Falsifying Christianity

What would suffice to disprove Christianity? I can think of two things off the top of my head:

1.The disappearance of the Jewish people would disprove both God’s promise to Abraham and the Book of Revelation.

2.The discovery of Jesus Christ’s crucified skeleton would disprove the Resurrection.

Anyone got any more ideas? And what would falsify other religions, such as Hinduism or the Ba’hai faith?

Ron Paul on The Daily Show

A good message, the philosophy of Liberty. People are still interested in being free people, living in a free country…. it’s a good message, but I don’t believe in spreading it with guns.”

Whiny little bitch

Sam Harris is just a poor, misunderstood soul. Or he would be if he had one, anyhow:

Exhibit 1:
As I mentioned briefly during the live event, Hedges misrepresented my views on several topics in his opening remarks. Rather than do a little fact-checking after the debate, he chose to make these distortions indelible in his essay, “I Don’t Believe in Atheists.”

Exhibit 2:
Before I address your central argument, I’d like to point out that you continue to misunderstand me in small ways that make me seem (even) more boorish than I am…. While you admit to being “a little evasive” about the details of your Christianity, I think this has been less of an issue than your not addressing many of the points I’ve raised which are (in my view) quite damaging to the case you have made for faith.

Exhibit 3:
I should clear up a couple misconceptions you have about me…. This debate is fast drawing to a close, Dennis, and you have neither addressed my arguments nor presented any substantive arguments of your own…. I trust that attentive readers will notice where you have misconstrued me (or rendered a tortured interpretation of Collins, polling data, etc.).

It’s amazing how utterly shameless Harris is. For example, I looked at the section preceding his claim that Sullivan hasn’t addressed his points; in a meandering rant of 2,000 words, he only asks Sullivan one question that isn’t a rhetorical one he answers himself. And the question was a minor one that Sullivan was right to ignore.

You know, if Sam Harris is so often and easily misunderstood by every interlocutor with whom he engages, one would reasonably assume that the fault must lie with him and his inability to express himself in a clear and coherent manner. Regardless, anyone debating Sam Harris should be sure to arrange for a moderator, since trollish buffoonery is a major element of his debating style.

The Irrational Atheist

I’m accustomed to getting paid to not write books, but this is the first time that I’ve seen one of my books sold to the general public before it’s even been written. And here I was impressed that you could order The Wrath of Angels through Amazon.

Apparently I’m now an exo-temporal uploaded Internet superintelligence. Or perhaps I wioll haven been. Ha! I scoff at you Mr. Space-Time Continuum!

You know, it occurs to me that if I order it now, I could just copy the text and save myself the trouble of actually having to write it. That’s almost as easy as getting paid to not write!

UPDATE: Some of you were digging the book yesterday, so I’m popping it up here again. Many thanks to Taylor for showing me how to set the Blogger template to digg by individual post. The funny thing is that thanks to those of you who placed preorders yesterday, TIA’s Amazon rank is higher than that reached by any of my novels.

Of Tancredo and Thompson

Emilio wonders why I don’t support Tancredo:

your call for rush to endorse ron paul was not a good idea, if you are going to ask “the godfather” to endorse anyone, it would have been a better choice tom tancredo, as small as it is, he would have a much better chance to pull it off than mr. paul. tancredo main focus is on illegal immigration, what is mr. paul’s stand on the subject? would he close the borders? i have asked ms mercer since she is another libertarian, and she does not know the answer to that question. i agree we should bring home troops back from all over the world, but would he put them once here, on the border?
also his view that the main reason the islamic terrorists hate us is because we went over there, is not quite true, they hate us because THEY HATE EVERYBODY THAT IS NOT MUSLIM and will not be happy until they take over the whole world, whether we had gone there or not. those two points makes me very leery of mr. paul.

Paul wants to defend the border and limit immigration. Paul is also a much more viable candidate than Tancredo, who is good on immigration but isn’t anywhere nearly as articulate. Also, Paul has proven that he is an unusually principled man, Tancredo has not.

Paul never said anything about why they hate us, he correctly identified why they ATTACKED us. There is a big difference.

thanks for answering, i agree about his having been articulate. i hope in future speeches mr. paul puts the emphasis on the illegal invasion of mexico because that is what will bring this country down in the near future without a doubt.

Don’t get me wrong, Tancredo is much better than Giuliani, McCain or Romney, he simply isn’t as reliable on the Constitutional issues as Paul. The same goes for Hunter or Huckabee. Still, it’s interesting to see how many people generally like Paul but give one or two reasons for not supporting him which are based on a mistaken view of his actual positions.

Fred Thompson, on the other hand, is pure Three Monkey Republican bait, anyone who believes that he will be any different than George W. Bush is risks being fooled thrice. Proof of this is the way Bush’s biggest supporters are now rushing to get on board with Thompson’s campaign. Thompson will likely talk a good game, just as George Delano did in 2000, and that may allow him to keep the Republican Party from entirely imploding by losing to Hillary in a respectable manner instead of being blown out in the historic landslide I’m expecting.

I find Thompson’s entry to be very interesting, as I suspect it is a desperate “Save the Party” move designed to prevent that backbone-busting blowout. It’s proof that the Giuliani sale failed. I’m not convinced that it will even work, as I have little doubt that Thompson’s appeal will dissipate as soon as conservatives realize that he’s simply offering the same status quo currently on offer from Romney and McCain. He’s pro-occupation, anti-free speech and pro-UN, so there’s no reason for conservatives to be any more excited about him as a potential Hillary-killer than the other three candidates favored by the leadership.

Challenging Heaven

Another of those strangely common correlations between atheism and a personal moral code which justifies slaughtering millions:

The name of the Mao movie is significant. Mao once described himself as “without law and without heaven.”

Mao wrote: “I do not agree with the view that to be moral, the motive of one’s actions has to be benefiting others. Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others. … People like me want to … satisfy our hearts to the full, and in doing so we automatically have the most valuable moral codes. Of course there are people and objects in the world, but they are all there only for me. … People like me only have a duty to ourselves; we have no duty to other people.”

I note that there’s no claim killing anyone in the name of Communism. His actions are merely guided by the individual morality which atheists insist that everyone must determine for himself.

This doesn’t make any other atheist responsible for Mao’s actions, of course, but it certainly justifies viewing every individual possessed of a subjectively determined morality with more than a little skepticism until they have demonstrated that their personal moral code is not too violently in conflict with the objective moral codes of Christianity or whatever the dominant code happens to be.