Surrounded by insubordination

I had my assistant designer take that personality profile too… seems he’s an INTJ as well. I thought some of you might be amused by his response:

I didn’t think you’d be the type to have me take a personality test…but I took it anyway. Maybe you can paint your nails while you read the results.

Well, he’s in the right industry, anyhow.

No word on Watson

Or how she feels about the beheading of Antoine Lavoisier. But this is a nice little rebuttal to provide those who try to deny that atheists are angry:

I’m angry about what happened to Galileo. Still. And I’m angry that it took the Catholic Church until 1992 to apologize for it.

Her other justifications for her righteous and holy rage are equally spurious, of course, but you can’t really expect much in the way of cool, dispassionate reason from a fat, angry, lesbian atheist.

Ron Paul revolutionaries

The Revolution resonates:

It sometimes seems as if someone is playing a cruel practical joke on Ron Paul. He goes to a college and delivers the same speech he’s given for the past 30 years of his political career, the one espousing the Austrian school of economics. Only now the audience is packed with hundreds of kids in RON PAUL REVOLUTION T-shirts who go nuts – giving standing ovations when he drones on about getting rid of the Federal Reserve and returning to the gold standard. After a speech at Iowa State last month, when nearly half the crowd had to stand because there were only 400 seats, a hipster-looking student worked his way through the half-hour-long line to shake Paul’s hand. This was surely it – the moment when the straight faces would break and Paul would be wedgied up the flagpole. “When you see Bernanke,” the kid said, “will you tell him to stop cutting rates when gold hits 1,000?”

The libertarian’s traction is most apparent on the Internet, where his presence far outstrips that of any candidate from either party. His name is the most searched, his YouTube videos the most watched, his campaign the topic of songs by at least 14 bands. “The last thing I would listen to is rap,” Paul says. “But there’s something going on when there’s a rap song about the Fed.” On Tuesday, both Paul and Tom Cruise were guests on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. The actor went to Paul’s dressing room to thank him for his work on a bill fighting the forced mental screening of grade-school kids. “Go. Go. Go. Go hard,” Cruise said. Paul turned to an aide and asked, “What movies has he been in?”

“His supporters are the equivalent of crabgrass,” says G.O.P. consultant Frank Luntz. “It’s not the grass you want, and it spreads faster than the real stuff. They just like him because he’s the most anti-Establishment of all the candidates, the most likely to look at the camera during the debates and say, ‘Hey, Washington, f— you.'”

Given the state of the Establishment, there’s a lot to be anti about. And the reason that his supporters are “not the grass” the Republican Party wants is that they aren’t mindless individuals who will froth at the mouth and vote on command at every invocation of the “lesser of two evils” argument.

UPDATE – Mark Krikorian sums it up nicely:

Stanley: I decided to take a look and see who’d said what on the issue of licensing illegal aliens. Romney and Thompson have already issued statements blasting the idea, Giuliani was unequivocal in his condemnation on the Glenn Beck show, Hunter doesn’t seem to be highlighting it, but he touts his vote for the Real ID Act that set federal standards, so it’s safe to say he’s on the right side….

I’m not sure of Ron Paul is in favor of driver’s licenses for anyone.

The atheist recants

Sir Anthony Flew is only one of many individuals, including me, who have rejected atheism or agnosticism as intellectually developed adults because of the evidence, not in spite of it.

Wiker: You are obviously aware of the spate of recent books by such atheists as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. They think that those who believe in God are behind the times. But you seem to be politely asserting that they are ones who are behind the times, insofar as the latest scientific evidence tends strongly toward—or perhaps even demonstrates—a theistic conclusion. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

Flew: Yes indeed. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.

I have found that one of the most damning things about atheism is the way in which very, very few come to an atheist position as adults, but rather as children (Hitchens) or teenagers (Dawkins, Russell). Sam Harris’s irreligious awakening as a result of taking ecstasy is amusingly ironic, but equally unimpressive. This doesn’t necessarily testify to the truth or falsehood of atheism itself, but it does go a long way towards judging the intellectual credibility of the individual atheist. College is not a time of intellectual refinement, but rather intellectual experimentation; it should be no surprise that college professors are particularly inclined towards atheism as they tend to be emotionally and intellectually stunted individuals, crippled by their existence in sheltered, artificial academic hot-houses.

They are college students in perpetuity, and one need only think back to one’s university days to recall that there are few things sillier or more shallow than what passes for a college student’s intellectual life.

Underlining the utter vaccuity of the atheist position is the fact that the average atheist does not even understand what the word “evidence” means. There are many types of evidence beyond scientific evidence, the entire basis for our system of law explicitly denies the concept that “scientific evidence” is the only valid form of evidence.

Of the four types of evidence deemed permissible for determining truth in court, only “real” evidence for God can possibly be considered lacking in any way, although not necessarily as documentary evidence is considered a form of real evidence. There is ample demonstrative, documentary, and testimonial evidence, and in legal terms, testimonial evidence is the strongest as it is “the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility. See Evid. Code § 702(b); Fed R. Evid. 602.”

Scientific evidence, on the other hand, is often not permissible in court because it is too often known to be unreliable.

The atheist Theodore Dalrymple adds the obvious:

Of course, men—that is to say, some men—have denied this truth ever since the Enlightenment, and have sought to find a way of life based entirely on reason. Far as I am from decrying reason, the attempt leads at best to Gradgrind and at worst to Stalin. Reason can never be the absolute dictator of man’s mental or moral economy….

The curious thing about these books is that the authors often appear to think that they are saying something new and brave. They imagine themselves to be like the intrepid explorer Sir Richard Burton, who in 1853 disguised himself as a Muslim merchant, went to Mecca, and then wrote a book about his unprecedented feat. The public appears to agree, for the neo-atheist books have sold by the hundred thousand. Yet with the possible exception of Dennett’s, they advance no argument that I, the village atheist, could not have made by the age of 14….