Discuss amongst yourselves

This is kind of a weird one, but hey, whatever.

I laughed, I cried

Much better than CATS. From Scott Adams’ blog, a commenter writes:

You’ve generally been associating with the wrong kind of atheists.

The majority of atheists I’ve met have explored various religions and many have been brought up in one of them. They read religious texts and ask believers about their faiths. They are well-read and do lots of research, and are generally open-minded. They have come to their conclusions logically after exploring the options that they could find, and continue to explore even so.

That is proper, intellectual atheism.

1. (wipes eyes) Oh my, that was FUNNY!

2. And here we’d been repeatedly informed that atheism is NOT a religious faith, it is nothing more than belief that there is no god. And now there’s a proper, intellectual variant? How convenient. No doubt this is how Mao and Pol Pot will be explained away, they were Low Church Atheists, not proper, intellectual High Church Atheists.

3. Given the ignorance of the most basic precepts of Western Christianity demonstrated by nearly every commenter at the Dilbert blog, (to say nothing of the same cluelessness shown by their intellectual heroes Dawkins, Dennett and Harris), this ideal High Church Atheist is spotted about as often as the rare Blue-horned Rainbow Tail is seen in Happy Happy Unicornitopia. One shudders to even think about their profound analyses of the Shinto or Hindu religions.

I mean seriously, that childish “you are an atheist too, I have one less god than you” is simply moronic. There’s no need to delve into assemblies and ruling princes, a basic foundation of Christian theology is right there at the start of the Ten Commandments.

Let’s see if any of these intelligent, highly educated atheists can manage to correctly the following question:

What is the obvious implication of “You shall have no other gods before Me”?

a) there is more than one god
b) it’s okay to have gods after Him
c) but.. but.. [insert long recitation of dictionary definition of monotheism that completely fails to distinguish between BELIEF and WORSHIP]

It’s not the fact that these atheists have literally no clue what they’re talking about that astounds me, it’s the blithe assumption that they are superlatively intelligent and irrefutably correct.

Mailvox: she’s got nothing

I asked Blondie to explain why the average American woman is better than a halfway-realistic girl robot, and this was the best that she could do:

Anyone who would even pretend to take seriously a suggestion that a robot woman is preferable to a human woman obviously hates women so badly that serious discussion is not possible.

Can it really surprise any of you posters who would prefer a robot to a woman that the girls just don’t seem to like you?

That’s an evasion, it is not an answer. Come on, Blondie, just one reason? You can’t come up with one, solitary little reason why a man must find a woman preferable to a fembot?

That’s interesting, because men and women alike haven’t had any trouble coming up with reasons that fembots would be preferable to the average American woman. It’s not that there aren’t any advantages to the average American woman, it’s just that they are outweighed by those of these hypothetical robot girls.

And since when have women not been attracted to men based on their dangerous opinions or evil behavior? I could eat the president of NOW’s heart live on Fox News, announce the founding of the John Adams Anti-Suffragism Society, then declare my intention of raping every teenage girl in the country, and three months later I’d be sitting in my jail cell perusing dozens of marriage proposals from lovestruck women.

Only men who don’t know anything about women concern themselves with winning female approval in order to attract women. If anything, the approval reduces the attraction.

Mailvox: the force of moral inertia

König fails to grok:

Vox, “The irrationalism of atheism does not refer to its being a faith-based religion… Instead, it refers to the average atheist’s adherence to Christian morality.”

Three paragraphs later, “Christian morality is not the Golden Rule. To love and obey (Christ/Ghost) comes first and foremost”

Two paragraphs after that, “The moral behavior of the average atheist… simply isn’t rational. There is no thought entering the process at all, it is merely unthinking adherence to the herd norms.”

Come on, König, you’ve been around long enough to do better than this. Atheist morality in a traditional Western culture is virtually identical to Christian morality with the excision a few of the sexual mores. But being largely ignorant of the source of these morals, most atheists don’t realize that “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is merely a small, but important subset of Christian morality, it is not even the most important part.

But atheists don’t subscribe to the part of the morality based on the subset alone. They readily recognize “evils” that are not violations of the Golden Rule, but are instead violations of other aspects of Christian morality in its totality, violations of the Will of God. Indeed, the very notion of an improper thought is proof of this as the Golden Rule can only be violated with an action, moreover, I daresay no atheist is willing to grant a rapist a free moral pass on the grounds that he would not object to being raped himself.

This adherence is not rational, it is merely unconscious acquiescence to the human herd mentality. Civilization runs three generations deep. That is the extent of moral inertia.

Mailvox: deal or drop out

The One has a question:

So I’ve been playing poker for half a year now as a pro. I have focused on tournies and SNGs, recently came back to cash games. Well my finance told me today if i continue to play poker she can’t be with me. She told me it was wrong, that I shouldn’t be going it, that I was wasting my potential. I asked her if it was about money and she said no, even if I win million dollars she won’t be happy, basically she implied it wasn’t noble. I found that odd as I before this I was a commodoties trader, and I basically bought low sold high, etc ,so there wasn’t anything noble about that, but she seemed much happier when I was doing it. I quit because I like to work for myself and don’t relish the fact of getting up at 6 a.m everyday. I also left college at twenty to enter Wall Street, I always been a risk taker. Anyway I feel if I am being true to myself, I must stay with poker, but I don’t want to lose her, she is a good girl or I wouldn’t have purposed to her. It certainly isn’t the safest route, how retarded will I feel if I pick poker and then in a year or two the gov’t really does ban it and I end up with nothing. I spoke to my friends, but I like advice from you guys. What I am msot concerned with is setting a pattern. If she wants to change me in this, what else will she want to change me in? Or what if I get a regular job and in 5 years I get a promotion to another state, and she wants to stay here, then what? How far do you compromise? Love to hear from you Vox as you are the woman expert.

First, there’s no such thing as a woman expert. There are only men whose experience with women is less unsuccessful than others. The problem that you’re facing here is due to one of three possibilities:

1. Your fiance fears risk.

2. Your fiance is hooked on perceived status.

3. Your fiance is a control freak.

4. Your fiance is testing your backbone.

In cases two, three and four, the answer is simple. Tell her that as you are responsible for providing for your own support as well as that of your family, you will make the decisions regarding how that support is best performed. If she is simply testing you, as women always do from time to time, she will accept your decision and likely forget all about the entire affair.

If she is hooked on status, then drop kick her as far as you can, as fast as you can. Traders and investment bankers are of very high status, poker players are considered low class. One occupation summons up images of Porsches, massive Christmas bonuses and elegant parties in expensive New York condominiums, the other images of cigars and cheap suits. The fact that both occupations are essentially the same is irrelevant in this regard.

Likewise if she’s a control freak. Only make sure to leave a mark so that all the other non-masochists will know to avoid her. Or, if you prefer, to help the masochists find what they’re looking for.

However, if it’s what I suspect, a risk thing, then you might be able to talk her round without calling. Being an entrepeneur and associating with many entrepeneurs, I know how hard the constant uncertainty can be on women. Women hate and fear risk even though they love the rewards it can bring. The key is to give them some sense of stability, of financial security, that will offset the inherently chaotic nature of the incessant risk-taking. The problem is that whereas you can blow off losing fifty grand because you know it is going to happen from time to time, she can’t hear about it without getting lost in scenarios that involve her being homeless and starving on the street.

Talk to her about your savings, assure her that it won’t be part of your operational money and that it won’t be invested in anything riskier than bonds or metal. Promise that you’ll put away a certain percent of every win so that she knows you’re not risking everything every time you enter a tournament. And put some parameters on your performance, so that she knows you’ll quit if you can’t make it work before completely destroying your finances.

If she still can’t handle it, then she’s simply not the right woman for you and the relationship must end. This doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with her, it just means she needs to settle down with a nice middle manager who works at an office, makes 65k per year and contributes to his 401k every month. The world needs them too.