Patience, godless grasshopper

Deacon Duncan gets busted:

Apparently Vox Day has not only noticed one of my posts about The Irrational Atheist, he has re-posted it, verbatim, on his discussion forum. The whole thing. With no reply.

And yet, with a link to the original post…. Actually, I don’t think such a painstaking effort should be ignored and I intend to respond in excruciating detail once he finishes working his way through the book. I only put up the first bit up so I don’t completely forget about it before he wraps up the next 13 chapters. His take on it is certainly somewhat unusual. I could be wrong, but so far, he seems to be under the general impression that my entire argument is based on innuendo. But, as those who have read a bit further in well know, I don’t bother with innuendo, I just come right out and say it.

I’ll be surprised, but pleased if he makes it all the way through. It’s been interesting to see how those who initially announced their intention of doing a chapter-by-chapter review seem to mysteriously grind to a halt somewhere between chapter two and chapter three… which is precisely when the setup ends and the more serious shots start getting fired.

Speaking of this, here’s another example of an atheist reviewer who is so upset about the disrespect that I show to his heroes that he can’t even make it to the SECOND chapter. Imagine his reaction if a Christian dismissed The God Delusion because he concluded that the whole book obviously isn’t about anything but ALBERT freaking EINSTEIN! Bonus points if you can count the obvious errors in his review of Chapter One.

Amusingly enough, Arizona Atheist tries the Sam Harris defense:

Of course, as he did with his book and the “new atheists”, he completely misrepresents me and my review. Though, judging from his book that’s nothing new for him. He claims that I make a ton of mistakes? That’s laughable…

No, not a ton, I counted 18. But it’s possible that I may have missed a few.

Adding to the lexicon

It occurs to me that when kicking around the concept of God as game designer, we’re still missing a few words required to properly consider the concept. The problem with the concept of omniscience is that it’s a weirdly binary notion, wherein the only options are a superficially illogical all-knowing and a definitively non-Biblical naught-knowing of nonexistence. But how would one describe the knowledge of the Game Designer God, who can know or not know any given thing depending solely on His will?

The concept of voliscience describes a Creator who knows whatever He wants, whenever He wants, to the extent that the concept of time is even relevant to such a being. Not only does this concept not limit God, but it has the additional benefit of being far more Biblically accurate than the traditional concept of an omniscient God. In fact, if one thinks about the matter for more than five seconds, one quickly realizes that the concept of voliscience is far less limiting than the use of the concept of omniscience has historically proven to be. One might also consider the concept of volipotence to be of some benefit in better conceiving a rationally sound and Scripturally precise nature of the Biblical God, but it’s probably less necessary since the key stumbling point for most Christians and atheists alike here is not related directly to omnipotence per se, but rather their inability to distinguish between the capacity of omnipotence and the action of omniderigence.

The fact that there is no possible logical conflict between voliscience and volipotence only adds to the rational appeal of the concept in my opinion, although I regard the nominal theodictic conflict between omnipotence and omniscience to reflect thinking so shallow as to border on stupidity anyhow. In an information society, one has to be fairly obtuse to fail to realize that because knowledge is power, absolute knowledge IS absolute power. There is no conflict because the two are one and the same.

Back to the caves

But they’ll smell nicer this time:

I believe that for a very long time men have held up the world by both altruism and greed. I believe that the equilibrium that is gender equity has shifted, and now the onus of responsibility has fallen – not out of disrespect – to women.

I, for one, would love to see the U.S. governed by a female president, a female Supreme Court, and an entirely female House and Senate. Within twenty years, the White House would be issuing formal and very tasteful requests on Chinese-made paper to Germany, Russia and any surviving bastion of patriarchal white male culture to invade and enslave them. Pretty, pretty please!

The curse of women is their eternal desire for control, coupled with a total aversion to responsibility. Throw in the inevitable incompetence caused by bubbling irrationality on the steady low boil and you have a recipe for the primitive, short-lived life in grass huts that is the hallmark of the matriarchal society. Never fear to hand over authority to any woman who demands it. It’s amazing how fast she’ll hand it right back once you make it clear that you won’t make any decisions for her and that she’ll be held 100 percent accountable for her failures as well as her successes. And if she’s one of those rare Elizabethan birds who can handle the pressure of total responsibility and deliver genuine performance, even better!

On an individual level, this guy’s comment is the gold standard. Read it, grok it, live by it: “If I can never do anything right then your opinion is of no value to me.”