Fun with memes

NateM passed this on to me. I don’t usually bother with these tagging games, but I found this one hard to resist.

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?

Social autism.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

Yes. Baptist.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?

Irrelevant.

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

Since many would probably classify it as a scientific endeavour, I’d say artificial intelligence even though I consider it to be a technological development rather than a scientific one. As for actual science, I’m looking forward to seeing genetic science used to create new medical technologies as well as eventually demolishing the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

What: Realizing the illusion of its supposed dedication to rational materialism and science.
Why: Because it is very, very difficult to have a rational and intelligent conversation with an irrational, maleducated individual who is convinced that he is more rational and more educated than everyone else on the sole basis of his childhood disbelief in the supernatural.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

“Are you sure you’re up for the challenge?” The Bible makes it clear that more is expected of those who put themselves in positions of spiritual leadership. It’s not for the faint of heart, and there’s no shortage of examples of weak men being all too easily destroyed in those roles.

Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

The evidence argument. It’s proven to be rather difficult to refute since the vast majority of atheists have a very poor understanding of what evidence is – their tendency towards science fetishism often causes them to believe only scientific evidence is evidence – and quickly find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to deny the existence of things they quite clearly believe. Turning it around, I quite enjoy dealing with the atheist Argument by Imperfect Design.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

I’ll leave that up to others to decide.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Intellectually, Dennett. But personally, I think Harris is the most open-minded and would probably the most interesting to have dinner with.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

Their beliefs in what? God? Equality? The certain triumph of the Worker’s ParadiseEnlightenment?

Posted by Vox Day.

Internal and external aspects of Heller

A Democrat sees positive signs in Heller:

Justice Scalia’s opinion, if one cuts through some of the bluster, is really quite moderate—he goes out of his way to support the legitimacy of much current federal regulation—and could easily be endorsed by Sen. Obama without political cost, save for those who wish him to continue down the politically fatal path of endorsing extremely restrictive gun control….

If one had any reason to believe that either Scalia or Stevens was a competent historian, then perhaps it would be worth reading the pages they write. But they are not. Both opinions exhibit the worst kind of “law-office history,” in which each side engages in shamelessly (and shamefully) selective readings of the historical record in order to support what one strongly suspects are pre-determined positions.

The latter paragraph is directly related to what we were discussing yesterday. Lawyers and those in the legal industry are obsessed with the “internal” aspects. They’re constantly quibbling over irrelevant minutiae when it is usually the “external” factors that drive the actual judicial process and create the inconsistencies that are subsequently interpreted and spun into the minutiae of tomorrow. Meanwhile, the former paragraph should give pause to those conservatives inclined to celebrate the decision. As one commenter mentioned, this is a decision that says: “You have the right to own a gun today. But we have laid the groundwork for taking away that right tomorrow.”

Posted by Vox Day.

The OC in a Strange Land

The Original Cyberpunk hosts a book discussion on Robert Heinlein’s SF classic Stranger in a Strange Land.

My own thoughts later…. In the meantime, Sean gets even stranger with this hilarious Heinlein parody.

Posted by Vox Day.

Euro 2008 semis

The two semifinal games were two of the better games played in what has been a surprisingly lackluster tournament. The problem, I think, is that none of the more skilled teams has a reliable back four, which has caused most of the managers to play their midfielders in a predominantly defensive position. With a few notable exceptions – such as Lang’s game-winning goal for Germany – we haven’t seen many attacking runs forward by the defenders on the wings. Of course, it probably didn’t help that Greece managed to win the previous tournament with little more than solid defending and an in-form keeper.

1. Pre-tournament favorite Germany still looks shaky, but they’re in the finals. If Podolski and Schweinsteiger didn’t combine for that surprise first goal in quick response to Turkey’s – Germany was under non-stop assault for the first 20 minutes and hadn’t generated a single serious attack before their first score – they might have lost 4-0. But they did and kept Germany in the game long enough to get them past the point of potential collapse, proving that it’s always dangerous to count out the Germans no matter how average they appear.

2. Russia under Hiddink was definitely the most exciting team in the tournament. As in the Holland game, they threw everything they had at the Spanish, but the Spanish defense was more solid than the Dutch. Italy showed that you can shut down Villa, Torres, Fabregas and Silva by playing ten men back, but playing not to lose is foolish, especially against a squad with plenty of ace penalty-takers. Russia’s defense isn’t that good, so once it became apparent that the Spanish defense wasn’t overly bothered by the pressure, it was clear that the Russians were doomed even before the first Spanish goal in the second half. You have to respect Hiddink, though. I think he would be a very interesting coach for the US team to consider for the next World Cup.

3. Donadoni got fired, and deservedly so. He’s a great player, a good-looking clotheshorse, and a terrible manager. I seriously think I could have gotten Italy past the group stage, counting on Luca Toni in the attack was simply stupid.

4. One of the English announcers has a rather peculiar tendency towards the redundant. Is it really necessary to declare “Now it’s Torres for Spain” or “On the ball is Schweinsteiger for Germany”? Sure, in some situations clarifying any potential ambiguity would be desirable, but I’m confident that most people can figure out which side Li Yao or Marco Matterazi are playing for when China is up against Italy.

5. Spain looks very, very good. My predictions have been pretty bad, but I’ve talked up Spain all along and I think this is the year they win it all. Casillas hasn’t been asked to do much, but he’s risen to the occasion when required; for example, his save on Camoranesi’s shot in the Italy game turned out to be crucial. With the exception of the dread Italian catenaccio, Cesc and the other midfielders have had little trouble opening up and carving apart opposing defenses and the ease with which Turkey scored on Germany – to say nothing of the customary blunders of Jens Lehman with which every Arsenal fan is all too familiar – I see no reason to believe that Spain will have too much trouble with an overmatched Germany. 3-1 Spain.

Posted by Vox Day.