Home of the Atheidiot

The godless commenters at Pharyngurl’s are almost as irrational as they are breathtakingly ignorant:

They’re afraid that you’re going to do to them what they did to you and to anyone who didn’t think EXACTLY like them.

They’re afraid that once the atheists take over, religion will be banned and its practitioners rounded up, jailed and persecuted — and they will point to Russia and China and other allegedly atheistic states to prove that this will happen. Never mind that both Russia and China’s respective traditions of unbelievable violence (much of it religious violence) and lack of a post-feudal history made their experience somewhat different from, say, Sweden’s or Cuba’s.

Yes, those ALLEDGEDLY ATHEIST states like the Soviet Union, China, the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea, North Korea, the First French Republic etc. What was Korea’s history of “unbelievable violence” and why do the massacres – of religious people – only seem to be occurring in OFFICIALLY ATHEIST North Korea instead of religious South Korea?

This atheidiot clearly doesn’t know that “atheist” Sweden had a state Lutheran church until 2000. Even today, only 23 percent of Swedes believe that there is not “any sort of spirit, god, or life force”. That’s why Sweden is only dying out instead of actively killing itself.

Clearly she also doesn’t realize that the Cuban regime is a totalitarian and murderous one, even if it hasn’t racked up the usual quantities of atheist-ordered deaths.

It is always amusing how atheists desperately attempt to sweep away their murderous track record, which is much worse than Islam, as a far smaller number of atheist regimes have racked up a far greater number of killings in a far shorter period of time. One of these days, I’m going to have to break down the relative lethality of various governments according to religion, as measured in government-ordered murders/year.

Another atheidiot demonstrates his cluelessness thusly: “Oh, and suicide bombers seem to be nonexistent among atheists.”

Well, except for the secular, Marxist, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, who practically invented the concept and were the leading practitioners of it until surpassed by the Islamic militants.

And, of course, at the heart is PZ, the ignorant educator and part-time mass psychologist, who states: “I think you’re right, Cyde Ways, and that’s why we have to continue to open our loud mouths and fight against religion. The word you’re missing, Phoenix Woman, is “projection”. They’re afraid that if we took over, we’d do to them what they’d like to do to us.”

But these atheidiots constantly complain that theists are in charge. And yet no one is doing anything to them. Nor is anyone even calling for atheists to be treated the way atheists are treating religious believers in North Korea and China today.

Now, any reasonable person would have to conclude that it is obvious this is because theists have no desire to kill atheists – and why should we, when we understand they will all be deservedly burning in Hell soon enough – so therefore, the logical conclusion is that only projection taking place is that regarding atheist fears of precisely that which istory strongly suggests they will do to theists if they manage to take power here!

Someone obviously could have used a few more history classes… and yet they claim to be the educated ones.

As for reasonable atheists who aren’t ignorant lunatics like these, but simply don’t believe in the existence of God or the supernatural… please don’t whine. Your fellow atheists are the ones openly declaring war on religion and talking about fighting religion and religious people.

One final note: no one really cares WHY atheists in power possess such a strong predilection for killing large quantities of people. Whether they do it “in the name” of Karl Marx, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Great Nothing, the salient point is that they can be reliably expected to do it.


This is not difficult

Pharyngurl is puzzled:

Lindsay knew she’d be targeted, just as Amanda was — she’s a godless pro-choicer, too. That’s actually a disturbing problem; why should favoring secularism and a woman’s right to choose be a detriment to someone working for a Democratic candidate?

Probably because neither secularism nor a woman’s right to kill children are as popular as living your life in the hothouse of life as a professional educator leads you to believe. This is why Democrats have to lie in order to win. This is why Republicans who wish to govern like Democrats have to lie in order to win.

The practical problem of habitual intellectual dishonesty is that eventually you begin to believe your own propaganda.

Old PZ still hasn’t figured out that Amynda really was going to destroy John Edwards’ campaign if she stayed on board, which you may recall that I predicted the moment I heard she was hired. Of course, it’s not fair to expect brilliant analysis from an educator. Those who can’t do, and all that.

You won’t hear this very often, but full credit to the abortionette Majikthise for having the good sense to turn down the campaign, though.

UPDATE: This is bizarre: “I said Marcotte was the best writer in the feminist blogosphere. If they wanted a high-profile feminist blogger, Amanda was the best.”

But the piece itself is approximately 34 times better-written than the drivel that Amynda produces at her most lucid. Obviously this is some new definition of literary quality with which I was hitherto unacquainted.


But… but guns CAUSE crime

Or not:

Gun ownership is widespread in Lithuania; anyone who does not have a criminal record is eligible to have a licence. According to police statistics, of the 294 murders committed in the country last year, only 11 involved a firearm, encouraging the widely held view that the greater the number of weapons in circulation, the less crime is committed.

“Maybe Britain should consider changing its gun laws and legalising weapons” – Jurijus Milevskis, the deputy head of the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau in Vilnius.

Another interesting fact is that the terrible awful murderous United States with its cowboy culture and easy access to guns is only #36 on the international murder rate list, behind countries such as Mexico, Thailand, Bermuda, Jamaica, Russia and yes, Lithuania. And when Albania, Uruguay and Peru report their 2005 statistics, the USA will likely drop down to #40 again, as it was last year.

Of course, you’d never know it to hear the would-be gun-grabbers talk. Because the USA has the most guns, so therefore it MUST be the most violent and murderous. After all, look at Europe!

(Wait a minute, aren’t Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Estonia, and Moldova in Europe? I could have sworn I saw some of those countries competing in the European World Cup qualifiers. And they all have higher homicide rates.)



The ape can read Dawkins

But he obviously doesn’t understand it:

Hmm. Just got done reading a bunch of books roughly on geology, genetics and evolution (Ridley, Dawkins, Relethford, …), and I’m wondering if that’s the key to the dominance of religious beliefs amongst the populace. Maybe those pre-disposed to believe in god are better survivors because they’re more aggressive?

Oh, and maybe they direct most hostility towards the atheists, and not towards people of other faiths, because at the genetic level, that’s the real “enemy”??

Now there’s a thought…the religious kooks are the missing link between the chimps and us atheists! Hahahaha!

Setting aside the horrific abuse of Dawkins’ selfish gene theory… in which he dismisses not only societal groups but even the individual as evolutionarily significant entitities, this evolutionist ape doesn’t even grasp the basic Darwinian concept of natural selection.

If a pre-disposition to believe in god makes some homo sapiens more aggressive and better survivors, this does not put them in a position analogous to a missing link between chimpanzees and humans.

Instead, it puts atheists in the position of the Neanderthal.


The Cold and the Quiet

From Newsweek:

George Clooney, off shooting a movie, contributed the maximum when Obama first announced and tells NEWSWEEK that Obama is “as good as Bobby [Kennedy] late in his career and Jack from early on.”)

Since B. Hussein isn’t a white Irish Catholic, I can only assume my sometime drinking buddy is referring to a particular interest in Marilyn Monroe.

There is something vaguely ghoulish about Obama, isn’t there? He’s not a bad-looking guy, but he still looks a little like someone you’d expect to see in a Hunter: the Reckoning movie.

Don’t you think the title would have been a better name for “Six Feet Under”? Maybe if it had been a soap opera, anyhow. Actually, it might have been a soap opera for all I know, I’ve never seen it.

Speaking of amazingly bad ideas, the VP at one of my publishers and I were in hysterics last week over a hypothethetical submission of a proposal for REMEMBRANCE OF THINGS PAST 3D: The Quest for the Colder Side of the Pillow. I swear, one of these days I’m going to blow a stupid amount of money making a demo of it just for kicks and get Sony to show it at GDC.


Thus spake Vox

I’ve been a bit busy this weekend wrapping up a design document, so I haven’t had any spare little grey cells for the blog or pretty much anything else. Sorry about that. But the following aphorism did come to mind following a random discussion with Spacebunny:

Einstein said: God “He [God] does not play dice” (with the universe).

Thus spake Vox: “The universe is God’s dice.”

Now, one could quibble with that in at least three fundamental ways, starting with the grammatical, but it nevertheless conveys the essential kernel of my religious suspicions.* “The universes are God’s dice” would be a more grammatically accurate, but less meaningful means of describing it, and in any event, an aphorism is not useful for what it states precisely but rather the mental stimulation it provides.

There is always the danger of seeing oneself in one’s view of God. But I think there have been enough visions of God as designer articulated previously that it’s not a new or self-referential one to posit Him as the ultimate game designer, or even more radically, as one of a series of not-actually-ultimate-but-might-as-well-be-as-far-as-our-perspective-is-concerned game designers. As I wrote in what I considered to be the most interesting element of the Euthyphro discussion – which, naturally, no one even noticed – it is an ironic limitation of our current thinking that we can envision a variant universe next door, and yet we consider the concept of a variant morality-defining Creator God next door to be a logical and conceptual impossibility.

How is that even possible, to say nothing of the basis of an argument against traditional Western morality?

Perhaps that should be the title of my next science fiction novel: “The God Next Door”. Fortunately, and unlike the case with Rebel Moon, this time I’ve already read the related Heinlein novel.

But if one thinks on the concept of a multitude of Game Designer Gods to go with this multitude of universes, one’s immediate thought is to pity the inhabitants of the Romero-God universe. Merely to imagine it is to hear their screams of mad terror echoing through the superstrings.

*Religious suspicions are the crazy things that you suspect to be true but generally have the good sense to keep to yourself. You don’t BELIEVE them per se, but if things turned out to actually be that way, it wouldn’t surprise you very much either.


An ominous turn

The animal conspiracy just became a little more threatening:

Chimpanzees living in the West African savannah have been observed fashioning deadly spears from sticks and using the tools to hunt small mammals — the first routine production of deadly weapons ever observed in animals other than humans.

I’m not going to worry too much until they show signs of developing projectile weapons, but I would recommend a preemptive strike on the savannah before we find ourselves being forced to serve as naked shock troops and tree-borne wait staff for our new chimpanzee overlords.

Look, people, either we start taking this evolutionary competition seriously or we’re doomed to interspecies servitude. You can’t tell me those hairy long-armed bastards aren’t gunning for the top spot on the gene pole, and we already know the squirrels and sting rays are on their side.


Spinning the clock

Turn the Clock Forward doesn’t exactly display the most powerful ability to reason things through:

Let me get this straight. A society so values boys over girls that sex-selection abortion has resulted in a large surplus of men, who are now having trouble finding women to marry. And who’s to blame for this state of affairs? Feminists.

Perhaps if I type this more slowly, TCF will be able to understand this tremendously difficult concept. Or perhaps another dialogue is in order:

Vox: Was there a time in which this society which values boys over girls was in balance? By which I mean to say that there was a roughly equivalent number of boys and girls.

TCF: I believe that is the implication.

Vox: And that therefore there were previously enough women for the men to marry?

TCF: Indeed.

Vox: Likewise, the number of men were sufficient to satisfy the desires of the women who sought matrimonial ties?

TCF: I see no way that this could not be true, so long as marriage in that society was defined as requiring one man and one woman.

Vox: Let us agree that your stipulation applies. But we are informed that now, this happy state of affairs no longer prevails.

TCF: It does not.

Vox: Something has changed, then?

TCF: Did you not read, Vox, that there has been shortage of girls, and that therefore the number of women capable of marriage falls short of the number of men pursuing nuptuals.

Vox: And this recent shortage of girls has occurred because evil fairies are kidnapping them from their cradles?

TCF: Are you on drugs? Can’t you read? It says right there, the girls are being aborted!

Vox: Surely that’s not possible.

TCF: (eyes boggle) Are you on crack or are you just crazy.

Vox: Inform me, my dear clock-turner, is a girl a human being?

TCF: What? Yes, of course.

Vox: Even a girl in a society that values boys more?

TCF: Even there. Especially there.

Vox: And yet, we are reliably informed that an unborn child subject to abortion is not a human being. Since a girl is a human being, it is obvious that no girls are being aborted, in this society or anywhere.

TCF: Yes they are! Well, potential girls are being aborted, anyhow.

Vox: As you like. In any event, it is not relevant to the meat of our discussion, so we shall let it pass. But as you say so eloquently, it is clear that it is abortion which is the source of this unhappy state of affairs, not fairy kidnappings.

TCF: Yes!

Vox: I see. And do men obtain abortions?

TCF: No, women do.

Vox: And is anyone forcing them to get these abortions, like the Italian parents who got a judge to impose a court-ordered abortion on their daughter?

TCF: No, it’s just the women. It’s their decision, their right!

Vox: All women are responsible, or just the women who get the abortions.

TCF: It’s the women who get the abortions, obviously.

Vox: These women who get abortions, they make a decision to do so, correct?

TCF: That’s correct.

Vox: And they believe that they have the right to make that decision?

TCF: Of course.

Vox: Do they believe that anyone else has the right to make the same decision?

TCF: Yes, they believe other women have the same rights they do.

Vox: And what word would you use to describe a woman who believes that all women possess the right to decide upon aborting a pregnancy? Is “feminist” a reasonable word?

TCF: Well, yes, but feminists are more than simply pro-abortion, that’s not fair! You’re narrowing the definition.

Vox: Hey, it worked for Socrates. But fair enough. I submit that it’s not irrelevant, but I shall concede that the proof is insufficient.

TCF: You have to look at why those women feel they have to make the decisions that they make.

Vox: Very well. Is it, perhaps, evil fairies who are forcing women to feel they need to make this decision to abort a girl?

TCF: There are no fairies! Why do you keep bringing up stupid fairies? It’s their society that makes them abort the girls… I mean, the potential girls.

Vox: But that society and its sexual preferences have been in place for hundreds if not thousands of years prior to the appearance of this problem, which only dates back thirty to forty years at the most. Now, can you think of anything which has become a major societal factor around the globe in that time period?

TCF: Microsoft?

Vox: How about feminism? Specifically the pro-abortion variant?

TCF: The timing does seem to align.

Vox: Do feminists champion abortion?

TCF: They do.

Vox: Do they market it, fund it and lobby for government funds to be spent upon it?

TCF: They do.

Vox: Do they believe it is a moral good?

TCF: A surprising number of them have claimed that, yes.

Vox: And have their efforts on behalf of abortion had any effect in that particular society?

TCF: Most likely.

Vox: Can you think of any other plausible contributing factor?

TCF: Maybe women are working more and are more educated, so they don’t feel like they have the time or inclination to have children.

Vox: And feminists weren’t actively involved in encouraging women to work and pursue education?

TCF: Dammit!

Vox: So, do you see now how it is not only possible, but highly probable, that feminists are indeed responsible for this untenable situation?

TCF: Sort of… but that doesn’t make sense! Why on Earth would feminists, who believe in women’s rights, fight for something that eliminates the next generation of women?

Vox: Because you can’t expect anything but nonsense from those who lack the ability to comprehend the logically predictable consequences of their actions, especially not those who subscribe to an inherently self-negating belief system. If feminists can argue that rape is a moral evil while simultaneously arguing that pleasure is a moral good, then you should not be surprised that they are equally capable of unconsciously arguing that eliminating the next generation of women is for the benefit of women.

What I find it dismaying, and all too typical, that TCF believed it was enough to express her (presumably) slack-jawed disbelief at my assertion rather than bothering to mention what party she believed was responsible for the state of affairs. If it couldn’t possibly be feminists, then who does she think is responsible for them, evil fairy kidnappers?

And to forestall anyone from performing the ridiculous “well, anyone can win a debate of their own construction”, I shall point out that the focus is not the “debate” but the train of logic. Still, in the interest of improving the dialogue, I encourage you to substitute your own statement in the place of the any made by the fictional TCF should you feel that I have somehow been unfair.


Light bulb

This means it’s only a matter of time before “Operation Wetback” is available for download on your PC:

Hundreds came out to protest a game that organizers said is intended to spark debate, while others said it is racist and disgusting.

In the game called Find the Illegal Immigrant,’ members of the club present their New York University identification and become immigration agents looking for an illegal immigrant in the crowd. The agent who successfully identifies the illegal immigrant wins a gift certificate.

I’ve never seen a more stunned look on someone’s face than when news of the Oklahoma City bombing was reported on CNN during the Computer Game Developer’s Conference and a loud cheer broke out that swept across the entire bar. John Romero and I were talking to a reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle at the time and she couldn’t believe the festive mood that suddenly erupted.

(This was before anyone knew about the day care center, the reports only stated that a government building had been blown up.)

Romero laughed at her and reminded her that this was quite likely the premier gathering of people who a) really like to see things blow up and b) despise the very concept of government.