Katy Perry's Mom Unhappy

Most of you probably heard "I Kissed A Girl" by now. What most of you don't know is that Katy Perry who sings this song is a daughter of true crazy Christians. And her mother is certainly not happy, not when her daughter is now more popular than The Beatles' "I Want to Hold Your Hand" in Canada.

"It clearly promotes homosexuality and its message is shameful and disgusting," Mary [Katy's mother], an evangelical Christian preacher, says. "Katy knows how I feel. We are a very outspoken family and she knows how disappointed her father and I are. I can't even listen to that song. The first time I heard it I was in total shock. When it comes on the radio I bow my head and pray."

Yep. Homosexuality is shameful and disgusting to these people. So sad. Though I have to note one thing - I usually hear the radio when I'm riding in a car. So I would assume that that's the same with Katy's mom and... Jesus! Bowing your head when your eyes should be on the road? I should try to stick more to the sidewalk now.

The article however, has a better comment:

Mary must be spending a lot of time bowing her head. According to the occasionaly accurate Wikipedia, the song was number one in seven countries this summer, including Canada, where it spent nine weeks at number one. That's a lot of Christians who really aren't scandalized.

Fear the Sprinkler

That settles it then. The greatest threat to human civilization is not global warming nor the depletion of natural resources. Nope. It's sprinklers.

In the Vacuum of Space

So, would this allow me enough time to be picked up by my future girlfriend and her alien lover while using their Infinite Improbability Drive?
Created by OnePlusYou - Free Dating

Russian Roulette on Wheels

Ok, I need to rant. This goes out to all you drivers out there -

Quit checking your fucking cellphones or blackberries or whatever when you're driving out of a side road! Sweet zombie Jesus on a pogo stick, is the person you're communicating that exciting that you can't wait until you get to your destination or get on the main road to text them back?

Seriously, I nearly got mauled by people like you about four times today (up from an average of one), when I was biking to and fro work. And yes, I know what you're doing, I can see you through the windshield and you can be thankful that I'm much more alert than you are or else I'd be seeing you a lot closer with my head and much of my body being though the windshield.

Ok, yes, I know you've glanced at one direction of traffic, but ever wonder glancing on the sidewalks for you know... pedestrians... or cyclists... that need to go their destination too? No, apparently it's perfectly alright to obstruct pedestrian traffic and perhaps running over a few people because you just can't reply to Sam, Jane, or Margaret. Your text message is not that important believe me, someone else's health and well being is.

So, turn off that cell phone or just put it aside. And next time you decide to drive off from a side road. Please, be considerate.

Twister - What Theists Play in Logic Class

My friend sent me to this article and HOLY COW!* I never seen so much gargled ranting twisted logic since I got hammered and tried to interpret artwork at a post modernist art gallery (hasn't happened, but I'm sure it would compare). The only coherent message I was able to get out of the article is that atheists are logically illogical, or something like that, but that was after covering notions like:

- All atheists are monists.
- If an atheist thinks that logic existed before humans, his monism is wrong.
- Never mind the above, I'll just plunge ahead anyway and sprout some gobbledygook on how we shouldn't trust logic if it evolved in humans.
- Therefore we should imagine a metaphysical intelligence and say our logic came from it and therefore could put all our trust into logic - Praise Jesus!
- Now I'm gonna say how people's curiosity about the world makes no sense.
- Throw in how atheists think we're meaningless and worthless.
- And throw in how evolution is just random chance right about here.
- OH YEAH!
- At least he didn't say that the logical conclusion of atheism is to eat babies.

Now... it might just be my evolved monkey brain talking but huh-what? Somebody must be good at twister. Then again the laws of physics that work upon the twisting colour wheel are as much of a human invention as logic is (believe it or not!) and we shouldn't trust that either. Feel free to jump of a cliff right about now... gravity is only in your head. But I digress, let's take this one thing at a time:

1) No, not all atheists are monists. (Monism, for those who don't know, is the notion that the universe is made up on one sort of "stuff"). Most are, yes. But to quote Carl Sagan and say "You see?" and base your entire argument off of it. That's just silly.

2) Now logic, is it an immaterial thing? Well yes. Does it disprove monism? About as much as the fact that you don't leave your metabolism behind when you stand up and go for a walk. I don't hear any theist arguing how metabolism disproves monism, perhaps they should, it would make as good as an argument for logic. Except no one would buy it. Logic seems abstract and fancy; metabolism, is what your stomach and cells do. But both are terms for abstract concepts we just happen to give a word to because it would kind of get annoying of saying "the action of ones body whereupon nutrients are consumed." So we say "metabolism." We say "logic" when we describe a method of patterned thinking derived from the common human observations of cause and effect.

3) This brings me to three. We evolved. Get over it.

Thank you.

4) Does it make our logic unreliable? Ok, yes. Theists, open your champagne bottles and celebrate. That is... if there is an objective reality.

So if there is an objective reality, then there is no guarantee that we as humans can perceive it. The post-modernists have been nagging science and philosophy about that for years. However, consider the following: Does it matter? Yes, for all we know logic and things that come from it (science and philosophy) can simply be a measure of human experience. And we are all equally evolved and therefore have the same capacity for logic even if it's flawed. We logically observe cause and effect. So we can collectively come up with decisions and observations. Could they be wrong? In an objective sense (if there is such thing), yes. But we shall be wrong together as a human species. Regardless, there are grounds to agree. It's much more philosophically firm than relying on a god to imagine and base our logic on.

5) With that, I cannot really see what difference it makes from humans evolving logic than having it imposed by a metaphysical force (whose existence, mind you, remains far from certain). Provided, if such a metaphysical force existed, he/she/it/they can provide their stamp of certification of providing good logic though it certainly won't solve the issue since, for all we know, the metaphysical force's logic could be flawed or too complex or different to understand. Or our mental faculties can be... you know... EVOLVED. The theist's claim to have that certification for logic takes as much a leap of faith as to believe in that metaphysical force in the first place.

6) Non-human primates and many other animals also have a curiosity about the world much like a human's that they try to assuage. Are the driven by a god as well? I find no evidence for this "universe that's inherently meaningless" bit anyway.

7) And no we don't live meaningless lives.

So, as humans and atheists go. Logic, as a pattern of thought we have come to hold and rely upon, if evolved, may not sound like a glorious gift from an intelligence on-high. Yet, this capacity for logic exists in both an atheist as well as a believer, because we are both human and we are both evolved. We can deduce problems and if we look at the same piece of evidence and conclude two different things, guess what? At least one of ours logic has to be wrong. And that would be the person with the spacious arguments.

OH YEAH!



* In no way does that saying reflects a deep down conviction that under all this atheism is a belief that the Hindu gods exist.

Voting for History

Here's something fun from Pharyngula.

Family Research Council (religious right research group) have a poll on their website - Do you believe that America, as a nation, was founded upon Christian principles?

Well I can tell you that right now - No. Read the constitution, read the bible, compare. Last time Yahweh came in contact with foreign religions he ordered his followers to massacre them all. Read also how many of the movers and shakers of the constitution were deists. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, George Washington, etc. But no, the FRC thinks they can settle a simple historical matter with a vote. Well that's nice and simple. Alright, let's settle another matter with a simple vote:

Do you believe that the earth is flat?

a) Yes
b) No
c) Need more information

One Word - Doi!

It's remarkable how much the media can sensationalize absolutely nothing. This story is no different:

NEW! BREAKING! STORY! The Bush administration isn't as maliciously omnipotent as we knew all along!!! The collapse of Tower Seven during 9/11 really wasn't controlled demolition...

Doi!

That's what good, knowledgeable, educated people have been saying for the past seven years. Of course, the goons who run "The 9/11 Truth Movement" could not care less about facts as long as they got their half-baked conspiracy theories. And they're not saying anything new when they are quoted in this piece:

"Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11… A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process.

"Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves."

So if it LOOKS like controlled demolition it IS controlled demolition. Because Mr. Gage says so. Alright then, an isosceles triangle is isosceles because it LOOKS like it is isosceles. You've got to love circular reasoning. Of course, Mr. Gage failed to consult with demolition experts who say that the collapse of Tower Seven is nothing like a controlled demolition. It DOES follow the path of least resistance. Bleh.

Well now this great new study is coming out to say that the collapse was really accidental because of these "new" photos (that have been known for years and years) that show Tower Seven was much more damaged than it is. Good. Well done. Will it stem the conspiracy theorists? Absolutely not. Nothing has stemmed them. But well done.

And Just When I Thought Anglicans Were Becoming Cool...

So the Anglicans have decided to join the 21st century a couple of years ago in ordaining their first homosexual bishop and allowing blessings for same sex couples. Of course, before we could all say "welcome to the modern world," conservative Anglicans started crawling out of the woodwork convinced that the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe cares what consenting adults do behind closed doors. And now they've set about battling the liberal elements of the Anglican church to a more "true" version of Christianity, which I'm guessing allows for bigotry toward homosexuals... I wonder if they'll ask for the right to stone swingers and naughty children in public, next? They're all getting it from Leviticus anyway.

Oh but you've got to love this:

They [traditional Anglicans] met in Jerusalem to bolster their claim that they were in touch with the authentic teaching of the early Church.

So, the place where you meet establishes your credulity? Right, I'll keep that in mind for my meeting in trying to keep Hobbits out of archaeology (silly short Hobbits), I'll be sure to have it in Oxford where "Lord of the Rings" was written - that'll be a sure winner!

Ok seriously now, it's frustrating to see these traditional elements still working to push for intolerance in the greater community driven by the archaic notions that same-sex relationships are somehow "wrong." Now they might be on a road to a schism, as if those don't happen often enough in religions. Oh well. Fight the good fight liberal Anglicans.

The Number of Morality

So here's a fun little idea for the moral philosophers out there to ponder:

Earlier today I was looking at the pictures on the "1,000,000 Strong Against John McCain"* Facebook group and briefly glanced over the comments people were leaving to see what the general reaction to them was. Sure enough most people left very positive comments about the cartoons and, sure enough, there were the conservative detractors that joined to the group to argue the issues. The hottest topic it seems is the continued US occupation of Iraq.

One conservative there made a comment that the liberals were being weak in that only almost 4,000 US soldiers have been killed since 2003 compared to 58,000 in Vietnam and 55,000 in Korea to give the most recent examples. So by comparison Iraq isn't bad at all! Of course, this doesn't give the numbers of Iraqi Security Forces or the insurgents or the over half a million civilian casualties incurred, nor does it account for those people that suffered a fate worse than dying by receiving incapacitating wounds. But whatever, let's stick with the numbers of dead.

So, Iraq isn't as bad as Vietnam and therefore we shouldn't withdraw from it (until, I'm guessing, US loses 50,000 more men and women or maybe even 400,000 more to put it on par with World War 2). Right... do you see a problem here? The problem is that this is bat-shit crazy logic. Following it, how about we say that Hitler wasn't all that bad, considering that Mao Zedong killed much more people. Or Attila the Hun and Gengis Khan were quite swell chaps when you look at the murderous dictatorships in the 20th century. Maybe our poor should be happy with living in cardboard boxes and having soup kitchens because... well because... in Africa they don't even have soup kitchens! You can see where that sort of logic is getting us. Just because you can find something worse does not mean that a similar counterpart is suddenly good.

Sure, 4,000 death are not as bad as 58,000, but so what? It does not diminish the facts of how those 4,000 died for nothing (unless you consider invading oppressive, backward, but stable third-world dictatorships who hate Islamic fundamentalists as a matter of "self-defense"), nor does it diminish the suffering of their families, nor their nation as a whole. The more people die, the more suffering increases, and the continued suffering of innocent people losing their sons and daughters over mistakes made five years ago needs to be addressed. It's simply not enough to say "toughen up - not enough blood has been spilled to call this bad." That's good, it is showing a shifting of the moral zeitgeist into the direction of further intolerance toward meaningless butchery.

Now one can make an argument about such things like how staying in the Iraq will prevent even further suffering by not embroiling the country in a civil war and genocide if the US pulls out of even its beloved green zone (considering that the armed militias stationed around every neighborhood isn't bad enough). One can make an argument that it is more worthwhile to see the mission through. One can also make arguments against those. But as far as saying that numbers need to determine moral courses of action? That shows a deficiency in moral fiber.

* The "1,000,000 Strong Against John McCain" group, however, is currently short by about 992,652 people, which isn't all that bad considering that their anti-Barack Obama group is short 999,855.

Short Personal Story

Not sure what reminded me of this little bit of my past, but it might have been from the heckling about my badly stitched up pants and my refusal to go and get a professional to stitch them up for me, instead of actually doing it myself. So here's somewhat of a response:

It was back when I was 10 and living in America my first year. Back then, I was a fat, un-athletic kid, with terrible upper body strength (nothing much changed since then aside from losing weight and getting a few more muscles). My parents were not home and I was thirsty. So, I went for my drink of choice at that time - a new bottle of Coca-Cola. I pulled it out and twisted it. It didn't unscrew. Twisted it harder. Nothing.

Things haven't changed much with those annoying coke bottles.

I fought with the coke bottle for what seemed like half an hour trying my hands until they hurt and a towel and my shorts and anything to get a better grip. I was getting desperate and, finally, I considered going across to the neighboring apartments where another family of Russian-speaking immigrants lived. Knocking on the door. Handing them the bottle of coke. And asking - "Can you open this for me?"

Our families knew each other, I knew their son, I guess I could have called him a friend regardless of how much backstabbing we did as kids back then. Yet, going over there made me uneasy. What would my parents would say when they got home and heard how their son went over and asked strangers with a simple act of opening a coca-cola bottle? Worse still was the neighbors' son. He was very much unlike me. Skinny, stocky, athletic, I haven't heard from him in ten years but I'm sure he's the same now. He could get that open. It wasn't difficult. I mean, a child can do it, or should. I wrestled with this. The desire to have coke and the shame of giving up, admitting weakness, maybe even receiving scorn.

So, I couldn't bring myself to do it. I banged on the coca-cola bottle some more and finally, using a knife to cut the bottom of the plastic cap, I strained and pulled it open. The reward was sweet.

Of course, it does sound silly. The epic battle of a chubby 10 year old vs. a bottle of Coca-Cola. But it reminds something of myself. Even when I was that little - I worked to be self-sufficient. No man is an island, yes, but be it from fear of admitting ineptitude or the desire to overcome challenges and learn or both, I choose my crappy work over the expert work of others. I may not have the strongest, nor I might not be the most skilled, talented, out going, good looking, or intelligent. But what I do have is my drive and self-determination. I will take those over the rest, any day.

So I stitch on.