Here's a novel idea for a TV show

The premise: strand ten atheists in a room, and throw in a leader/preacher from the four major religions: a Muslim imam, Christian a priest, a Jewish rabbi and a Buddhist monk.

The goal: get a new convert from the godless folks every show, and further allure the nonbelievers towards faith with the prize of a pilgrimage to the holy site of their choice: Mecca for Muslims, the Vatican for Christians, Jerusalem for Jews and Tibet for Buddhists.

The result: a very entertaining (and amusing) game show packaged as Penitents Compete which is to air on Turkish TV sometime soon.

"We are giving the biggest prize in the world, the gift of belief in God," Kanal T chief executive Seyhan Soylu told Reuters.

"We don't approve of anyone being an atheist. God is great and it doesn't matter which religion you believe in. The important thing is to believe," Soylu said.

So the biggest gift in the world is a brainwashing societal poison*? Great. So much for the gold-and-diamond necklace I was gonna give to my girlfriend on our date. Pfft. Should've brought some religious brochures.

I suppose it probably hurts the show's image if the TV channel's actual chief executive preemptively asserts they are against atheism. Kinda like fatties contesting at a show that aims to thin 'em up, with a host that actually hates their overlarge guts. Pooh.

It's also pointless to merely pretend to be godless; a "team of theologians" will ensure that the participants are true atheists and not just faithful hopefuls who are keen on a free pilgrimage and shot to fame. Shoot, there go my vacation plans.

... Still sounds better than the large majority of shows on TV. (Seriously, if I hear another commercial on G4TechTV praising Hurl as the "greatest show on TV" I might do just that myself.

* I will admit that, perhaps, Buddhism isn't exactly the worst religion one could join. If they, y'know, had to. Plus a trip to Tibet sounds neat ...

Continued ...»

Why wingnuts, fundies and idiots love Sarah Palin

One of Andrew Sullivan's readers has hit the nail right on the frickin' head when he explains why deep-end conservatives like Sarah Palin so much (though it can also apply to why they like Michele Bachmann, and pretty much all other loony idiots):

Part of Sarah Palin's irresistible appeal to her fundamentalist base is her ability to look at the camera with utter conviction and declare black to be white.

The ability to lie well is a valuable part of the fundamentalist psychology. My son isn't gay, he just hasn't found the right woman! Those rocks aren't 50 million years old, they just look like it as a test of our faith! My sexless marriage isn't foundering, it is filled with God's spirit! The minister isn't molesting little Maria, they're just very close! It isn't torture, it is being tough on terrorists!

Fundamentalists can recognize a truly audacious and talented liar from miles away. Instead of running the other way, as you might expect, they gather around the powerful liar, for they know that their own lies will be respected and protected by a leader who understands the paramount importance of preserving their whole system of denial.

No-one could've put it better than that. They flock around her, and idiots like her, because she's able to look into a camera at them through their TV sets and tell them exactly what they want to hear, to repeat those same, thoroughly-discredited lies that have made the right-wingers so iconic for their stupidity, hypocrisy and general bullshit. The fellow wingnuts gather around, because they know Palin has their same convictions, yet they're all united by that same disability: a lack of critical thought, or frankly, a lack of thought, period. They cannot think and realize ... "Hey, now that's just stupid".

It's sad, really.

Continued ...»

Is she lying, or just really, really stupid?

Seriously, I'm beginning to wonder if Michele Bachmann, the scourge of thinking people people everywhere, has ever learned to read properly. How else could she keep spewing false claim after stupid false claim? Example, on the Hannity show, she claimed that the US Census form never asks whether the one filling it out is an American citizen:

BACHMANN: Twenty-eight pages. Sean, you know the one question they don't ask? They don't ask, "are you an American citizen?" They don't ask if you're here on a visa or when it expires. We have no real idea how many illegal aliens are in our country. But wouldn't you think, here they are asking every personal question about our lives, they could at least ask if we're an American citizen? They don't bother to ask for that. That's why I think people need to read this census for themselves. If you go to my website, michelebachmann, you can read it.

Actually, the question is literally right there, on the very first page of the form, practically staring right back at you.

And of course, this blatantly stupid claim received praise from Hannity:

HANNITY: And Congresswoman, credit to you. I mean, you're out there and you've become a target by the Democrats because of your outspokenness and your willingness to take on the administration.

Stupidity runs thick in the wingnut circle. She's not the target of Democrats per se; she's the target of anyone with a quarter of a brainstem – not even a necessarily functional one – because of the incredible number of absolutely false and stupid claims she keeps making over, and over, and over again. Hell, even three of her own Republicans are recognizing how utterly brainless the woman is.

She and Ray Comfort should elope together. (Though only after making absolutely certain they cannot have kids together. That would be a plague we don't wanna deal with.)

Continued ...»

Friday Canine: Soft grass makes wolf sleepy ...

Original source: photopuppet on flickr

Continued ...»

Ray Comfort compares abortion to Jew-killing Nazis

The man really is profound in his capacity for illogic and plain stupidity. He's now comparing "a woman killing her child in the womb" (ie., abortion) to Nazis gunning down those subhuman Jews and piling them in pits. Yes, Ray, that totally has everything to do with it. *Rolls eyes*

The Bible is consistent when it refers to a pregnant woman as being "with child." It doesn't say "with fetus" nor does it redefine a child in the womb as a "blastocyte."

[...]

A society may redefine its beliefs, but new definitions don’t change reality. Hitler redefined the Jews as being less than human, and thus began the efficiency of Nazi Germany. Jewish men, women, and children were marched or sent by train, truck, or bus to a nearby forest. A ditch was dug to serve as a mass grave. The Jews were ordered to remove their clothing, place it in neat piles, and wait. Small groups were then taken down into the pit. One German witness later recalled:

"The pit was already two-thirds full. I estimated that it held a thousand people. I looked for the man who did the shooting. He was an SS man who sat at the edge of the narrow end of the pit, his feet dangling into it. He had a tommy gun on his knees and was smoking a cigarette. The people--they were completely naked--went down some steps ... to the place where the SS man directed them. They lay down in front of the dead and wounded. Some caressed the living and spoke to them in a low voice. Then I heard a series of shots." [Testimony given at Nuremberg]

Many Nazis escaped the justice of man, but none will escape the Justice of God.

So the next time you advocate the murder of an innocent human being because of your redefinition of life, feel free to wash your hands (as Pontius Pilate did) in water. It won’t change a thing.

So remember that, women: whenever you get an abortion, you're gunning down Jews in your Swastika'd uniform.

Poor Comfort. Poor stupid, deranged Comfort. First of all, there's no "redefining" anything when referring to a developing embryo as a blastocyte. That's what it's actually called. He can call it another term if he likes, but there's no "redefinition" going on. The term "child" does not fit to every developmental stage, you know. (Wait – of course he doesn't.) The Bible doesn't term it as "with fetus" or "with embryo" because they simply didn't have that terminology or knowledge back then. Sheesh.

Leave it to the dumbest man alive to compare a woman terminating a pregnancy either because it's dangerous or because she simply cannot be a mother and is unwilling to sacrifice nine long months for a child she cannot keep, and bloodthirsty monsters gunning down innocent men, women and children to try and purify the species. Truly.

Continued ...»

New Song: 'Faraway'

Faraway'
by Joé McKen

'Faraway'
Composed by Joé McKen

[Click "Continue …»" below to view lyrics]

[Verse 1]

The shadows are mounting tonight
Try to pull us apart with their might
Never gonna let you know
Never gonna let you go
I've walked those streets at night
Seen the shine of the blue moon on high
Shine with sparkles in the pools of the dawn
Wherever you are, I'll be drawn to you

[Verse 2]

Race like angels for the light
Look at me with those eyes so bright
Feel the safety in your arms
Why do they wanna rent us apart?
Do you know what you mean to me?
Do you know how you mean to be?
Cross the field and run the line
I promise you we'll be just fine

[Chorus 1]

Hold it, stop running away
So faraway
Hold, wait, I'm coming along
So faraway
I'm trying to find a way over to you
But you're faraway
I promise I'll do whatever I have to
But I'm faraway ...

[Bridge 1]

Yeah, yeah, yeah
Follow your heart into my hands ...

[Pre-Chorus 2]

Swim with the moon in the river
Catch the wind across the plains
Though the dark will come and blind us
We'll find a way to each other

[Chorus 2]

Wait, stop, I'm trying to find you
So faraway
Wait, please, just give me a chance
You're so faraway
I'm coming to find you, you know I will
But you're faraway
I'll fight 'til I die and never stop
Until we're together again

[Outro]

'Cause I'm faraway!
We're faraway!
Faraway!
Yeah, yeah, yeah ...

Don't forget to view in High Quality!

This is a song I've been working on for several months now; I've been going at it on/off, restarted once or twice, etc. I've finally got it down to its (for-now-) final form, though I may edit a few little things down the road. I have to admit, I'm rather proud of the main guitar riff; I could've sworn I heard it in a dream or something.

Music composed & recorded with Guitar Pro 5.2.

Rate, comment & enjoy! =)

Continued ...»

Stupid Quote of the Day: Liz Cheney says Obama refuses to claim that America is the greatest country EVAR

Dick Cheney's daughter has long-since proven herself to be just as big an overpatriotic idiot as her father. It definitely seems to run in the family. She's recently been making hosts of stupid and thoroughly false claims, and here's her most recent one yet:

"...I would say one of the things that is troubling to Americans, I think, is extent to which this administration is focused on the president's popularity overseas. We've now seen several different occasions when he's been on the international trips, where he's not willing to say, flat out, 'I believe in American exceptionalism. I believe unequivocally, unapologetically, America is the best nation that ever existed in history, and clearly that exists today.' Instead we've seen him do what we saw him do in the speech in Cairo, which is sort of, 'on one hand this, on the other hand that,' and then attempt to put himself sort of above it all. I think that troubles people."

Greatest country in history? Well, if we take that as being in relation to the available resources technological capabilities of the day ... say that to the Roman Empire at the height of their power. Or to Genghis Khan, who's empire was thrice the size of the Cesars'. Seriously, America may be the biggest and baddest today, but it has many, many times been eclipsed in many, many ways.

Not to mention that perhaps Obama isn't saying, "WE'RE #1!!!", simply because that's both childish and petty. And horrendously unprofessional. Seriously, Lizzie, go crawl somewhere and expire your brains for a while.

Not to mention, of course, that her claims about Obama never exhibiting a pride in American exceptionalism is false (oh, the surprise!). Here's what he did say when confronted with this very question by a reporter:

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.

"And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.

"Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.

"And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone."

Once again, a perfect response from Obama, recognizing that America is indeed perhaps the Top Gun in today's world, yet without exhibiting jingoism or rabid patriotism, and still recognizing the many strengths of other great countries as well. Ie: proud, but rational.

Continued ...»

Glenn Beck and his guest: Obama needs to blow up America

Well, it's not him who said those words, but his guest (fellow delusional crackpot Michael Scheuer). But said guest was on his show and evidently had Beck's support and agreement, so really, it's safe to say, now more than ever, that Beck is slowly but surely becoming a terrorist. Literally.

Transcription (from HuffPo):

BECK: Yes, sir. OK. So you have seen this. Do you really, honestly believe that we have come to a place to where those very senior people in the highest offices of the land, Congress and the White House, really will not do the right thing in the end, that they won't see the error of their ways?

SCHEUER: No, sir, they will not. Not -- the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it's going to take a grassroots, bottom-up pressure, because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. Only -- it's an absurd situation. Again, only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.

BECK: Which is why I was thinking this weekend if I were him, that would be the last thing I would do right now.

SCHEUER: Absolutely.

Hmm. I wonder how much further he has to go before we can legally charge him with inciting treason? Considering as treason is legally defined in the Constitution as aiding and abetting enemies or terrorists, I doubt officially saying, "Osama, please come bomb us out of Obama's grasp", is too far from the mark.

What a total fucking nutjob.

Continued ...»

Mariano is angry at atheist bus ads again

Mariano over at Atheism is Dead is once again ranting against the evils of those atheists who wish to place more ads on city buses. Take a good long at his arguments and criticisms, and you'll get an idea of just who is really illogical and plain stupid here.

A letter to the editor of the Indiana Daily Student presents a wonderful poster boy example of atheist “logic” and the disparity between their attempts at putting a public relations happy face on atheism on the one hand and what they are really about on the other.

The hoopla revolves around yet another atheist group, Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign, who are collecting donations, “Help us reach a goal of $50,000!,” during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone but in order to attempt to demonstrative just how clever they think themselves to be.

I'm getting tired of idiots using the recession as an excuse to say people shouldn't be spending on this and that, or that those who ask for donations are just greedy bastards. Get a hint, morons: it's not your money they're spending, which already means it's absolutely none of your business to begin with, and the fact that the current economic downturn is putting a stranglehold on their funds is no reason for them not to spend it as they wish. If people want to donate cash to whatever organization they wish, even if it's risky to their financial well-being, it's their choice, and organizations who are simply asking for donations aren't doing anything wrong in the slightest. Really, get some perspective.

The letter claimed that the ads, which are to read “You can be good without God,” say “nothing about the virtues of religious people”? Really? It means that, in this regard, their religion, not to mention their God, is irrelevant.

Okay, first off: why is it those who argue so valiantly against atheism never seem to be able to understand plain English? What part of "You can be good without God" directly translates into "God is irrelevent"? That's not the message at all; only illiterate (or blind) fools would think so. The message means you don't have to be controlled by God to do good things. You can choose to be good, by yourself, without some omnipotent deity at the reigns. It makes no statement as to said omnipotent deity's relevance. God could still be there, and matter, yet you would still be able to make your own decisions to be good. Sheesh.

Moreover, “You can be good without God” is an answer to an argument that no one has made, in a manner of speaking. This is because theists, let us speak of Christians, would argue that people who think themselves to be “without God” are not so, since God still motivates them to do good through having placed His laws in their hearts. Thus, the argument is not that atheists cannot be good without God.

Now he's being blatantly and patently blind and foolish. "An argument that no-one has made"? Oh please. Go to any forum, anywhere, that talks about morality and the concept of Right & Wrong and the origins of morality, and it's 99.95% guaranteed you'll find several ideologues and assorted twits who claim openly that God and/or religion is the source of all morality in man, and that an absence of God or faith would inevitably lead to evil, hedonism and various types of kitten-eating. Truly, to ignore this means you're either quite dishonest, or unbelievably dense.

And as for God having placed his magical laws in everyone's hearts whether they believe in him or not: uh-huh. If only that wasn't completely and thoroughly debunked by the fact that morality has been proven, time and time (and time?) again, to have evolved and developed with human society, perfectly without God's supposed influence. Hell, I've read and heard of reports (I'll post some links if I find them) that seemed to indicate that the very first appearance of what we may call "morality" seemed to appear in humanity's ancestors (think Homo Habilis and the such), creatures which couldn't even understand the concept of God in the first place.

What this tells us is that even inhuman (or, perhaps, pre-human) animals had some rudimentary concept of Right & Wrong in their minds. The conclusion of this would be that either God placed morality in inhuman animals (considering Homo Habilis and the likes weren't human by any definition), which directly refutes the claims of humans being the apple of God's many eyes, or that he didn't give us morality, period, and we simply developed it as an evolutionary asset to "guide" us into making the choices and decisions that were more apt to increase the chances of our species' survival (such as helping ourselves instead of "every man for himself" and such).

Logic: can't defeat it, brother.

The letter claims that “You can be good without God” is a “a positive message about atheism”? This message, as usual, defines atheism strictly as a negative position; it is atheism as anti-theism. Why can they not make a statement that does not besmirch theism?

Again, it's only interpreted as an anti-theism or anti-Christian message if you really dig deep looking to extract some hidden meaning (of which there is none, may I point out). It means you can be good without God telling you what's right and what's wrong. Nothing more is inferred.

Note that morality describes what is; whatever people, a society, agree upon while ethics prescribes what should be; the ethos. Atheist can certainly make assertions about morals based on subjective personal preferences and arguments from outrage but cannot provide an absolute ethic: they can make epistemic statements but not provide ontological foundations.

More unfounded claims and hot air. Atheists (those worth speaking to and/or of, that is) make claims out of knowledge, experience, and evidence. Along with rationality and logic (but those aren't ever far away, anyway). Morals come, as I've said before, from evolution. They help our species help itself by making the right choices that lead us to prosper. Ask any anthropologist worth his/her salt, for starters.

The atheists and their bulldog, the ACLU, should certainly advertize as much as they please for at least two reasons: 1) Their claims should be heard as much as possible since they discredit themselves.
2) Atheists from the UK to the USA have wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars/pounds of donated money during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone in need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they think themselves to be: need any more be said?

1) Obviously it's working quite well, seeing as how atheist numbers are swelling quite rapidly with no sign of letting up – and also judging from how angry and upset religious morons seem to be getting about it.

2) ... What? So we spend cash to promote awareness for atheism, because we ... wanna show how clever we think we are?

o_0 Seriously, that couldn't make less sense if you tried.

Mariano goes on and on about how atheism promoters are just putting on a "PR happy face" (...) and showing illogic, yet without showing a shred of logic or a cohesive (or coherent) argument himself. Truly a basketcase.

Continued ...»

India finally enters the 21st century on gay rights

The incredibly conservative country (though less insanely so than its Middle-Eastern neighbors) has just struck down a law that criminalized homosexuality in the country – though this decriminalization only applies in its capital, New Delhi, thus far. Still, it's a very good start.

NEW DELHI (AP) — A court ruled Thursday to decriminalize homosexuality in the Indian capital, a groundbreaking decision that could bring more freedom to gays in this deeply conservative country.

The Delhi High Court ruled that treating consensual gay sex as a crime is a violation of fundamental rights protected by India's constitution. The ruling, the first of its kind in India, applies only in New Delhi.

"I'm so excited, and I haven't been able to process the news yet," Anjali Gopalan, the executive director of the Naz Foundation (India) Trust, a sexual health organization that had filed the petition, told reporters. "We've finally entered the 21st century."

But some religious leaders quickly criticized the ruling. "This Western culture cannot be permitted in our country," said Maulana Khalid Rashid Farangi Mahali, a leading Muslim cleric in the northern city of Lucknow.

Yeah, yeah, keep whining. Ain't gonna change much. =)

The petition to strike down the law was actually filed eight years ago, which is par for the course in India's notoriously clogged judicial system. The law itself, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, was first set in place – not by Indians, but by the British during the colonial era. (Once again, giving meaning to the phrase "stiff-ass Brits" ...)

Maybe an influx of our far-from-perfect-but-still-much-much-better-than-theirs Western "culture" into the worlds of India, the Middle-East and such ass-backwards places wouldn't be a bad thing after all.

Continued ...»

Stupid Ironic Quote of the Day Year

I've just commented on how the managing director of WingNutDaily said something totally and laughably ironic, and then I come across Ray Comfort's blog. Oh, dear God. Hint: his topic is regarding sanity, and the answers you give to the following questions he cites determine whether you're sane or not. Indeed, they do – just not in the way he expects.

What’s the basis for your assumption that you are the one who is sane and that your grandmother is not? Here are a few test questions: ^[1]Do you believe that there is a creation without a Creator? ^[2]Do you believe a woman has the right to kill her child in the womb? ^[3]Should homosexuals have the right to marry each other? ^[4]What is the purpose of your existence (other than to find happiness while you are here)? ^[5]What is your definition of a sane person? ^[6]How do you know your definition is the correct one? ^[7]Does your grandmother think that she is a primate? ^[8]Do you think she is? ^[9]Do you believe Richard Dawkins is correct when he says that we are all primates? ^[10]If there was one chance in a million that God exists, and He is offering you everlasting life, would you take the time to look into it?

Let's see: ^[1]No, ^[2]Yes, ^[3]Yes, ^[4]None, ^[5]Someone free from mental disorders, ^[6]Because it's in every dictionary, ^[7]N/A, ^[8]Yes, ^[9]Yes, ^[10]No.

Next!

Sadly, all this proves, knowing which are the answers Comfort is looking for, is his own insanity.

Continued ...»

Stupid Ironic Quote of the Day: David Kupelian on WND

Kupelian, the managing editor of WingNutDaily, in an "open letter" to WND readers:

At WND, we don't mock patriotic Americans trying to set their country right. We don't rewrite White House press releases and call it news. We don't bow and scrape before President Obama or anyone else. We don't pretend abortion is OK, or that same-sex marriage is good, or that global warming is "proven science," or that more government is the solution to all problems, or that Palestinian leaders wants peace, or that the Constitution is old-fashioned, or that the "Federal Reserve" is good for America. In short, we're not politically correct and we have no sacred cows. Instead, we really do strive to tell the truth that Americans desperately need and deserve to hear.

... I didn't know the loudness of a nuclear blast could be eclipsed by the simultaneous explosion of every irony meter in the Universe. Wow.

Another amusing quote, a few lines below:

But what you might not realize is that what we do is very difficult.

How so? Just latch on to the silliest, wackiest and most insipid claims you can think of, double-check to make sure they aren't founded in any sort of evidence AND have been refuted countless times in countless ways, and then paste it on your site as "news", or even a "WND Exclusive". Doesn't sound all that difficult to me.

Continued ...»