May 17, 2011

Is This What They Call “Tolerance”?


A couple of things this time around. First, the Christian fish symbol ichthus is getting out of hand. Not so much by Christians, our symbol is ancient and uncluttered:

Then someone decided to essentially raise a middle finger to it and make a Papa Darwin version, as seen in the cartoon at the top. Yes, I know they're out of order, I wanted to lead with a colorful 'toon, OK?


Anyway, someone even more clever hit back with "Truth":

I should get got one of those!

My earlier "out of hand" remark is because there are many more designs available. Several are marketed toward obstreperous atheists, and some are marketed toward sci-fi loving virgin geeks. Even more can be had. Clutter!

So anyway. This is an appropriate celebration of getting my autographed copy of The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham replaced.

 
Here is an article from "Answers in Genesis":

In today’s secularized culture, we often hear people (particularly leftist humanists) demand what they call “tolerance.” Christians are often accused by these humanists of being “intolerant.” I have heard the accusation of “intolerance” against AiG and what we teach many times over the years.  However, what I have found is that usually those who call for what they call “tolerance” are extremely intolerant of the absolutes of Christianity. What they mean by “tolerance” is often a tolerance of all views that agree with theirs, but an intolerance of views that disagree with theirs.
Two interesting news items I read this week seem to illustrate this. It is also a sign of our increasingly secularized culture, with its growing anti-Christian sentiment.
The first item comes from the United Kingdom.

Nope, now you'll have to click and read the rest of the article at its source:

May 16, 2011

Bin Laden was a Harmless Old Man

This harmless old man only had one crime: Cheering for the attacks on America. Other than that, he never bothered anyone.

Anyone who believes that rubbish needs his medication adjusted. This news just in:

Just before his death, Osama bin Laden told London sleeper cells to carry out attacks. Read more here. Also linked here.

Addendum: B. Hussein Obama says that bin Laden wasn't a Muslim leader. Yeah, sure. Only Obama Zombies believe that tripe! Well, the question has been raised: If he wasn't a Muslim leader, why was he buried at sea within twenty four hours? By the way it adds fuel to my own fire that B. Hussein Obama is a closet Muslim, what with giving the carcass such dignities. Did you know that with slain murderers, the ceremonies are often postponed because of post mortems? Yup, I'm still a bit suspicious.

May 13, 2011

Gagaville

WARNING: NOT IN FRONT OF THE KIDS


"Let’s have some fun, this beat is sick
I wanna take a ride on your disco stick
Don’t think too much just bust that stick
I wanna take a ride on your disco stick"
— Lady Gaga

Hey, doesn't that make you hot? Put some lustful thoughts into your mind? Is it fun? Is it cute when your kids sing it?
Here, try some more:
  • And baby when it’s love if it’s not rough it isn’t fun fun
  • I want your ugly, I want your disease
  • The only place you wanna be is underneath my Christmas tree, light me up with me on top lets falalalalalalala...my Christmas tree is delicious
By the way, there seems to be some occult imagery in her material as well. 

"Come on, Cowboy Bob! There are worse things out there!"

No kidding? I had no idea. Guess what? There are far better things out there, too.

Listen, I don't really care what people choose to put into their minds. If you want lust, nonsense, occult or whatever else to influence your thinking, that's your business. But...

Enter Zynga, the social network game company. "Zynga is committed to transforming the world through virtual social goods. Zynga players have made real change by raising millions for several international nonprofits since Zynga.org launched in October 2009." Ummm...OK.

Zynga is also committed to making money, let's be honest here. They are constantly striking deals with big businesses to promote their materials. I have a Frito-Lay truck and an American Express windmill in Farmville.  And you can bet that Zynga is not doing the promotions to about 65 million players of their games just to be pals.

Now they're teaming up with Lady Gaga to promote her new "Born This Way" album. The new product? Gagaville. I received the e-mail a little while ago.

Frankly, this strikes me as a bit hypocritical. If you are one of the six percent of the Farmville players under age 21 (I think that's the percentage, anyway), your winery will not produce wine, but will produce coolers and juice products instead. Protecting the kiddies? And yet they'll actively promote the material of a pro-perversion, sex-obsessed performer. Hey, maybe they'll restrict play to people who are over 21. Nah, who am I kidding?

Listen, Zynga. I've tolerated unresolved flaws in game play, "quests" when I wanted to play in other ways, having my items electronically "stolen" (they disappear), neighbors not receiving items I have sent to them, overall "bugginess" and other irritations. But this bugs me quite a bit.

I find it very off-putting. Maybe it's time to stop playing Zynga games and use my time more productively.

May 11, 2011

Let Me Ax You Something Else

Edited
Buon giorno. In my business, keeping secrets is paramount. Sometimes when I send Lela and Nicky out to collect payments, they have no idea who they are calling on until they get most of the way there. But never mind about that now.

For what I am about to say, I received no vig. Why should I? It's Open Source, and free.

On another computer, I had a copy of AxCrypt by Axantum. This little dandy lets you encrypt your files so that nobody can get at them (even Hal the Hacker was impressed). You can make a self-extracting .EXE file and pass it along. This is quite different from TrueCrypt (also Open Source), which "mounts" a virtual drive on your computer, and knows how not to be seen. Bit of a steep learning curve for the details, though, but exceptionally secure. AxCrypt, in its default state, does not hide the fact that a file is encrypted. But so what?

I was impressed earlier today when I found a leftover archived encrypted file (yeah, big words again, but you have to learn them sometime). This file had been shuffled from hard drive to portable hard drive to another portable hard drive. The original Windows XP system was long gone, and I was looking at it on a 64 bit Windows 7 computer. I could see several reasons why this would have to be deleted.

I looked up AxCrypt's site. They have AxDecrypt now, in addition to their main installed piece. And it worked! I had the password and it was accepted because it was built in to the encrypted file, so to speak. This impressed me because the company was being so consistent.

They've expanded since I last checked in. As I said, they have the decrypter. But they also have a portable version (no, I haven't tested it yet), and the company has Xecrets. Isn't that a clever name? Anyway, this one is a subscription service that stores your files "in the cloud" (that is, online...why are people hung up on sky images for this stuff?), so you can access them anywhere. I don't feel the need for "cloud" stuff like that one because I have KeePass, the Open Source password safe. They have a portable version, so I can store the main file (or a copy) online or on a flash drive or other portable device. Like the Lord of the Rings, one password to rule them all, and then store all of your passwords in it. As well as your other information, it's quite safe.

Do you want a "back door"? Pervert. No, I'm talking about a back door to get into the software and recover your information in case you lose your passwords. If that happens, I will refer you to the ancient philosopher Lao Tzu, who said, "Sucks to be you". Ain't got no.

So there you have it, an update on some very useful ways to keep things secret. Even knowing what I use won't help you, though. Arrivederci, Baby!

May 7, 2011

Science of the Gaps

Buon giorno. Almost seven months ago, I had an exchange with Zach, an atheist, in the comments of this post. (I also exchanged comments with an obstreperous atheist who only wanted to sneer, and I gave back what I was given. Interesting contrast.) Then, I continued the discussion by giving Zach his own post, so to speak. In essence, he wanted to know when believers stop using science and start inserting God as an explanation for observations.

I struggled with my explanation because sometimes it becomes difficult for me to put something that I know into coherent words that other people can understand. But I think I did reasonably well.

Since then, I have learned more about the faith of atheists. Yes, faith. There are presuppositions and conditions that many atheists use:
  • There is no God, that is a fact. No, that is a statement of faith. It also violates logic.
  • Everything must be explained through naturalism. This "rule" is essentially based on the above statement as well as a desire to control the discussion; it's my ball, I make the rules.
  • If theists can't explain something, they just shove in "Goddidit" as an explanation (a  "God of the gaps" approach). This attitude is based not only on presuppositions, but on ignorance and Dawkinsite conditioning.
  • Theists are stupid. When someone starts with that kind of arrogance, there is not much point in expecting to have a rational discussion.
Greg Koukl of "Stand to Reason" had a recent broadcast that dealt with the "God of the gaps" accusation extremely well. Brace yourselves, people faint when I say this: He did a much better job here than I did a few months ago. He told a caller that when science runs out of evidence, scientists tend to use a "Science of the gaps" approach. That is, they have faith that maybe someday science will come up with an explanation for something that cannot be explained now. On the other hand, theists will use the available evidence, following where the evidence leads, and come up with a scientific explanation. Listen for the comparison between "event causation" and "agent causation". The clip (below) is about fourteen minutes, and definitely worth the time. Or you can listen to the entire podcast here. It's long, but has some great material, capice?

I hope Zach finds his way back here sometime and sees this article. Arrivederci! Belay that, I have an Addendum: Here is an article that is a good follow-up to this one.




May 6, 2011

Bravado Incarnate

Warning: If you click the links, you will be subjected to strong profanity.

Buon giorno. Why is it that atheists cry, "Victory is mine!" like Stewie Griffin, even when they humiliate themselves? Some in my acquaintance could slam their hand in a car door and still claim that they won a debate with the car.


One of the most obstreperous atheists (who does not believe in free speech link disabled) that I have ever encountered took a challenge (for some reason, I get all the credit, but others challenged him as well) to call Matt Slick's radio show, Faith and Reason (now renamed to "Matt Slick Live". He was angry that the "kiddie pool" at the "Please Convince Me" Weblog was not challenging enough. Surprisingly, he did not scream or use profanity, something that I fully expected him to do. The show was entertaining and interesting, to say the least. Unfortunately, he was typical of Internet atheists:
  • Rude
  • Arrogant
  • Prideful
  • Self contradicting
  • Broke basic rules of logic
  • Interrupting and talking over the show's host right after bragging, "We don't do that in the UK"
  • Creating new definitions of terms that only exist in his mind
  • Bouncing around topics like a table tennis ball in a clothes dryer
  • And, the most typical is the refusal to even consider the possibility that a Christian can be right about anything
If you want to see his profane bravado, you can go herehere, here and here the targets of the links proving my points have been disabled. I can guess why... What an astonishingly huge ego! If you see the stunningly vapid comments (including "Matt Slick was pathetic"), there is an accusation in the newest one by one of Norman's sock puppets that a commenter is Matt himself. Now, why is it inconceivable (yes, that word does mean what I think it does) that more than one or two people can disagree with an atheist? 

There is an amazing accusation that the Weblog owner made against another atheist that it was me in disguise (I get accused of using multiple fake names all the time by people who use multiple fake names. However, most of mine are clearly marked so they can be traced back to me.)  Here, they are accusing someone else of being Matt Slick. Guess what, Poindexter? Matt told me personally that he does not post comments because there are impostors.

Also, the comments are full of braggadocio and of vacuous atheists uniting in hate. My feeling is that people who would not be able to tolerate each other in other things are self-congratulating, "Good job! You really told him!", for the sake of hating God. What is it with pride and egos with these atheists? The ones who want real discussions should stay far away from this type!

By the way, Slick said to him, "You hate God". He denied it. Liar (link disabled).

Now, I hate to tell Matt this, but I felt that he dropped the ball on a couple of points. But he's the one that has done real debates, not me. And this was a "cold call" from a revved up, angry hatebag who had prepped himself for the call.

So, if he thinks Matt was not a challenge, he should move up the ladder. I would like to see this deluded egomaniac humiliate himself further (even though I spanked him several times in public myself, but he still could not learn basic logic). How about calling Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason? Or better yet, call another outspoken Calvinist and apologist, James White? They would send you crying and hiding in Norman the Paranoid Troll's basement with the poisonous talking wall fungus, and you would still scream, "Victory is mine!" Or even go on "Unbelievable" with Justin Brierley and show the world what an intellectual giant you really are.

By the way, Matt told me to tell you (remember, he does not post himself) that he wants you to call back and show people again what atheism does to the mind.

Anyway, I am done with this brain damaged maniac and liar. I have better things to do; harvesting my crops on Farmville is more intellectually stimulating that dealing with this clown, capice?

Safe linkIf you want to listen to the "discussion", click here, it starts about 17 minutes 55 seconds in.

Addendum: He's laughing at me laughing at him (also disabled). For students of logic, take a look. Count the ad hominem attacks (from the beginning), look for straw man arguments, misrepresentation and just downright bad writing. Reinhold Niebuhr said, "No amount of contrary evidence seems to disturb humanity's good opinion of itself." That is definitely true of this blighter.

May 5, 2011

Muslim Convert James A. Larry Gets Life in Prison after Murdering Family for Rejecting Islam


Answering Muslims: Muslim Convert James A. Larry Gets Life in Prison after Murdering Family for Rejecting Islam: "A man who was angry that his family would not go along with his conversion to Islam was sentenced to life in prison Wednesday in the slayings of his mother, pregnant wife, infant son and two nieces in a rampage last year on the South Side."

Subscribe in a reader