Conversations with Atheists 2

Paraphrased for brevity and clarity:
—–
Her: You don’t need god (sic) to explain creation. Multiple universes explains exactly how our universe came to be.

Me: Even if it were a valid hypothesis, which it isn’t, MUT only pushes First Cause back one step. It doesn’t eliminate the logical necessity.

Her: It’s more valid that some imaginary sky-daddy!

Me: First, anthropomorphization is not a necessary attribute of God. Second, God is a logical axiom, not an hypothesis. Third, MUT is untestable, and therefore not “more valid” than anything. Your approval is not the definition of scientific validity. But let me ask you this: let’s assume that there are multiple universes. What separates them?

Her: Well, normal space, I guess.

Me: Of course. Normal space. Between universes.
—–
Him: The more extraordinary claim has burden of proof! You have to prove your god! (sic)

Me: Actually, “the more extraordinary claim” is determined by status quo. Given that about 90% of the population has been theist for the entirety of human existence, that makes theism as quo as a status gets. Burden of proof is on atheism.

Him: But theism is a claim that a god exists! Atheism is just a lack of belief. We don’t have to prove a lack of belief.

Me: False, both etymologically and historically. The “lack of belief” is agnosticism–and before you go there, it is no more valid to refer to agnosticism as ‘weak atheism’ than it is to refer to it as ‘weak theism.’ Atheism, from the Greek “a-” (“without”) “theos” (“god”), is a positive claim about the nature of the universe–specifically, that there is no form of divinity. And it is certainly not the status quo.
—–
Her: That pizza shop recieved public utilities, so they have to serve ALL of the public!

Me: First of all, private businesses do not “receive public utilities” in the United States. Utilities are a public and private cooperative, which both individuals and business pay PRIVATELY for the goods that they provide. Secondly, you cannot FORCE someone to participate in such a cooperative (which is how utilities work), and then use that very coerced participation to justify stripping private businesses and citizens of their right of association. Are you trolling?

Her: No, just being honest. We all pay for the maintenance of public utilities, so businesses have to serve everyone.

Me: I’m pretty sure that utility companies pay for their own maintenance with the revenue that they generate. Nonetheless, if your sense of ethics is really so skewed that you want to use an electric bill to strip people of their basic human rights–make death-threats against them, in fact–then you should be forcing the 1.5% minority to comply with the 80% majority, and not vice-versa. Nor do I see you making this argument on threads where homosexual-owned businesses were recorded refusing service to Christians. So don’t pretend that there is some sort of virtue in your drive to totalitarianism. We have seen these steps before, by every Socialist dictator of the 20th century. The dance is well-known, and there is no virtue in it.
—–
Me: Science explains HOW a thing occurs; it cannot explain WHY.

Her: That’s just total ignorance of science. I have worked in an office of scientists for years, and they explain “why” all the time! Why did the dinosaurs go extinct? Because a huge meteor hit the planet!

Me: You are confusing the two questions.
–HOW is a question of PROCESS: How did the dinosaurs go extinct? A giant meteor hit the planet, devastating the ecosystem beyond the dinosaurs’ ability to adapt. Science works by creating predictive models. Models show HOW a thing occurs, so this is within the scope of scientific inquiry.
–WHY, on the other hand, is a question of PURPOSE. Why did the dinosaurs go extinct? Perhaps because a race of super-intelligent aliens wanted to pave the way for mammalian dominance on Earth. Purpose is a metaphysical characteristic; it cannot be modeled, and therefore lies outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

On Income Taxation

Today, I happened across this post by Hessianwithteeth, and thought it was worth a rebuttal.  So:

The real issue is not ‘taxation.’  The real issue is the “income tax”.  I’ve never come across anyone seriously arguing against sales taxes, they just specialize the use of the word ‘tax’ to refer to “income tax”.  The reason that the “income tax” is objectionable is the same reason that I put it in quotes: it isn’t a real tax.  A tax, you see, is a cost added by the government to a voluntary economic transaction.  I was going to illustrate this with dictionary entries about the differences between tax, excise, levy, etc.; but the online dictionaries have actually re-defined the word ‘tax’ so that “income taxation” is not only included, it is written as the primary entry.  Go figure.

In a free society, money represents the value of work performed for another person, and is given in the form of a wage (for this article, “salary” shall be considered the same as “wage”).  The only alternatives to earning wages in a free society are 1) being entirely self-sufficient; 2) living entirely on the charity of others (inheritance would be self-sufficiency); or 3) starving to death.  Earning wages, therefore, is not a ‘voluntary economic transaction’; it is necessary to continue living until self-sufficiency is achieved.   Buying a car, on the other hand, is a voluntary activity; one can simply walk wherever one needs to go.  Therefore, it is legitimate to tax purchases (or even real property, since one could avoid the tax at any time (and retain the value of the property) by selling the property.

But consider the implications of a third party laying first claim to the value of the work which you perform.  The actual percentage taken in the “income tax” is irrelevant; once any other party (such as the Federal government) has established that they have a claim to your wages which supersedes your own claim, then they OWN your wages.  They can take as much as they want, whenever they want.  QED: the “income tax” today is many times higher than when it was established.  To be blunt, a system in which someone else owns the value of your labor, whether they *allow* you to retain any portion of it or not, is properly known as “serfdom”.

As for the argument from consequence (“Can you imagine a world where everyone had to make their own piece of road?”), the United States of America functioned quite well from the founding of the first colonies until 1912—several hundred years—paying for everything with legitimate forms of taxation.  We had schools, roads, a functional standing military, and everything else that a nation needed—all without imposing the condition of de facto slavery upon the population.  Really, *what government revenue is used for*, while also worthy of serious examination, is a completely separate issue from *how that revenue is collected*.

Further, it is disingenuous to refer to “wealth redistribution” as if it were some modern form of charity or “giving to the community”.  One cannot be charitable with someone else’s money.  Nor is having something taken from you by force (try opting out of your “income tax”.  It doesn’t work unless you’re Al Sharpton.) a form of “giving.”  Charity is deliberate and personal donation of your own property to someone else.  It is diametrically opposed to government social programs.

In short, anyone who says “I shouldn’t have to pay taxes” is wrong.  However, so is anyone who supports the confiscation of earned wages under the false premise that it is “taxation.”  The “income tax” was not established to strengthen the United States, nor to help any of its citizens; it was established to create a foothold for the politics of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and their ilk in the United States.  It is the least efficient, least ethical, and most onerous method of generating revenue by design; and we should replace it with a valid system of taxation immediately.

How Conspiracy Theories Get Started

A: So this plane was doing aerobatics above the whole time…

Me: The aerobatics were a distraction.  It was a spy plane.

A: You think they were watching us?  While doing aerobatics?  Really?

Me: Oh, they can listen from planes, too.

A: Well, they have laser microphones, sure.  But they were doing aerobatics!

Me: Gyroscopically stabilized.

A: So, the microphone was inside the plane?  Listening through the hull or whatever?

Me: The fuselage, yeah.  They’re ground-penetrating, so they go right through that aluminum…

B: What are you guys talking about?

A: (snickering) Don’t worry about it.

Me: The most interesting part is that the first gyroscopically stabilized, ground-penetrating, laser microphone was actually developed by George Washington Carver.  From a peanut.

Yet Another Income Tax Suggestion

As we all know, my only real suggestion for income taxes is FAIRTax. Because the so-called “income tax” is not a legitimate tax at all, and should be abolished.

My second suggestion is that, if EARNINGS CONFISCATION (let’s call it what it really is) is going to continue, that payday deductions cease. The entire amount being confiscated for the year should be due in one lump sum, on April 15th. Or better, November 1st.

Here’s another suggestion: rather than basing earnings confiscation on annual INCOME–which is quite biased against small business owners, who must report the entire revenue of their businesses as “income”–confiscation rates should be based on how certain the person being confiscated from is that “income taxation” and “wealth redistribution” are actually beneficial. Hardcore Marxists give their entire earnings to the IRS; rational adults keep everything that they earn.

“Torture”

I’m still catching up on drafts that I saved while I was out-of-town. So, here is a link to the Senate Intelligence Report sponsored by Senator Feinstein which was released (redacted) a few weeks ago:

sscistudy1

I will admit, I did not read the entire thing. The incessant back-stabbing, Monday-morning quarterbacking, and just plain mis-representation finally took its toll. I am posting it here so that, as the truth becomes evident, this report is not “lost”–it will always be here to show what these people said.

Of course, what is in this report is nothing compared to the nonsense that gets circulated around the internet–it’s bad enough that people actually believe that waterboarding constitutes torture (if you REALLY believe that, then why are you not calling for the U.S. military to stop using it on our own troops as a TRAINING MODALITY for overboard scenarios?), but that Japanese military officers were executed for waterboarding prisoners.

Ignorance and spite, the hallmarks of the American Left.

Go DO Something

I just read a meme that said, “Sometimes it’s okay if all you did today was breathe.”

Can you imagine that being said in some rural South American village? “I mean, you know, the whole village is going to starve to death because you didn’t get off of your ass and plow the field, but hey–at least you BREATHED.”

I recognize that there are people with legitimate mental health problems. I work around them every day. But I also run into people who have ‘anxiety attacks’ and similar issues, because they have been told their entire lives that ‘it’s okay if you don’t do anything’. So they never have, and they have no idea of how to deal with life when they actually DO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.

Some of the most amazing transformations I have seen are people who use this as a catalyst to start engaging in life–even if it’s just going to a gym, to begin with. Doing SOMETHING, taking responsibility, begins the process of making them stronger, better people. It also begins producing dopamine and other pleasure hormones they’ve probably never experienced before, and the lack of which has had them on antidepressants.

So, no; unless you’re in a hospital, it’s probably not okay if all you did today was breathe.

In Vivo vs. In Vitro

So, many people are no longer aware of this, but there are basically two types of observation which may be made in science: ‘in vitro’ and ‘in vivo’.

‘In vitro’ is Latin for ‘in the glass’, and originally referred to reactions observed in cultures in a Petri dish. However, by extension, it refers to observations of an artificially-controlled environment. ‘In vivo’, on the other hand, is Latin for ‘in life’–originally, reactions observed in a living body; by extension, to observations of real-world (i.e., non-controlled) phenomena.

In vivo always trumps in vitro. If it only happens in the Petri dish, it isn’t a valid observation.

Now, look at your climate-modeling software (video games).

Global temperatures rise catastrophically in response to CO2.

Now look at the real world world.

Global temperatures stay flat for 20 years, despite large increase in CO2.

Computer game.

Real world.

Which one trumps–in vitro, or in vivo?

Why I Don’t Go to Baptist Churches

A co-worker invited me to his Church the other day. I asked ‘what denomination’, and he said, “Baptist.” Oh, no. I know some Baptists who are great people, but theologically… I’d get along at a Baptist Church like I’d get along at the Democratic National Convention. And for much the same reason. The following is all from a related Facebook conversation:

“The Catholic Church as we know it today did not exist until 590 AD.”

False. The Schism between the Bishop of Rome and the Eastern Bishops, which created the Roman Catholic communion, occurred in 1053 AD.

“Gregory was the first Pope…”

False. Election by the College of Cardinals was established under Nicholaus II, who may be considered the first Pope of the new Roman Catholicism.

“The Church that Jesus started was NOT what the Catholics are.”

True. But it is also not what ANY denomination is today, most assuredly including the Baptists.

“The Catholic Church came out of that church. The REAL Church.”

There is One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which is the body of the Christ. If you mean the ROMAN Catholic Church, then yes; it is one expression which grew from that Church. But it is not SEPARATED FROM that Church.

“Catholics wanted to keep their pagan beliefs, their idols etc.”

^That is just ignorance and spite. The Western (Roman Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) Churches split because of differences in language and culture; and specifically over the verbage of the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed, by the way, is the statement of faith of Christianity. It should bother you that you call yourself a Christian, and do not know it.

“They also changed how to be “saved”( BUT there still is only one way), memorizing something and being baptized will NOT get you into heaven.”

More ignorance and spite. The Roman Catholic Church teaches no such thing.

“The Bible says you must repent of your sins and ask Jesus to save you.”

Oh? Well, let’s skip over the fact that ‘the Bible’ is an anthology–which actually comes in several versions, with different books. And let’s skip over the fact that “repent and ask Jesus to save you to get into heaven” isn’t in any of those books. Let’s focus on the fact that repentance–and asking–are both WORKS, which you JUST SAID will not save anyone. Please sort that out.

“Mary was just a pure vessel for Jesus to come to this earth by. That is all. She later married Joseph and they had more children. She IS NOT a virgin.”

^Source that for me real quick.

“My father studied this for many years.”

But YOU did not? This is the source of so much trouble in the non-Apostolic communions. Learn for yourself! Is this not important to you?

“Got a lot of the information from very old Catholic history books.”

There is a ‘Catholic history’? I

‘So they themselves know where they really came from.’

Do you mean PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS? Why don’t you give citations?

And then of course, my favorite from a much earlier conversation:
“Jesus didn’t turn water into wine at a wedding, he turned it into wine vinegar!”

Right. Because Jewish custom had people drinking VINEGAR at weddings. I’m going to the store to buy some vinegar. I’ll watch you drink it and tell me how wonderful it is.

And finally:
“The Baptist Church goes all the way back to John the Baptist!”

Just… Look up the word ‘Essene’ for me, okay?..