Category: Uncategorized

Scott Adams asks a question regarding which of three worldviews is the most dangerous:

Whenever I bring up the topic of Iraq or terrorism, it always sparks a sidebar debate about whether Islam is a violent religion. Let’s have that debate.

First, we have to agree that everything is relative. So the fun question is which of these worldviews are more dangerous:

1. Islam
2. Christianity
3. Atheism

To keep things simple and interesting, we’ll leave the Buddhists and Hindus and smaller religions out of it.

I find it amusing that so many atheists, who are presumably rational materalists dedicated to the concept of truth determined by empirical evidence, immediately turn to making logic-based philosophical arguments as if they were medieval theologians in answer to this question instead of simply examining the relevant and readily available historical evidence. Aren’t atheists were all about science, not ontological assertions?

Here’s the evidence: Christians have held positions of government power for 1,700 years. The religious wars they have waged account for just under 3 percent of the wars in recorded human history. Muslims have been in power for around 1300 years and are similarly responsible for about 4 percent of the wars in human history. Atheists have been in power for around 100 years and are responsible for around 2 percent of the wars in history.

Thus Christians have a war/year ratio of 0.176, Muslims a 0.307 ratio and atheists a 2.0 ratio, which does not factor in their predilection for mass internal slaughter of the sort committed in France, Spain, the Soviet Union, China, Kampuchea, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, etc.

Therefore, based on the empirical evidence, atheism is far and away the most dangerous worldview despite the absence of an atheist creed or god that explicitly demands wars and slaughter. This should be obvious, as given their small percentage of the world’s population, one should not be able to more easily cite examples of atheist violence than violence committed by the more numerous Hindus or Buddhists. Fortunately, there are only five nations governed by atheist worldviews remaining in the world today, of which three are presently occupied with murdering a portion of their citizenry with the explicit goal of exterminating religion, North Korea, China and Laos. Cuba and Vietnam appear to be laying off the persecutions, at least for the time being.

If you are interested in the precise numbers and sources, you’ll have to wait until THE IRRATIONAL ATHEIST comes out. But if you want to verify my assertions with a rough estimate right away, you can start with categorizing the 489+ wars listed on Wikipedia and work out the percentages of which wars had a religious or aggressively atheist basis. That will get you close, although since the list has a European bias it will somewhat overestimate the Christian wars.

Furthermore, atheists are more of a danger to themselves than either Muslims or Christians, as they are 37 percent more likely to attempt suicide, and, if first-degree relatives are a reliable indicator of religious faith or lack thereof, 230 percent more likely to successfully kill themselves. (It’s obviously difficult to ask a successful suicide about his religious beliefs.) It turns out that Catholics are the least likely to off themselves.

In light of the empirical evidence, I recommend that atheists stop attempting to defend atheism with increasingly absurd theoretical arguments and instead take a very hard look at why there is such a reliable correlation between their worldview and the commission of various forms of violence. Correlation is not causation, but when the correlation approaches 90 percent, one cannot simply dismiss the relationship as a coincidental one.

This does not mean that all atheists are murderous butchers, but it strongly suggests that the small subset of atheists who pursue political power almost always are. History suggests that Americans would be wise to keep a skeptical eye on that Pete Stark fellow. He does look rather like he’s slavering after what Christopher Hitchens tells us is the porcine savor of human flesh, doesn’t he.

UPDATE: due to some of the irrational atheists who believe that the absence of a citation is somehow synonymous with making things up, this is the source. I didn’t bother providing it because I assume that most of you aren’t going to drop $300 just to verify a blog post. That’s why I suggested going through the 489 wars on Wikipedia to verify the numbers, which is precisely what I did before I picked up the encyclopedia.

It seems some of these intelligent, highly educated atheists can’t be bothered to actually do any research or original thinking for themselves; it’s so much easier to simply decide that something is inaccurate on the basis of no information whatsoever.

In answer to the question: percent of wars is calculated by the number of wars waged divided by the total 1,763 wars recorded.

BigTexasRob makes what appears to be a somewhat hypocritical request:

Having misrepresented Harris’s points in order to support your argument (in articles like “Clowns of Reason”), you then blame Harris for being misrepresented…. why not find the exchanges he is referring to and actually show us all how Harris is at fault for being unclear?

I think that’s a reasonable request, at least for the Sullivan and Prager debates for which the transcripts are available, and I will likely post that here at some point. I’m currently occupied with Hitchens right now and to be honest, I really can’t stomach any more of Harris’s smug incompetence for a while; reading Hitchens is a genuine pleasure by comparison.

However, I should very much like to see you back up your assertion as well and explain precisely how I “misrepresented” Harris’s points in this 2006 column, especially considering that I only referenced two of them:

1) Harris states one could be almost certain that the religion of an unknown suicide bomber was Islam.

2) Harris believes that the world is currently imperiled by religious faith due to the possibility of religious individuals obtaining and making use of advanced military technology.

Are those correct representations of Harris’s positions or not? If they are incorrect, then please explain where I have made a mistake.

Brent Rasmussen is polling his readers:

What Should We Call Dawkins, Hitchens, And Harris Collectively?

The Atheist Justice League!
The Cuddly Atheist Club
Right-Wing Theocratic Christianity’s Worst Nightmare
The Wolverines
The Brotherhood Of Disbelief

I voted for Justice League, although I’m a little hurt that he didn’t consider my favored appellation: “The Unholy Trinity”. I also like “Sam, Dick and Chrissy”

Joe Klein finally notices:

But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn’t move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable.

I don’t know why he had to get attacked to figure any of this out. All you have to do is read them to realize that they a) have no idea what they’re blathering about, and, b) they’re very, very angry individuals.

I find them very entertaining myself. How could you not, when they jump through hoops and froth at the mouth on command. But it’s also worth noting that there are more than a few nominally “conservative” bloggers who are nearly as witless in their determined Three Monkey Republicanism.

Derbyshire breaks it gently to Andy McCarthy:

Someone once called New York City “the capital of a country that doesn’t exist.” It’s an odd sort of place. Personally, I love it, and it’s made a great contribution to the USA. It is not, however, all by itself, the USA. In fact—you might want to sit down for this, Andy—large numbers of Americans hate New York.

While I am one of the multitudes who despise New York City, I would find it very difficult to decide which city I would rather see destroyed by asteroids, Biblical plagues or global warming: New York, Washington D.C. or Hollywood. It’s hard to choose because America would be much better off without all three.

Strangely enough, I would be very sorry to see San Francisco swept beneath the waves. But while San Francisco is a freak show, it’s not one that forcibly imposes itself on the rest of the country. The same is not true of the Axis of Urban Evil.

And they try to SCARE us with stories of ocean-swamped coasts….

Here’s a question for everyone. Can an individual create something more complex than himself? You can define complexity however you like, but it has to be a credible definition.

Joe Cole just scored one of the best goals I’ve seen in a while, and it should be enough to get England past a stubborn Estonia. Long throw-in, Peter Crouch flicked the header over to Cole, who chested the ball to control it, then spun 270 degrees and hit the ball on the short bounce and banked it in off the right post past the keeper.

I don’t expect much from England in Euro 2008, since they don’t have much going for them except Gerrard and Rooney, but it’s still nice to see David Beckham back on the field. He works hard, he never stops running and he’s the best dead-ball specialist in the world. I still don’t know what McClaren was thinking when he left him off the team.

Sadly No sets the record straight:

Vox Day insists he never was a Bush fan, and so doesn’t belong on the list of weasels. Fair enough. But Vox still thinks Bush is a socialist. So to the list of idiots he goes. Wait. I write that with a smile, Vox! All friendly-like. So carry on beating the shit out of women and voting Libertarian, pal! Meanwhile, George Bush and I are about to discuss the finer points of dialectical materialism.

It’s fine to call me an idiot, a mysogynist, a repressed homosexual, a Flat Earther, a god botherer or a super sex machine to all the chicks. I don’t care. But for the sweet finchy love of the Galapagos Islands, I would very much appreciate not being lumped in with the past, present or future supporters of George W. Bush.

That’s hitting below the belt, that is.

Speaking of hitting, Mr. Billy Pilgrim’s wish that I run into a “real martial arts master” is pretty funny. I’ve sparred with reigning national champions and fought black belts from many different schools… and discovered that a surprising percentage of them tend to whine because they don’t like getting hit by anything harder than a love tap. And that “imaginary female opponent” is now a second-degree black belt.

It’s been a while since I switched from martial arts to soccer, but the last time I seriously sparred was with an instructor from a big school in the Twin Cities. He was their top tournament fighter, was very fast and far more skilled than me, but I was just as fast and much stronger, so he was very surprised and more than a little upset after I knocked him down with an uppercut for the second time in the round.

“Dammit, you’re one of A’s guys, aren’t you,” he swore. “He never teaches you guys how to take it easy.”

I just laughed. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that I was taking it easy.

It’s not as if we weren’t taught the concept of control, it was just the application of a simple equation, F=MA. If you take a D1 sprinter, add 25 pounds of muscle with free weights and then teach him proper striking technique, he’s going to hit a little harder than your average black belt.

And speaking of weights, ay caramba! I did nine sets of squats today, 12-15 reps at light weight, but doing that on top of a game on Monday night and two hours worth of pick-up games with the Africans the day before, I can barely move.

Turkey dips a toe into Kurdistan:

Several thousand Turkish troops crossed into northern Iraq early Wednesday to chase Kurdish guerrillas who operate from bases there, Turkish security officials told The Associated Press.

Two senior security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said the raid was limited in scope and that it did not constitute the kind of large incursion that Turkish leaders have been discussing in recent weeks.

“It is not a major offensive and the number of troops is not in the tens of thousands,” one of the officials told the AP by telephone. The official is based in southeast Turkey, where the military has been battling separatist Kurdish rebels since they took up arms in 1984. The officials did not say where the Turkish force was operating in northern Iraq, nor did he say how long they would be there.

It’s interesting that this should take place just after the world leaders met in Turkey this past weekend. It sounds like someone might have gotten a green light. However, the situation is very delicate, as the unrest with between the military and the AKP is unlikely to settle down if the Turks get into a shooting war with the Kurds, especially if American troops get drawn into it.

What would suffice to disprove Christianity? I can think of two things off the top of my head:

1.The disappearance of the Jewish people would disprove both God’s promise to Abraham and the Book of Revelation.

2.The discovery of Jesus Christ’s crucified skeleton would disprove the Resurrection.

Anyone got any more ideas? And what would falsify other religions, such as Hinduism or the Ba’hai faith?