Day by Day Daily Cartoon by Chris Muir

The Mad Scientist... Mwahahahahahahahaha

Friday, October 16, 2009

Where’s the proof?

One of the blogs on my blogroll, Samizdata, had a post on Tony Blair and atheism or something of the sort, I forget. Anyways, it quickly shifted tone in the comments to centre on the what is the nature of God, religious belief and whatnot. You know, the usual stuff when you get clashes between atheists and religious people.

Although, perhaps that’s the nature of the problem. Atheists refuse to believe that they, too, espouse a religious belief. Which, to modern ears, sounds quite logical; after all, atheists don’t have a belief in a god, or many gods. But when you break down that simple statement, you begin to understand the scope of the nonsense that passes of most of atheism nowadays.

You see, the nature of the issue is simple. Atheists say they hold a negative belief; they do not believe in God (or gods). They go on to say that this does not mean they believe that there is no God. Why is this important? Well, because that positive statement “There is no God (or gods)” is a theological statement and a theological belief, which makes it religious in nature. And atheists can’t admit they, too, have a faith of sorts.

This is clearly demonstrated using any other example. If I don’t believe in acupuncture, it’s not really that that I don’t believe in its existence, but that I don’t believe in its claims. However, if I speak of not believing in the Yeti, then indeed I don’t believe in the existence of the Yeti. Which means I believe the Yeti does not exist.

Right, moving along then. The other reason, of course, is because when you espouse a positive belief, you can be challenged to prove it. Far easier to espouse it negatively, that is to say, you do not hold on to a particular belief. But logically, you see, in every instance but especially this one, you cannot readily escape the situation. The statement “There is a God (or gods)” can either be true, false or undetermined; logically speaking. Those who believe it say it’s true. Those who don’t believe it say either it’s false or undetermined. Those who say it’s undetermined are called agnostics. Therefore, atheists are the ones calling it false. And if that statement is false, then then the opposing statement “There is no god” must be true. And if so, then by the Law of Contradiction, the atheists must believe the opposing statement is true.

Well, if that is the case, then the atheist must also defend his position. He cannot assume it as given or as a default. If he wishes to do so, then he admits that his belief is, rather than something rational, in fact is more of an axiom than anything else. Which leaves him on exactly the same level as any other religious believer, who also base their metaphysical framework on axioms.

But here’s something I want all atheists and agnostics to think about carefully. As a Christian, I am constantly being asked why I believe what I believe. Part and parcel; you have to be ready to defend your faith. But let me turn the question around to the atheists in a different form. What would make you believe in God? Bearing in mind that we’re talking about an omnipotent Being that is far beyond our understanding and our intellect to grasp.

You know what? I’ll bet anything you like that every single atheist will have a different answer, and it will all involve God acting like a cosmic performer trying to ace His audition. Oh, there are some atheists who have seen the evidence, and changed their minds after reviewing the facts, but the rest? Hah!

Whereas I can tell you that if you show irrefutable proof that Jesus Christ never existed, or that he died and was buried and NEVER ROSE AGAIN, that would end Christianity dead in its tracks. This is because Christianity is a religion rooted in historical fact. Atheism isn’t.

Monday, October 05, 2009


It should come as no surprise to anyone that I am a conservative-leaning sort of fellow, both fiscally as well as socially. Hence, I do subscribe to quite a largish number of right-leaning blogs, most of which are in my blogroll. One of these blogs, or rather, new media platform, is Pajamas Media. Their Web Video platform, also known as PJTV, showcases commercial-free conservative and libertarian (and yes, the occasional lefty) voices mostly in talk-show formats.

One of them is Mrs Instapundit, Dr Helen Smith. And I was just catching up with her video on polyamoury. Here's the thing in itself; she prefaces it with talking about gay marriage and how many of us fear the slippery slope down to polygamy and polyandry and so on. Lo and behold, she finds two people who are heading up the World Polyamoury Federation or somesuch, and puts them up front and centre.

Now, mind you, they played it so straight I wasn't sure whether they were on the level or whether there was a large amount of tongue-in-cheek involved in the whole video. Certainly, the two reps sounded quite serious, and Dr Smith herself asked cogent and in all appearance serious questions about their philosophy and way of life. Still, I can't quite tell.

They state their first principle is Hippocratic; first do no harm. I am reminded of this because basically, human relationships are, on a fundamental level, broken. And instead of repairing it, or aiming to restore right relationships, these people are going in the exact opposite.

You see, humans have an incredible capacity for emotion and commitment. And the level of emotion and commitment put into anything depends very much on the proportionate amount you are invested in it; both how much you have invested in it, and how much of the investment itself you have.

It stands to reason that if you have invested 10% of yourself (time, or money, or effort) in something, you are going to be much less committed and emotionally involved in it than if you have invested 75% of yourself in it. Similarly, you would expect that if you are amongst ten thousand other investors, you would care much less than if you are amongst only five. Or two. And if you are the sole investor in something, chances are you're going to care a lot about it.

What happens when you are invested in something that has a limited number of other people also invested in it? Well, chances are, you will end up with the Yeo Hiap Seng debacle. Everyone has a different opinion and agenda, you see, and trying to move forwards in a united fashion was almost impossible - indeed, by the third generation, it was completely impossible and destroyed the family relationships between the Yeos. Now imagine the same situation repeated many-fold as you are not only invested in one, but multiple such investments. You will end up with conflicts between the various investments you have made, unless you are exceedingly careful in managing your investments.

What makes you think that sexual and intimate relationships between people are any different to this? In the YHS incident, no one has any real answers. The only thing that may have worked was ensuring that a single party was dominating, so that you could have a proper leader and an indisputable direction. Fancy trying that in a marriage! The Bible records many accounts of polygamy (one man having multiple wives)... and not a single one of those accounts was it ever recorded that the man had less than the usual marital conflicts. In fact, with the two or more wives constantly jockeying for position, it was more of a headache than usual!

In relationships as well as in economics, you see, it makes sense to specialise. There is always something in which you have a comparative advantage; there is always something you are better at, proportionally, than others. You specialise (i.e. become exclusive) and then you trade. When you try to be too diverse, hold too many positions, a significant amount of your resources go into simply maintenance rather than real growth and real productivity. It is the same with relationships. Even if you fell in love with twins, there will always be one of them whom you will love more, care for more, cherish more. Try to maintain both relationships and inevitably, everyone gets hurt.

Of course, that's assuming that everyone's got skin in the game. If you're not really invested in the relationship, then you don't get hurt as much... but that kinda defeats the whole idea, doesn't it?

Friday, October 02, 2009

The Roman Polanski conundrum

He raped a 13 year old girl. He pleaded guilty. He ran away to France before he was sentenced. He has been a fugitive from justice for over three decades.

Those are the facts of the matter. Why is there a conundrum?

Good question. One would have to ask Hollywood and the elites that question.

The sexual drive is very strong. You can make 7 year old children look smokingly sultry - let alone a girl who's on the verge of developing into womanhood. So what? Millions of men are able to restrain themselves and not behave like a bunch of mongrels over a bitch in heat. Roman Polanski not only showed a lack of impulse control, he premeditated the rape of this girl. He got her drunk, drugged her and then raped her in as many ways as he could think up of.

And he showed no regret or remorse after that.

Well, fuck him. I hope he gets the book thrown at him. You'd better watch your step, 'cause pedophiles don't have a very good time in prison.

I really cannot believe this subject is even up for discussion.

Next up, Obama and Co try to squirm health insurance crappiness into law despite their fellow Americans telling them how much they hate it. Conservatives need to keep up the heap against these bozos in Congress and the White House.