Hitchens is known not only as a great lover of titles including colons (as ten out of 12 of his books contain this particular form of punctuation), he is also a well known smoker and alcoholic. His seemingly constant cigarette, coupled with a family history of esophageal cancer, makes Hitchens' diagnosis far from surprising.
When asked to comment on how he was doing Hitchens replied "How am I? I'm dying. Everybody is, but...the process has accelerated on me. So I'm looking for ways to try to die more like you". Hitchens, in his usual fashion, is maintaining an objective stance on the subject.
"It's not a good cancer to get. The statistics are very depressing. Mine isn't just in my esophagus, either. It's gone to my lymph nodes. I would be a very lucky person to live another five years." 1
The five year survival rate of this type of cancer is typically between 3-7%.
So if there is a God, now would be the most spectacular time to prove your existence.
Everyone must go and watch the newest episode of Futurama! It's episode 609!
For those of you who don't know Futurama is a cartoon series created by Matt Groening, the creator of the Simpsons. The series was cancelled just before the fall of 2003. It was never officially cancelled, however Fox simply stopped buying new episodes. But, almost seven years later, Futurama has returned!
Hope you guys like it, seeing as it is in keeping with some of my other posts!
I'm talking about English of course! So many of the words in the English language apply to only one gender. You know what I'm talking about. Policeman, fireman, mailman, man hole cover, manmade, mankind... just to name a few. This is a problem.
Some of you may say "Hey! The English language is androcentric! It has been since its inception. There's really nothing we can do about it!" Others may say, "Hey! We can't be the only ones who have an androcentric language!" neither of these are good excuses NOT to do something.
Here's why, admittedly the English language has been androcentric for a while. However the English language has seen many revisions over the years. Don't believe me? Go open a Shakespearean play or sonnet. Changes in the language happen colloquially and eventually become the norm. So change is possible.
As for English not being the only androcentric language, I'm sure it's not! But it's our language! We should make the effort to correct what is wrong with it!
So how do we fix this? Well sometimes its easy. Say firefighter instead of fireman, police officer instead of policeman, mail carrier instead of mailman. Instead of man kind, humanity; man made, fabricated. Not so hard. (I have some personal objections against saying server instead of waiter/waitress though that's simply because server sounds too close to servant for my taste)
Now the real problem lies with finding an appropriate substitute for generic pronouns (ie. It is important for the customer to pay before he leaves the store with his items). He or she, he/she, s/he are all too inefficient, and the media and business world is too male dominated for the use of one's own gender as a pronoun (I would use he, while Carmerio would use she) to be effective. Some suggest that gynocentric language should be adopted since 52% of the world's population is female. This doesn't seem fair either. Our language should not favour either gender.
Greek and Latin found good ways of getting around this issue. The Greek solution comes in the form of the prefix anthropo-. However this does not work as a pronoun. The Latin solution is no more feasible (for obvious reasons) as it is Homo, as in Homo Sapiens, Homo Erectus.
I have no clue what the solution may be, but I think the internet is the best forum for the creation of a new word, because where else are all the english speakers of the world able to convene?
I advise everyone to watch this video before you continue on reading. This is one of the main reasons why I severely dislike creationists. They are purposefully ignorant. They have heard the responses to their arguments millions of times, yet they choose to ignore what is being said.
So here is a very smug creationist talking about why Atheism is an irrational standpoint.
Sound reasonable? Sound like he knows what he's talking about? Sound even slightly philosophical?
Here's the deal. Atheists do not claim that there is NO God. Your initial definition of atheists is wrong. Atheists are not "[individuals] who decide to believe against the idea of a deity".
This can be seen to be for tactical, and logical reasons. Tactically, if an atheist claims that there is no God, then it is up to the atheist to provide evidence to back that claim up. Which is impossible. Logically, you cannot claim to absolutely know that there is no God (just like you cannot claim to absolutely know that there is a God without extraordinary evidence). So yes theTRUTHgroup is right in that respect, that one must be omniscient in order to claim with absolute certainty that there is NO God.* However this does not make the person a God. It is rational to say that someone could have omniscience without being the creator of the universe. And even if you don't claim God to mean THE creator, you would not go attributing the title of God to anyone who developed extreme super powers!
Ultimately what this post boils down to is that atheists do not claim to know there is no God. A more appropriate definition for an atheist is a person who lacks a belief in God. For those who may be confused, the difference is that theTRUTHgroup's claim was that atheists believe there is no God, and so are asserting a claim. On the other hand the more accurate definition of the Atheistic position is that atheists have no belief in the existence of God, and so they are not asserting a claim.
_______________________________________________________________
*Omniscience may not even be compatible with the idea of the Creator God. A creator God must be omnipotent in order to create the universe, however omniscience may not be necessary. The creator God could know everything about creating the universe but not about everything else. The incompatibility between the two stems from this paradox (similar to that of the time traveler's paradoxes): If God is omniscient He knows everything He will ever do and think. Yet if He is omnipotent He must be able to change what He is able to do and think. Yet if He changes what He does and thinks, since He is omniscient He must have already known He was going to do that... etc.
Awesome news from our neighbours to the south! A federal judge ruled that proposition 8, the Californian bill passed in November 2008 banning same sex marriage, is unconstitutional!
We all know the Americans are a little backwards on some things (and I can say that 'cause I'm half American) but prop 8 really takes it to a new level. Now before everyone get's their knickers in a twist I'm not saying that all Americans are backwards. Some members of my family are American! But when you petition to amend the state constitution in order to define a word, that's just getting ridiculous. Leave it up to the people at Websters! It's their JOB!
In his ruling today, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker stated that the state of California had no reason to discriminate against same sex couples, and that Prop 8 was based on mere moral disapproval.
Walker's ruling, while temporarily overturning Proposition 8, will inevitably be appealed and sent to the American supreme court.
While I am thrilled that prop 8 has been temporarily overturned, (I was exceptionally p-o'ed when I originally heard about Prop 8) it still disgusts me that there was a need for such a ruling. It is even more aggravating that it took nearly two years for the proposition to be overturned. (Yes I do realize that these things take time, however keep in mind that the ballot qualified on June 2nd 2008, and was enacted a mere five months later).
So why do the people of California feel that same sex couples are less deserving of the institution of Marriage? Why don't we let preservingmarriage.org tell us:
So essentially their arguments boil down to nothing more than religion and slippery slopes. "If prop 8 fails then we may lose our religious freedoms". How is that any better than saying "If we let the gays get married then who know's what'll be next! People marrying dogs?"
I've heard too many arguments against same sex marriage to count, and none of them have been any more valid than the moon landing conspiracy theories, and predictions for 2012.
So let me set the record straight (perhaps the wrong choice of words, but no matter):
1. The institution of marriage is NOT simply about protecting couples who mean to procreate. There are plenty of couples who do not want or cannot have children, yet they all have the same right to get married. (if this were truly the case then the people of California should be petitioning to change the definition of marriage to "between two demonstrably fertile adults" and require everyone to prove their fertility before getting their marriage license. Though this would increase the number of opponents to the bill, so perhaps a smart move on their part)
2. Children are NOT better off in households with parents of both genders. Children will find role models for the gender not present in their parents through Grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles, and close family friends.
3. It doesn't matter what your religious creed says, you do not have the right to dictate who gets married to whom. The constitutional right to freedom of religion does not mean that religious ideals should be allowed to impede on the rights of others. In fact the separation of church and state means that your religious biases should remain outside of the political forum.
4. Lastly, why are you so obsessed with what people do in the privacy of their own homes. All that these people want are equal rights, and to be treated like regular citizens. No one's sexual preferences should ever come into play when it comes to allowing people their rights.
I guess some of us have just never out grown running around the playground calling people gay.
Okay so this is beginning to become more of an Atheistic blog, however I'm sure it will change when I get some new music, or something stupid happens at work. So hang in there if you're not liking the content up to now.
This is a post from FSTDT on their top 100 list. I don't know how this was ranked number 2, but no matter. If you want to read the rest of the post or the rest of the list then click right here.
I hope you don't mind but I'm going to answer their ridiculous questions as I go. I'm only going to answer some of the questions, to spare you from some of the more boring ones. Keep in mind I'm studying Philosophy, not science. Here it goes.
Students, give this test to your teachers. When they fail it, ask them why they are teaching this nonsense!
Teachers, give this test to your students if you really want them to know the truth about evolution!
1. Which evolved first, male or female? In what species? This is a hard one to answer for reasons I'll let Wikipedia explain.
3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.
This is a hilariously loaded question. Ultimately since you're claiming them to be false, you should tell me! Also (by just googling the question and clicking I'm feelin' lucky) this website demonstrates that there are only eight (8) "false assumptions", so apparently no one can answer this one sufficiently!
4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years? If you had bothered to open a textbook on evolution (or even "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins) you would have your answer by now. But let me do the work for you. Evolution happens when inferior species die out. The reason why they die out is because there is a superior species that dies less often than the first species. Since they don't die as much, they get to make more babies, thus passing on their genes. An extinct creature wouldn't re-evolve because their genes have generally been lost. If an extinct creature DID re-evolve it would be more likely that God did it rather than Evolution.
5. Which came first:
...the eye,
...the eyelid,
...the eyebrow,
...the eye sockets,
...the eye muscles,
...the eye lashes,
...the tear ducts,
...the brain's interpretation of light?
The brain would have to have some light interpretation qualities or else the newly evolved eye would be useless, and would not have been passed on. The eye would evolve, though first as a patch of photosensitive cells and would become more complex throughout the generations. The sockets, lids, muscles, lashes and tear ducts would also come from that slow evolution process. You're trying to argue from irreducible complexity, but it's really not working.
7. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can't all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?
Do you know what a species is? Do you know what differentiates one species from another? I'll let you research that for a moment. Couldn't find it? Dogs and Cat's can't breed together BECAUSE they are different species. The same thing goes for Humans and Chimps, Humans and Gorillas and Humans and pretty much any other species you want to name. In order to breed, the male and the female need to have (among many other things) the same number of Chromosomes. However there are some examples of species that can interbreed, though they may not produce fertile offspring.
9. Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?
"Non-Existent" Transitional Fossils
They're not. See! Go to a museum. And no the Creation museum does not count!
10. Explain why something as complex as human life could happen by chance, but something as simple as a coin must have a creator. (Show your math solution.)
Human life did not happen by chance in the sense that Creationists use the word. Mutations often occur, and when those mutations benefit the animal they get passed on to the offspring. A human didn't just randomly evolve fully formed by chance. A coin however is non-organic, so it cannot breed, and its offspring cannot have beneficial (or malignant) mutations. It needs to have a designer.
11. Why aren't any fossils or coal or oil being formed today?
There are. They just take millions of years to form, so YOU will never see the end result.
12. List 50 vestigial or useless organs or appendages in the human body. Why 50? Could it be that, like in question 3, this question has been designed so the person answering the question will fail? Here's one. Wisdom teeth. Want another possible one? How about your vermiform appendix?
13. Why hasn't anyone collected the millions of dollars in rewards for proof of evolution?
Because the standards for proof are ever changing and are set impossibly high.
14. If life began hundreds of millions of years ago, why is the earth still under populated?
It's not. In fact it is on it's way to be overpopulated, however I suspect that you might mean in terms of population growth/timescale. Here's why. Because of evolution. Things die off. New species become dominant, and then they die off. If there were no predators, and no diseases then YES we would be majorly overpopulated by now, however things die, so they don't get to breed.
15. Why hasn't evolution duplicated all species on all continents?
Because species on different continents face different challenges in surviving. Different climates, different weather patterns, different food sources and different predators all work into the equation of the survival of the species. Each species has evolved differently to adapt to each individual threat, and so species differ.
A note to all creationists! Please open a book or two! Visit a real museum! Don't just copy other creationist arguments verbatim! You'll never learn that way!
