Author: VD

You cannot kill Christianity, you can only make it stronger:

The CAA estimates that more than 600 Christians were detained in 2006, down from about 2,000 the year before. But most of those arrested last year were church leaders. Moreover, “local officials closed and demolished more house churches in 2006 than 2005.” China also targeted congregations as cults. “After being classified as a cult, House churches in Langzhong city, Sichun province were severely persecuted in 2006.”

Even as Europe seems to slip further from its religious moorings, Christianity is growing rapidly elsewhere in the world, including in the PRC. The Chinese State Administration for Religious Affairs estimates that there now are 130 million Christians in China, roughly 10 percent of the population.

The number of Christians in China is increasing despite sustained state repression. Bob Fu, president of the China Aid Association (CAA), notes that “the unprecedented growth of the Chinese church has happened under ceaseless persecution.”

The irony, of course, is that the best way to weaken Christianity is to create a state church, give it plenty of money and mandate attendance in its churches. In the long term, weak and lukewarm Christians are more deadly to the faith than the Neros of the world… temptation is harder to resist than persecution.

In case you find this post to be particularly brilliant:

Tests on mice showed they grew new brain cells in a brain region called the dentate gyrus, a part of the hippocampus that is known to be affected in the age-related memory decline that begins around age 30 for most humans.

The researchers used magnetic resonance imaging scans to help document the process in mice — and then used MRIs to look at the brains of people before and after exercise.

They found the same patterns, which suggests that people also grow new brain cells when they exercise.

Perhaps we’ll have to do a fitness challenge one of these days, which will consist of a Mind-Body-Spirit exercise competition. Any ideas? I’m thinking of something that would combine a reading program, a free weight-and-cardio program and a spiritual program.

The VPQF variant will consist of watching the Euro 2008 qualifiers, hitting the night clubs and dancing to electronic 80’s music while working Michel Foucault into every other conversation. And Blue Hawaaians with little umbrellas, can’t forget that. I think we’ll put Nate in charge of overseeing that one….

“Any student of history recognizes there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq.”
– General David Petraeus

It’s interesting that it has taken them four years to figure this out. Too bad they couldn’t have simply listened to Pat Buchanan in 2003 or me in 2004.

Taking out Hussein was always viable and was not, in my opinion, entirely unreasonable. It was done in an unconstitutional manner and with duplicitous justifications, which I of course opposed, but then, so is everything else the federal government does these days.

But playing colonial games without colonists, that doesn’t tend to work so well. I’m now awaiting Powerline and the gang at National Socialist Review to begin attacking the man they were hailing as the Lion of Baghdad only six weeks ago.

Mychal Massie sees it all:

This is a ruse, a con, and in brief, an attempt to hustle the voters. GOP leadership is trying to “Bob Dole” us. They have, in effect, met in the smoke-filled back room of a private club and decided amongst themselves who they want in 2008. Their problem is how to deceive the voters into believing that said pick is of the voters’ choosing.

Their solution: hand pick the candidate, truncate the primaries, shove the candidate down our collective throats vis-à-vis the media’s promoting, interviewing and discussing (ad nauseum) McCain, Romney and Giuliani, but in such a way as to always have Giuliani shine brighter. Then, when he has garnered the nomination, we the voters will be told, “Yes, it is true he is a little more moderate than we may like,” but if we don’t vote for him, Hillary will win and hell will freeze over.

To which, allowing that same has no basis in theological truth, I respond, “If there be a hell on earth, and it freezes over because I vote my conscience and Hillary wins, I’ll walk on ice until the party lets the voters truly have a say.”

If the Republican Party was actually trying to win this fall, they would pay attention to the way even conservative commentators are declaring that they will sit it out rather than vote for Giuliani, McCain or Romney.

But, as I’ve written repeatedly over the last two years, this is the Lizard Queen’s election. It’s the Democrat’s turn again, so the GOP has to throw up a sacrificial lamb. I guessed it would be Pataki, but it turned out that he’s not even electable enough to serve as voter bait.

Without it, how would you learn who to kill?

A professor at North Idaho College says it’s all right to talk about executing “anyone who’s ever voted Republican” as long as it’s said with a smile. The belief was expressed by instructor Jessica Bryan when her comments were challenged by a student, Linda Cook, who served as an aide to the late U.S. Rep. Helen Chenoweth, R-Idaho, and is a longtime supporter of the Republican Party….

Among the allegations: Bryan reported President George W. Bush won the election “because people … can’t read,” and, regarding the death penalty: “First we line up everyone who can’t think and right behind them, anyone who’s ever voted Republican.”

“Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought that anyone would take it seriously,” Bryan, who doesn’t deny making the statements, told the newspaper. “They were always said with a smile.”

She said the comments were an attempt “to get my students to think.”

Cook’s request to NIC Vice President Barbara Hanson is for a refund of the $379 she paid for the course. Officials said the school will review the situation.

Bryan said she thought Cook had enjoyed the “debate” of the classroom, but Cook said she chose not to confront the teacher during class time. “If someone’s suggesting you just be killed you don’t sit down and say ‘let’s talk,'” Cook said.

Bryan’s perception is that she was the one who was hurt.

“I do see it as an insult, personally and professionally,” she said. Bryan told the Sentinel she believes Cook is making a “mountain out of a molehill.”

The department syllabus notes that English 102 teaches “critical thinking” as well as essay and persuasive writing.

I don’t mind so-called hate speech, but I do think that the college might want to think twice about whether the execution of political opponents is a fit matter for a basic English course. I mean, it would at least be relevant to the material if she was having students diagram sentences like “The Negro is an inferior breed of animal” and “Everyone who has ever voted Republican should be hanged with rope made from recycled Wall Street Journals”.

I’m not sure that listening to a lunatic educator rant about anyone or anything is a particularly effective means of learning how to write effectly, though. Even if she is smiling… actually, I tend to find that it’s the smiling lunatics who are the most alarming.

I have successfully demonstrated that religion does not, as atheists claim, cause war. I have successfully demonstrated that if science is not held responsible for various evils it makes possible, it cannot be held responsible for various goods it likewise makes possible. And I have successfully demonstrated that IF one rejects religion’s right to a respected place in modern society, THEN one has an even greater reason to reject science’s right to one.

The truth of these assertions can be seen in the most common response, which shows the position to which the sciencists have been forced to retreat. Shalini offers a typical such defense, so I shall quote her as being representative of the bunch:

I don’t blame religion itself responsible; instead, I blame the people responsible. What Vox Day refuses to understand is that science itself does not lead to bombings and wars. It is the fault of the people who use science for their own personal and evil goals.

What I find wrong about religion is that it claims to provide humanity with a hard-and-fast ethical guide, but it fails to do so in the real world. On the other hand, science does not claim to provide an ethical or a moral worldview. Therefore, Vox’s gripe that science does not provide ethical guidelines is a invalid as science never claimed to provide any ethical guidelines whatsoever.

The reader will no doubt note that this is a massive retreat from the aggressive atheist position maintained by Harris and Dawkins. But it is still an indefensible one, as I shall demonstrate. and religion does provide Man with a hard-and-fast ethical guide in the real world, in fact, it provides Man with several competing guides. Shalini’s statement is in error.

It is true that Science, the body of knowledge, does not claim to provide an ethical or moral worldview in itself. It cannot, any more than a catalog can tell you exactly what to buy. Nor can science as process, except in that its focus on materialism could be interpreted as the beginnings of a Nietzschean existential ethic, but we shall ignore that tangent since the process does not directly claim one.

However, science as profession ABSOLUTELY claims to provide not only ethical guidelines, but ethical imperatives. By way of example, I cite the recent Global Warming study wherein 9 out of 10 scientists surveyed recommended Dentyne… or rather, that 90 percent of global warming caused by Man.

Now, if scientists were content to leave it at that, the sciencists might have a genuine defense. But they don’t. Because scientists not only advocate certain actions, they claim them as a ethical necessity. After all, a warmer Earth is simply a warmer Earth, there is no ideal planetary temperature in any ethical system of which I have ever heard.

Moreover, the body of knowledge can contain elements which provide the justification for certain actions, as directly or in some cases even more directly than the Bible does. After all, belief in the possibility that God could speak to you and order you to kill Canaanites is not tantamount to the belief that God IS talking to you and ordering you to kill Canaanites, much less that God will be happy if you hunt down Canaanites and kill them on your own initiative.

And the fact that evils committed by individuals not only take place through the applied use of science, but are often committed expressly in the name of science condemns science as thoroughly as anyone could possibly condemn religion. Hitler was inspired to breed his perfect Aryans by St. Darwin and Science, just as Margaret Sanger sought to eliminate the darkies and mental defectives. And scientific theories have certainly lead directly to war, for example, the Lebensraum concept that sparked World War II was not merely a political slogan, it was a hypothesis that “was adapted from Darwinian and other scientific ideas of the day about how ecological niches are filled.”

The fact that scientists today reject Lebensraum as properly belonging to the body of knowledge does not change the fact that some of them once believed it was rightful part of it, or that the German invasions were based and justified on the imperative posed by this scientific priniciple.

Especially atheists or agnostics. If you’re willing to hit a chapter hard and ID the holes, email me. I’m NOT looking for a debate here nor will I waste any time on one.

Email me if you’re SERIOUSLY interested, I intend to give a single chapter to each odd couple as they come. Put TIA in the subject.

Logic from Hell rather conspicuously fails to grok:

Just what meaning of “science” is Vox Day talking about? There is no one meaning to this word “science,” especially when coming out of the mouth of a Christian libertarian who writes for World Net Daily. Science is knowledge gained by testing ideas against reality. Is Vox Day really against that? Or will the meaning of science shift through a half dozen shades of meaning and metaphors?

I use PZ Myers definition. Science as a three-in-one, body of knowledge, process and profession. Am I really against that? Against what? In one sentence, BFH says there is no one meaning, in the next, he says it is but a subset of the dynamic body of knowledge. And yet he accuses me of shifting meanings!

Is he talking about the anti-capitalist, anti-libertarian Soviet Union who beat us into space and started a space race that got us investing more government money in science and inspiring President Kennedy to announce the goal of landing a man on the Moon?

Yes, that Soviet Union, the scientific backwardness of which vis-a-vis the West is not seriously disputed by anyone of whom I am aware. Except, apparently, BFH. Their success in stealing German and US technology and making big rockets that didn’t quite blow up notwithstanding.

I thought Robert Noyce, who invented the silicon chip, was a physics major at Grinnell College as well as an electrical engineer. Isn’t physics science?

Yes, it is. But studying physics does not make one a physicist any more than studying China makes one Chinese. Am I an economist? I have a degree in it. I refer him to the “astrophysicist” once cited as proof of feminists in hard science, while she did indeed have a degree in astrophysics, she was teaching a Women’s Studies class about lesbians in Indian film. My father is an EE from MIT, I’ve never heard him or anyone else refer to him as a scientist.

Excuse me? Did the definition of science just shift? And what scientist is dictating human behavior? Where does that even come from? Is this behavior we’re dictating merely our objecting to having restraints on stem cell research or something? Are Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett forcing Vox Day to become an atheist?

No, it did not. It even fits BFH’s silly and suboptimal definition of science. What scientist is dictating human behavior? Oh, I don’t know, there seem to be a few who are rather forcefully telling people to stop doing things they believe are making the planet warmer, among other things. Of course, that “global warming” thing is pretty obscure, so perhaps BFH hasn’t heard of it before.

Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are doing nothing but making it disreputable to be an atheist. Or perhaps I should say, even MORE disreputable. They have no idea what is going to hit them, and I’m not just referring to my own book here.

So, what exactly is the choice here? To move forward and learn what kind of universe we live in or to run away from scientific knowledge and live in stagnation until those societies that aren’t afraid of scientific truth decide we’ll make great cattle?

I wonder if he means those societies that are rather conspicuously failing to reproduce themselves? If BFH paid any attention to demographics, he’d know that the social groups most devoted to “scientific” values just happen to be the most, shall we say, evolutionarily challenged.

It’s tremendously amusing how this fan of Dawkins doesn’t recognize Dawkins own arguments in the column. But then, that’s par for the course, isn’t it.

Richard Dawkins demonstrates the accuracy of my definition of the distinction between agnostic and atheist:

“Many of the questioners announced themselves as either students or faculty from Liberty, rather than from Randolph Macon which was my host institution. One by one they tried to trip me up, and one by one their failure to do so was applauded by the audience. Finally, I said that my advice to all Liberty students was to resign immediately and apply to a proper university instead. That received thunderous applause, so that I almost began to feel slightly sorry for the Liberty people.

If anyone is feeling ambitious, I’d appreciate a transcript of the Q&A. I can’t quite stomach sitting through it myself, after a steady diet of the supercilious jerk’s books over the last two weeks. He’s not entirely unlikable as an author, and can be downright charming when he’s writing about something that he enjoys as in Unweaving the Rainbow but the smugness starts to get a bit irritating after a while, especially when he is adroitly avoiding all of the tough questions and skillfully evading any inaccurate assertions that will prove too embarrassing while writing little passive-aggressive implications to serve as a substitute.

(This is in contrast to Sam Harris, of course, who gleefully jams his foot all the way down into his lower intestine. Dawkins greatest weakness may be his ghastly foolishness in trusting Harris’s research enough to quote him. I’m looking forward to reading some of his excuses… “It’s not my fault, I’m British after all, how would I know?”)

So I am looking forward to the day when his questioners will be rather better armed. And it would be interesting, of course, to learn if he actually dealt with the questions asked or was merely playing to the crowd.

What’s downright unlikeable is his self-congratulatory tone in hailing his stunning accomplishment in effectively dealing with questions from college students. I can’t help but contrast the way he describes his treatment of them with the gentle and helpful way in which I once saw Umberto Eco deal with an incredibly dumb question from a college girl. You could see the man was a born teacher… Dawkins appears to be more of an instinctive propagandist.

I think I’d like both an oral debate and a written debate with Dawkins. But with Harris, I want both plus a cage match. Best two of three wins… and I’ll throw one of the debates just to make sure we get to the cage.

This doesn’t exactly strike me as news:

Gordon Brown, likely to be the next prime minister, will deliver a speech calling for a “new world order” to combat global warming on Monday. According to excerpts released by the finance ministry, Chancellor of the Exchequer Brown will also say the United Nations should make the fight against global warming a core “pillar” of its international mission.

I always thought that the entire point of the “global warming” panic was to give those who seek a new world order an excuse to install it.