I'm Fairly Certain "Debate" Is Not a Synonym for "Lie"

I could be wrong.

After all, I dropped out of the debate team in high school after one week*, and Chris Jeub flies all over the country with his (students') debate team. So I guess if debating could best be described as "liar, liar, pants on fire!", he is the expert.

The 25,000 Wisconsin teachers would have my support, perhaps, if they rallied for higher educational standards. But for benefits? Six-figure incomes for classroom teachers? This is what motivates them to rebel against their school district and their families and ultimately the children they teach?

Six figures, Chris? Is there any possible place you could have gotten an implied quarter of a fucking million dollars other than your ass?

Let's check. According to Teacher World, which Chris links to when called out on this on Facebook, the average starting salary for teachers in Wisconsin is $25,000. That's not much more than I make, and that's for people that have Bachelor's degrees, are required to keep up with continuing education and put up with other people's children all day. You would have to multiply that by 4 to get into "six-figure[s]".

Well, that's starting salary. What about average salary? Maybe they get some rockin' pay raises. Nope. Average salary is $46,000. You'd have have to get together 2 teachers and the spleen and liver of another to get into six figures.

Where ever did the Debate King get $100,000 (minimum)? Well, the highest possible starting salary is $68,000- still not six figures- but that's for someone with decades of experience and enough continuing ed credits to qualify for a PhD.

Chris Jeub, you are a liar. I'd recommend not wearing pants anytime soon.

*"Buncha arrogant pricks!" was my reason. And then I got a blog. And sometimes I think, "So . . . how am I different from from the arrogant pricks now? And then the part of my mind that handles self esteem pipes up with "It's totally different!" And I go with that, because life is short and I like blogging.

Satan's Favorite Holiday!

Turns out, it's mine, too! (C'mon, I'm into cosplay, were you surprised I'm a Halloween freak?)

Kimberly Daniels, who ministers to people involved in the occult (which means she ministers to imaginary people, but whatever), has fabulous insights into Halloween: it's Teh Evul!

Halloween—October 31—is considered a holiday in the United States. In fact, it rivals Christmas with regard to how widely celebrated it is. Stores that sell only Halloween-related paraphernalia open up a few months before the day and close shortly after it ends. But is Halloween a holiday that Christians should be observing?

Does anyone in the US need to be told that a) Halloween is October 31st, and b) it's a holiday in the US? (It's not actually a federally recognized holiday, though, banks don't get the day off or anything.) As for stores devoted to Halloween only, so what? We have the same thing in PA with Independence Day and fireworks. I'm not sure what the point is. You don't need to tell anyone in the US that Halloween is a widely celebrated holiday.

The word "holiday" means "holy day." But there is nothing holy about Halloween. The root word of Halloween is "hallow," which means "holy, consecrated and set apart for service." If this holiday is hallowed, whose service is it set apart for? The answer to that question is very easy—Lucifer's!

Wow, really? You're going back to the derivation of words? How about this: the root of the word "sinister" meaning "threatening or evil" is the Latin word for "left". Just as relevant. As for the root of "Halloween", "hallow" is just half the story. It's a shortening of "Hallow's Evening", referring to "All Hallow's Eve", the night before All Saints Day, November 1. Do try to be more accurate, dearheart, it has nothing to do with the Morningstar.

Lucifer is a part of the demonic godhead. Remember, everything God has, the devil has a counterfeit. Halloween is a counterfeit holy day that is dedicated to celebrating the demonic trinity of : the Luciferian Spirit (the false father); the Antichrist Spirit (the false holy spirit); and the Spirit of Belial (the false son).

"Demonic godhead"? I think we're awfully close to blasphemy, dear. According to you own religion, your god created the devil. Anything Satan has, god gave him. As for this business of the trinity of Satan, yeah, find that in the Bible for me. Go ahead, I'll wait.

The key word in discussing Halloween is "dedicated." It is dedicated to darkness and is an accursed season. During Halloween, time-released curses are always loosed. A time-released curse is a period that has been set aside to release demonic activity and to ensnare souls in great measure.

What. The. Fuck. Seriously, "time-released curses are always loosed"? What . . . how . . . are you insane?

You may ask, "Doesn't God have more power than the devil?" Yes, but He has given that power to us. If we do not walk in it, we will become the devil's prey. Witchcraft works through dirty hearts and wrong spirits.

Yeah, that free will thing. It totally sucks!

During this period demons are assigned against those who participate in the rituals and festivities. These demons are automatically drawn to the fetishes that open doors for them to come into the lives of human beings. For example, most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches.

I do not buy candy during the Halloween season. Curses are sent through the tricks and treats of the innocent whether they get it by going door to door or by purchasing it from the local grocery store. The demons cannot tell the difference.

Why is that Christians view the Devil as being significantly more proactive and organized than God? Oh, and the candy has been dedicated and prayed over by witches? Where? At the factories? During transport? At walmart? Is there some division of Mars Candy devoted entirely to dedicating candy to Satan? Think about this for 2 seconds and then consider that this woman may sincerely believe this to be true. Also, at what point is it safe to eat candy? Should I avoid all candy between September and December, or might there still be candy dedicated to Satan on the shelves a month after Halloween?

Even the colors of Halloween (orange, brown and dark red) are dedicated. These colors are connected to the fall equinox, which is around the 20th or 21st of September each year and is sometimes called "Mabon." During this season witches are celebrating the changing of the seasons from summer to fall. They give praise to the gods for the demonic harvest. They pray to the gods of the elements (air, fire, water and earth)

.

Yes, the trees themselves are in on this Satanic conspiracy, changing colors to reflect the will of Satan. Also, what part of the country is she in that the colors of Halloween are not orange and black?

Mother earth is highly celebrated during the fall demonic harvest. Witches praise mother earth by bringing her fruits, nuts and herbs. Demons are loosed during these acts of worship. When nice church folk lay out their pumpkins on the church lawn, fill their baskets with nuts and herbs, and fire up their bonfires, the demons get busy. They have no respect for the church grounds. They respect only the sacrifice and do not care if it comes from believers or non-believers.

Really? Baskets of nuts and herbs? What the fuck is she talking about? What part of Halloween is that? I literally have no idea what she is talking about. None.
Yes

Ye

Gathering around bonfires is a common practice in pagan worship. As I remember, the bonfires that I attended during homecoming week when I was in high school were always in the fall. I am amazed at how we ignorantly participate in pagan, occult rituals.

The gods of harvest that the witches worship during their fall festivals are the Corn King and the Harvest Lord. The devil is too stupid to understand that Jesus is the Lord of the Harvest 365 days a year. But we cannot be ignorant of the devices of the enemy. When we pray, we bind the powers of the strong men that people involved in the occult worship.

She's amazed that Homecoming occurs in the fall? How stupid is she?

Halloween is much more than a holiday filled with fun and tricks or treats. It is a time for the gathering of evil that masquerades behind the fictitious characters of Dracula, werewolves, mummies and witches on brooms. The truth is that these demons that have been presented as scary cartoons actually exist. I have prayed for witches who are addicted to drinking blood and howling at the moon.

Good to know you've prayed for liars repeating the bullshit sold by Warnke. Can you say "credulous"?

The word "occult" means "secret." The danger of Halloween is not in the scary things we see but in the secret, wicked, cruel activities that go on behind the scenes. These activities include:

• Sex with demons
• Orgies between animals and humans
• Animal and human sacrifices
• Sacrificing babies to shed innocent blood
• Rape and molestation of adults, children and babies
• Revel nights
• Conjuring of demons and casting of spells
• Release of "time-released" curses against the innocent and the ignorant.

Another abomination that goes on behind the scenes of Halloween is necromancy, or communication with the dead. Séances and contacting spirit guides are very popular on Halloween, so there is a lot of darkness lurking in the air.

none of the above is true. none of the above has ever happened. you are a liar or a fool, and i'm pretty sure your god had something to say about lying.

By the way, this is the description of the author:

Kimberly Daniels is a sought-after conference speaker and preacher. She is the founder of Kimberly Daniels Ministries International (kimberlydaniels.com), Spoken Word Ministries—the church she pastors in Jacksonville, Florida, with her husband, Ardell—A Child of the King Learning Center and Word Bible College. Kim is a recognized prophetic voice as well as the author of several books, including her most recent, Prayers that Bring Change (Charisma House).

She is a recognized prophetic voice- but she can't tell a pack of lies when she spews it. Interesting.

I

Like I'm Shocked that Palin is a Poor Tipper

This says the most to me about Sarah Palin:

Palin does not always treat those ordinary people well, however—it depends on who is watching. Of the many famous people who have stayed at the Hyatt in Wichita (Cher, Reba McEntire, Neil Young), Sarah Palin ranks as the all-time worst tipper: $5 for seven bags. But the bellhops had it good in Kansas, compared with the bellman at another midwestern hotel who waited up until past midnight for Palin and her entourage to check in—and then got no tip at all for 10 bags. He was stiffed again at checkout time. The same went for the maids who cleaned Palin’s rooms in both places—no tip whatsoever.

All those common people Sarah cares for so much and she can't spare $20 of the $32,000,000 she made this past year?

Sarah, you make me sick.

Open Your Mind, Dude!

screenshot because the Schaflys aren't known for their integrity

I was scrolling through Conservapedia's Talk page (don't ask me, apparently I like having aneurysms) and came across the weirdest exchange ever. I don't really know what to make of it except that perhaps everyone at Conservapedia is drunk?

Mr. Arrogance

The news story about Nick Clegg accusing David Cameron of arrogance states that Richard Dawkins "supports the accusation". The linked article does not support that assertion. It merely refers to Dawkins as a named supporter of the Liberal Democrats' campaign to bring about a fairer Britain. It says nothing about Dawkins even being aware of the assertion, let alone supporting it. Perhaps the news item should be reworded? --ClaudeEB 17:12, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

I could add in the fact that a increasing number in the liberal media now refer to Dawkins as a clown. Would that help clarify the item? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:19, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

Umm... is there someone else that I can talk to? --ClaudeEB 17:37, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

Well yes, I am certain if you walk into most any street in Melbourne you will find someone. But around here a closed mind isn't appreciated, I'm afraid. You should open your mind, Claude. The truth will set you free! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:38, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

I edited the entry taking into account your input. conservative 23:40, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

That's just freakin' weird, although I do enjoy ClaudeEB's attempt to find a sober person to talk to.

Hypocrisy: A Play in Two Acts

stimulus, politics, democrat, republican, liar,
Remember all those Republicans who opposed the stimulus, refused to take the funds and claimed that the stimulus wouldn't create jobs? Apparently, not even they believed that one.

Sen. Christopher S. Bond regularly railed against President Obama's
economic stimulus plan as irresponsible spending that would drive up the
national debt. But behind the scenes, the Missouri Republican quietly sought
more than $50 million from a federal agency for two projects in his state.

. . .

In a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Mr. Bond noted that one
project applying to the USDA for stimulus money would "create jobs and
ultimately spur economic opportunities."

So, Senator Bond, was that "irresponsible spending" or the creation of jobs and economic opportunities?

Senator Bond wasn't alone in his hypocrisy.

Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican who became famous after yelling,
"You lie," during Mr. Obama's addresses to Congress in September, voted against
the stimulus. Nonetheless, Mr. Wilson elbowed his way into the rush for federal
stimulus cash in a letter he sent to Mr. Vilsack on behalf of a foundation
seeking funding.

"We know their endeavor will provide jobs and investment in one of the
poorer sections of the Congressional District," he wrote to Mr. Vilsack in the
Aug. 26, 2009, letter.

Wait, which one of you is a liar again, Mr. Wilson?

On Feb. 13, 2009, Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican, issued a
statement criticizing the stimulus — but two days earlier, he privately
forwarded to Mr. Vilsack a list of projects seeking stimulus money.

"I believe the addition of federal funds to these projects would
maximize the stimulative effect of these projects on the local economy," he
wrote.

You know what the worst part about this is? These idiots are going to keep hurling accusations of evil socialism at Obama and the Democrats while simultaneously secretly acknowledging that socialism is the way to go.

No Such Thing as Consent

makarios, religion, christian, liar, pornography,
[triggers: rape, pornography]

If you ask most anyone what the difference is between sex and rape, you'll get a simple answer: consent. In the former act, both parties agree to participate, the latter act involves only perpetrator and victim.

Unless you are Makarios, in which case women of any age are incapable of consent, and pornography involving consenting adults is exactly the same thing as kiddie porn.

Do I like pornography? Not particularly. Do I want my niece to be a porn star someday? No. Do I think adults have the right to engage in legal activities if they choose to, even if I don't like or agree with those activities? Yes. Is there a difference between what consenting adults do together and what is done to a child? Absolutely.

First of all, Makarios commits libel by suggesting that Tristan Vick supports child pornography. Mr. Vick does not support child pornography. Makarios, you see, conflates pornography involving consenting aduts with child pornography, which, by its very nature, involves at least one nonconsenting party. One party, in fact, that cannot consent.

The comments explode with "how can you say that?! Mr. Vick supports porn not kiddie porn", to which Makarios replies:

Ah, so you make a distinction do you? Adult porn good, child porn bad? Is that the way it works in atheist world?

Yes, in the real world, that is how it works. People who are capable of consent get to consent to what they wish, people who are incapable of consent cannot. Makarios knows this. He knows we don't let minors enter legal contracts or drink alcohol, not because these things are inherently
bad, but because we have decided that there is a point at which you are simply incapable of making decisions, i.e., consent, so we won't let you do it.

This gets pointed a few times, to which Makarios replies:

Thanks Gorth. The atheist with selective morality indicates that “consent” is the measuring stick between good and bad. And at what age Gorth? You think that a 12year old can’t give consent? How about a 10 year old? He's offered 10 dollars that will supply food for his family. All he has to do is let some filthy jerk take pictures of him giving someone a blow job. You think that 10 year old can't consent to making 10 dollars?Does it differ from country to country, Gorth? You think that a 14year old in America is as mature as a 14 in Taiwan?

Never mind all that. What you are saying, in your profound ignorance is this. A child who has been emotionally, and sexually abused grows up and "consents" to further degradation and abuse as an adult and that makes it all ok - because, according to Gorth, she can give consent. I say shame on every one of you. Once again it is the Christian who alone is trying to defend women from those who live by survival of the most powerful. Atheists, giving verbal support for the degrading of those most damaged by life. Priceless.

Ignoring the "all Christians do this and all atheists do that" element of it, yes, a certain age of consent is fairly arbitrary, and does not address each individual person's actual ability to consent. Some people may well be capable of consent at 14, some people may never reach that point. However, it is simply impractical at best to try to determine whether each individual person is capable of consent at each and every point they may want to consent, so we draw a line in the sand: 16, 18, 21.

Also, the 10 year old in the above example is not being asked to consent to earning $10, they are being asked to consent to sexual activity. 10 year olds are not capable of this.

Makarios then makes the argument that adult women are not capable of consent, particularly if they were abused as children.

Makarios knows? I know exactly what the hundreds and hundreds of prostitutes and those in the porn industry with whom I've worked have told me. And I can tell you absolutely that their "consent" is no consent at all. Because of childhood sexual and emotional abuse all these women know is sexual degradation at the hands of men. All they know to survive is to allow men to use them and abuse them sexually. And here you are, the free thinking atheists in all your wisdom, actually believing that porn has something to do with freedom. Even the women who post here are willing o turn on other women. If it might help make a case against a Chistian, anyone is expendable. I find it disgusting.

"Hundreds and hundreds of prostitutes"? Really? I'm not sure that in 34 years I've even met hundreds and hundreds of people, let alone hundreds and hundreds of prostitutes. And "those in the porn industry with whom I've worked"? Did you work in the porn industry?

Ignoring the issue of what motivates people to work in the sex industry, those people are consenting adults. They may be making very bad decisions for utterly tragic reasons. They are still adults with every right to make those decisions. We cannot revoke a person's right to consent because they make bad decisions. First of all, everyone makes bad decisions occasionally, but also because the right to make decisions is not dependent on the decisions you make. We're not going to have anyone left to make decisions if we remove consent based on what you do with it. Obviously, if you choose to commit crimes, we do remove your right to make decisions, but that's an entirely different issue. Porn stars are not committing crimes.

By your own measure, Makarios, you are not capable of consent, because you have used your decision making privileges to commit a disgusting, illegal act: libel, in accusing a completely innocent man of supporting child pornography. We call this being hoisted by one's own petard, btw.

Quote Vandalism

ray, comfort, atheism, atheist, quantum, physics, liar, stupid,
If I have taught you anything in my time blogging, I hope it is this: when you see a claim that seems extraordinary, you should investigate it. Obama's bust to be added to Mount Rushmore immediately led me to discover that a large bust of Obama has been traveling the country, and will end up at a park near Mount Rushmore, for example.

Another good example of this is Ray Comfort's latest post, which reveals nothing but Ray's inherent dishonesty:

"[Ray wrote] 'If you think that's bad, try this: there are crazies out there that truly believe that women are related to primates, and those primates came from nothing.' "All women, and all men, are primates by biological definition. Acceptance of this biological definition is not evidence of mental instability, thus your accusation that such individuals are 'crazy' is wholly unfounded. Who, specifically, holds a belief that primates emerged from 'nothing'? Please identify specific individuals, and cite statements from these individuals." Dimensio

He asked:

1. "It is now becoming clear that everything can -- and probably did -- come from nothing." Robert A. J. Matthews, physicist, Ashton University, England

I found the article. Matthews was talking about the habit things have of appearing out of nowhere at the quantum level, which is a well established phenomenon.

New theoretical work on the nature of matter suggests we may now have to regard even ourselves to be manifestations of the quantum vacuum.

All atoms are made up of electrons plus a far more massive central nucleus, made up of clusters of particles called quarks. It seems obvious that the mass of the nucleus must be the sum total of the masses of its quarks – but that reckons without the effect of the quantum vacuum. It turns out that the quarks account for only a tiny fraction of the total mass of a nucleus. By far the bulk comes from the subatomic “glue” that binds its quarks together. And this glue takes the form of vacuum particles flitting in and out of existence.

2. "Space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it." Cornell University "Ask an Astronomer."

Typical of Ray, I had to supply the link. Here's what Karen Masters, whose name Ray didn't even bother to post, had to say:

We can define the universe as everything there is, so in that case there is nothing outside of it. We also say that space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it.

Another definition for the universe is the observable universe - which is the part of it that we can technically see. We cannot know what is outside of that (since we can't observe it), but we think that physics works the same everywhere and so we think that it should be very similar to the observable universe. We actually think that the universe might be infinite in extent, and so goes on forever, even though we can only see a finite part of it.

We can speculate in meta-physics or in religion about what was before the Big Bang, but again, we cannot use science to tell anything about it as physics as we understand it breaks down at that point.

3. "Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] says it also may have sprung from nothing . . . " Scienceline.org

What existed before the Big Bang?

Armed with string theory, Kaku and others speculate that before our Big Bang, there were simply more universes. “Our universe could have either popped into existence or collided with another universe,” he says. Imagine a bubble bath where each bubble represents a universe. In this multiversal tub that existed before our Big Bang—and still exists today—universe bubbles are colliding, popping, budding new bubbles, expanding and contracting. If this scenario really exists, “Big Bangs happen all the time,” says Kaku.

Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku says it also may have sprung from nothing: a completely empty eleven dimensional universe with no spin, no charge and no energy. This seemingly tranquil nothingness universe was actually unstable and some physicists believe that a fluctuation in the vacuum caused our universe to pinch off from its empty existence without time and space to a universe that was large enough to expand. Like a bubble in a bath, our universe had to grow instantaneously in order to survive and escape the collapsing fate of small bubbles.

This “quantum leap” involved four of the dimensions of the empty universe, which now frame the universe we live in. Expanding suddenly, this event sparked the Big Bang and caused the further expansion which created matter and continues to push the galaxies apart today. Meanwhile, the seven remaining dimensions shrunk to an almost inconceivable size, much smaller than an atom.

4. "Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific." Paul Davies, physicist, Arizona State University

Yet another treatise on the oddities of quantum physics that Ray clearly does not understand:

Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don't experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.

A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality.
The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.

It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.

5. "Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with . . . Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God." Victor J. Stenger, atheist, Prof. Physics, University of Hawaii. Author of, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

I can find that quote on Ray's blog, and other Ray related websites, but I can't find it anywhere else, including numerous site devoted to Stenger. This, and the ellipses, make me very suspicious. Oh, and "atheist" is not a title, any more than "Jew" or "Christian" are titles. Unless you are in the habit of introducing people as "Mr. ibn la Ahad, Muslim", don't use "atheist" that way.

6. "Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things --perhaps even the entire universe -- can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes. Creation ex nihilo -- Without God (1997), Atheist, Mark I. Vuletic

Would you like to see what the very next sentence is? This document is an attempt to compile quotes that explain how all of this is supposed to work.

followed by: Eventually, I would like to write an article assessing the value of quantum vacuum fluctuations as a means of producing universes, but for the time being, I will just let the scientists speak for themselves and leave evaluation to the reader.

Again, proof that Ray doesn't understand that quantum physics is a very different thing from the world we interact with every day. Yes, in our world "everything from nothing" seems like a ridiculous proposition. In the world of quantum physics it's business as usual.

7. "To understand these facts we have to turn to science. Where did they all come from, and how did they get so darned outrageous? Well, it all started with nothing." --"Fifty Outrageous Animal Facts," Animal Planet

Animal Planet? srsly?

8. To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something." Discover Magazine "Physics & Math/Cosmology"

I'm surprised Ray didn't include the name of this article: Guth's Grand Guess, by
Brad Lemley.

Start, Guth says, by imagining nothing, a pure vacuum. Be careful. Don't imagine outer space without matter in it. Imagine no space at all and no matter at all. Good luck.

To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something. Quantum theory holds that probability, not absolutes, rules any physical system. It is impossible, even in principle, to predict the behavior of any single atom; all physicists can do is predict the average properties of a large collection of atoms. Quantum theory also holds that a vacuum, like atoms, is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly. While this phenomenon has never been observed directly, measurements of the electron's magnetic strength strongly imply that it is real and happening in the vacuum of space even now.

9.* "It is rather fantastic to realize that the laws of physics can describe how everything was created in a random quantum fluctuation out of nothing, and how over the course of 15 billion years, matter could organize in such complex ways that we have human beings sitting here, talking, doing things intentionally." (Alan Harvey Guth theoretical physicist and cosmologist). Discover Magazine, April 1, 2002

From the exact same article as No. 8. Clever, Ray, but you're talking about quotes by the same person in the same article.

And what about the conservation of energy? According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the energy of a gravitational field is negative. The energy of matter, however, is positive. So the entire universe-creation scenario could unfold without breaking conservation-of-energy laws. The positive energy of all matter in the universe could be precisely counterbalanced by the negative energy of all the gravity in the universe.

This also is more than theory. Observations are consistent with the idea, and calculations totaling up all the matter and all the gravity in the observable universe indicate that the two values seem to precisely counterbalance. All matter plus all gravity equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, fundamentally, nothing.

"It is rather fantastic to realize that the laws of physics can describe how everything was created in a random quantum fluctuation out of nothing, and how over the course of 15 billion years, matter could organize in such complex ways that we have human beings sitting here, talking, doing things intentionally," says Guth, leaning, if possible, even farther forward.

None of those quotes means what Ray thinks they do. You and I understand that Ray is, essentially, a liar. I don't truly believe he is stupid enough to put up those quotes without reading the paragraphs they are in, or the ones immediately preceding and following them. However, for all that Ray clearly doesn't understand quantum physics, he does understand his audience. They don't care what the truth is, as long as their faith is confirmed for them. And if that means quote mining or outright lying on Ray's part, they don't care.

*originally, this post had 10 quotes in it, but two of them were exactly the same. i guess someone pointed it out to Ray and he fixed it.

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

box turtle bulletin, lisa, nom, liar, traditional, marriage, gay, homosexual, homophobia, asshat
Have you seen the National Organization for Marriage's new advertising campaign? If you have, or even if you haven't you need to read this.

There's lies, and then there's the truth. NOM's ads don't fall in the latter category.

When I pointed that out to a "traditional marriage" supporter who was running the ad on her blog, this is the reply that I got:

PF,
Wow you really are not educated are you? Let me suggest that you crawl out of your little tin can there and think outside the box.

“Three claims, three lies”?

These are things that can and will happen if the gays get their way. And that is exactly what you (gays) want. To destroy christians in all area’s of life. It’s not enough for you to have your “relatioships” with same sex people, you have to call it Marriage (which is between a man and a woman only BTW). Not only that but you want to control what doctors do and force them to preform abortions even if it is against their religious convictions. Ministers/pastors will be forced to preform same sex marriages or be accused of hate crimes and discrimination.

You wasted alot of time picking through that video….FYI lots of advertisements are done through actors and actresses. That doesnt make the advertisement false.
so next time why dont you come up with something better than your little il mannered rant.

First of all, I'm not the Box Turtle Bulletin. Secondly, I couldn't even tell you what the "tin can" reference is, nor is BTB's dissection of the lies in NOM's advertising the least bit ill-mannered. Nor does Lisa provide the slightest shred of evidence for her claims, though I do believe calling the BTB "ill mannered" is certainly a case of pots, kettles, stones and glass houses. And probably a few other cliches I'm forgetting.

Feel free, but try to avoid being "ill mannered". (The actual definition of that word, not the "calling someone on their lies" usage Lisa is advocating.)

Lying Liars and The Lies They Love

liar, prop 8, homophobia, homosexual, gay, marriage, mullarkey
Woe is Maureen Mullarkey, who was exposed as a bigot when the San Francisco Chronicle published her home address as a Prop 8 supporter.

Well, no, not really.

The San Francisco Chronicle didn't publish anyone's home address.

The Chronicle never printed her home address -- or the address of any donor to any political cause.

Ms. Mullarkey, an artist, did contribute $1,000 to the Prop. 8 cause.

But her political donation to a statewide initiative was public information, and available -- as are all such donations -- on the Web site of the California secretary of state. Like the Los Angeles Times, the Sacramento Bee and the Orange County Register, The Chronicle gave its readers that information. The Prop. 8 donor database, which was provided to us by the Associated Press, didn't include Prop. 8 supporters alone -- as Mullarkey strongly suggested.

Why tell the truth when a lie fits your ideology better?

When I Am King

end the lies, liar, fear, fearmongering, dna, homophobia, homosexual, gay, prop 8, bigotry
You will be first again the wall / With your opinion which is of no consequence at all.

Radiohead, Paranoid Android

Nominate your favorite "voice of fear" to be on the wall at End the Lies. It's fun!

Surprise, Surprise, the Mormons Lied, Part II

lie, liar, prop 8, traditional, marriage, homophobia, homosexual, gay, mormon, money, democracy, legislation, politics,

For more on Mormongate, check out Latter Day Chino's riveting expose. (Mostly I just wanted to say "riveting expose", but really, it's very informative.)

Intellectually Bankrupt and Oxytocin

turner, keroack, abstinence, liar, lie, lying, study, science, sex, sexism, misogyny,

So, the abstinence only crowd has found a scientific (scientists, you guys like scientists, right?) reason for abstinence: Women who have multiple sexual partners lack oxytocin, which is to emotional bonding what superglue is to physical bonding.

Unfortunately, this simply isn't true.

This post quotes a study by Eric Keroack, except Keroack didn't do the study, Rebecca Turner, a psychology professor at San Francisco's Alliant International University did. And she was appalled to see what Keroack had done with her study.

From hugthemonkey:

Dana Wilkie of Copley News Service tracked down Rebecca Turner, a psychology professor at San Francisco's Alliant International University whose paper found its way into a treatise Keroack wrote for the Abstinence Clearinghouse.

According to Wilkie, Turner found that:

When women were asked to recall memories about close relationships, whether familial or romantic, those with a tendency to be anxious about such relationships had lower oxytocin increases than those who were married, living together or dating. Hardly surprising. If oxytocin is emotional superglue, it's not shocking that women who are anxious about their relationships have low levels of oxytocin. However, Turner's research did NOT delve into why those women had low levels of oxytocin. Perhaps low levels of oxytocin cause anxiety in relationships, which destroys relationships, which forces a woman into many relationships. We don't know.


Turner was shocked and dismayed to find that her research was being misrepresented, she told Wilkie.

But here's the kicker: No matter what the level of oxytocin in women who were anxious about close relationships, Turner's paper found that oxytocin activity was “completely unrelated” to the number of previous sexual partners.

Understanding that finding doesn't require a course in logic; a simple ability to read will do. Still, Keroack somehow made the leap that sex with multiple partners inhibits the brain's ability to respond to oxytocin, and therefore the ability to bond.

During a follow-up study three years later, Turner found no links between oxytocin levels and emotional conditions, but that was after Keroack's paper came out.

So, intellectually bankrupt or just Liar for Christ(tm)?

Militant Atheism and Mendacity

atheism, atheist, atheophobia, liar, pride, sin, lying, lie, christian, jewish, judeo-christian, values, morality, religion, fundamentalism

Can I just say "militant atheism"? Was I in the bathroom when they were handing out jackboots to the atheists?



And, mendacity, in case you don't know, means given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth. (From Mirriam Webster online.)



Militant Atheism and Mendacity: How the Rise of Atheism is Destroying Truth

by Bruce Walker (if you start voting republican and talking about the superiority of trickle down economics after viewing that site, don't blame me.)



Public opinion polls show faith in a Blessed Creator um, blessed by whom? who blesses the blessor? melting it's melting! (you know what voice i'm hearing here.) in Europe, in other English speaking democracies, in Japan are the Japanese especially christian, and I missed it? nope: shinto and buddhism are the major religions in Japan. a significant portion of buddhists are atheists, and always have been – just about everywhere but America that counts. everywhere that counts? really? oh, that's right, those damn Ay-rabs don't count! (very religious, but not the right one.) and forget about those brown people in africa- who cares about them? (well, not many people apparently, but that's a different discussion.) Even in America, the most religious nation on Earth i think most muslim nations are far more religious, at least officially. and what about israel, aren't they pretty darn religious? oh, that's right, muslims and jews don't count., the percentage of the American people who believe in a Blessed Creator is declining. true, though not by much.


Atheism is not the advocacy of murder or rapine or any other particular social vice wow, that is so true . . . this isn't going to last is it?, so is the decline of faith in God a serious social problem? i'd say it's the solution to a serious social problem, but i'm usually wrong . . . It is. yup, i'm wrong. It is a problem for the same reason that science and the systematic study of knowledge arose precisely once in human history: the Christian medieval university. what? that didn't even make any sense. i can't even imagine what asshat is trying to say. It is. It is for the same reason that the Jewish people have not only survived the Diaspora but thrived and made Israel a living nation again. again, i can't see the comparison/similarity/point here.


Without God, everything is permitted. nothing is true, everything is permitted are supposedly the last words of the founder of the Order of the Assassins, Hassan-i Sabbah. probably not true, but cool nonetheless. That literary maxim of the Nineteenth Century is quite true no, but it somewhat misses the mark. or just entirely misses the mark. The wilted lettuce rusty spoons? moldy bread? sprouting potatoes? of atheism in Europe and America is not about to set up a Gulag or a system of death camps yeah, we're just too wilted for that. Atheists are not championing the cause of ghastly criminals whose horrors haunt our television news. does this guy have multiple personalities or something? Indeed, militant atheism jackboots! in modern industrial democracies masquerades as compassion, “Secular Humanism,” as Bill O’Reilly oh dear, he's quoting O'Liely. and that's not even the person who came up with the phrase. That phrase became popular after it was used in a 1961 Supreme Court decision, Torcaso v. Watkins. Bill was born in 1949, which would have made him all of 12 in 1961. likes to call it.



It is true that the denial of objective moral absolutes which is atheism no, we don't deny objective moral absolutes, we simply don't believe in god. why, oh why, is that so hard to understand? inevitably leads toward more and more members of society becoming self-absorbed monsters what?! there is absolutely no evidence that atheists commit more crimes. in fact, atheists commit less crimes., but that is not the biggest social problem of atheism rampant. Atheist Soviet Russia like atheist Nazi Germany had a degree of social order. please stop blaming us for fascim and communism. i'll have to bring up the crusades and witch trials, and then the discussion really goes downhill. Crimes like murder and rape and burglarly, when not perpetrated by the state, were punished. you mean like capital punishment and eminent domain in the US today? Life is unpredictable, death is certain, and the best grounded system of objective moral absolutes will not prevent tragedy or keep creeps from winning lotteries. Does this asshat agree with me, or not? it's really rather confusing.

oh, and just as a reminder to my atheist and pagan readers, good things are god, bad things are free will.

The hidden horror of atheism oh my! is a greater loss than just the grave which faces us all, and the loss of God i didn't lose god (how does one lose an omnipotent, noncorporeal being, anyway?), i just don't believe in god. involves a loss greater than just chastity, charity and security. that's just odd. atheists are incapable of being chaste, charitable and secure? i'm personally incapable of being chaste, but i am charitable and secure. (not financially, but i'm secure in some things.) The loss of God involves the loss of the possibility of truth. what? Why? do tell. If there are no absolute objective moral virtues, then honesty is not an absolute moral virtue.

As far as that argument goes, it's true. If there are no absolute objective moral virtues, then honesty is not an absolute moral virtue. However, asshat has not established that there are no absolute objective moral virtues, nor has he established that godbotherers have absolute objective moral virtues and atheists do not. This is called the logical fallacy of the unasked question. you assume the answer to a question, and then assert your argument based on that answer. For example: have you stopped shooting heroin yet? This assumes that you ever were shooting heroin, and it's awfully hard to continue a debate until you deal with that.

The Judeo-Christian tradition, what I have sometimes simply called “The Great Faith,” making up your own names for things, huh? godbotherer. demands the absolute moral virtue of honesty isn't that number 9 on the list?, and it shows this demand it ways that surprise unbelievers. really? okay, shock the unbelief right out of me, asshat.

The Hebrew prophets, for example, never once told their audience “The Blessed Creator says everything you are doing is great. Don’t change a thing.” ummm . . . why is this surprising? prophets never say nice things. it's always the fire and the brimstone. On the contrary, that part of the Tanach which deals with the major and minor prophets is a litany of complaints from God to the Hebrew nations. god's whiny? besides, it's not just a "litany of complaints", it's also a litany of really awful things god did to the Israelites as a result of his anger: killing, plagues, killing, snakes, killing, floods, killing and killing. Critically, when the Tanach was canonized, all of these embarrassing and serious complaints from God were kept in, while “feel good” books, like Esther, were almost kept out. it is surprisingly hard to keep one's station as a powerful religious leader when the gospel is "hey, good enough for you, good enough for god."

Likewise, the Church Fathers did not try to reconcile inconsistencies in the Gospel. wow, is this guy a secret atheist? you rarely hear the word "inconsistencies" attached to "gospel" out of a christian. usually, it's either "inconsistencies" and "evolution" or "there are no inconsistencies in the gospel- see this overly complicated explanation that involves facts i can't possibly prove?" Quite the contrary, the different versions of the ministry of Jesus are deliberately kept in. all four of them. out of twelve. for further explanation, see the Council of Nicea. Things hard to grasp and harder to explain are left in the Gospels. Did Jesus have siblings? Why does He pray to His Father on the Cross, like an abandoned child? These very difficulties, like the difficulties of the prophets or the anomalies of Genesis have been kept for thousands of years precisely because serious Jews and serious Christians believe in honesty and believe that honesty is the path to truth and to God. or because changing the gospels every time somebody notices a problem is basically admitting that the gospels are not the direct word of yhwh?

Atheism, like Allahism (or Sinisterist Radical Islam) what?! i bet this guy believes the Illuminati, or some similar group of jewy jewish conspiring conspirators are involved in a conspiracy to control the world, by contrast, has no objective moral absolute against lying. lying is wrong. lying is wrong because when you lie to people, you don't treat them with respect. lying is wrong because if everyone lies, and you can't trust anyone, society falls apart within 0.5 seconds. People of faith, like everyone, lies sometimes slightly less than atheists and Sinisterist Radical Islamists?, but they realize that lying is a sin so, it's okay to lie, as long as you realize it's a sin? does that in any way affect the fact that you have lied, or the damage lying does? no. can we say "rationalization"?. Atheists simply realize that lying is the easiest way of accomplishing your objective yes, it is. if your objective happens to be making certain no one trusts you. This does not just mean self-enrichment or self-aggrandizement, but it also means achieving goals which, to an atheist, are “noble.” you know, like equal rights for everyone, food for starving children, health care for everyone, saving the environment. we're an evil, evil people. and godbotherers never lie to achieve an objective which they might consider noble. (see: Ray Comfort)

So, when religion came under its most serious attack in the early Nineteenth Century, religion or christianity? I find it hard to believe that in all the history of the world, that atheism (and I think he's really referencing evolution, which is science, which is not atheism) is the most serious attack on religion. i mean, what about the lions? the professors who launched the attack first began to lie. They pronounced as fact things like Christians had believed the Earth was flat before Columbus actually, at one point, christians did believe the world was flat. so did most people. these people still do. or that the complaints about Galileo’s heliocentrism were theological they were. stop rewriting history, asshat., rather than scientific, even though they knew this was not true.

Because these professors did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God, they saw no ethical problem with destroying the idea of God with lies. really? all professors (i think he means scientists, too) are atheists? this just isn't true. nor are all people who recognize the irrefutable fact that the church's position on heliocentrism is a fact atheists. Serious Christians and Jews, by contrast, could not do that. why yes, christians and jews would not try to disprove the existence of yhwh with lies. that's true. Dishonesty is a sin. or it's just wrong for rather obvious reasons.

The consequence is that a marketplace of ideas filled with atheists quickly produces a lot of counterfeit intellectual currency. BWAHAHAHAHAHA that was great! that's right- atheists lie and lie and lie. it's all we do. we don't have little things called facts and evidence and logic behind our assertions. Why be even-handed in research if you know that you are right and there is no God to worry about? why be even-handed in research if you know that you are right and god is behind it all? Indeed, why worry about even being right? cause it's science, asshat? if atheists/scientists didn't worry about being right, that computer you typed this on, and the internet you display it on, wouldn't fucking work. neither would your car. or the lights in your house. If you fancy a theory, fabricate findings to “prove” it and then move on

(much like Margaret Mead did when she invented findings about Samoa, because it described a reality she preferred.

(1) Margaret Mead was never discredited. As Boas and Mead expected, this book upset many Westerners when it first appeared in 1928. Many American readers felt shocked by her observation that young Samoan women deferred marriage for many years while enjoying casual sex but eventually married, settled down, and successfully reared their own children.
In 1983, five years after Mead had died, anthropologist Derek Freeman published Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth, in which he challenged Mead's major findings about sexuality in Samoan society, claiming evidence that her informants had misled her. After years of discussion, many anthropologists concluded that the truth would probably never be known, although most published accounts of the debate have also raised serious questions about Freeman's critique. His obituary concludes that "many anthropologists have agreed to disagree over the findings of one of the science's founding mothers, acknowledging both Mead's pioneering research and the fact that she may have been mistaken on details."

(2) look, it's one discredited scientist. all scientists are liars. you don't want to play that game- ted haggard, anyone?)

This all falls from the prime sin of pride. oh, now we're prideful and liars. and, since when is pride the prime sin? according to the Ten Commandments, the prime sin is holding another god before yhwh- which atheists do not do. Pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins which are not listed in the bible. In fact: The Seven Deadly Sins are really attitudes that underlie sins . . . first identified by St. John Cassian (360-435) and refined by Pope St. Gregory the Great (540-604).

Atheists like Margaret Mead margaret mead was an anglican. in fact, she was a A committed Anglican who took a considerable part in the drafting of the 1979 American Episcopal Book of Common Prayer wanted to be a god (or goddess) and create a reality to her liking. This theory is just so silly. I don't believe in god. I don't believe gods are even possible. How freakin' delusional would I have to be to want to become a god, and more, to believe that by lying I could become one? (About as delusional as the author of this article, probably.)

Atheists like Rachel Carson included, in her “masterpiece,” Silent Spring, a dedication to Albert Schweitzer (who strongly support the use of DDT which she sought to ban oh, for nothing at all's sake, Schweitzer supported the use of DDT before he knew the damage it did. so did a lot of people. changing your mind because new facts have become available is not flip-flopping, it's good thinking.), and at least another twenty-seven outright lies from her source materials. give me a link, asshat. She, however, made herself a goddess she had the power to create universes? really? and the fact that banning DDT caused unimaginable suffering and millions of deaths in the tropical parts of the Third World did not bother her at all. that is entirely irrelevant. DDT is extremely hazardous to all kinds of birds and fish. it is unacceptable to destroy entire species in an effort to prevent malaria. you would only find this acceptable if you believe that humans are more important than say, everything else on earth. and, honestly, mesquito netting. doesn't kill birds, prevents malaria.

The dialogue which can produce truth in sociology or environmentalism can only nudge us toward that truth if based upon a holy belief in honesty. how on earth could you possibly provide scientific truth if you base science on a book written thousands of years ago by bronze age desert nomads? Atheists, believing nothing holy but the playthings of their minds and whims what?, will always allow pride to trump integrity no, but apparently you will, given the complete disregard for facts and evidence represented in this article, self-interest to stand above honor repeat after me: Jesus does not make you better than anyone else. Atheists will always be tugged toward counterfeiting reality prove it. really. just one link, one study, one shred of evidence, asshat. and then taking that counterfeit currency enough with the "marketplace of ideas" analogy and using it to buy fame, wealth, power, adulation yup, that's me, swimming in fame, wealth, power and adulation- not unlike your average TV preacher, for example (especially the adulation of popularity – because they believe everyone is as hollow as they are ad hom attacks are not logic or reasoning. try again.)

The answer to rampant lying in our culture can you prove that more people lie than before, or in other cultures? can you prove that religious people lie less and atheists more? if so, why haven't you done so?, the need for a user id and password for everything, what? because not all people should have access to all information? because without a username, how would we prevent every person from getting everyone's email? it would be a little tedious sorting through billions of emails a day to find yours. the doubt in our children’s eyes about everything that must be you, because the children in my family are fine is not because God is not dead i think you mean "god is dead", but because atheists have done their best to try to murder consciousness of God how does one murder the consciousness of an omnipotent being? and how powerful must the average atheist be to achieve this?. The first social victim of this attempted homicide is truth itself, "homicide" refers to killing a human, hence "hom". the truth is not a human being, nor can it be killed but after truth dies TRUTH CANNOT DIE then those who murdered truth STOP IT or rejoiced in its convenient death NO MORE descend into an infinite maelstrom really? uh-huh,, an eternal descent you pretty much covered that with "infinite maelstrom", to a place devoid of purpose or of hope. i have both purpose and hope, as do all atheists i am acquainted with, so, your point is . . . totally invalid?