kimmy

When I was a kid Cracked magazine sucked. It was like a 10th rate imitation of Mad magazine. Yet lately I have read some really good stuff on Cracked. -k

I imagine you're right, Rue. People my age must be too dumb to recognize the problem and too passive to do anything about it. Because otherwise we would be robbing you people in the streets to make amends for the massive inter-generational heist you've perpetrated. -k

I've read Genesis... it says God created the earth first (Gen 1:10), plants second (Gen 1:11-12), and the sun and stars later (Gen 1:16). Where does that leave your idea that "science is proving the Bible right"? Open-minded and gullible are not the same thing. The claims you have made are not worth a lot of consideration, and the sources you've cited... well, they're mostly cut-and-pasted from professional apologists, are they not? Peter F has addressed one of my complaints about that article: it really isn't a good explanation. It's as if the writer figured they could just say "Einstein" a bunch of times and people would be in awe: "oooh! Science! Einstein says the Bible is true!" but this is really an inane explanation. If you're going to use relativity to explain why "days" could have actually been billions of years, then you've introduced the concept of an observer and two frames of reference with very rapid motion relative to each other. One frame of reference is obviously the earth, but what's the other frame of reference, and who is the observer keeping track of the time? Is God the observer in the second frame of reference that is moving rapidly relative to the earth? God must be the observer, because he's the only being who exists at this point. Schroeder's concept only makes sense if you suppose that God is an actual physical being who is at an actual physical place within this universe while the earth speeds away from him at very near the speed of light, as he continues to build it. But Christian apologists like William Lane Craig will tell you that God has to be a being who exists outside of the universe, not a finite physical being within this universe. God can't have the property of "maximal excellence" if he's a finite physical being. So Schroeder's idea just doesn't add up. My second comment: it just addresses one issue, and a minor issue at that. He explains something that as far as I'm concerned didn't even need explaining. It's a nonsensical explanation of something that didn't actually need explaining. I like the mainstream explanation much better: the "days" of creation are not literal days, but rather ages. How could they be literal days when the earth and sun weren't even made until halfway through? My third comment: I actually agree with Ken Ham about this. I mean, I think he's a moron, but at least there's some integrity to his position. Once you've accepted the idea that a magic sky wizard did everything, what need is there to reconcile that viewpoint with any other? It becomes an intellectually dishonest exercise, because as soon as you run into contradictions "sky wizard" becomes the answer. -k

oooh, fun! Aren't they teaching kids the right ideas about God in Sunday School? Well, not fun, exactly, but I'd think that one of the attributes of an omni-benevolent god would be ... omni-benevolence. One needn't look too far to see things that make one question the idea that the universe is ruled by an omni-benevolent entity. Sadly, not aware of any proofs that God (or gods) don't exist. The astronomical size of the universe doesn't argue one way or the other for God's existence, but it makes it a little hard to swallow that this one tiny planet is the only place where he created beings in his own image, revealed himself to us, killed himself for your sins, etc. Would the author of such an incomprehensibly vast universe really care if you eat shellfish or work on Sunday? I do make that argument, because there is a meaningful distinction in real-life (see point 8). I can! I usually stick with leprechauns and orbiting teapots, but pink unicorns will work in a pinch. An easy argument to mock when the alleged sufferer is a well-off first-world teen. Much more difficult to mock when the subject is child in an impoverished country who's wasting away. This is the big straw-man that Christian apologists like to trot out, and this is why the distinction in point 5 matters. Do you believe in pink unicorns? Have you ever seen a pink unicorn? Do you have any reason to believe pink unicorns exist? Of course not. Can you prove pink unicorns do not exist? Can you claim with absolute certainty that there is no such thing as a pink unicorn? Of course not. Disbelief in the existence of something isn't the same as certainty of its non-existence. That's why the distinction in point 5 matters. Might be true of Catholic priests, but there are pastors who make way more money with way less education than a Catholic priest. The majority of atheists in North America were raised as Christians and know about The Bible for the same reason Christians do. Interestingly enough, atheists seem to know more about religion than Christians... Haven't seen it... I know that some atheists boycott Chick-Fil-A, and it's not because the chicken is too greasy, it's because Chick-Fil-A donates a lot of money to anti-gay groups. -k

Oh SNAP! -k

Great news, Gost! -k

Was the "infallible word of God" the original version that was given to them, or was it the version that they eventually wrote down? So much wrong with this. First off, "stretching" isn't a precise description of what's happening at all. It's a very imprecise description intended to put an incredibly complex subject into terms that the average person can comprehend. Second, "stretches" is not the original word that was used. We know this because we know that the verse was not originally written in English, and it has been translated several times since. If I look up Job 9:8 I find that some translations use "stretch" but others use "spread". Did the original word given to the ancient desert mooks mean "spread" like spreading out a blanket, or did it mean "stretch" like stretching out a rubber band? How are we to know? Job 9:8 says God stretches or spreads out the heavens, and Genesis 1:6-8 tells us that the heavens are a big ceiling that keeps the waters off our heads, so it sounds like they are talking about God stretching out a big canopy in the sky. Not the Big Bang. Which scientists say this? As you're fond of saying, "Cite Your Sources™" I'm particularly interested to hear which scientists believe it is plausible that the earth and the plants existed before the sun. This isn't a minor detail at all, because it is devastating to the argument you're trying to make. Why does Genesis say the earth and the plants were made before the sun? That's not an allegory, that's just a flat out blunder. Why did they get it so wrong? Really? Cite your sources™. -k

Imagine this poor woman's shock at discovering that "religion" isn't a synonym for "Christian." Nonetheless, this opens up an exciting new possibility for a TV sit-com. "Little Madrassa on the Bayou". I am going to write up a treatment and start pitching it to networks... this could finally be my big break! Louisiana education was in the news just a couple of weeks ago when it was revealed that this very same voucher program is helping taxpayers pay for schools that teach students that the Loch Ness Monster is real in an effort to support biblical creationism. A little Googling on the subject indicates that Louisiana has by most measures among the very worst education in the United States, exceeded only by South Carolina and West Virginia. Perhaps Bobby Jindal and his gang should fix public education instead of finding ways to funnel money to madrassas and creationists. -k

More startling persecution of Christians, this time in the form of colorful cookies. My sources inform me that you can not-- repeat, not-- actually go to a store and buy Oreos with six layers of rainbow-colored stuffing. Which is probably for the best, because it would be messy to eat and probably disgustingly sweet. Nonetheless, One Million Moms are calling for a boycott and many Christians are declaring they will never eat another Oreo. Big companies supporting gay pride has become something of a trend, and angry Christians are asking "why can't these corporations remain neutral in the culture wars?" The irony is that the Christian complainers themselves are the ones who have made it happen. The advertisers know that these "moral majority" type Christians threatening these boycotts aren't actually a majority at all, they're a small minority of Christians, despite their claims. The advertisers know that the publicity they'll get from a confrontation with One Million Moms will make their advertising dollars go hundreds of times farther. Think back a few months to "All American Muslim". A show that few people would have watched or even heard of, up until the "Florida Family Association", another Christian group, announced that they were boycotting Lowe's for sponsoring All American Muslim. Lowe's dropped their advertising, but that's when things got weird... because all of a sudden, everybody was talking about it. Suddenly, All American Muslim became a hot property for advertisers. JC Penny hired Ellen Degeneres as their spokeswoman, and One Million Moms announced a boycott. Which ensured that JC Penny got a vast amount of free press... the kind that money just can't buy. They did the same again on Father's Day, showing a family with Two Dads and making the million moms go ballistic. And now Oreo wants in. Why wouldn't they? One Million Moms and American Family Association are pleading for corporations to "remain neutral in the culture war." And yet they've given these companies such powerful incentive to jump on the gay pride bandwagon. You'd think that OMM would stop shooting themselves in the foot, but it's clear that they're not content to stop at their feet, they're going to find other places to shoot themselves too. -k

Not really. I certainly don't claim to be any sort of serious student of this subject (or any other, for that matter). When I do have questions, I tend to look for answers; I had the Oxford Bible Commentary on my e-book shelf from just such an occasion. I haven't read much of it, and I doubt I ever will-- it's daunting to say the least. I read blogs regularly, both atheist and Christian; I often glance through The Christian Post as well as some belief-oriented sections of other major news sites. I often glance through the atheism section at Reddit: while a lot of it is low-brow comedy, it often makes me wonder things that make me go off and do some reading. ("hmm. Why DID god get in a snit over the tower of Babel, anyway?") I'm pretty busy, but I tend to spend my down time reading things that are interesting to me instead of Facebooking or watching TV. That terrible Dr Dawkins makes the same argument. The Bible has cultural significance that makes it important to a full appreciation of English literature. (I suspect he also believes that more people would question the Bible's "holiness" if they actually read the bloody thing.) -k

I just saw this, and I can confirm that it was AWESOME! I have been a Joss Whedon fan for a very long time, and I am very glad that he now has a super-mega smash hit success on his resume. Finally the rest of the world recognizes what us geeks have known all along. The story made his presence make sense, in the same way that Nick Fury's and Black Widow's did. By presenting him as more or less an exceptional S.H.I.E.L.D. agent rather than as a "super hero", they explained his involvement without having to come up with a dorky explanation as to why a regular guy with a bow belongs alongside the god of thunder and a monster that can break a mountain with one punch. He was more or less called "Barton" the whole film, as Black Widow was "Agent Romanova" for the most part; I think "Hawkeye" and "Black Widow" were mentioned a couple of times more or less as nicknames. But it would be completely out of character for either Wolverine or Spiderman to work for a big government operation like S.H.I.E.L.D. The concept of a guy in a costume who runs around with a bow fighting crime is pretty retarded, and I was pretty skeptical about how he would turn out. But I think this interpretation of him actually worked really well. Ditching the comic book costume was a key decision, obviously. And when combined with modern communications technology and powerful allies, having a guy with incredible observation skills suddenly becomes really useful. And the variety of warheads he could put on his arrows was pretty neat. It did bug me that the number of shafts in his quiver never seemed to decrease, even well into a half-hour long battle scene. -k

If you can't get enough Game of Thrones, The Game of Thrones Home Game of Thrones is for you! -k

I'm not sure that "Queers Against Israeli Apartheid" is very beneficial to the community as a whole. Out of curiosity, would any political message be equally welcome at the parade? I'm not saying they are or aren't, I'm asking because I don't know. For example, if there was a group called "Queers for Trans-Pacific Trade", would they be welcome to march to promote their message? -k

I tried to work as many of your classic memes as possible into the opening post, but I somehow missed "14 year old boys in Hong Kong". Shame on me. I respect your contributions to the forum, August... you have given me a lot to think about over the years. Except on the Arts and Culture sub-forum. On the Arts and Culture subforum, you turn into the senile old relative who has no idea what he's talking about, but talks on and on anyway. Like that senile old relative, people are content to smile and nod their heads and say "Sure thing, Uncle Joe." But when you attacked Bleeding Heart's review for being "pretentious" and "patronizing", I could not let that stand. After I posted that, I felt a little guilty. "Perhaps that was mean... maybe I was a little rough on him..." I thought to myself. And then you come back and completely vindicate the opening post. Applause for being a good sport about it, at least. --- 14 year old boys in Hong Kong do not decide what movies Hollywood makes. 14 year old boys in Hong Kong are not included in the domestic box-office grosses at all. They barely even figure into international box-office, because they're more likely to pirate the film than to buy tickets or DVDs. 14 year old boys in Hong Kong are not some almighty cabal that has the power to decide which movies succeed and which fail. They're all but irrelevant to the decision-making processes of Hollywood studios. I have no idea why on earth you keep talking about 14 year old boys in Hong Kong. I doubt that I will ever have any idea why you keep talking about 14 year old boys in Hong Kong. But I am sure that you will keep talking about 14 year old boys in Hong Kong anyway. -k

Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at. -k

How much more power does a pistol cartridge have coming out of a 20" rifle barrel compared to a 5" pistol barrel? The Remington 597 stock I handled was synthetic, and it just felt terrific. Great texture, great shape, perfect size, shoulders nicely. I'm not sure how it would feel if it got wet from rain or sweat, but I think it would be less slippery than a wooden stock in those situations. It just feels more grippy. At this point I think it would be my first choice, except I have been reading a lot of negative comments that the magazines are not very good. I dunno... that looks really awkward. Too long to shoot like a pistol, too short to shoot like a rifle. What's the classification of this? Barrel is under 457mm and overall length is under 660mm, so to me it looks like it should be classified as a restricted firearm, in which case how well it fits into a backpack would be a moot point. -k

Thanks Shakey Yes, I did the RPAL at the same time. Just a couple of extra days and a little more money, so why not. I don't really picture myself being a pistol owner, but maybe when I try it out I'll discover I really love it. The course was fun, although a few times I felt quite conscious of being the only girl there. Discussions about how to get your wife to let you buy that special gun, picking a gun that's right for your wife or girlfriend so that she'll have fun when you take her shooting, and so on, were a little awkward. Girls have small collarbones, so get your girl a nice small-caliber semi-automatic and take it to a gunsmith and get it ported and it won't hurt her collarbone. They make some nice leather recoil pads that have tassels and look really nice; she'll love that too. Get her one of these little pads that tucks under her bra strap. I dunno, maybe the .45-70 guide gun does kick too hard for my weak little collarbone, but I want to find that out for myself. But yes, I really liked the course. -k

At least not in a global sense... at least not in a panic-inducing way. However, we have seen situations where in a specific place at a specific time, the waterhole becomes very small, very quickly. New Orleans after Katrina, for example. ("waterhole" seems like an extremely poor choice of words for that particular circumstance. ) -k

It hardly seems fair, does it. After all, the video has the benefit the knowledge of scholars and archeologists who have evidence that the guys who wrote the Bible made a lot of stuff up. uh, honestly I have no idea where you got that impression. In another thread I did mention that I could take on the alias of "Calamity Kim McCoy" if I joined the antique firearms shooting sports society. And I asked Derek "be ye a Hatfield or a McCoy?" later. Beyond that, I can't imagine what you might be thinking of. My comment that I would keep my musket loaded as long as there were still Hatfields prowling these hills was an allusion. A savvy reader might suspect that I recently watched the "Hatfields & McCoys" TV series, and they'd be correct. Perhaps next week I'll be using sports references in my messages instead, but for now you'll have to suffer through my black-powder phase. -k

-The Oxford Bible Commentary. You have no way of knowing how much the stories originally passed down changed by the time they were eventually written down. There's good reason to think they changed *a lot*. You keep claiming these vague similarities ("It says god spread out the heavens! It's obviously talking about the Big Bang!") are proof that the Bible was inspired by divine knowledge. But what about the stuff they got *wrong*? I mean, Genesis tells us that god created plants before he created the sun and stars. You know that's wrong and that there's no way to reconcile that with science. So... if the people who wrote Genesis had "divine knowledge" on their side, how did they make such a gigantic screw-up? -k

A regional civil war in Canada? Preposterous. Now, if some province were to declare itself independent, I could imagine the federal government might take some pretty strong action to maintain authority... but I can't imagine it would turn into an actual war. Melanie's suggestion of land claims is one way I could see Canadians taking up arms against each other. People are ordered out of their homes and they say "no. Make us." Or some native group says "this IS our land, and we are taking it". We have had clashes between armed natives and law enforcement and the military before, and will again. I am not too concerned with the idea of some kind of organized armed confrontation between Canadians. I'm more worried about disorganized armed confrontation. Some sort of situation where people begin to believe that their survival depends on being able to take the things they need by force. Hypothetically, a major fuel shortage. The trucks that bring food and other supplies into my region aren't rolling anymore, and the shelves become depleted. How long does it take before people eat all the food in their own home and start wondering if their neighbors have any food? How hungry do they have to get before they start contemplating taking their neighbor's food by force? The police are too busy to protect everybody, and they haven't got fuel to operate their cars or helicopters. How bad are things going to get if the trucks don't start rolling again soon? That sort of situation scares me more than some kind of organized political action. -k

Even here in smalltown Canada I sometimes see cars with PrisonPlanet or InfoWars.com bumper stickers. If only we had an Alex Jones disciple on this message board *cough*Gosthacked*cough* who could tell us what they see in the guy. "He's the only one who isn't afraid to talk about this stuff!" "He's talking about stuff that the mainstream media doesn't want you to know about!" People crave unifying purpose. It used to be ensuring the tribe's survival, hunting, defending the tribe's offspring, stuff like that. Nowadays people answer that craving with membership in a church, or through allegiance to a sports team, or from joining some cause. I think that Alex Jones fans are in a similar vein... they're not just people listening to a radio show, they're a resistance unit: the courageous few who know what's really going on. They get purpose, and a sense of belonging, even a sense of importance. I also think that there's an almost religious aspect. No, Jones isn't telling you why the sun rises or what causes thunder. But you're sitting at home, thinking "my life isn't what I expected, and I'm scared about the future, and I don't know what's going on, and I don't like the answers people are giving me." But all of a sudden here's this guy with the answers you're looking for! Why are you scared? You should be! There's a vast conspiracy at work. Why isn't your life what you expected? Because this vast conspiracy is keeping people down. Why don't people know what's going on? Because the vast conspiracy is keeping it a secret. You're no longer some scared and dissatisfied person, you're one of the few who have the courage to seek the truth and now you've got inside information about what's really going on. And now you've got purpose. You have to fight the conspiracy! It's almost like The Matrix. Alex Jones is Morpheus, and each listener gets to be Neo. -k

They're telling us that politicians and judges are taking away their rights. They're telling us that the gays are the new KKK. They're saying the media is waging war against them and that schools and universities are oppressing them. There is not a better word in the whole english language to sum up what they are saying is being done to them than "persecution". The Catholics are staging a big event called the "Fortnight For Freedom" right now because they want to tell you that they are being oppressed. He said the government ought to execute gays. "Oh, so you're saying that we should go out and start killing them? No, I'm saying the government should. They won't, but they should." That's what he said. If that's not calling for the killing of gays, what on earth is it? And of course Sean Harris was "just joking". Everybody's "just joking" when they get caught saying something they wish they hadn't. Mitt Romney was "just joking" when he cut that kid's hair off, too. Those wacky jokesters, just having too much fun. Mississippi State Rep Andy Gipson totally didn't mean that people should literally kill gays when he said "Leviticus 20:13" in response to President Obama's support for gay marriage. ("They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.") Because it's not Andy that wants to kill gays. It's God. The thing that's remarkable about these guys isn't that the hate, it's just the astoundingly bad judgment. Hate is pretty mainstream in Christianity. It's the reason churches keep . Four pastors, plus the congregations that cheered them on, plus the communities that rallied in support of them, plus other Christian leaders and congregations around the country, plus groups like American Family Association and One Million Moms, plus the politicians around the country who've gone to their legislatures to introduce legislation to make sure that Christians have the right to keep on hating... I'm sure you're not asking why I care about events outside Canada's borders, because I seem to recall you post a great deal about events beyond America's. As for the attitudes, I think that the fact that one side has legitimate issues to complain about while the other has laughable, fake issues to complain about makes your idea about "attitudes" pretty irrelevant. The fact that one side has small activist organizations and the ACLU standing up for it while the other has billions of dollars, lobbyists, and an entire political party at its disposal is also pretty significant. You're probably well aware that refraining from partisan politics is a condition of the church's tax exempt status. You might not be aware that some churches are actively flouting this rule and daring the IRS to take action. Have you considered that politicians don't just pander to religion when they're running for office, they do it after they're elected too? As a Youpper, you probably recall the uproar over "Matt's Safe School Law" late last year, when Christian groups pressured Michigan Republicans into putting in "faith based exemptions" that would have made the proposed law worse than none at all; they backed down when a youtube video of Sen. Gretchen Whitmer's senate speech went viral and basically shamed them into dropping the exemptions. Another winner of a law is on its way in your neck of the woods. "The Julea Ward Freedom of Conscience" act. It prevents public and state universities from flunking students who refuse to complete course material for religious reasons (Ward wants to be a counsellor, but she wouldn't provide counselling to people whose lifestyle choices were "unBiblical".) What do you think, AW? Good law for Michigan? Personally, I doubt it. I'm going to laugh my ass off when some would-be med student sues the school for flunking her when she wrote "6000 years", "Noah's Ark", and "God did it" on her microbiology exam. Why did this law happen? It happened because religious people cried "persecution". Instead of "student refuses to complete the requirements of her degree program", the message the politicians went with was "Student persecuted for her religious beliefs!!!" Of course, Christians want this sort of "exemption of conscience" for all kinds of employees, as long as they're Christian of course. A Catholic pharmacist shouldn't have to fill prescriptions for birth control pills! The people who think this sort of thing is a great idea would probably flip their shit if some Muslim cabbie told them they can't bring their new bottle of Scotch on his taxi. And of course, "exemption of conscience" only applies to religious people. If a vegetarian animal-lover refused to help a guy who wanted a hunting license, do you think Christians will be fighting for her conscience? Of course not. Because her strongly-held beliefs come from her heart and her mind instead of from some book written by bronze-age idiots, so obviously her strongly-held beliefs just don't matter. I've never once advocated for silencing them. I'm all for confronting stupidity with the ridicule and contempt it deserves, which is the whole idea behind this thread. I think it's extremely unfortunate that many people seem to shy away from confronting religion. There seems to be an attitude that we must patiently tolerate their views because ... because they're religious. "Well, I completely disagree with everything he just said, but I must respect his religious views because otherwise I would be a bigot." The demonstration against Pastor Chuck represents America, and the congregations that cheered on his speech also represents America. Unlike Muslims, or atheists, or any other minority religion, Christians have vast power and influence in America. And you can say "well yes but the attitude is the same" but what does attitude matter? Christians made your state legislature pass bad law. Muslims didn't. Atheists didn't. -k

When you put it in those terms, it really makes it clear why a 22LR is the right gun to practice with. So I completed my courses and I will have my license as soon as the bureaucrats process my application. So I'll probably have it by about this time next year... The bear issue was discussed during class, as a lot of students were interested in it. It was mentioned that shotgun slugs actually have pretty poor penetrating power, as they're largely hollow. I got to handle one, and I was pretty disappointed-- it's surprisingly light. It's basically built like a little lead badminton birdie-- all the mass is at the front, and the wide tail is just there to keep it flying straight. The most trusted round for dealing with great bears is, apparently, the .375 Holland & Holland Magnum. Unfortunately, guns that fire that cartridge cost megabucks and it costs you $4 each time you pull the trigger. A Ruger Hawkeye "Alaska" or "Africa" in 375 Ruger or 416 Ruger can be obtained for under $1000 and packs the same kind of wallop, but the cartridges still cost over $3 apiece. This lovable old guy presents an alternative: the Marlin 1895 lever action, firing .45-70 rounds. (geez, can he shoot!) The gun itself can be had for a thrifty $600, and the cartridges look to cost somewhere around $2 apiece, which is still lots but slightly less insane at least. And there's just something cool about lever actions. As you've probably guessed by now I have a soft spot for the traditional looking stuff. I enjoyed the lever-action at my course, and I pretty much want one. I did a little window shopping this weekend. Got to handle a few of the 22s I've been thinking about. I was disappointed with the Marlin 795... the synthetic stock just felt so slick and ... almost slimy. The Remington 597, on the other hand, has a great feel. Unfortunately I've read very mixed reviews of it. Found a place that had some Lee-Enfields, but they looked like they'd been through a wood-chipper. On the subject of 22s and stuff that looks traditional, I like the looks of this pistol:the Ruger Single-Six. It comes with 2 cylinders, one for .22LR, and one for .22 magnum. 22LR would make it a cheap way to practice pistol shooting, and it would probably be suitable if I wanted to try the cowboy action shooting sports. And, having the 22 magnum cylinder could come in handy some day. I gather the 22 mag is about twice as powerful as 22LR, and it looks like there are some 22mag rounds on the market that are designed specifically for causing damage. So it might be handy in case of a zombie emergency. And it's so adorable! And this is even more adorable! If I was going to have a bunch of 22 magnum rounds lying around anyway, I'd definitely want this. Anyway, those mooks better hurry up and process my license. -k

As long as there's still Hatfields prowling in these hills, I'll keep my musket loaded. Y'know what I mean? I believe I answered each of your "facts" one by one as you introduced them. If you feel I missed one, feel free to point it out. I'm not the one here who needs help. And while I can't provide you with the kind of professional help you need, I'm doing my best to try to at least encourage you to think critically about the stuff you're saying. Sadly, it seems to be a hopeless cause. oh. ok. Bye bye! oh, you're back! How delightful! Genesis is nowhere near that old. I'll repost this fascinating video that invites you to to consider how reliable the "oral history" of the Israelites really is and how much it might have been altered over the years. -k