Name:     Michael L. S.   [E-Mail]
      Location:  Earth
      Website:  Middle East Resource Center

Read my complete profile

 

HOME PAGE

---

RECENT POSTS:

I heard a somewhat novel argument advanced today as yet another god-botherer tried to convince me I was trippin' by rejecting the notion of an almighty, etc. Thus spake this one (paraphrasing): God is neither good nor bad, neither just nor unjust, replete with neither goodness nor evil. He just IS. He gives to all precisely what they require to be able to progress on the path to knowing him. There is no point in praying to him or beseeching him because he is not there to listen to and answer petitions but to evaluate deeds.

Well, it got me thinking, only because it is so much more intelligent than the usual spiel propounded by the god-freaks: "You have to do X, Y and Z because god wants you to. How do I know? He said so. Where? In the [Torah, Bible, Qur'an, etc.]. How do I know it's for real? Why, because the [Torah, Bible, Qur'an, etc.] says so!" Ah, the original petitio principii!

Anyway, so I cogitated a full ten seconds on the postulate aforesaid before it dawned on me just how great a pile of bullshit it was. God is there to evaluate deeds? According to what criteria, if I may? "He" gives a life ranging from a crappy ten-second-long existence to a baby somewhere in Africa to a 90-year-long life of sumptuousness and luxury to a guy in America. Some people cruise through life with nary an upheaval whereas others go through unimaginable traumas and privation on a daily basis.

Would one sine qua non of any god not be that he/she/it/they be EQUITABLE? Is the enormous disparity in the qualities of life past, present and future on earth not precisely the OPPOSITE of equitable? Is it hence equitable to JUDGE people who are playing totally different games by the same rules? Or are the rules different according to the quality of life endowed? If so, why: Is THAT equitable?

Sorry but, try as you might, there is no logical or material evidence of the existence of a supernatural intelligent being, which is in constant and active interaction with the world. It may exist - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - but given that our daily lives are devoid of an impact of its existence, its existence itself is, for all intents and purposes, immaterial.

Q.E.D.

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<

Well, something called the chief of police of Dubai - a guy who makes Inspector Clouseau look like Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes combined - graced us with another appearance today. Here he is:

Doesn't he just inspire you with heaps of confidence? Heaven help you if you ever need police help in Dubai!


He spent the past couple of weeks showcasing his detective skills on a daily basis. Practically every day he revealed footage of yet another individual suspected of "murdering" or abetting the "murder" of a 7amas scumbag. None of his discoveries implicate the Institute in the killing in any way, let alone prove anything, but let not that get in the way of a good "Jooz-dun-it" story.

Anyway, so today the raghead directly challenged the director of the Institute to either confirm or deny Israel was involved in the dispatch of Al-Mabhouh who, remember, was a senior member of a terrorist organization and actually proven to have been directly involved in a number of murders of innocent people. That is quite funny because the Emiratis refuse to recognize the State of Israel, i.e. to them Israel--and hence presumably the Institute, as an organ of Israel--do not exist. Why is he addressing someone who "doesn't exist"? It's a logical fallacy. Ya3ani.

This is getting boring, and the West is, again, playing along instead of letting the matter drop. An arch-terrorist was terminated. Mazal tov and yishar ko7ahem to whoever did it. Let's spend a few days celebrating and then get back to work.

Whoever did it sent an unequivocal message: Fuck with Jews and sooner or later you WILL be found and you WILL be canceled. The monkey in Tehran, the asswipe in Lebanon and a few others would do well to take good note.

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<

A leading scientist in the Israeli government has assailed Darwin's theory of evolution, and averred that children should be taught alternative hypotheses on the origin of life. Yes, you see where this is going. Goddidit.

Empirically speaking, evolution is obviously false. After all, any, even the briefest, survey on the state of the human kind will show that most members of the human race are still monkeys (well, apes, technically).

How else does one explain, inter alia, believing in and worshipping an imaginary being, and actually convincing oneself that he/she/it/they talks back?

Even without delving into the absurdities of individual religions, the very notion of there being a supernatural intelligent entity with omniscience and omnipresence, which is in regular active interaction with the world is preposterous beyond words.

Bowing to air as opposed to a tree is a question of degree of lunacy, not type. It's tantamount to one day deciding you are no longer being stalked by unicorns but by horses.

Is the theory of evolution the be-all and end-all in answering the multitudinous questions about the origins of life? No. It has many holes and does not answer more than a few of the more recondite facets of nature. However, it is continuously updated and subjected to scientific scrutiny. Is it possible that our entire reality was created by a supreme being? Yes, though that possibility defies reason and invokes far more questions than it answers. Howbeit, even if it is true, there is a massive logical hiatus between that postulate and the fundamental tenets of global religions past and present.

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<

So, the supreme Muslim organization of America has decreed that Muslims should not be subjected to full-body scans at airports because that contravenes some vaunted Islamic precept. Ah yes: "Islam highly emphasizes [modesty] and considers it part of faith."

I guess we infidel perverts who do not object to being scanned are all a bunch of bestial exhibitionists who have no shame or modesty. The hubris of these people is just stupefying.

Well, I say: If you don't want to be scanned, then walk, drive, take a bus/train, swim or stay at home. But fly you ain't. We should not be wasting yet more resources to accommodate these people who, you will recall, are the main reason heightened airport security measures became necessary in the first place!

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<

The palaver over the putative climate change has been, ahem, heating up for the past few years. The frenzy over the extent of human damage to the planet and the urgency of remedying this has repeatedly reached new heights. The Environment(tm) had long been coopted by the "unwashed masses" as a pet issue (think hippie communes) but only relatively recently did it enter university campuses and become a focal point of activism of dumbass students who equate enlightenment and wisdom with non-conformism, rebellion against all things traditional and angry self-righteousness.

On the other side are the usual right-wing types who, even if the sea level reached their 12th story apartment, would not accept that, hell, something IS happening to the world climate. To them the entire climate change issue is one big hoax, perpetrated by the third world (sorry: The "developing countries") intent on bilking the West by demanding yet more billions to tackle the "problem." I am surprised they are not steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the danger of asbestos, too!* They have been emboldened by the leaked emails and some prominent scientists' admissions that the threat of global warming and its projected effects have been exaggerated or manufactured in parts.

The world IS getting hotter and the weather has been showing extremes as of late. Now, much of it is natural and the Earth is not nearly as hot as it was at various times (Panonian Sea, anyone?) even over the past millennium (vineyards in Scotland). So even if every single glacier were to melt, the Earth would not find itself in a situation never experienced before. But to assert that pumping out millions of tons of man-made toxins into the air, rivers and seas has no effect on the environment, including the climate, is so preposterous as to defy common sense. So, true: There is no impending disaster with sea-levels rising x meters in x years, but likewise we would be well advised to curb unnecessary emissions and ensure those we cannot eliminate are filtered and purified to be as environmentally-friendly as possible.

* Astonishingly, the hack fronting the crapumentary I talked about in my previous post (v. infra), somehow managed to retrieve two old windbags in Australia who are obstinately refusing to accept government compensation and move out of a former asbestos mine village, long ago vacated by all their neighbors. The situation is so bad that the Australian government has even erased the place off all maps and any visitors who happen upon it are advised to not stop to explore. But the two are staying put, by Jove! The AU$ 40,000 compensation is an "insult." (That money would be IN ADDITION to relocating them and providing gratis accommodations.) Well, even our sterling "reporter" had to admit he saw the government's point of view (duh!) but he could still not resist depicting the couple as noble underdogs in a quixotic battle. Because, hey, what's more "progressive" than sticking it to The Man(tm), right? Even if it does land you with lung cancer!

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<

Just finished watching a three-part "documentary" by the B.B.C. entitled "Tropic of Capricorn." It follows a reporter as he traverses the countries straddling the Capricorn. Usually I LOVE travelogs. I still remember very fondly the several produced by Michael Palin years ago, and the National Geographic Channel's are above par.

But this must be one of the most irritating broadcasts I ever saw. The guy did not visit a single place en route without adverting to some great malady befalling or about to befall the locality. They were all the usual liberal pet issues: Someone exploiting someone or something else. So, there were governments roughing up helpless traditional small communities, descendants of colonialists mistreating the natives and, of course, the sine qua non: Evil big businesses devastating The Environment(tm). Global Warming(tm) got its mention at the end of the second part, but after one and a half hours of arched-eyebrows, perma-frowns of feigned concern and platitudinous but persistent indoctrination, that was only to be expected.

A group of "indigenous people" (not "natives," you see: Very un-PC) in one hamlet caviled about lack of medical and educational provisions (read: Government neglect). In a village some way down the road members of that same tribe had been offered relocation into a settlement with proper social care provisions, but this time some villagers leveled accusations that the government was trying to evict them. See: One just can't get it right. A bit later on, in a settlement established by the government, the inhabitants are opting to live in mud huts rather than the brick houses provided. That is shown to be oh-so quaint and charming. I suppose in the sequel of this crapumentary they'll go back and film the settlers crying about their mud huts' roofs leaking and it will be, yes, the government's fault! And don't even get me started on all the bullshit about the Australian Aborigines. It's not good if they are left to their own devices; it's not good if the government intervenes.

In short, whichever continent, whichever nation, whatever problem: It's the West's fault. Even the Chinese (who are infamous for not giving a hoot about human rights or environmental concerns, including across their thousands of projects in Africa) escape the pillorying and are actually portrayed in a favorable light.

Whereas I would have loved to have seen footage of the landscape as well as the urban centers visited (say, Winhdoek or Tulear), a third of the time was wasted on unremitting interviews with various campaigners and "victims."

An excellent opportunity totally squandered.

Pathetic.

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<