We Are The Change We Seek

Artemis, 2000-2012

kennysjournal6@journalscape.com — Tue, 31 Jan 12 21:42:00 UT

In November, Artemis started to have some problems. They appeared to just be an injured leg. She kept getting worse though and she hurt herself trying to claw at something in the back/top of her mouth. We discovered a lump located behind her eye, in her sinuses and in the roof/back of her mouth. Many tests were taken and while the test results came back with many different results, they were indicative of cancer. We did a full body CT scan which supported that conclusion. The lump was making it near impossible for her to eat or drink. The only treatment option for the type of cancer and the location of it would most likely leave her blind. It would take an entire month of painful radiation treatments and the oncologist said it would most likely return in 2-6 months. She was living in extreme pain every day, so we made the hard decision.

We loved her so much and miss her terribly. :(

From Artemis

Prophet, Liar or Lunatic?

kennysjournal6@journalscape.com — Sun, 29 Jan 12 09:25:00 UT

(This is an open letter to Todd Pitner, because Twitter is too limited to really have a conversation.)

Todd,

I'm writing you here because I cannot seem to find any way on twitter to get through to you. Please read this and try to comprehend.

I am not trying to lure you into a trap. This whole thing is not a ploy. It was supposed to be the start of a conversation. This is how the whole question originally came about so that you can understand I'm not trying to trap you, I'm just trying to glean information about how you think.

You mentioned at one point in the past that you believed Muhammad spoke with either a demon or Satan himself, not the angel Gabriel. I found that to be _fascinating_ that your assumption was that Muhammad was preaching Islam sincerely, instead of assuming he was a guy lying about talking to an angel in order to build a group of followers and become powerful in his community.

So it started me thinking about how you, and others, evaluate claims of revelation. I honestly do not know what your answer is, I'm not expecting a certain answer. I'm not trying to illicit a particular response so that I can then smack it down. I just don't know what the answer is and wanted to find out your answer was.

So, I asked. It was just that simple:

If someone, let's call him Joe, says that God speaks to him in his dreams. How do you determine if Joe is a true Prophet, a liar or a lunatic?

Your first response, which was to be expected, is to ask about Joe's religious beliefs. I THOUGHT I would make the question more simple by giving Joe the same religious beliefs as you. However, it has apparently caused you to spin out of control and refuse to discuss the issue at all repeatedly demanding to know what Joe's specific religious beliefs are.

I don't know how else to get through to you. The specifics of his beliefs are unimportant, because it's not about specific beliefs. The question is about how you evaluate claims of divine revelation. If you were a Muslim, Joe would be a Muslim. If you were a Jew, Joe would be a Jew. If you were a Zoroastrian, Joe would be a Zoroastrian.

It became apparent recently that you thought that I was saying Joe and you are the same person. I'm not. Joe is a different person from you. I'm not asking if YOU are a Prophet, Liar or Lunatic. I'm asking how do you determine if SOMEONE ELSE is. I thought it would make it an easier discussion if Joe believes the same things about God that you believe. Clearly that didn't work, because you've astonishingly and stubbornly asked again and again what Joe believes about God.

From the very beginning I have repeatedly answered that whatever YOUR answer to the question is what Joe would answer. I don't understand why you keep asking. It doesn't make any sense to me. You know what Joe believes, because it is the same thing you believe. More importantly though, it _doesn't matter_.

This isn't a trap. There is no ploy. I just had a basic question and you've turned it into a circus.

I don't understand the process that you, and others, go through to determine if a person who claims divine revelation is a true Prophet, a liar, or a lunatic.

Can you please, for the love of non-existent Zeus, just answer that question?

EDIT:

Joe answers your belief questions exactly as you would answer them. Meaning:

If Joe is a true Prophet, it would make sense to you that he answers the same way as you.
If Joe is a liar, then Joe is just smart enough to answer the way he knows you want him to.
If Joe is a lunatic, then Joe isn't actually hearing God, but he sincerely believes and happens to share your beliefs.
If Joe is actually hearing a voice, but it's a demon or Satan, then Satan is smart enough to deceive Joe and get Joe to answer the questions to gain your trust.

So regardless of what Joe is, he gives the same answers and those answers match up with your beliefs.

Prophet? Liar? Lunatic? Deceived by Satan?

Allah is Yahweh

kennysjournal6@journalscape.com — Mon, 9 Jan 12 15:20:00 UT

Is Allah the same as Yahweh?

Recently I've been having some conversations with people about Allah. I made the statement that Allah is the same as Yahweh... and this apparently set a whole bunch of people off who had to tell me I was wrong. I'm reading the Qu'ran at the moment (about 75% of the way through) and I cannot possible understand anyone who could read this book and say that Allah is a different god from Yahweh.

I'm trying to trade information on Twitter with people about it, but 140 characters sucks for any real conversation, so I decided to post here. Keep in mind that I'm not saying any of the content of the Torah, or the Old Testament or the New Testament or the Qu'ran is TRUE. I'm merely saying that the claims made in the Qu'ran make it painfully and unmistakably obvious that Allah is Yahweh.

A couple of things to keep in mind while reading scriptures from the Qu'ran is who is speaking. The general structure of the Qu'ran is the archangel Gabriel is relaying messages from Allah to Muhammad. Muhammad is supposedly just dictating what Allah is revealing via Gabriel. I don't believe that actually happened, but that's what is claimed in the Qu'ran.

So, let's just jump right in:

Qu'ran 2:136:
Say, [O believers], "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

Abraham worshipped Yahweh... so did Ishmael... and Isaac... and Jacob... and Moses. So when the Qu'ran says that Allah revealed things to each of those prophets, do you think the Qu'ran is saying that all of those guys happened to be personal prophets of a completely different God? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think the inclusion of Jesus throughout the Qu'ran is one of the reasons Christians (and others) vehemently reject the idea that Allah is Yahweh. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet of Allah and they do not believe in the Trinity. Christians worship Jesus as God and Jesus IS Yahweh according to the Trinity dogma. The important point is that Jews, Christians and Muslims may worship God differently and may each believe the others are worshipping God incorrectly, but they all are worshipping the same God.

Each of the following images of the Moon look different from each other, but they are all images of the same Moon. Just like Jews, Christians and Muslims may describe the qualities or messages of God differently, but they are all referring to the same God.

Let's talk about some of the stories in the Qu'ran...

Adam and Eve

Qu'ran 7:11-25:
¹¹And We have certainly created you, [O Mankind], and given you [human] form. Then We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam"; so they prostrated, except for Iblees (Satan). He was not of those who prostrated.
¹²[ Allah ] said, "What prevented you from prostrating when I commanded you?" [Satan] said, "I am better than him. You created me from fire and created him from clay."
¹³[ Allah ] said, "Descend from Paradise, for it is not for you to be arrogant therein. So get out; indeed, you are of the debased.
¹⁴[Satan] said, "Reprieve me until the Day they are resurrected."
¹⁵[ Allah ] said, "Indeed, you are of those reprieved."
¹⁶[Satan] said, "Because You have put me in error, I will surely sit in wait for them on Your straight path.
¹⁷Then I will come to them from before them and from behind them and on their right and on their left, and You will not find most of them grateful [to You]."
¹⁸[ Allah ] said, "Get out of Paradise, reproached and expelled. Whoever follows you among them - I will surely fill Hell with you, all together."
¹⁹And "O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat from wherever you will but do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers."
²⁰But Satan whispered to them to make apparent to them that which was concealed from them of their private parts. He said, "Your Lord did not forbid you this tree except that you become angels or become of the immortal."
²¹And he swore [by Allah ] to them, "Indeed, I am to you from among the sincere advisors."
²²So he made them fall, through deception. And when they tasted of the tree, their private parts became apparent to them, and they began to fasten together over themselves from the leaves of Paradise. And their Lord called to them, "Did I not forbid you from that tree and tell you that Satan is to you a clear enemy?"
²³They said, "Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves, and if You do not forgive us and have mercy upon us, we will surely be among the losers."
²⁴[ Allah ] said, "Descend, being to one another enemies. And for you on the earth is a place of settlement and enjoyment for a time."
²⁵He said, "Therein you will live, and therein you will die, and from it you will be brought forth."

I'm pretty sure that the Bible says Yahweh created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, told them to eat of all of the fruit except one! And one of God's Angels rebelled (Satan/Iblees)... so God expelled Satan from Heaven... but decided not to destroy him until Judgement Day and will fill Hell with anyone who follows Satan... and Satan tempted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit... and when Adam and Eve ate the fruit they became ashamed and covered their genitals... and God ejected them from paradise.

So, do you think the Qu'ran is saying a completely different God from Yahweh just happened to also create the same first two people who are named Adam and Eve and he just happens to put them in the same garden paradise and one of the angels rebels against God just like in the Old Testament and this totally different God tells the same Adam and Eve they can eat from every tree except for one and the same angel who rebelled in the Old Testament rebels in the Qu'ran and tempts Adam and Eve into eating of the forbidden fruit just like in the OT which causes them to become ashamed and hide their genitals... just like the Old Testament?

Or is the God in the Old Testament the same as the God in the Qu'ran and the Qu'ran is reminding the reader of the story of Adam and Eve? Isn't it fairly obvious that Allah is Yahweh?

Moses

Qu'ran 28:30-32
³⁰But when he came to it, he was called from the right side of the valley in a blessed spot - from the tree, "O Moses, indeed I am Allah , Lord of the worlds."
³¹And [he was told], "Throw down your staff." But when he saw it writhing as if it was a snake, he turned in flight and did not return. [ Allah said], "O Moses, approach and fear not. Indeed, you are of the secure.
³²Insert your hand into the opening of your garment; it will come out white, without disease. And draw in your arm close to you [as prevention] from fear, for those are two proofs from your Lord to Pharaoh and his establishment. Indeed, they have been a people defiantly disobedient."

Sura 28 (think of a sura as a chapter or a book within the Qu'ran) talks all about Moses. How he was given up by his mother and put into the river.. taken in by the Pharaoh's family.. killed a dude.. had to flee, etc, etc.

Again, do you think the Qu'ran is referring to a completely different Moses who was commanded to do all of the same things by Yahweh as he was commanded to do by Allah.... or maybe it was the same Moses, but a second god, Allah, commanded Moses to do all the same things that Yahweh had commanded him to do?

It seems rather silly to think that all of these verses are referring to a completely different God doing all the same things with all of the same Prophets.

Again, I'm not saying any of these stories are true. I'm not saying the Bible is true. I'm not saying the Qu'ran is true. I'm only providing evidence that the Qu'ran is referring to the same supernatural entity as the Bible does.

The Children of Israel

What does the Qu'ran have to say about Jews? In 2:122, Allah (via Gabriel via Muhammad supposedly) says:

Qu'ran 2:122
O Children of Israel, remember My favor which I have bestowed upon you and that I preferred you over the worlds.

Do you think that the Qu'ran is saying Allah and Yahweh both picked the Children of Israel as the preferred, chosen people? No, of course not, it's saying.. over and over again... that Allah is the one who took all of the same actions as the entity known as Yahweh, because they are the same entity (according to the Qu'ran).

Arguments Against

The people on Twitter who seem unnaturally driven to deny that three Abrahamic religions do not worship the same God have been forward a couple of arguments against the idea. These are not straw men arguments I made up so that I could knock them down, they are actual arguments presented to me.

This awful argument was sent to me via Twitter but is also propagated by the Evangelical Christian website, answeringislam.org.

http://answeringislam.org/Responses/Abualrub/allahs_identity.htm
My own personal view regarding the use of the word Allah is that if treated as a generic noun, a common noun denoting any deity, then it is acceptable as a reference for the true God of the Holy Bible. However, Islamic theology does not treat Allah as a generic noun, but views it as their god's own personal name. ... The fact that Muslims view the name Allah as a proper noun, as opposed to a common noun descriptive applicable to any deity, and that the Quran nowhere uses the name Yahweh in connection to god, is sufficient evidence to show that we are not dealing with the same God revealed in the Holy Bible.

I think this is one of the silliest arguments I've heard. If I told a story about how The President of the United States signed a Bill called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010... the logic of this argument states that I'm referring to some other person than Barack Obama because I haven't specifically mentioned him by name. They are the same stories and the Qu'ran refers to Jews, Christians and Muslims as "People of the Scripture." They all worship the God of Abraham, which was Yahweh.

I also heard this from theists who preach at me on Twitter:

This is completely irrelevant. It does not matter in the slightest that the New Testament says there will not be any other relevations from God. That's a judgement about the truth of the claims. There is no statement of truth of the revelations or truth of the existence of God involved in the statement that the entity the Qu'ran calls "Allah" is the same entity the Old Testament calls "Yahweh."

Conclusion

It's impossible for me to understand that anyone who has ACTUALLY READ the Qu'ran could possibly think that, from the Qu'ran's perspective, Yahweh and Allah are different. People, like those at answeringislam.org, want to spend a great deal of time talking about the intricasies of translations and such... while translation is important, they are looking for any tiny speck of semantic they can hang their ideas on.. the idea they desperately WANT to believe. However, in order to do this they have to blindly ignore all of the direct statements made in the book.

Judiasm, Christianity and Islam are all Abrahamic religions. They may worship differently and they may envision God differently, but they all refer to the same entity when they refer to God.

Security Cameras 1st Victim: Get Off My Lawn!

kennysjournal6@journalscape.com — Fri, 23 Dec 11 18:06:00 UT

Yesterday I caught two kids stealing a sign from my front yard.. and I got it on video with my new security camera system... and took that video to show the parents.

A couple of kids, Jacob and Jesus, got out of school across the street. I have a couple of signs in my front yard, one for Theresa's Tutoring business and one that offers the kids a free iPhone app.

Apparently Jesus thought "free iPhone app" actually said, "Steal my sign." Then his friend Jacob decided he should go impress the kids at the corner by skate boarding over to them with the sign.

I noticed them on the security cameras and ran outside just as they were starting to leave with the sign. At the end of the video you see them stop at the edge of the neighbor's yard... that's because I burst through my front door yelling at them.

I had Jacob, the one holding the sign when I came out, take me too his home and had a little talk with his mom and dad. I showed them the video and explained to them if I see Jacob touching anything at my house again I'll have the cops on their doorstep.

At the time, I hadn't seen Jesus in the video camera, so I didn't track his parents down, but I got his name from Jacob and will be following up with the school when they are back in session to find out his parent's info.

(If the video doesn't show above, reload the page. YouTube is being weird today.)

Cat Tree Home Improvements

kennysjournal6@journalscape.com — Wed, 16 Nov 11 18:40:00 UT

I have this huge, badass climbing tree for Artemis, but the new space we have it in is causing her some problems. Jumping down from one level to the next is kind of rough, she's landing pretty hard. She's getting older, so I decided to make an addition to her cat tree to avoid her hurting herself.

This is the original badass tree:

From Artemis Cat Tree Addition

I made a quick sketch of my plan. I wanted to add a small platform below and behind the top green platform, then a ramp that led down behind the tree to a middle platform. I'd add another ramp at 90 degrees from that middle platform to a third lower platform which would be below the original bottom platform.

Here is the quick sketch, POV is from behind the tree:

From Artemis Cat Tree Addition

Here is the first picture of the construction, top and middle platform with the first ramp:

From Artemis Cat Tree Addition

I had this small cat tree out in the garage. We don't have room for it in the house, so I was going to Craigslist it. Instead I cannibalized it for its carpet.


From Artemis Cat Tree Addition	From Artemis Cat Tree Addition

Here are the three pelts... er... carpet skins I harvested from the small tree:

From Artemis Cat Tree Addition

I also had an old office carpet in the garage, so I cut a few strips out of that to use on the straight ramps:

From Artemis Cat Tree Addition

Added the first pelt to the middle platform.

From Artemis Cat Tree Addition

All platforms carpeted!

From Artemis Cat Tree Addition

Close-up on the middle platform:

From Artemis Cat Tree Addition

Finished project, bottom half:

From Artemis Cat Tree Addition

Top half!

From Artemis Cat Tree Addition

Artemis is trying it out!

From Artemis Cat Tree Addition

and she's still cute:

From Artemis Cat Tree Addition

What is Occupy Wall Street about?

kennysjournal6@journalscape.com — Fri, 11 Nov 11 11:11:00 UT

I've seen a lot of people lately who disagree with the Occupy Wall Street movement, but often I feel their disagreement is either fueled by wrong information or their lack of support is fueled by a lack of understanding of the movement. Some may understand and still disagree and that's fine, but I figured I'd take some time and explain what OWS is all about in my opinion.

Keep in mind that OWS doesn't have a central plan or goal because there isn't a central authority running it. It's a truly grassroots movement. As a counter-example, I'll use the Tea Party. For just a fraction of a second in time, the Tea Party was a grassroots movement. However, VERY quickly the movement was co-opted by conservative lobbying groups like Freedomworks. Those groups started organizing them, giving them talking points, even managing a system to bus them to different places to disrupt town hall discussions about Health Care. OWS doesn't have anything like that which is why their message isn't unified, but that shouldn't be a negative mark for them. It's just a sign that it an unmanaged group of people who are dissatisfied. They don't have a leader.

That being said, the following is just MY feelings about why Wall St should be Occupied. I can't speak for the movement, but I can only attempt to convey what I believe the movement is about.

Who are the protestors?

The most common thing I hear from those who disagree with OWS is the protestors are just young, hipster, do-nothings or entitled hippies who hate capitalism, etc. First, let's admit there ARE a bunch of young, hippies at OWS, but let's also admit there are old people, hard-working people, soccer moms, etc, etc at OWS as well. This isn't a hard-hats vs hippies event like we had in 1970.

The hard hats are part of the movement:

Central Important Point of OWS (My Opinion)

The idea I hear again and again, the one that I think encapsulates the movement is:

"The game is rigged."

I am a capitalist. I like profit. I run my own business and I'm a real estate investor. Our capitalist system is the reason why we live such good lives in the US. A growing, powerful economy really is the tide that raises all boats. The problem though is that we aren't riding the same tide. "The game is rigged" phrase describes the central point of failure and corruption in our system which is that we aren't all playing by the same rules.

Those who disagree with OWS are often telling me that everyone has the same opportunity to succeed and those complaining just need to work harder. I will definitely agree that many people should be working harder (and smarter) to secure their future, but the point here is that no matter hard you or I work ... we are not playing the same game as the 1%. They have an entirely different set of rules which make it easier for them to succeed even though they already have the greatest chance of succeeding and the greatest return on their investments.

A couple examples of the different games:

Wall Street banks are allowed to borrow from the US government for near 0% interest. We certainly don't get to do that, but what is more important is what they do with the money. The intention of lending to the banks is so they will lend it to other people, to us. What they actually do with it is lend it... to the US govt. They borrow money at 0.1% interest and then they loan it back to the govt at 3% (Treasury bonds). The banks create an Infinite Return on Investment for themselves with tax dollars we all pay to the govt and are intended to help us rebuild the economy.

Where do you or I have opportunities like that? The playing field isn't level. The game is rigged.

Another example:

What is your credit card company charging you for purchases? The AVERAGE interest rate on credit cards is 14.99% but a 29.99% interest rate is not uncommon. Hey, they lend us money so we can get our instant gratification! No one is forcing us to pay those interest rates. Sure, but do you know what I'm allowed to charge you in interest for a private loan? Let me introduce you to the concept of "Usury":

From usurylaw.com: Definition: Usury is defined as the act of lending money at an unreasonably high interest rate, this rate is defined at the state level. Repayment of loans at a usurious rate makes repayment excessively difficult to impossible for borrowers. This is also called "loan sharking" or "predatory lending".

Usury law in California says the absolute most I'm allowed to charge you in interest is 10%. If I charge you 11% I'm breaking the LAW because I'm charging you such a horrible rate that I'm taking advantage of you. Federal usury laws state that a rate that is twice the state usury law is considered CRIMINAL. So, if I charge you 20% interest on a loan then I am charging you a CRIMINAL amount of interest. Are you seeing the problem here?

Credit card companies are legally allowed to charge you illegal and even CRIMINAL interest rates. If we try to do the exact same thing, we can be JAILED for it. 30% interest rate on your credit card? Totally fine. I personally lend you a full 10% lower and I'm a CRIMINAL. There is an exception in the usury laws for what are called "institutional lenders" which mean the usury laws do not apply to them.

"The game is rigged."

We aren't playing the same game. We don't have the same opportunity to succeed.

I don't want to tear the capitalist system down, I like an appropriately-regulated capitalist economy. However, there is a problem which exists between Congress and Wall St. They have created a mutually beneficial system which keeps members of Congress in Congress (and making fabulous money) and it keeps Wall St making record profits while the rest of the US is struggling with the worst unemployment since the Great Depression.

"The game is rigged."

Todd Pitner's Horrible "Arguments" for God

kennysjournal6@journalscape.com — Sat, 29 Oct 11 15:36:00 UT

I have been trading tweets with @toddpitner about the existence of God. He said he could "prove" the existence of God with his 29 point argument. He also asked that I publically acknowledge his attempts to prove God "rationally"... but his arguments are anything but rational.

So, below I present Todd's ridiculous attempt to prove God's existence and my responses to it. His words begin below, I'll separate out my words with different styling or structure.

What begins here is an awful set of logical fallacies. It's one of the worst sets of arguments I've heard in a long time.

Detailed below are twenty-nine arguments for God's existence...providing what I submit to be a compelling "cumulative case for God's existence." I believe that only some of these arguments, taken individually and separately, demonstrate the existence of a being that has some of the properties only God can have (no argument proves all the divine attributes); but all twenty-nine taken together, like twined rope, make a very strong case.

I understand the concept you are attempting to describe, but each of the strands of your rope falls apart horribly.

CRITERIA FOR TRUTH:

1. Correspondence - must respond to the evidence and be livable/applicable to real life.

2. Consistency - must not ask us to accept a contradiction.

3. Completeness - must account best for all the evidence (or, at least more than any other theory).

IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS:

1. If something is really true, it is true whether or not I believe it. Truth is bigger than me.

Agreed, but most Christians refuse to see that this very statement applies against them as well.

2. This is not an argument from nothing to something; rather it is an explanation of the evidence that we must admit we have before us.

I totally disagree. Looking below there is no use of existing evidence, it merely makes RADICAL claims at times without any substantiation at all.

3. Plausibility does not depend upon our comprehensive understanding of the details (e.g., one need not know and understand everything about electrical science in order to make use of electricity).

The difference between understanding/using electricity and understanding/accepting God is that even though most people don't understand (or have ever heard of) Ohm's Law, they can still flip a switch and SEE the effect of electricity. There is no equivalent with God. There is no testable response that people can experiment with and test the results.

Note - if you want to CRITICIZE any of the following arguments, you either have to show at least one of the premisis is false or the validity:

I will, but you and I both know that you're just going to dismiss my response. Your requirement for criticism is more strict that your initial argument. At some point in each of the following arguments, you make a WILD assertion which is unsubstantiated, but you base your argument on it assuming it is absolute truth.

NOTE: After I emailed my response to him, he shockingly dismissed everything I had to say by just saying "Is that all you got?" ... so... you can't say I didn't call that ahead of time.

The RESURRECTION OF JESUS argument (please see Gary Habermas' attached dissertation as scholarly back-up)

Paul says that "if Christ is not risen your faith is in vain" . . . thus, this is a critical argument:

1. There is strong evidence for the general authenticity of the gospels, including the record that Jesus lived and died;

2. There is also strong evidence that something unusual happened following the killing of Jesus which meant that the movement did not die with His death;

Problem #1 with this argument: Spiritual, Religious, Political movements OFTEN do not die with the death of the leader. The Civil Rights movement didn't die with Malcolm X or Dr. King. Mormonism did not die with Joseph Smith. Islam did not die with Muhammad. It isn't a sign of any sort of divine quality.

3. One explanation of the fact that the Christian movement grew and spread is that Jesus rose from the dead;

But of course this is entirely conjecture. There is no proof of that.

4. Other explanations appear to be flawed and inadequate;

Problem #2: This is false conjecture. You're dismissing out of hand EVERYTHING except the one explanation you WANT to believe.

5. Therefore (in the absence of other credible explanations) it is probable that Jesus did rise from the dead;

Problem #3: This is a complete logical fallacy. You've looked at the field of possible explanations, arbitrarily dismissed all of the ones you don't like and then said, "Well OBVIOUSLY this is the only one left and it must be true." Complete logical failure.

6. His rising from the dead gives us good reason to trust Him - it gives him unique authority;

Problem #4 with this argument: You have absolutely no proof that he rose from the dead.

7. Jesus was a theist (a practicing Jew);

8. It follows that there is strong evidence that theism is a reasonable position to take supported by concrete evidence.

There is no concrete evidence. You're just using that phrase, but you have no concrete evidence.

Forms of the COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

1. The universe had a beginning

2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else

3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else (a creator)

*sigh* Todd, this is such a TIRED argument. It fails so horribly, I'm surprised you even included it. If everything had to be created by something else, then who created God? I know, I know, your answer is that God didn't have a beginning and therefore the argument of cause and effect doesn't apply to Him. But don't you see the utter logical fallacy? Your argument to prove an infinite God doesn't have a basis unless you assume that God is infinite. It's circular and an utter failure of an argument.

1. Every part of the universe is dependent

Problem #1 with this argument: dependent on what? Dependent on another part of the universe? This vague assertion is unsubstantiated, but I'm pretty sure you intentionally left this detail out because you want the reader to mentally back-fill that gap with God. However, if every part of the universe is dependent on another part of the universe, then suddenly the dependence you are trying to describe is an entirely natural one and there isn't room left for God... so you choose to leave that part out.

2. If every part is dependent, then the whole universe must also be dependent

Problem #2: Again, dependent on what?

3. Therefore, the whole universe is dependent for existence right now on some Independent Being

Problem #3: This argument attempts to assert if A and B then J. You start with a very shaky point 1 and try to extend that to point 2, but then given that you jump wildly that "Welll, it must be God then" without providing any evidence or logical reasoning to that end.

The same types of problems exist with the following line of false reasoning, but I've already talked about those things, so I'll respond differently to the next argument.

1. Every event that had a beginning had a sufficient cause

2. The universe had a beginning

How do you know? This is entirely conjecture. If you're willing to believe in an infinitely existing God, why aren't you willing to believe in an infinitely existing universe? The Big Bang is merely the furthest point back in time about which science can make any hypothetical statements.

3. Therefore, the universe had a sufficient Cause

Even if you'd like to make this argument, which as I said before is a logical fallacy, then you would still need to show that your "Cause" was God, and there is no scientific or logical proof of that.

1. Every effect has a cause

2. The universe is an effect

Unsubstantiated assertion, just like above. This argument fails here.

3. Therefore, the universe has a Cause

1. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed
2. If an infinite number of moments had to elapse
before today, then today would never have come

But according to you, God has existed forever, an infinite amount of time, which means that if God exists in the form you say He does then an infinite number of moments had to elapse to get to this point and your argument falls apart.

3. But today has come
4. Therefore, an infinite number of moments have not elapsed before today (i.e., the universe had a beginning)
5. But whatever has a beginning is caused by something else
6. Hence, there must be a Cause (Creator) of the universe

This next argument is awesome...

1. An actual infinite cannot exist

Then your infinite God does not exist. QED

2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite
3. Therefore an infinite temporal regress of events
cannot exist

1. The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition
2. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite

Logical failure. You have ignored the case in which the series is formed by infinite successive addition.

3. Therefore the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite

1. Some things undeniably exist (e.g., I cannot deny my own existence)
2. My nonexistence is possible

Problem #1: This step makes no sense. You just said, "I undeniably exist" and then followed it with "I might not exist." You contradicted yourself on step 2.

3. Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another

Problem #2: Unsubstantiated assertion. The argument continues to fail.

4. There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence
5. Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists
6. This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect

Problem #3: You WILDLY jump from your uncaused cause to an assertion that the cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-knowing and all-perfect. That's a completely wild assertion with absolutely no basis.

7. This infinitely perfect Being is appropriately called "God"
8. Therefore, God exists
9. This God who exists is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures

Problem #4: Even if you overlook all of the logical fallacies of this argument, the God described in the Qu'ran also fits... but you aren't Muslim.

10. Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists

Argument from COSMOLOGICAL NATURAL THEOLOGY
1. Time, space and matter came into existence at a certain point in the finite past.
2. Since time, space and matter began to exist they had a cause.
3. Therefore, whatever caused them was time-less (or eternal), space-less (not subject to locality, or omnipresent) and matter-less (immaterial, non-physical, or spirit).

This is just a restatement of all of the above arguments, I'll let me comments above apply here as well.

The TELEOLOGICAL argument
1. All designs imply a designer
2. There is great design in the universe

Problem #1: You mistake something that works as something with great design. This is a common logical fallacy among Christians trying to make these arguments. Evolution explains many ways in which an elegant system comes into existence without a designing agent acting upon it.

3. Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe

Forms of the ONTOLOGICAL argument

*sigh* The ontological argument is so flawed that even most Christians dismiss it, Todd.

1. God is defined as a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. Such a being can be conceived.
3. If there were no such being in reality, then a greater being -- namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists--can be conceived.
4. Yet nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived.
5. Therefore a being than which no greater can be conceived--i.e., God--must exist.

So you are saying to me that you fully conceive of God? That you, with a finite, imperfect mind can truly and full conceive of an infinite, perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful God?

Additionally, one of the fundamental problems with this "argument" is that it bases truth and reality upon the limits of human imagination. Humans throughout history were unable to even conceive of the science, math, invention, etc. that we have now, so according to the ontological argument then those things couldn't have existed either... or the envelope of the limits of our ability to conceive ideas is a moving target.

There are plenty of people throughout history who have torn apart the Ontological argument, including many, many Christians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Criticisms_and_objections

1. God is the entity of which nothing greater can be thought.
2. It is greater to be necessary than not.
3. God must therefore be necessary.
4. Hence, God exists necessarily.

This is just a sillier restatement of the ontological argument which is a fallacious argument to begin with.

The argument from JOY

This is probably the worst argument of the group...

1. Every natural innate desire has a real object that can fulfill it

Problem #1: This is an unsubstantiated claim upon which you predicate your entire argument, so you entire argument is predicated on conjecture.

2. Human beings have a natural, innate desire for immortality
3. Therefore, there must be an immortal life after death

Problem #2: Immortality precludes death. It's even right there in the word..... im- and -mort. Even if you were to accept point #1, which you shouldn't, because it's a ridiculous assertion... the innate desire for immortality that humans have is a fear of death, they don't want to die. Your argument is based on dying, therefore it's inherently contradictory.

The argument from RELIGIOUS NEED

There is no NEED for religion, so this argument starts on bad ground.

1. Human beings really need God

Problem #1: This is random conjecture, not evidence or proof of anything. It doesn't follow any logical origin. It's not based upon any philosophical given... anything. It's pure conjecture.

2. What humans really need, probably really exists

Problem #2: Based on _pure conjecture_ that humans need God, the best you can follow this up with is "probably."

3. Therefore, God really exists

*sigh* Utterly ridiculous.

The Argument from AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE
1. There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.

I agree.

2. Therefore there must be a God.

Total conjecture. This is the problem you consistently suffer from, Todd. You don't ACTUALLY understand logical progression. 1) Chocolate is awesome. 2) Therefore God exists. It's a ridiculous "argument" that holds nothing more than you random claiming that God exists.

3. You either see this one or you don't.

Right, which makes it not a logical argument. If it were a logical argument, it wouldn't be left to subjective evaluation.

The argument from CONSCIENCE
1. From something less than me (nature)
2. From me (individual)
3. From others equal to me (society)
4. From something above me (God)

The above lacks any form of argument. It's a group of partial sentences that do not even form assertions.

The argument from TRUTH
1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
2. Truth properly resides in the mind.
3. But the human mind is not eternal.
4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.

Total logical fallacy. The external truth is eternal regardless of whether we perceive it or not. The concept 2+2=4 will remain true even if all life in the universe died out and all written records of such truth were destroyed.

Forms of the MORAL LAW argument
1. Objective moral values only exist if God exists
2. Objective moral values do exist

Problem: Wrong, you CLAIM that objective moral values exist, but upon which are you claiming that? Your subjective perspective? Then you can't claim objectivity.

3. Therefore, God exists

1. Moral laws imply a Moral Law Giver
2. There is an objective moral law
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver

Same problem at the "argument" above.

1. Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.

Problem #1: You clearly don't understand the word "fact." Building an argument on an unsubstantiated claim means the entire rest of your argument is built on nothing.

2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the "religious" one.
3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.

Problem #2: As I said, when you base your argument on falsehood, your argument is false. You are trying to build from a bit of conjecture.

4. Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct.

1. There are objective moral laws

Problem #1: No, there aren't. You keep asserting this as true, but you have no basis for it.

2. Moral laws come from a moral lawgiver
3. Therefore, a moral lawgiver exists
If atheism is true, everything is permissible.

The argument below is essentially the same and I'll reply there.

DOSTOEVSKY'S argument from the CONSEQUENCES OF POSITIVE ATHEISM

1. If atheism is true then man is "the chief of the earth"
2. If man is "the chief of the earth" then he can abandon
absolute standards (i.e., morality)
3. If man can abandon the absolute standards then
"everything is permissible"
4. Therefore, if atheism is true, everything is permissible

This isn't an argument for or against the existence of God. It is attempting to build a reaction that you don't WANT atheism to be true, but remember according to your own rules, WANTing something to be true doesn't make it true.

The deepest problem with this attempt at vilifying atheism is that humans have created their own laws throughout time. Secular laws and governments have been able to create stable societies, because while in a purely anarchistic situation everything is permissible... humans throughout history, in a secular fashion, have banded together to increase their chances for survival. In doing so, they mutually agreed to live by certain rules or suffer certain punishments for breaking those rules. So we trade our absolute freedom (everything is permissible) for stable and safe society. That's the basis of the Social Contract that our nation is founded upon.

The argument from CONSCIOUSNESS

1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.

Problem #1: We only experience our tiny local area of the universe as intelligible. We can grasp the physical mechanics of gravitation and how large bodies in the universe move around each other, but being able to grasp the true scale and complexity of the entire universe is really something that we can't truly do. People can't even TRULY grasp the concept of one trillion dollars, even though our government deals with those numbers all the time. The only way to get people to come close to understanding the scope of something so large is to use smaller analogs where in one item represents many items.

2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.

Problem #2: Again, this is a common fallacy of argument I run into when discussing these things with Christians. It's always either black or white to people who think this way. You completely ignore the myriad of options in between which contain elements of natural selection.

3. Not blind chance.

Problem #3: Utter conjecture. You're trying to set up some "logical" argument, but all you are saying is "1) Either God exists or God doesn't exist. 2) God exists. 3) Therefore, God exists. QED" It's a stupid attempt at argument.

4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

The argument from DESIRE

Ok, I've been waiting for this one... it's awesome!

1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Here is the GENIUS portion of your argument.... YOU CONTRADICT YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!

From your "argument" from JOY:

1. Every natural innate desire has a real object that can fulfill it
2. Human beings have a natural, innate desire for immortality
3. Therefore, there must be an immortal life after death
So, in the same email, you make an unsubstantiated claim ("every desire has a real object which fulfills it") then attempt to make an argument that God exists based on that claim... and then you ALSO try to make the same argument but using a violation of your very premise!

It's ridiculous, Todd! You present contradictory arguments (both of which are fallacious, btw).

3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."

The argument from the ORIGIN OF THE IDEA of God

1. We have ideas of many things.
2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.
3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God--an infinite, all-perfect being.
4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause.

Problem #1: You have no basis for the conjecture that humans can't imagine something greater than themselves.

5. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.
6. But only God himself has those qualities.

Problem #2: Lots of other Gods have those qualities as well. Are you saying they exist? I don't think you are. So YOU are choosing to apply it only in the way YOU want. It's not a universal truth, Todd, it's just something you WANT to believe.

7. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
8. Therefore God exists.

The argument from RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE

1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the "divine."

Problem #1: Many people of different eras and widely different cultures have attributed disease to demonic possession, but medical research has shown us that disease has physical and mechanical origins. You're trying to make an argument here based on ignorance of the people experiencing events. People who didn't understand global plate tectonics would often attribute earthquakes to the Gods being angry. Their ignorance doesn't make it true, it only makes them ignorant of the truth.

2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.

Problem #2: It's _easily_ conceivable that so many people could be wrong. All of the people before a certain point in history thought the Earth moved around the Sun. When the idea was put forward, you could easily have said, "But that would mean EVERYone is wrong that the Earth is the center... how could they ALL be wrong? That's inconceivable." But they ALL WERE WRONG.

It's just another in a LONG line of common fallacious arguments, Todd. I could provide you with a list of things people all believed at a certain point in history, but turned out to be wrong.

3. Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.

The COMMON CONSENT Argument

1. Belief in God--that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due--is common to almost all people of every era.
2. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not.
3. It is most plausible to believe that they have not.
4. Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exists.

This restatement of the above argument falls flat for the same reason. The vast majority of people at different points throughout history HAVE been wrong and have been proven wrong.

Todd, this argument is SO often used and abused, it has a NAME: Argumentum ad populum.

The argument from TIME and CONTINGENCY

1. We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies.
2. Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; nonbeing is a real possibility.

Problem #1: You offered something like this earlier in this long list of awful failures of argument. It's still random conjecture which doesn't make sense.

3. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything.
4. Then right now nothing would exist. For

Problem #2: Another fallacy of argument. You offer the supposition (not proof) that nothing HAS to be, then you claim this means nothing would exist. This is a common logical fallacy, where you convert a conditional into a requirement. You said nothing NEEDS to exist, therefore nothing WOULD exist, but your first statement has room for existence while your second statement squeezes it out of the argument... because that part of the argument doesn't suit you. It's like saying, "I don't NEED to eat ice cream. Therefore, I'm not eating ice cream." But just because I don't need to be, don't mean I'm not. I could be eating it even though I don't NEED to.

5. If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed--literally--nothing at all. But
6. From nothing nothing comes. So
7. The universe could not have begun.
8. But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built--in possibility not to be. But
9. If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So
10. There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary.
11. Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being.
12. This absolutely necessary being is God.

So there you go, Kenny - at least you can't accuse me of not attempting to make the case. Now, out of respect back:

Can you please provide me with 'evidence in kind' that belief in God is
unjustified, is a delusion, or that "there are no good reasons to believe in
God"?

God cannot be experienced in any tangible, testable, verifiable way. I have not touched, tasted, heard, seen or smelled God. You haven't either. No one either of us known has directly touched, tasted, heard, seen or smelled God. No one ever known by a person either of us have ever known has... or anyone they've ever known... or anyone they've ever known. There are no devices that we can use to measure, in any way, God or the existence of God. I can't use my eyes to see human cells, but with a device such as a microscope I can amplify my ability to see small things and so I can now peer into the depths of the human cell.

Not you, nor I, nor anyone we've ever met or anyone they've ever met or anyone they've ever met, etc. has any direct, measurable, verifiable experience with God. Religious people will claim all day long that they experienced an event which they ATTRIBUTE to an act of God, or that they INTERPRET as an act of God, but no one, not a single one of them can provide direct, measurable, verifiable evidence of it.

If a person showed up today, let's say in the middle of the Occupy Wall Street protests, and claimed to be God... would you believe that person? Let's say they were preaching the Word exactly as you believe it to be true, so everything they were saying felt exactly right to you... and this person claimed that they had once again been reborn as a man in order to gather together His flock... would you believe him? Why not?

Of course, Todd refuses to answer that last question and instead resorted to name calling (which I explained to him is ALSO another named fallacy of argument call argumentum ad hominem).

From Devout to Atheist

kennysjournal6@journalscape.com — Tue, 25 Oct 11 23:26:00 UT

I discuss religion with people and I often have to field the question of how I changed from devoutly religious to atheist. I figure I'll post it here so that I can refer people to it in the future.

I was raised in a strict Christian home. I was taught from birth about the Bible, taught to believe in God, that Jesus was my savior, etc. I chose to be baptized at 12 years old (we didn't baptize at birth, it needed to be a choice) and was active in my church. I gave sermons in front of the congregation and actively preached to convert others in the community.

I attended college, much to the dislike of the church elders. At times it was really difficult to interact with college friends because my religious beliefs were not compatible with every situation. It often strained those friendships, but I stood by my religious beliefs.

The changes happened in class. When taking classes in astronomy, physics, history, etc., I would sometimes run into lessons that I felt contradicted my religious teachings. When this happened, I would spend time in heartfelt prayer and study to resolve the contradiction. I would come to one of three conclusions. Either:

My religious teaching was correct.
My secular teaching was correct.
They were not mutually exclusive and I could hold both teachings simultaenously.

If I came to the secular conclusion, I would replace just that one tiny bit in my belief system with the new idea. The thinking went something like, "Ok, maybe that one little thing is either a mistranslation, or was figurative instead of literal, or whatever, but the teachings overall are still solid regardless of this one little detail." Then I would continue on my way as a devout Christian.

This happened again and again, with little thing after little thing, over many years. At first it was about things learned in college classrooms, but then it moved into real world concepts like civil rights, politics, etc. Maybe 7 years of this go by and someone asks me what religion I am... I gave the same answer I had been giving my entire devout life and suddenly stopped and said, "Wait... no, that's not right." The other person was quite confused, because I really should know my own religion, right?

It occured to me that I had replaced, very slowly, so many of my individual beliefs that I could no longer identify myself as a Christian. I began to look at my relationship with Christianity. I looked at my sources of authority.

Why did I believe in the Bible?

Well, the most obvious answer was that my parents told me it was true. So, I began to trace the authority backwards. The Bible is a collection of writings from thousands of years ago. They often describe events that violate the natural laws of physics, they describe the origin of the universe and are often contradictory. If I was going to believe in the Bible, I would either need some proof of these fantastical claims or I would need some sort of believable authority. Proof wasn't going to be an option, so I looked for authority. My parents were my authority, but they had no real evidence or proof or first-hand accounting of the events. They believed because THEIR parents told them to believe as children. On and on, the cycle reached backwards. Each person in the chain only believed in the Bible because someone who held some kind place of respect had told them the Bible was true. Now, sure, some people had other reasons for believing a God or the supernatural, but their belief specifically in the Bible had to come from someone telling them that this particular book was the one true way. At this point, the Bible held no particular power for me. I still believed in God, but I had no reason to believe that the stories in the Bible were a true accounting of God. I started calling myself "spiritual" instead of Christian.

Later I started to realize that my original belief in God was also only due to childhood teaching, just like my belief in the Bible. Much like I asked myself "why do I believe in the Bible?" I started asking myself "Why do I believe in God?" I couldn't cite any reason for a belief in God other than "my parents told me God exists" and "The Bible says God exists." I eventually started referring to myself as agnostic.

The trend continued and I eventually came to a point where I referred to myself as "effectively atheist." I didn't know if there was a God or not, but I had seen no evidence that a God was taking part in my day-to-day life, so I was "effectively atheist." Perhaps God did exist, but wasn't the book-keeping, recording-all-of-your-sins-for-later-judgement type of God so it didn't matter if I followed a certain set of Holy Rules.

I tried opening myself to other types of spirituality with Buddhism and Daoism, but each time, I always came back to the same place and eventually started calling myself an atheist.

There was no big event that shook my faith or epiphany that sent me fleeing from religion or God. It was a slow, methodical journey to a much freer, happier life.

First Health Insurance Experience in Years

kennysjournal6@journalscape.com — Wed, 12 Oct 11 13:11:00 UT

Since it will soon be the law of the land and since I'm not as young as I used to be I decided to get Health Insurance. Theresa was fantastic and did tons of research to find me good coverage at cheap prices.

Today, I woke up and my eyelid was puffed up and I could barely see out of the eye. So, it's time to use that new health insurance.

I went online to find an in-network doctor. Top of the list was just 2 blocks away, I called them up and they had an opening this morning for a new patient. Great. So far so good.

When I got there, it turned out to be a Family Planning Clinic... but they told me they would still see me that day. Strike one for the Health Insurance, but the clinic was nice enough to make up for the mistake.

They contacted HealthNet who told them I was not insured. Strike 2.

So I asked them if I could just be a cash patient that day when it was just a one time thing. They said no problem and that it would be $20 for the consultation. The co-pay that I'm supposed to pay for my Health Insurance is $35 per office visit. So it was cheaper to pay cash than to pay my insurance co-pay. Strike 3.

Then of course I got the standard experience of making an appointment for 11:30am... getting there at 11am because I'm a new patient and need to fill out forms... watching 11:30am go by... watching 12pm go by... and still not being called in for my appointment.

I know that this morning's eye infection (for which I received an anti-biotic ointment) was not the reason I got Health Insurance (to handle catastrophic events), but still.... Health Insurance and our Medical clinics are always a swift kick in the nuts.

Entitlements: Mine or Yours or Ours?

kennysjournal6@journalscape.com — Fri, 12 Aug 11 09:42:00 UT

I was watching Realtime with Bill Maher on HBO last Friday and one of the guests was Steve Bannon, director of the Sarah Palin documentary "The Undefeated." At one point he said the following:

From the Tea Party perspective, working men and women in this country, the middle class of this country, feel that there's socialism for the very wealthy and socialism for the poor, and a brutal form of capitalism for everybody else.
-Steve Bannon

A very eloquent and true statement, but I found it to be deeply telling. I think the Tea Party isn't pissed off about socialism... they're pissed off that THEY DON'T GET the socialism. It's like this guy from one of the Tea Party rallies:

I don't think they are truly upset that the govt has socialist programs, they just want to get some of the yummy socialism. Then while still stewing this idea in my brain, Jon Stewart steps up last night and comes to the same conclusion. He played some clips from Fox News' Megyn Kelly who has just returned from maternity leave and is attacking a talk radio host who called maternity leave "a racket."

Jon Stewart said:

This is the problem with Entitlements. They're really only Entitlements when they're something OTHER people want. When they're something YOU want, they're a hallmark of a civilized society. The foundation of a great people! 'I just had a baby and found out maternity leave strengthens society, but since I still have a job unemployment benefits are clearly socialism.'
- Jon Stewart

I've run into this concept a couple of times before, but couldn't really put words to it. I've spoken with very conservative people who think the government should be teeny-tiny and should get out of the way of business... but when the government offers money to help them expand their business or help them beautify their property/storefront... well hell they're all over it! It comes back to the idea above:

They're really only Entitlements when they're something OTHER people want.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Lactate Intolerance

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

Debt Ceiling Debate exposes GOP Hypocrisy

kennysjournal6@journalscape.com — Thu, 14 Jul 11 11:42:00 UT

For many years the GOP has denounced entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security and pushed to make cuts in those services. Until yesterday, I thought they were serious. Now I know it's all been a lie.

I also felt the GOP had brilliantly maneuvered the media message to make it sound like "we don't want to raise the debt ceiling, it's those darn Democrats who want to!" Even though that's a complete lie. The Congress passed a budget that requires raising the debt ceiling. Read that again:

Congress already voted to raise the debt ceiling when they passed this year's budget which required raising the debt ceiling. Even Paul Ryan's budget plan, which the GOP presented and voted for, would have required raising the debt ceiling.

This week, the GOP leaders in the House and Senate (Boehner and McConnell) made a public offer to authorize the President to raise the debt ceiling with no demands for spending cuts attached. Obama came to the table and offered FOUR TRILLION dollars in spending cuts to entitlements over the next 10 years. The GOP should be thrilled by this, right? They FINALLY get to cut those cash cows they've hated all these years.

Their response?

"Eh.. how about we raise the debt ceiling and you don't have to cut anything?"

It immediately became clear to my that I was wrong all these years. I thought the GOP was sincere in their desire to reduce entitlement programs. They only want to SAY PUBLICLY they want to cut entitlement programs, but when it comes down to it they know their constituencies rely on those programs. The voters in their districts and states receive those checks from Social Security. They want to SOUND like they are fiscally responsible but they clearly don't want to be responsible... fiscally.

They had a chance to reduce those programs they hate so much and passed it up, instead giving the President a blank check to raise the debt ceiling. That doesn't really match up with their rhetoric, does it? Of course, this also leaves them the freedom to whine and complain during next year's election that they didn't raise the debt ceiling... it was all Obama's fault!

I think they bluffed Obama and demanded cuts to entitlements.. and when he offered them, they had no idea what to do.

Religion Pop Quiz: Why did God punish those at the Tower of Babel?

kennysjournal6@journalscape.com — Sat, 4 Jun 11 20:23:00 UT

If you said "God punished them for being arrogant" or anything like that ...

*BZZZ* YOU'RE WRONG!

I was reading some other people's blogs and they mentioned something about the Tower of Babel. I realized that I hadn't read those scriptures recently so I busted them out to refresh my memory and was very surprised by what I found.

The real reason is: God was SCARED of Humans.

According to Wikipedia's entry on the Tower of Babel, the idea that the punishment at Babel was for an act of hubris was first put forth by a 1st century Romano-Jewish historian. If you read the actual scripture you see that God was worried that Humans would become too powerful if they were allowed to all work together. I've included the scriptures below to show you (emphasis is mine):

Genesis 11:1-9 (New International Version)

The Tower of Babel

¹ Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. ² As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
³ They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. ⁴ Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

⁵ But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. ⁶ The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. ⁷ Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

⁸ So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. ⁹ That is why it was called Babel-because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Does that read "How dare those humans attempt to build a tower to heaven?! I will teach them a thing or two..." or does that read like "Uh... these humans can do the impossible if they are able to work together... I better nip this in the bud."

Orrin Hatch Email: Contradictory Much?

kennysjournal6@journalscape.com — Tue, 24 May 11 17:28:00 UT

I just got an automated email response from Orrin Hatch. Obviously, someone wrote to Orrin Hatch and typed MY email address into his website instead of their own damn email address. I'm not obeying the confidentiality note that I'm about to paste below, because I never agreed to such terms.

Check out the two parts that I've bolded though:

Blah blah blah...

Sincerely,
Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator

*This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this message. You will be receiving a letter from me in the near future which addresses the issues raised in your correspondence.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
The information contained in this e-mail is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individuals or entities named as addressees. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, publication, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please forgive the inconvenience, immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message without keeping a copy.
Thank you.

/facepalm

Osama Bin Laden killed by US Military

kennysjournal6@journalscape.com — Sun, 1 May 11 21:25:00 UT

In August 2010, the President was informed of a potential lead to the location of Bin Laden. 9 months later after tracking the lead down and verifying the intelligence, President Obama ordered the Navy Seals to capture or kill Bin Laden. With no US casualities, the Seals infiltrated Bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan (62 miles north of Islamabad) just after midnight local time. Reports indicate at the Seals offered him a chance to surrender, he didn't take it, and was subsequently killed with a shot to the head. (Who knows if they really did, but who cares.) Bin Laden's son (24 i think?) was also killed along with a bunch of Bin Laden's men. (Numbers are fluid right now. "22 killed or captured")

Kyle said it best: "I hate to rejoice in the death of another human being but fuck that guy and good riddance."

Closed Escrow in Long Beach!

kennysjournal6@journalscape.com — Wed, 27 Apr 11 10:29:00 UT

On April 7th I closed escrow on my first "investment" property! I quote investment, because it's going to become our new residence and the Bentley house is going to become a rental. The new Market house will eventually become a rental as well. I've been learning and trying to start my real estate empire for a couple of years now and I have finally acquired by second property!

From Long Beach House