Category: Uncategorized

Much better than CATS. From Scott Adams’ blog, a commenter writes:

You’ve generally been associating with the wrong kind of atheists.

The majority of atheists I’ve met have explored various religions and many have been brought up in one of them. They read religious texts and ask believers about their faiths. They are well-read and do lots of research, and are generally open-minded. They have come to their conclusions logically after exploring the options that they could find, and continue to explore even so.

That is proper, intellectual atheism.

1. (wipes eyes) Oh my, that was FUNNY!

2. And here we’d been repeatedly informed that atheism is NOT a religious faith, it is nothing more than belief that there is no god. And now there’s a proper, intellectual variant? How convenient. No doubt this is how Mao and Pol Pot will be explained away, they were Low Church Atheists, not proper, intellectual High Church Atheists.

3. Given the ignorance of the most basic precepts of Western Christianity demonstrated by nearly every commenter at the Dilbert blog, (to say nothing of the same cluelessness shown by their intellectual heroes Dawkins, Dennett and Harris), this ideal High Church Atheist is spotted about as often as the rare Blue-horned Rainbow Tail is seen in Happy Happy Unicornitopia. One shudders to even think about their profound analyses of the Shinto or Hindu religions.

I mean seriously, that childish “you are an atheist too, I have one less god than you” is simply moronic. There’s no need to delve into assemblies and ruling princes, a basic foundation of Christian theology is right there at the start of the Ten Commandments.

Let’s see if any of these intelligent, highly educated atheists can manage to correctly the following question:

What is the obvious implication of “You shall have no other gods before Me”?

a) there is more than one god
b) it’s okay to have gods after Him
c) but.. but.. [insert long recitation of dictionary definition of monotheism that completely fails to distinguish between BELIEF and WORSHIP]

It’s not the fact that these atheists have literally no clue what they’re talking about that astounds me, it’s the blithe assumption that they are superlatively intelligent and irrefutably correct.

I asked Blondie to explain why the average American woman is better than a halfway-realistic girl robot, and this was the best that she could do:

Anyone who would even pretend to take seriously a suggestion that a robot woman is preferable to a human woman obviously hates women so badly that serious discussion is not possible.

Can it really surprise any of you posters who would prefer a robot to a woman that the girls just don’t seem to like you?

That’s an evasion, it is not an answer. Come on, Blondie, just one reason? You can’t come up with one, solitary little reason why a man must find a woman preferable to a fembot?

That’s interesting, because men and women alike haven’t had any trouble coming up with reasons that fembots would be preferable to the average American woman. It’s not that there aren’t any advantages to the average American woman, it’s just that they are outweighed by those of these hypothetical robot girls.

And since when have women not been attracted to men based on their dangerous opinions or evil behavior? I could eat the president of NOW’s heart live on Fox News, announce the founding of the John Adams Anti-Suffragism Society, then declare my intention of raping every teenage girl in the country, and three months later I’d be sitting in my jail cell perusing dozens of marriage proposals from lovestruck women.

Only men who don’t know anything about women concern themselves with winning female approval in order to attract women. If anything, the approval reduces the attraction.

König fails to grok:

Vox, “The irrationalism of atheism does not refer to its being a faith-based religion… Instead, it refers to the average atheist’s adherence to Christian morality.”

Three paragraphs later, “Christian morality is not the Golden Rule. To love and obey (Christ/Ghost) comes first and foremost”

Two paragraphs after that, “The moral behavior of the average atheist… simply isn’t rational. There is no thought entering the process at all, it is merely unthinking adherence to the herd norms.”

Come on, König, you’ve been around long enough to do better than this. Atheist morality in a traditional Western culture is virtually identical to Christian morality with the excision a few of the sexual mores. But being largely ignorant of the source of these morals, most atheists don’t realize that “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is merely a small, but important subset of Christian morality, it is not even the most important part.

But atheists don’t subscribe to the part of the morality based on the subset alone. They readily recognize “evils” that are not violations of the Golden Rule, but are instead violations of other aspects of Christian morality in its totality, violations of the Will of God. Indeed, the very notion of an improper thought is proof of this as the Golden Rule can only be violated with an action, moreover, I daresay no atheist is willing to grant a rapist a free moral pass on the grounds that he would not object to being raped himself.

This adherence is not rational, it is merely unconscious acquiescence to the human herd mentality. Civilization runs three generations deep. That is the extent of moral inertia.

The One has a question:

So I’ve been playing poker for half a year now as a pro. I have focused on tournies and SNGs, recently came back to cash games. Well my finance told me today if i continue to play poker she can’t be with me. She told me it was wrong, that I shouldn’t be going it, that I was wasting my potential. I asked her if it was about money and she said no, even if I win million dollars she won’t be happy, basically she implied it wasn’t noble. I found that odd as I before this I was a commodoties trader, and I basically bought low sold high, etc ,so there wasn’t anything noble about that, but she seemed much happier when I was doing it. I quit because I like to work for myself and don’t relish the fact of getting up at 6 a.m everyday. I also left college at twenty to enter Wall Street, I always been a risk taker. Anyway I feel if I am being true to myself, I must stay with poker, but I don’t want to lose her, she is a good girl or I wouldn’t have purposed to her. It certainly isn’t the safest route, how retarded will I feel if I pick poker and then in a year or two the gov’t really does ban it and I end up with nothing. I spoke to my friends, but I like advice from you guys. What I am msot concerned with is setting a pattern. If she wants to change me in this, what else will she want to change me in? Or what if I get a regular job and in 5 years I get a promotion to another state, and she wants to stay here, then what? How far do you compromise? Love to hear from you Vox as you are the woman expert.

First, there’s no such thing as a woman expert. There are only men whose experience with women is less unsuccessful than others. The problem that you’re facing here is due to one of three possibilities:

1. Your fiance fears risk.

2. Your fiance is hooked on perceived status.

3. Your fiance is a control freak.

4. Your fiance is testing your backbone.

In cases two, three and four, the answer is simple. Tell her that as you are responsible for providing for your own support as well as that of your family, you will make the decisions regarding how that support is best performed. If she is simply testing you, as women always do from time to time, she will accept your decision and likely forget all about the entire affair.

If she is hooked on status, then drop kick her as far as you can, as fast as you can. Traders and investment bankers are of very high status, poker players are considered low class. One occupation summons up images of Porsches, massive Christmas bonuses and elegant parties in expensive New York condominiums, the other images of cigars and cheap suits. The fact that both occupations are essentially the same is irrelevant in this regard.

Likewise if she’s a control freak. Only make sure to leave a mark so that all the other non-masochists will know to avoid her. Or, if you prefer, to help the masochists find what they’re looking for.

However, if it’s what I suspect, a risk thing, then you might be able to talk her round without calling. Being an entrepeneur and associating with many entrepeneurs, I know how hard the constant uncertainty can be on women. Women hate and fear risk even though they love the rewards it can bring. The key is to give them some sense of stability, of financial security, that will offset the inherently chaotic nature of the incessant risk-taking. The problem is that whereas you can blow off losing fifty grand because you know it is going to happen from time to time, she can’t hear about it without getting lost in scenarios that involve her being homeless and starving on the street.

Talk to her about your savings, assure her that it won’t be part of your operational money and that it won’t be invested in anything riskier than bonds or metal. Promise that you’ll put away a certain percent of every win so that she knows you’re not risking everything every time you enter a tournament. And put some parameters on your performance, so that she knows you’ll quit if you can’t make it work before completely destroying your finances.

If she still can’t handle it, then she’s simply not the right woman for you and the relationship must end. This doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with her, it just means she needs to settle down with a nice middle manager who works at an office, makes 65k per year and contributes to his 401k every month. The world needs them too.

Scott Adams considers atheist irrationality from what I’d consider to be a rather quixotic entry point:

Allow me to summarize every discussion of atheism that has ever occurred on the Internet:

Atheist: “Religion is irrational.”

Believer: “Oh yeah? Atheism is a religion too, because it’s a cause that’s believed on faith! See Merriam-Webster’s 4th definition of religion.”

Atheist: “Atheism is religion the same way that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.”

Believer: “You can’t prove the non-existence of God. And belief without proof is faith. Check Merriam-Webster’s second definition of faith. Therefore, atheists are irrational by definition.”

Atheist: “You can NEVER (or almost never) prove a negative. Besides, some things are so obvious that proof is unnecessary. Do you believe there’s a monster under your bed? You have no proof that it doesn’t exist. Therefore, by your reasoning, it’s only reasonable to believe there MIGHT be a monster under your bed.”

Believer: “Hey, you never know.”

To which I responded:

Given that the title of your post indicates that you may have encountered my column – soon to be a book – entitled “The Irrational Atheist” – please allow me to correct you here.

The irrationalism of atheism does not refer to its being a faith-based religion, although for many atheists this describes their adherence to sciencism rather nicely. Instead, it refers to the average atheist’s adherence to Christian morality, subtracting only some of the sexual aspects, despite having no rational basis for doing so.

(This is the point when most atheists will usually argue that one COULD construct a morality sans God, strangely, very few ever claim to have in fact successfully done so or can cite any successful constructions that aren’t a basic utilitarian pitfall. Nor do they explain the coincidental way in which their newly conceived morality so closely happens to resemble the wider morality in which they have been raised. As Joseph Heller wryly puts it, these “Scheisskopf” know exactly in which God they don’t believe.)

Atheists and agnostics who have actually thought the matter through, such as Voltaire, Sartre and Nietszche, have concluded that without a Divinely imposed morality, do what thou wilt shall indeed be the whole of the (moral) law. Voltaire, like Socrates, declares that this lack of belief should be limited to the elite, while Sartre dithers and Nietzsche rather more boldly embraces the logical conclusion. I daresay the German philosopher would conclude that the atheist who lives by Christian morality rather than the will to power is not only irrational, but a weak and cowardly fool at that.

Christian morality is not the Golden Rule. To love and obey God comes first and foremost, while “doing unto others” is merely a summary and a guide to behavior for those who know the least.

And though it is wildly offensive to those who think themselves the great servants of Reason, it is actually their irrationality in moral matters that speaks well of the basic character of most atheists. It is the rational atheists, those who put Nietzsche’s logic into practice, that the world does well to fear.

Scott replies:

[It seems rational to do what feels good and has a good trade-off in risks and consequences regardless of how that feeling was germinated in you. So it seems rational to be a non-believer who prefers adhering to religious moral codes in the same way it’s rational to paint your house in your favorite color.

The problem here is that the moral behavior of the average atheist, as defined by the traditional Western morality, simply isn’t rational. There is no thought entering the process at all, it is merely unthinking adherence to the herd norms.

Unless you are a very unusual individual, you don’t refrain from engaging in an immoral action because you have rationally considered the morality of the matter, you refrain because a) you fear negative consequences, b) you have no interest in performing the action, or c) you are allowing the moral inertia of society to dictate your behavior.

What you describe as “seeming rational” to you is simple utilitarianism, which is a very poor substitute for God-based morality given the ease with which it can justify most actions that those subject to Western moral inertia would consider reprehensible.

For example, the Scott Adams who grew up in a society that practiced ritual child sacrifice would “rationally” engage in actions that the Scott Adams in this society would consider abominable. This is a great weakness of atheism as a philosophy and one of the reasons it is very unlikely to form the basis of a sustainable society, as it offers no fixed foundation for universal applicability.

The dinosaurs are dying out:

U.S. media job cuts surged 88 percent in 2006 from the previous year, a downsizing trend expected to continue this year, a survey said Thursday. The media industry slashed 17,809 jobs last year, a nearly two-fold increase from the 9,453 cuts in 2005, outplacement consultancy Challenger Gray & Christmas said.

I do so enjoy watching the continued implosion of the mainstream media. Long may it continue, until they become as irrelevant as they deserve to be.

I am agog, I am aghast. Why, I am not at liberty to divulge, but let’s just say that I would have been less surprised to come home from the gym today and discover Spacebunny in flagrante delicto with Rosie O’Donnell than the mind-bending news I actually received in my inbox.

I would have been far less taken aback by the revelation that the X-Files was a documentary or that the Lizard Queen was actually human. The world is a much, much stranger place than you would ever imagine.

While I’m pleased that Tony Dungy, whom I have long admired and wanted as a Vikings head coach since before he departed for points south, finally gets a crack at the big game, I’m disappointed that the Colts are there because they simply don’t deserve to be.

A lot of people have been commenting on how the officiating has been so much better in this year’s playoffs, but there were two reprehensible calls and two questionable ones in the AFC Championship game, all of which went in the Colts favor.

1. The utterly ridiculous “face-guarding” pass interference call that gave the Colts first-and-goal on the 1 instead of third-and-seven on the 19. This isn’t debatable, as according to league official Dean Blandino, who was in the replay booth at the game “Ellis Hobbs should not have been flagged for pass-interference. He didn’t make contact with the receiver and in no way did Hobbs impede Reggie Wayne’s ability to catch the pass.”

It was as bad a call as the “illegal block” call against Matt Hasselbeck in the last Super Bowl.

2. This was compounded by the no-call on the pass interference in the Colts end zone. New England ended up kicking a field goal, if I recall correctly; that’s a four-point difference right there.

3. The pass-interference call on Troy Brown. That pick-play is a common one, it’s the same thing that the Saints used to free Reggie Bush on his long touchdown against the Bears.

4. The roughing-the-passer call on Tully Banta-Cain. However, the officials have been making these ticky-tack calls all year, so no surprise there.

I wasn’t impressed with either Manning or Belichick. Manning, to his credit, didn’t quit when he was down, but neither did he pull an Elway or a Montana. A quarterback who can’t even bear to watch the other team drive is simply not a mentally tough one, Manning is unquestionably talented and a very hard worker, but he’s neither a leader nor a clutch performer.

Belichick uncharacteristically choked, in my opinion. He made bad decisions on two critical occasions, on third-and-4 with 3:22 remaining and after the two-minute warning with the Colts on the NE 11. In both cases, he placed his bet on the exhausted New England defense rather than Brady and the offense; I couldn’t believe the pass and punt on third and fourth downs when two runs would have given a much higher probability of success and given the Colts the ball where they could be held to a field goal without burning up the entire clock.

And if Belichick had ordered the defense to permit Addai to score on the inevitable run up the middle after the two-minute warning, the Patriots would have had the ball, a high probability of decent field position, two minutes, all its timeouts and a Colts team dreading another 4th-quarter Tom Brady march.

I think the Super Bowl will be better than most people are expecting. I wouldn’t go so far as to predict a Bears victory, but I expect a Bears win if the game is close in the 4th quarter. Rex Grossman, for all that he is a frighteningly erratic disaster, strikes me as more likely to show up when he’s needed most than Peyton Manning.

But if the Colts can crack the Bears defense early, I think they’ll roll to a runaway victory in the best tradition of the 80’s Super Bowls. Either way, it’s important to keep in mind that in most Super Bowls, the great defense knocks off the great offense. The Bears defense was weak towards the end of the season, but the one that showed up last weekend at Soldier Field looked as if they had invoked the spirit of 1985.

She seems underwhelmed by women who aren’t exactly apologetic about not wanting to have sex with their husbands:

As a 28 year old woman, with the same man for 13 years and 3 kids, have a little insight on why women lose interest in sex…It gets beyond boring for us thats why. It becomes a repetitive chore, akin to washing dishes. And even though my man works, when he doesnt want to help me clean or care for the kids, why would I want to spend energy I dont have doing something that is going to feel exactly the way it did last time.

Two thoughts. First, if a woman doesn’t feel like living up to her marital responsibilities, then she has no claim to expect a man to live up to his. If he doesn’t feel like paying the mortgage that month, well, why should he?

Second, no woman like this should be shocked that her husband would rather spend time with Internet porn than her, at least the porn girls care enough to give him what he needs. As for boring, what of it? Do you quit eating because it’s just the same tedious activity, three times a day?

Rejection is very difficult for men. How many times do you have to hear no before you just quit asking? After a while, I think it would be very difficult not to conclude that the other person simply doesn’t give a damn about you.

This society is so not going to survive the first halfway-realistic robot girl.

Political analysts are beginning to understand some aspects of what I was writing about eighteen months ago:

There are many reasons people think Mrs Clinton will not be elected president. She lacks warmth; she is too polarising a figure; the American people don’t want to relive the psychodrama of the eight years of the Clinton presidency.

But they all miss this essential counterpoint. As you consider her career this past 15 years or so in the public spotlight, it is impossible not to be struck, and even impressed, by the sheer ruthless, unapologetic, unshameable way in which she has pursued this ambition, and confirmed that there is literally nothing she will not do, say, think or feel to achieve it. Here, finally, is someone who has taken the black arts of the politician’s trade, the dissembling, the trimming, the pandering, all the way to their logical conclusion.

Fifteen years ago there was once a principled, if somewhat rebarbative and unelectable politician called Hillary Rodham Clinton. A woman who aggressively preached abortion on demand and the right of children to sue their own parents, a committed believer in the power of government who tried to create a healthcare system of such bureaucratic complexity it would have made the Soviets blush; a militant feminist who scorned mothers who take time out from work to rear their children as “women who stay home and bake cookies”.

Today we have a different Hillary Rodham Clinton, all soft focus and expensively coiffed, exuding moderation and tolerance.

As the recent poll showing the Lizard Queen far in front of B. Hussein Osama demonstrates, a solid political machine trumps mass appeal almost every time.