edit: for most people] gold has no other value than as decoration or investment, and it's a really freaking bad investment if you have to pay 30% overhead up front.

Vending machines are for impulse buys. If you are walking past a vending machine in an airport and you see a candy bar for $1.50, and you say "Hmmm, a candy bar sounds mighty tasty right now" then to you at that moment, the candy bar is worth $1.50. Never mind that the same candy bar would cost you half as much or less if you bought it from a store. It has utility value to you.

Gold ~~doesn't have~~ has very limited utility value, and if you buy an investment with impulse dollars at a 30% markup, you are beyond stupid. Go home, do some freaking research, and buy it from a reputable vendor who will charge you 1-3% up front. You don't have to own the gold RIGHT NOW THIS INSTANT. I mean, if you're in an airport at the exact moment when The End Of The World As We Know It hits, maybe you could make a case for raiding the gold vending machine. But if that's the case, I think you might want to focus a little more on fleeing for your life at that point.

Bill Moyers Interviews Isaac Asimov

Published

TPO

on June 18, 2009

While searching for a text copy of Asimov's short story 'Ideas Die Hard' I ran across this gem at Dangerous Intersection. Also, here is what appears to be a full transcript of the interview at Harpers Magazine. Enjoy...I know I did.

Isaac Asimov on Bill Moyers World of Ideas pt 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CwUuU6C4pk

Isaac Asimov on Bill Moyers World of Ideas pt 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJAIERgWhZQ

Isaac Asimov on Bill Moyers World of Ideas pt 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEHtt5sGbTw

Isaac Asimov was a true visionary and an amazing human being.

Some of my favorite quotes from interview:

"It seems to me that when it's time to die, there would be a certain pleasure in thinking that you had utilized your life well, learned as much as you could, gathered in as much as possible of the universe, and enjoyed it. There's only this one universe and only this one lifetime to try to grasp it. And while it is inconceivable that anyone can grasp more than a tiny portion of it, at least you can do that much. What a tragedy just to pass through and get nothing out of it."

"Today, what people call learning is forced on you. Everyone is forced to learn the same thing on the same day at the same speed in class. But everyone is different. For some, class goes too fast, for some too slow, for some in the wrong direction. But give everyone a chance, in addition to school, to follow up their own bent from the start, to find out about whatever they're interested in by looking it up in their own homes, at their own speed, in their own time, and everyone will enjoy learning."

"That's another trouble with education as we now have it. People think of education as something that they can finish. And what's more, when they finish, it's a rite of passage. You're finished with school. You're no more a child, and therefore anything that reminds you of school - reading books, having ideas, asking questions - that's kid's stuff. Now you're an adult, you don't do that sort of thing any more."

"We can't be absolutely certain. Science doesn't purvey absolute truth. Science is a mechanism, a way of trying to improve your knowledge of nature. It's a system for testing your thoughts against the universe and seeing whether they match. This works not just for the ordinary aspects of science, but for all of life. I should think people would want to know that what they know is truly what the universe is like, or at least as close as they can get to it. We don't pretend that we know everything. In fact, it would be terrible to know everything because there'd be nothing left to learn. But you don't want to be up a blind alley somewhere."

"What I'm against is the attempt to place a person's belief system onto the nation or the world generally. We object to the Soviet Union trying to dominate the world, to communize the world. The United States, I hope, is trying to democratize the world. But I certainly would be very much against trying to Christianize the world or to Islamize it or to Judaize it or anything of the sort. My objection to fundamentalism is not that they are fundamentalists but that essentially they want me to be a fundamentalist, too. Now, they may say that I believe evolution is true and I want everyone to believe that evolution is true. But I don't want everyone to believe that evolution is true, I want them to study what we say about evolution and to decide for themselves."

"I don't believe that I'm ever going to heaven or hell. I think that when I die, there will be nothingness. That's what I firmly believe. That's not to mean that I have the impulse to go out and rob and steal and rape and everything else because I don't fear punishment. For one thing, I fear worldly punishment. And for a second thing, I fear the punishment of my own conscience. I have a conscience. It doesn't depend on religion. And I think that's so with other people, too."

Know scientology, know it’s a con

Published

nullifidian

on June 18, 2009

The “church” of scientology is launching a new media blitz, with the strapline of “know yourself, know life”.

Here’s the first one, entitled “Search”:

The other two are equally as vapid, and tell you absolutely nothing whatsoever. Except that you’re special, but you’d be more special if you only ~~licked Tom Cruise’s arse~~ joined their ~~cult~~ “religion”.

As usual, they don’t mention anywhere in the adverts how much acquiring this “knowledge” of yourself or your life will cost you, but we already know a ballpark figure. Hint: it’s in the tens of thousands of dollars/pounds/euros (or a comparable sum in your local currency), paid directly into their corporate coffers through your nose.

Ouch. Sounds painful, doesn’t it?

They also allow neither ratings nor comments on the YouTube hosted videos. And I already know that you’re not at all surprised by this.

The advert spots are worth watching if only to see what a multi-million dollar campaign will get you.

In a word, fuck-all.

Of course, any post related to scientology wouldn’t be complete without links to Operation Clambake and What’s The Harm? I would have included one to Why Are They Dead? but the site appears to be a defunct spam magnet.

Possibly related posts:

Thunderf00t vs Comfort A few weeks ago, after the news that Richard Dawkins...
ScientologyÂ® is a dangerous cult Before it’s illegal to have such opinions and say such...
Evolution for the rest of us And for creationists/ID proponents and other evolution-deniers. /hattip: see the...

Shop at Trader Joe’s on June 20th 2009

Published

Eclectic Infidel

on June 18, 2009

Yes, the leftists, anti-zionists and antisemites are at it again with yet another foul agenda. This time the moonbats have targeted Trader Joe's for carrying Israeli products.

What can you do against the barbarian hordes?

SIMPLE: shop at TJ's on July 20th - buy Israeli goods - and thank the store manager for carrying the products. You'll be an activist without raising your voice or your blood pressure.

More info:

An open letter to Trader Joe's regarding this latest travesty:

http://www.standwithus.com/app/iNews/view_printer.asp?ID=1062

We have just read a copy of the letter that you are about to receive from the South Bay Mobilization group, which encourages you to isolate Israel and punish it for the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, you are the new target of anti-Israel activist groups, who continue a propaganda campaign against Israel and distort facts to persuade merchants and others to boycott Israel. Such policies echo those that Arab countries have had since well before Israel's rebirth in 1948, and they also encourage and strengthen extremists who continue to undermine the peace process.

We note that the letter is a one-sided and self-serving view of the conflict. For example, there is nothing that describes the relentless terrorism coming from the variety of radical Palestinian groups surrounding Israel, including Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah, and fundamentalist groups like Islamic Jihad. We notice that their letter does not refer to Hamas, whose founding document calls for the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel and which has caused the major problems for those who dream of peace in the region.

Also not mentioned in the letter, is the fact that Israel is only the size of New Jersey, and the terrorist groups surround it and continue to launch rockets from Gaza into Israel while calling for the ethnic cleansing of the Jewish people (check their founding documents, you can find them online).

What is mentioned in their letter is historically inaccurate, including issues about "stealing Palestinian land" and the building of the "segregation wall." It’s important to note that Jews have been in the region for over 3,000 years – all the archeology points to this fact – and the Palestinian Arabs never had a country in the region. While there are Palestinians who dream of peace and a better life for their children, the Palestinian leadership has never agreed to compromises that would have created two states, and they have tried to destroy Israel instead. Simply put, any negotiations that Israel has with the Palestinians will result in the creation of a new Palestinian/Arab state, not a reconstitution of a former entity. It is also important to note that the "segregation wall" is simply a security fence, which was built in response to the campaign of suicide bombings and terrorism launched by Palestinian leadership in 2000. The fence has helped reduce suicide bombings by almost 100 percent.

While Israel certainly is not perfect, no amount of propaganda can convince well-informed people that Israel is arbitrarily attacking its neighbors for sport.

We have always loved shopping at Trader Joes because you clearly have not allowed yourselves to be censored by political prejudice but rather offer an array of products that reflect the various tastes of your patrons. We salute you for standing clear of political pressure and maintaining your integrity and neutrality.

Thank you,

The Board and Staff of StandWithUs

Other bloggers who wrote about it:

BLUE TRUTH: Fight the BDS Movement--Shop at Trader Joe's on June 20!

ELDER OF ZIYON: Moonbats Going After Trader Joe's

IN THE GLOAMING: Shop at Trader Joe's or How to Annoy Leftists and other Anti-Zionists on June 20th 2009!

FOUSESQUAWK: Trader Joe's Under Leftist Assault Over Israel

DIVEST THIS!: When all else fails, trash a supermarket

JEWBYTE: Trader Joe's being targeted for selling Israeli products

Rant of the Day – June 17, 2009

Published

Tommykey

on June 18, 2009

It's been a while since I really complained about something I personally encounter in the course of my day. But today I got a parking ticket that's got me really teed-off.

But first I need to put things in context.

This morning, I was looking to catch the 9:07 train to Hicksville. Now, normally, I park at the Sears parking lot, where the Town of Oyster Bay provides a shuttle bus that takes commuters to and from the lot to the Hicksville Train Station. The last bus leaves for the station at 9:00 a.m. However, I was working late in the office tonight and did not expect to be back in time for the last shuttle bus that takes commuters back to Sears at 9:00 p.m.

Since the parking lot at Sears is quite a long way to walk on foot at night, instead I planned to try and get a spot near the ticket office at the train station this morning. Quite often, it is possible to get a good spot if you time your arrival just as an east bound train arrives at Hicksville from Penn Station. What happens is that people who work overnight shifts in the city are able to get good parking spots at the Hicksville Station at night, so if you set yourself in the right spot at 9:00 a.m., you can snag a spot as one of the overnighters pulls out.

Unfortunately, this morning I got to the station just a bit too late, so I was unsuccessful at getting a parking spot by the train station. It was already too late to go to the Sears lot and catch the shuttle bus, so the only other option was to park in the lot by the Peppercorn's restaurant at East Marie Street. The problem is, many of the spots by Peppercorn's are metered spots, so even if you have a town parking sticker, you still can be ticketed. The unmetered parking spaces in this lot set aside for town residents are normally all filled by 8:00 a.m. However, in the past, I have found that even when I parked in the metered spots, I hardly ever got a ticket. And even then, the fine was $25, which was bearable.

Well, this morning, when I got to the lot, I had no choice but to park in a metered spot. The problem is, the maximum time you can park there for a quarter is 4 hours, and the meter does not allow you to put in 2 quarters for 8 hours. I put a quarter in anyway in the hope that I would be able to squeak by and avoid a ticket. But much to my chagrin, when I got to my car tonight, I looked and saw the ticket underneath the driver's side windshield wiper.

As annoyed as I was, I resigned myself to paying another $25 or $35 fine. But when I got home a short while ago and looked at the ticket, my eyes nearly popped out of their sockets when I saw the amount of the fine. NINETY DOLLARS! Let me repeat that. NINETY FUCKING DOLLARS for a parking spot that costs 25 cents. I'm sorry, but that is an absolutely outrageous amount of money to fine people. I guess it is a sign as to how starved our local government is for revenue that they have raised the fine for overstaying in a metered spot to such an onerous amount.

Of course, I have no choice to suck it up and pay it. And it goes without saying that I will never park in a metered spot again. Which just goes to show that hiking the fine so high might end up costing them revenue. Paying $25 here and there was an acceptable risk to me, and it ended up being extra revenue for the town. By hiking the fine to such exorbitant levels, virtually no one will end up parking in the metered spots for the day, which could end up in ticket revenues plummeting. Way to go, guys!

Genesis Revisited

Published

nullifidian

on June 17, 2009

/hattip: The Atheist Mind

Possibly related posts:

Science vs Norse mythology Click to embiggen. /hattip: yottaparsec in The Atheist Experience’s Ustream...
Genesis, but accurate /hattip Pharyngula ...

Understanding christian sectarianism

Published

nullifidian

on June 16, 2009

One of the things that has always confused me is the actual differences between the major sub-flavours of christianity. Sure, I was aware of the various labels and that they had some kind of meaning, but could never quite understand the (ahem) nuances of each sect’s special (and obviously perfect) interpretation of their magic book (or version of it, if they differ in that too).

Thankfully, using the metaphor of Kissing Hank’s Ass, some enterprising soul has kindly distilled the differences down so that people like me, who really don’t give a flying fuck what colour armband these people wear, can see them for what they are.

I feel should have read this a long time ago…

Possibly related posts:

Christian fundies vs Star Wars This is just too funny! What is the better vessel?...
The christian bible â€” tl;dr version Just come across this. Apologies if you’ve seen it all...
Finally, a christian who ‘gets’ the “atheist bus” And the winner is… *drumroll* Stephen Tomkins! But the atheist...

BBC: Fundie jews sue over automated lights

Published

nullifidian

on June 16, 2009

In a truly bizarre and ass-backwards world, I can imagine a crazy scenario where insane jews would be able to sue the company that maintains their holiday property if they install automatic motion-detector light systems… no, wait…

From the “You can’t make this shit up (unless you’re a religious nutter)” department:

A couple have taken legal action after claiming motion sensors installed at their holiday flat in Dorset breached their rights as Orthodox Jews.
Gordon and Dena Coleman said they cannot leave or enter their Bournemouth flat on the Sabbath because the hallway sensors automatically switch on lights.
The couple’s religious code bans lights and other electrical equipment being switched on during Jewish holidays.
They have now issued a county court writ claiming religious discrimination.
They also claim breach of their rights under the Equality Act 2006 and Human Rights Act 1998 and the case is due to be heard at Bournemouth County Court next month.
The light sensors were installed at Embassy Court in Gervis Road to save money and energy but the couple, who live in Hertfordshire, felt they breached their religious rules.

The Stupid, It Burns brightly (and comes on automatically) for these wingnuts.

Full article over at the BBC: Light sensors cause religious row.

Possibly related posts:

The Telegraph: BBC supports Islam and attacks Christianity, says whinging git Yeah, it’s from The Torygraph. The BBC supports Islam and...
BBC: Jerry Spring blasphemy case dismissed, again Christian Voice’s civil blasphemy case appeal against the BBC over...
BBC: Teddy Bear Teacher “pardoned” The BBC has just reported that the British teacher at...

Erm, whut?

Published

nullifidian

on June 16, 2009

Apparently this blog has been chosen (with 60 others) for an award: the “Holy Blasphemy BEST Atheist/Skeptic (sic) Site Award 2009″.

The donor of same doesn’t consider themselves an “Atheist” (sic) but does believe in astrology and the power of gemstones.

I wonder how they feel qualified to judge sceptical or atheist web sites when they say things like:

I like talking to myself in the dark; hey, if these things are comforting to me, it would be irrational not to do them simply because they arenâ€™t proven to â€˜be effectiveâ€™ (if it works for meâ€¦itâ€™s effective.)

*boggle*

I wonder what the author makes of anti-wimmin astrological Moon-rape.

Edit: I realised that I didn’t link back to the original post. Mea culpa.

No related posts.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists!

Published

nullifidian

on June 16, 2009

I am indeed blessed!

Let me recount to you the circumstances of my blessing from Her Holy Hoofedness, the Invisible Pink Unicorn herself:

I was sitting down today to my lunch and, not-very-well hidden within my salad, I saw a slice of onion.

Now, this was no ordinary piece of onion: it was a slice of red onion in the shape of a horseshoe (or, more precisely, in the shape of a unicornshoe, horses and unicorns being of the same “kind”). Of course, being a red onion, it’s not actually “red” at all, it’s more purply-pink on the outside, and it’s also translucent on the inside!

This red onion, being merely a macroscale physical manifestation of the properties of Her Holy Hoofedness, is made of atoms therefore it can’t actually be invisible per se, but the property of translucence is close enough to invisible to count, or so I say.

So, let us recap:

onion
unicornshoe/horseshoe shape
both pink and translucent

But, wait, there’s more!

Everyone knows that if you hold your nose when eating an onion, and if you have your eyes closed (which renders everything “invisible”!), it’s indistinguishable from eating an apple and, again as we all know, horses (and unicorns) love apples!

Let’s add that to the list:

onion
unicornshoe/horseshoe shape
both pink and translucent
onions are indistinguishable from apples
unicorns love apples

How can anyone be sceptical of such a sign? Just a coÃ¯ncidence? I think not!

Of course, I can’t expect you to believe me just because I say so, that’s no basis for claiming that I’m blessed: I need to show you evidence! And lo, I just happened to have my cameraphone with me, and I captured the evidence in digital photographic form. None of that wishy-washy “it kinda looks, if you squint enough, like Jesus/Mary/one of the bajillion names of Allah that otherwise looks like a squiggle” on a slice of toast/a window/inside a potato crap here, this is the real deal! Look!

My Red Onion blessing from the Invisible Pink Unicorn

Take that, you sceptics!

Sadly, the camera fails to capture the complete majesty of my blessing, but that’s because we have to rely on silly limited concepts like “science” and “technology” for cameras to work.

So, seeing as I’ve been blessed by Her Holy Hoofedness the Invisible Pink Unicorn, I can only come to the conclusion that I have been chosen, for reasons known only to Herself, as Her latest prophet, and have had a revelation of what She expects of us puny, mortal humans.

My revelation is this: you must eat red onions with every lunchtime meal, and only red onions. No other member of the Allium genus are allowed to be consumed at lunchtime. Even chives. In fact, especially chives (because they’re green and thin and neither pink nor invisible).

Red Onions now must also be capitalised because it is now Holy Food.

It hasn’t yet been revealed to me whether having a mint after eating Red Onions is permitted, prohibited, condoned, demanded, or even if Her Holy Hoofedness cares if we eat mints. Until I (or another of Her Prophets) receive such a revelation, one can only assume that She is pondering this and will let us know when She comes to Her decision.

I await further personal revelations from Her Holy Hoofedness with bated onion-y breathe.

No related posts.