Search This Blog

Monday, March 22, 2021

On 'atheism' and the mockery of 'atheists'

 Seen on the internet --

=====

Atheists who mock us for believing in God must feel hopeless when shit hits the fan and there's no one to turn to in their final moments.

=====

My response --

God-deniers -- every last one of them -- are intellectually dishonest (*).  They do not *really* believe what they assert, for if they did, they would believe and assert -- at all times, and not just when it is convenient -- the propositions which logically follow from "There is no God", which include, non-exhaustively:

1) My knowledge of the (alleged) truth that there is no God, and thus that there is no "immortal soul" gains me no real or ultimate advantage with respect to those (allegedly) benighted Christians -- dead is dead, and non-existent is non-existent; 

2) If it is true that "God is not", then it is true that the world is not a deliberate creation of an actually existing mind; that is, if it is true that "God is not", then it is true that there is no agent, nor act of agency, at the "beginning" of the causal-web of states and events which is "the universe";

3) If is true that there is no agent, nor act of agency, at the "beginning" of the causal-web of states and events which is "the universe", then it is true that there is no agent, nor act of agency, at any subsequent node of the causal-web of states and events which is "the universe".  For there is no way to derive an agent from that-which-is-not-an-agent;

4) If it is true that there is no agent, nor act of agency, at any subsequent node of the causal-web of states and events which is "the universe", then it is true that my assertion that "There is no God" is not the result of an act of reason, but merely the out-working of prior states and events in the causal-web of states and events which is "the universe".  That is, "God is not" logically entails that "Knowledge is not";

5) If it is true that there is no agent, nor act of agency, at any subsequent node of the causal-web of states and events which is "the universe", then it is true that *I* do not even exist.  That is, "God is not" logically entails that "I am not";


(*) that is, they are 'fools', and they are morally worse than mere liars, for liars lie episodically, but fools lie systemically.


EDIT: I should have been more clear on the point of this post -- Given that the denial of the reality of the Creator-God logically entails, among other things: the denial of any possibility of any knowledge at all; and the denial of any possibility of there being any rational agents/selves who can reason from known truth to as-yet unknown truth; and indeed the denial of the reality of one's own self; what rational being gives a damn about the mockery of God-deniers?  According to their "-ism", they don't even exist.


Continue reading ...

The supreme (*) Court and the US Constitution

(*) capitalizaton as per the US Constitution

Consider merely the Abstract of the below linked 2010 article from the Boston College Law Review ---

=="This Article challenges the prevailing doctrinal, political, and academic view that the Exceptions Clause—which provides that “the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make”—gives Congress a license to strip the Supreme [sic] Court of jurisdiction. ..."==

That is, what I have repeatedly said concerning what the US Constitution *actually* says about the true authority of the federal courts system is *already* "the prevailing doctrinal, political, and academic view [regarding] the Exceptions Clause"; to wit: "that the Exceptions Clause ... gives Congress a license to strip the Supreme [sic] Court of jurisdiction."

That the article argues *against* this "prevailing doctrinal, political, and academic view [regarding] the Exceptions Clause" does not mean that the article's position is correct or incorrect -- but it does establish that what I have long said, based on nothing more than *reading* the US Constitution, is not just me saying it. What I have said is this: that *all* federal courts, including that of the superior court of the federal courts system, are creatures of the Congress; that except for specifically enumerated cases, the jurisdiction of the federal courts extends only so far as the Congress says it extends.

What you and I were taught in high school civics class about the Constitution establishing "three co-equal branches of government" is false. It is, in fact, a lie promulgated by the "progressives" and judicial supremacists (i.e. lawyers who bend The Law to serve the interests of lawyers).

https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol51/iss5/2/

Continue reading ...

Friday, February 19, 2021

Jury Duty in the Time of Covid-1984

I have jury duty for the next couple of weeks.  Yesterday, I had to go to the courthouse for jury selection -- and, of course, because all the bureaucrats are still playing the absurd Covid-1984 Game, we potential jurors were "asked" (*) to wear face-diapers and practice "social distancing", and their procedure for processing us  has been stood on its head to play the game of "social distancing".

So, as instructed, 40+ of us (plus at least 10 waiting to go before the other judge for "re-entry") were there in the hallway-as-lobby outside the two courtrooms at 9:00 AM.  You know, practicing "social distancing" ... by sitting and standing next to one another.

I brought a face-diaper, but I did't put it on ... and no one at all gave a damn for an hour, until the bailiff came out to register us.  That's right, we (the jurors, *and* the defendant and some of his relatives, and the "re-entry" people) practiced "social distancing" in that hallway for an hour or more, before anything public happened.

Eventually, a lady sitting across from me, there for moral support for the defendant, noticed the writing on the face-diaper I was holding, and asked what it said.  I told her, "These face-diapers are not helping, Karen" and everyone within earshot laughed.  So, I was cheered by that.  What I mean is, when I go to the grocery store, I see no faces, just face-diapers, and it's easy to begin to believe that the majority of people actually believe this cargo-cult bull-shit that that a piece of cloth hiding your face -- hiding your humanity -- can stop viruses.  Turns out, most people are just trying to avoid being harassed by the Karens.

Eventually, the bailiff came out to register us, and she was a Karen -- she even sported the "I want to speak to the manager" hair-do (**) popular with Karens.  Eventually, Karen said to me, "We need (***) you to wear your mask". So, I put the face-diaper on ... and *pointedly* did not cover my nose ... and that was OK ... because the point of face-diapers is not about anyone's health, but rather about the bureaucrats forcing us mere tax-cattle to understand that they rule us.

Eventually, Karen seated us in the courtroom, entering the room one at a time to assigned seats spread over the room.  You know, to maintain the "social distancing" delusion.  I think it was 11:00 when the judge finally entered, and spent the next hour telling us how important-to-justice our role is ... but mostly, listening to himself talk.  Judges *are* just lawyers, after all.  And lawyers don't really give a damn about *justice*.

So, naturally, with all that talking, the judge eventually needed to take a drink.  And so, of course -- because the demand that we hide our faces has nothing to do with anyone's health -- he removed his face-diaper several times and did drink.  Meanwhile, the (armed) sheriff's deputy, who was sitting directly across the room from me (I was one of the last potential jurors assigned a seat, and I was in the jury-box), sometimes had his nose out of his face-diaper, and sometimes removed it entirely to drink from his thermos-cup.  Surely, you have guessed by now that Karen also removed her face-diaper more than once to take a drink.

Well, noon rolled around and the judge had finally heard his voice for a satisfactory amount of time, and was going to have the prosecution (there were three of them, but the second-in-rank did their part of these proceedings) begin their part of the 'voir dire' stage of the trial. However, she (the prosecutor) convinced him to call a lunch break.

Since I had walked to the courthouse, I wasn't about to go back outside.  So, other than a few minutes to go to the concessions room on the floor below, I sat in the hall/lobby -- face uncovered -- with several others, some also with human faces.  During this hour, I saw *many* employees of the "justice system" walking around without face-diapers: some were putting one on *as* they exited various offices, some (who looked to be mainly cops of various sorts) didn't appear to even have a face-diaper on their person.  I was sitting near the door to the family court lobby; on the door was one sign saying the only one person at a time could be in that lobby (never mind conditions just outside the door), and another sign saying that anyone who entered the room without a face-diaper faced a charge (i.e. an automatic *conviction*) of "contempt of court", with a $250 fine and/or 30 days in jail. Toward the end of the day, they send us out again while the prosecution and defense agreed upon which of us would be empaneled as the jury: again, I saw several "justice system" employees clearly violating the absurd face-diaper protocols and "rules" that they impose on us mere tax-payers.

EDIT: I had meant to mention that as the defence lawyer, a *very old man*, was speaking and asking various potential jurors questions, his face-diaper slipped from his mouth, and he, as a *sensible* old man, ignored that and continued to speak.  Eventually, Karen (who was seated behind him and to the side) noticed that the lawyer's face was uncovered, and so she came out on the floor and interuppted him to "remind" him to hide his face again.


(*) I *loathe* the use of "ask" to mean "demand"; but that is (of course) how they phrased it.

(**) One of the funny things about this 'do' is how silly it looks from the back, especially when it is done the way this woman's was: with the hair less than 6 inches long and relying on product to give it poof and body, but resulting in an amusing void at the crown of her head.  Do these women never *look* at their soul-sisters sporting that same look?

(***) And I really loathe the passive-aggressive "I need you to ..." construction.

Continue reading ...

Sunday, February 14, 2021

Unratified or Not

Those citizens who have been around for a while may recall that back in the day, conservatives and Christians warned that the ultimate purpose of the proposed (and amusingly named) Equal Rights Amendment was to erase all distinctions between men and women. Some examples of the outrages we warned would inevitably follow from it were: lowering of standards in the police and firefighting forces and military; men "competing" in women's sports; men freely entering women's restrooms and dressing rooms.

The pervertitarians and their feminist stooges poo-pooed us. Still, enough Americans were still *citizens* (rather than subjects) that the ERA was not ratified, despite all the rule-bending efforts of Our Moral And Intellectual Superiors.

Nevertheless, in recent years, and even without the ERA, the pervertitarians and their feminist stooges have managed to brow-beat a seeming majority of Americans into accepting as somehow just "facts of nature" the outrages and more of which conservatives and Christians warned.

And feminists, with their Great Concern for the Interests and Wellbeing of Women? Well, since feminism was *always* a vehicle to advance the interests of certain powerful (and generally perverted) men. today's feminists are either applauding the outrages against the interests of women, or are silent in the face of them, or are silenced if they are among the few who do venture a mild objection. But, hey! At least the "right" to murder babies is still sacrosanct!

Continue reading ...

Thursday, June 4, 2020

The problem with "the police"

The problem with "the police" is not "structural racism" or "systematic racism" or "the legacy of slavery" any other Democratic Party lie; the problem with "the police" is that the policing power is being used by *all* levels of government as a revenue-generating scheme. The problem with "the police" is that they are responding, as all humans do, to incentives ... but, the incentives are perverse.


Remove the perverse incentives, that is, take away the ability of government bureaucracies to profit by the fines and penalties they impose, and most of the problems with "the police" will solve themselves.

Here is one way that can be done --

When a citizen is fined by a government entity, the monies -- including "court costs" -- are forwarded to the local government where the citizen lives (*), where the total of those monies is used to reduce the tax burden of *all* citizens subject to that government entity. That is, the monies are not *added* into the budget of the government entity, but rather reduce the amount of the existing budget to be extracted directly from the citizens.

For example, property taxation is almost universal. If a county is scheduled to raise $10 million in property taxes, and the total fines and penalties imposed on the citizens of that county for that year somehow also amounted to $10 million, then no one would have to pay property tax that year, and the county would still have the amount for which it had budgeted.


(*) this is to remove the temptation to live off the backs of out-of-towners.

Continue reading ...

Friday, April 24, 2020

The Chinaman's Cough and me

I was a computer programmer my entire adult life. I've retired from that. Since last year, I've been working for a non-emergency medical transportation company (*), driving a wheel-chair van. Most of the people I transport(ed) are on dialysis, quite a few (whether or not on dialysis) are in nursing homes.

I was beginning to worry back in early March, both for my own safely, but even moreso for our clients. Back in those days, it was being reported that one might be infected and spreading spreading the virus for as much as two weeks before showing any symptoms oneself. My great fear wasn't that I'd catch it, but that I'd catch it and spread it without knowing I had it.

I had scheduled to be sure I wasn't working on Saturday, March 14; planning to go visit my family in Indiana. My sister called the afternoon of the 13th to suggest I delay the trip, in case I couldn't get gas for the return trip -- panic-buying hadn't yet hit my area in Ohio, and the various governments in the US had not yet announced that they were going to destroy the economy, but she suspected that that was on the way.

Then, that night, I woke up sick. So, I didn't go to work for the next week and a half. I was scheduled to work on Wednesday, March 25 -- one trip only (but the guy cancelled as I was on my way to get him): in that week and a half that I'd been home mildly sick, everything had crashed, and just about the only trips my company was still making were for dialysis.

Since there wasn't enough work for all the drivers, and since I can get by without the income from that job, I told them to give preference to drivers who need the income. So, for the next couple of weeks, they called me every day with the message that I wasn't scheduled to work the next day. Then, a couple of weeks ago, they shut down operations entirely ... until July 1 (or even later).

So, I haven't worked, or earned any money, since March 13. And, while I can get by without that income -- at any rate, until the economy collapses and destroys my IRAs -- I *had* budgeted for it, including that I'd not even need to touch the IRAs, but rather let them grow.

I don't *know* that I've already had the Kung Flu (if I did, for me it presented as a very mild flu) -- for, despite that they seemingly have a levy request at every (**) election (**'), the local Board of Health (as also the State Board) was utterly useless. The bureaucrats didn't even extend their hours ... which were already shorter than people with real jobs work.



(*) I could easily be earning 2 or even 3 times what they pay me were I to un-retire.

(**) At any rate, seemingly every off-election, preferably the primary. The only time a levy request is on the ballot during a general election is if it has previously failed to pass.

(**') Either: "This is not a new levy, so renew it!" or, "This new levy will cost the average homeowner only $.35 a day, so pass it!"

Continue reading ...

Sunday, January 12, 2020

What if?

What if --

What if "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not *really* the ruler of the Iranian regime? What if the *real* ruler of Iran was the regime's late terrorist mastermind, General Qassem Soleimani?

What if there is no clear successor not only to the Iranian regime's terrorist-in-chief, but also none to the entire terrorist regime itself?

What if the Iranian people -- who clearly hate the regime -- are now able to overthrow it, as its various members flail about, each trying to assert his own supremacy?

What if Trump has just done more to promote peace in the world than any US president since Ronaldus Magnus (and certainly more that a certain "Nobel Peace Prize awarded" alleged president)?

Continue reading ...

Monday, January 6, 2020

What is it with people?

One of the main reasons I've grown bored with trying to engage with human beings on-line is that *almost all* of them do what I will illustrate here --

Recently, 'Neo' posted this thread: Did you know that black people should never be accused of anti-Semitism?

I made this comment --
"Black people who have developed anti-Semitic viewpoints have done it mostly for two reasons."

I suspect that there is a third reason: possibly more important, if more diffuse, than the two you found — During the so-called Civil Rights Era (all genuflect), a lot of Southern blacks spent a lot of time working with, and being condescended by, a lot of Northern “Jews” (by which I mean atheistic leftists whose grandmothers were Jews). Blacks can recognize condescension as well as anyone else; and condescension calls forth disdain.

She replied --
Oh, so the Jews that helped black people in the South back then, often at the risk of their lives and sometimes even giving their lives to the cause, were obnoxiously arrogant little snobs who deserved to be hated?

I pointed out that she had utterly "misunderstood" (*) what I wrote --
neo, with the ‘open mind’, totally not turning what I wrote (which is up there in black and white) on its head:Oh, so the Jews that helped black people in the South back then, often at the risk of their lives and sometimes even giving their lives to the cause, were obnoxiously arrogant little snobs who deserved to be hated?

Way to go!

But, yes, the leftist carpet-baggers who bungie-flooded the civil-rights organizations in the South in those days contained a high proportion of “obnoxiously arrogant little snobs” … who called forth a corresponding disdain amongst many blacks toward “Jews” … and, sadly, Jews.

And I expanded on that --
Moreover —

neo:Oh, so the Jews that helped black people in the South back then, often at the risk of their lives and sometimes even giving their lives to the cause …

These are leftists you’re committing hagiography upon.

Leftists don’t give a damn about justice (except in the negative sense, as they *hate* justice).

And leftists don’t give a damn about *actual* human beings, and they have even less regard for “persons of color” than they do for other persons.

These statements are true now, and they were true then.

So, whatever those leftists may have been doing in the South, and whatever cause some of them may given their lives for, it was never their intention to help black Americans, nor to foster justice for them by ending the Democrat’s legalized-and-enforced injustices against black Americans.

And she doubled-down --
Ilion:

Your comments convey quite a bit, and I did not accuse you of anything that wasn’t implicit in your comments.

Leftists are not all demons. Some are misguided – especially during the era we’re talking about. One entire wing of my family when I was growing up (not my nuclear family, but my larger family) were leftists. Communists, to be blunt, for some of them anyway. I have written about this before.

Not all Communists who went down to help black people were Jews, and not all Jews who went down there to help black people were Communists, by the way. Some were garden-variety liberals. You haven’t a clue whether most of them were condescending or not, personally, to the black people with whom they worked – even if you were one of those black people they worked with in the 50s and 60s (in which case you wouldn’t have known enough of them to say what the majority were like). But I am fairly confident that you were not one of those black people they worked with back then.

I can assure you that whatever faults the leftists I knew back then had – and they had plenty – most of them were not condescending to black people. They were genuinely outraged at the genuine discrimination black people had to suffer particularly in the days of segregation, and even for many years after that.

I had started to attempt, once again, and explicitly this time, to show her how she is misinterpreting and misconstruing what I wrote. But then I remembered that I've been through this before, that this is precisely *why* I had stopped reading and commenting on her blog in the past.

So, I'm not going to waste any more of my time.

(*) The "scare quotes" are because this is not the first time she has done this to me ... or to others.

Continue reading ...

Friday, September 13, 2019

This is socialized medicine

Dutch Woman With Dementia Euthanized Against Her Will. The Doctor Was Just Cleared Of Wrongdoing.
Three years ago, a 74-year-old Dutch woman with dementia was euthanized by a doctor who drugged the patient's coffee without her knowledge and then had family members physically restrain her for the final lethal injection.

The doctor, who has not been publicly named, was cleared of all wrongdoing by a court in the Netherlands on Wednesday, "clarifying" the country's euthanasia law enacted in 2002 in relation to patients with "severe dementia," according to MedicalXPress.

Patients with dementia can now be killed by their doctors even if they strongly object to euthanasia at the time, so long as they have previously given consent for the fatal procedure. In other words, if a patient were to change their mind about the assisted suicide, a doctor could still legally kill them against their will. "The court ruled that in rare cases of euthanasia that were being performed on patients with severe dementia — and who had earlier made a written request for euthanasia — the doctor 'did not have to verify the current desire to die,'" MedicalXPress reported.

And in the case of this specific Dutch woman with dementia, she never once gave an express request to be euthanized. In her will, which was renewed about a year before her death, the woman said she would like to be euthanized "whenever I think the time is right." And when she was asked if she wanted to be euthanized, she reiterated multiple times that her suffering was not bad enough to where she wanted to be killed:
“The 74-year-old woman had renewed her living will about a year before she died, writing that she wanted to be euthanized ‘whenever I think the time is right.’ Later, the patient said several times in response to being asked if she wanted to die: ‘But not just now, it's not so bad yet!’ according to a report from the Dutch regional euthanasia review committee.”
She was killed, anyway

Part of the rationale for clearing the doctor of drugging the patient's coffee without her knowledge and killing her while she was being physically restrained against her will was in part, according to the court verdict, because "the patient no longer recognized her own reflection in the mirror," the MedicalXPress report said.


As noted by The Daily Wire last August, "A panel had previously cleared the doctor of ethical violations by saying she 'acted in good faith,'" but that decision was overturned by the Regional Euthanasia Review Committees. On Wednesday, the doctor was again cleared of wrongdoing.

The Netherlands has become a hotbed for euthanasia particularly among the most vulnerable. In 2017, 83 people with mental illness were killed in the country, as noted by National Review.

"The Dutch plunge into the euthanasia moral abyss continues to accelerate, with the number of patients killed by doctors exceeding 6,000 in 2017. That's more than 500 a month, 100 a week, and 15 a day," the outlet reported in March 2018. "Demonstrating the consequences of accepting the premise that eliminating suffering justifies eliminating the sufferer, Dutch psychiatrists killed 83 of their mentally ill patients in 2017 — up from twelve in 2012 and 43 in 2014."
Keep in mind that these are people who pretend to be morally outraged that some US States still dare to commit justice by executing the most egregious murderers.

Continue reading ...

Friday, August 30, 2019

The nature of reality

The following is a comment I posted to this thread --
Both 'theism' and 'atheism' are affirmations and denials about the nature of reality ... and about the nature of human beings.

[Between the two of them, they cover all possibilities for the nature of reality; there is no excluded middle, there is no alternative third option.]

'Theism' *affirms* that "the ground of all being" is an actually existing mind: a rational Who.

'Atheism' *denies* that "the ground of all being" is an actually existing mind, and contrarily affirms that "the ground of all being" is some set of mechanistically determined states: non-rational whats.

'Theism' does not deny that there are mechanistically determined states; what it denies is the assertion of 'atheism' that such states are the entirety of reality. Thus, 'theism' -- because it definitionally affirms that "the ground of all being" is a rational Who -- has no particular problem with the real existence of the billions of Whos who comprise the human race.

'Atheism' -- because it definitionally denies that "the ground of all being" is a rational Who -- not only cannot explain the reality of human minds, but logically must deny that they really exist at all. [To assert that mechanistically determined states comprise the entirety of reality *just is* to assert that there cannot exist any entities which are not mechanistically determined; that is, it *just is* to to deny that there can exist any beings who are free agents, who are minds.]

'Atheism' is irrational and absurd, and thus is immediately seen to be the false affirmation about the nature of reality.

And there is only one alternative to 'atheism': 'theism'.

Continue reading ...