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 ...