Month: June 2013

  • Pascal’s Wager

    Pascal’s Wager can be summarized as the following:

    “If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing — but if you don’t believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist.”

    Issues with Pascal’s Wager:

    1) It doesn’t point to which god to believe in: YHWH, Ganesha, Odin, Loki, Cthulu, Satan, Flying Spaghetti Monster. There are many mutually exclusive religions out there. This leads to the “avoiding the wrong hell” dilemma. Even if we’re just counting the number of religions that exist or have existed in known history, we still have thousands of options. Assuming, of course, that somebody had it right. If we count all the unknown religions out there, there are literally infinite gods to follow.



    2) There are religions (if we can call them that) which may make it very disadvantageous to believe in god. For example, if Buddhism is correct, we must enlighten ourselves to cease the cycle of reincarnations and reach nirvana. Part of enlightenment could very well be understanding that there are no deities. And I’m quite certain that tricking yourself into believing in one is on the wrong path to enlightenment.

    3) The statement “If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing” isn’t true. What if you believe in the wrong god, and the real god punishes you for being a heathen? And what about the religions that substitute medicine with prayer? You have also wasted a good portion of your life attending religious rituals, praying, working to tithe your church, and annoying people who don’t want to hear the “good word” (and trust me, it is annoying).



    4) The argument seems to suggest that the “two” possibilities are of equal likelihood. If the probability of god is much smaller, the argument becomes much less persuasive.

    5) No atheist I know disbelieves by choice. It’s not like we know that there is a god, but choose to ignore the fact. Most atheists disbelieve simply because they know of no compelling evidence to suggest that any sort of god exists.

    6) If we are unsure as to what god exists, should we take the implied statement of “being an atheist is bad for your eternal soul if god exists” as a given truth? What weight does it carry over any similar assumption? Isn’t it just as likely that god will be angry with people who believe for personal gain? If god really is omniscient, then it’ll know who is believing on a wager. Assuming, of course, that god cares who believes at all.


    7) This hypothetical God may require more than simple belief. Almost all Christians believe that the Christian God requires an element of trust and obedience from his followers. That destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you lose nothing.

    8) It amounts to a thinly-veiled threat. “Believe in my god or he’ll send you to hell!” (But remember, you’re only being threatened with hell because of all the love in this religion.)

    9) The biggest flaw in Pascal’s Wager (to me) is that it does nothing whatsoever to show that god actually exists. The wager, at best, leads the atheist to say “I sincerely wish I believed in god on the off-chance that he exists and it will give me a cushier spot in the afterlife.” For most intellectually honest people, belief is based upon evidence and intuition, not cost-benefit analysis. For example, please try to convince yourself – sincerely convince yourself – that 2 + 2 = 7. Can you do it? Pascal’s Wager does not garner sincere belief, only the wish of belief.


    “It’s basically Pascal’s Wager for the paranoid prankster.”


  • Be an Organ Donor, Obviously

    I posted what I thought was a relatively innocuous line on my Twitter and Facebook: “How is anybody NOT an organ donor? Checking that box is quite literally the least you can do to help people.” Apparently this is far more offensive than my jokes about the Pope being a Nazi or raping coyotes or the Gyllenhaal siblingsbeing lovers, because the debate on my Facebook page is currently 55 comments deep and growing. Now, as much as I love fostering debate and arguments on here, I tend to keep that off of my Facebook. Since people want to argue with each other over this, I’m providing this venue.


    Apparently the most offensive thing I’ve ever said.

    Let’s look at this simply and logically:

    • When you die, your organs tend to stop doing you any good.
    • When you die, you stop caring what happens to your body.
    • Your organs can save somebody’s life.

    None of this is in question. Zero percent. So how the hell can it be that only 38% of Americans are registered organ donors?


    Nope, not worth checking a box when I renew my license once every three years. That’s a lot of work, and fuck those people.

    This doesn’t even seem to be an item that should be up for debate. The argument was brought up that it is a choice. I agree, and I’m not demanding compulsory donation. I just find it completely ludicrous that anybody would not want to do this. The issue was brought up that doctors may not fight as hard to save your life if you’re a donor. I think if doctors can put past personal issues to follow the Hippocratic oath and treat murderers and KKK members, they can still give it their all to save someone despite being a donor. There’s the “my religion doesn’t allow me to,” and I think you can guess my feelings on that. Then there’s my favorite argument, that your organs will go to somebody to whom you don’t approve.


    A likely scenario, apparently?

    I just don’t see it. At all. Do you?

    OK, now that I’m done ranting about that, I’m going back to writing about sauropod vertebrae bracing, so strap yourself in for my next post!

  • Republicans Don’t Get To Complain

    Let me be very clear what I’m talking about here. It’s not all Republicans, and there are plenty of Democrats/Independents/etc who aren’t exempt. But if you supported George W. Bush’s Patriot Act bullshit, you don’t get to cry foul now just because it happens to be a black Democrat doing it (I know that for some people his skin color has nothing to do with this outcry… but admit it, for some people it’s the main reason).


    I know race can be a factor because this exists.

    That being said, the people who should be complaining about the horrible shit Obama’s doing. Dropping bombs on poor brown countries with a few potential terrorists in them (I’d like to see that rational work its magic if we suspect terrorists of being hunkered down in France), cracking down on legal medical marijuana dispensaries (why aren’t all the “state’s rights” advocates getting their panties in a twist for that?), invading our privacy on a level that makes George W Bush look like he opened a few pieces of his neighbor’s mail on accident. The liberal democrats and independents have every right to be in an uproar about this, yet they are remaining disconcertingly quiet in the mainstream. The left-of-center people who are making a vocal ruckus about this are painted as a fringe element, not worthy of having their ideas truly considered and scrutinized, just dismissed outright. It’s even worse if they’re part of the Washington machine, in which case they’re told to sit down, shut up, and get the fuck back in line with the rest of the quivering-in-their-boots Democrat rank and file.

    Sure, the media has no qualms calling out Obama on scandals; just normally not the ones that matter. I mean, we’ve learned that the IRS targeting wasn’t exclusive to conservatives, and the only time it was it was about six levels below the president. Benghazi was a tragedy, but would more accurately be caused by Republican-sponsored, bipartisan-endorsed, Obama-independent cuts to embassy security. These are bullshit, smoke and mirrors, “non-alcoholic” scandals. Sure, Fox News, when you are discussing Benghazi it looks like Obama’s driving with a beer in his hand, but on closer inspection it turns out he’s not actually doing anything wrong. Of course, by reporting on this you’re missing the bigger story of the Walter White quantities of meth in the trunk of his car.

    Obama is bombing hundreds of innocent people to kill a handful of people who are probably guilty, or probably will be guilty at some point, all by remote control. He’s spying on journalists, he’s spying on politicians, he’s spying on you and me. It’s 100% totally fucked, but nobody who is in a position to do something about it seems to care. Sure, he’s taken baby steps to promote gay rights, enact health care reform, and promote equal pay; but pretty much all of that has been meager half-measures that in no way balance out the Bush Jr bullshit we elected him to be the countermeasure to.

    Democrats need to sack up and call this bullshit out. I’ve said that Republicans don’t get to bitch about this, and it’s true. You’re the ones who opened up the Pandora’s Box of extended executive powers, so you don’t get to play the victim card because the person using those powers now is someone you don’t like. The only way you get a pass on the righteous indignation here is if you admit that you’re mad at Obama for doing what you cheered George W Bush for doing first, and agree that everything should be done to reign in these executive powers again, and keep them reigned in… no matter who’s in office.


    In some ways, it’s like you never left.
  • If God Enforced the Commandments, We Wouldn’t Have Jesus

    As you all know, if it wasn’t for each and every one of your ancestors being born, you wouldn’t exist. That’s pretty basic stuff. And if you’re a Christian, you likely know that Jesus is (supposedly) unique in the fact that by both bloodline, birthplace and abilities he fits the requirements for the Jewish messiah (Jews may disagree on this fact).

    Now if we look at Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus, we see the name Tamar (Matthew 1:3). Let’s look at what the Bible tells us about Tamar:

    15When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. 16 Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, “Come now, let me sleep with you.”

    “And what will you give me to sleep with you?” she asked.

    17 “I’ll send you a young goat from my flock,” he said.

    “Will you give me something as a pledge until you send it?” she asked.

    18 He said, “What pledge should I give you?”

    “Your seal and its cord, and the staff in your hand,” she answered. So he gave them to her and slept with her, and she became pregnant by him. – Genesis 38:15-18

    Dude, he boned his daughter-in-law for the price of a goat and his family tree. I wonder how that compares to the price on the street corners. Anyone know the conversion rate to American dollars? I’ve tried offering a goat, but they never take it. Apparently modern prostitution does not run on the barter system.

    Sorry honey, but that’ll cost at least a fatted calf. Throw in a suckling goat and things can get freaky.

    If I recall, God has some harsh punishments for adulterers. In fact, one of his 613 commandments is for just this situation:

    12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads. – Leviticus 20:12

    So there you have it. If it wasn’t for interfamily prostitution, Christians wouldn’t have a messiah. Just something to chew on.

  • Dinosaur Q&A

    Ever since they realized I love dinosaurs, a handful of my Xanga friends have been barraging me with dozens of dinosaur questions via text. This is terribly inefficient, so I figured I’d answer them in an actual post. This is open to anyone who wants to take part. Just ask me any dinosaur-related question, and I’ll answer the ones I like in the next few days via a new post.

    Ask away!

  • Dear Christians: Before You Judge Me

    Just because I’m an atheist, don’t tie me to atheists that you hate. Bill Maher is an anti-vaccine asshole, Penn Jillette is an Ayn Rand fuckhead, and Richard Dawkins is an arrogant prick. This doesn’t make me anti-vaccine, pro-Ayn Rand, or arrogant. (I am an asshole, a fuckhead, and a prick; but this has nothing to do with my atheism, and is merely coincidental.)


    Bill Maher at rest.


    In the same way you should not tie me to them (or any assholes from the past I’ve left out, like Stalin & co), I will not judge you by the Christians that you don’t agree with. Such as: Professed Christian and Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh; any Catholic priest who has fondled boysu to ; or Joseph Kony, leader of the Christian Liberation Army, a group that marches through Central Africa raping, disfiguring and murdering.

    Can we agree that if you wont’ compare me to atheism’s douchebags, I won’t compare you to Christianity’s (comparatively much worse) douchebags? Do we have an accord, my Christian friends?

    [Note: This isn't an argument about whether or not these people are True Christians. I've written about that in the past.]

    Can we agree that if you won’t compare me to atheism’s douchebags, I won’t compare you to Christianity’s (comparatively much worse) douchebags? Do we have an accord, my Christian friends?

    [Note: This isn't an argument about whether or not these people are True Christians. I've written about that in the past.]