Here is an interesting video
by Ann Barnhardt. To prompt your interest, I'll just quote the last sentence, "...by the grace of God, I am not a nice person."
science and the post-Christian trinity
It is no accident that anti-Christians believe in a mythological civilization-spanning, almost Manichean struggle between science and Christianity (where Science takes the part of the light and Christianity the part of the darkness). The reason that they believe in this myth is that they see science as a tool for destroying Christianity, and so naturally they think that Christianity must have fought against science to avoid being destroyed.
History shows little support for any sort of general Christian antipathy to science--as opposed to focused opposition to particular scientific theories--but science certainly was used as a tool, or rather a pretext for attacking Christianity.
The original attack on Christianity came in the form of an argument something like this: we no longer need revelation because we have a philosophy and a methodology that will tell use everything we need to know. The problem with this primitive scientism was that there are things we need to know that science cannot tell us: Why are we here? Where are we going? What is wrong with us? How shall we then live?
These are the Big Questions that religion answers. The answer to the last question is easy because that was the whole point of the anti-Christian movement. The answer they are looking for is: live however you want to. But to get this answer, the anti-Christians needed answers to the first three questions to support their preferred answer to the last one. This is where the post-Christian trinity of Darwin, Marx and Freud come in.
Darwin's theory of evolution tells us why we are here. It says that we are just accidents resulting from billions of years of chance events directed by whatever arbitrary conditions happened to exist at the time. In other words: why are we here? No reason. Just that our ancestors were the best survivors.
Marx's theory of history tells us where we are going. It says that human society is inevitably directed towards a future Utopia. We as individuals will cease to be; all of mankind will eventually be subsumed into society like drones in a bee hive with all thoughts directed to nothing but the betterment of society. In other words: where are we going? Nowhere. Our descendants will just be cogs in a machine.
Freud's theory of the unconscious tells us what is wrong with us. It tells us that hate, greed, fear, and self-destructive compulsions are caused by our unconscious--the scientific version of demon possession. The unconscious is trained by childhood events like potty training and little girls seeing their baby brother's penis when mother changes the diapers. When we do evil, it is not us that does it; it is our unconscious. In other words: what is wrong with us? Nothing. Just that we have this unconscious that we need to retrain.
These theories are the foundational doctrines of the of post-Christian religion in the West. They have all been used as justifications for doing great evil. In addition to the horrors committed by the Marxist Communists during the 20th century, the horrors committed by the Nazis were inspired by Darwinism. Thanks to Freud and other theories descended from him, millions of children have been raised without discipline or a sense of responsibility, others have been drugged into torpor to repress childish energy, and still others--we don't know how many but we know of some--were sexually molested by their own parents to keep them from growing up "sexually stunted". Freud-inspired theories have also let to the release of dangerous, violent prisoners to continue raping and murdering their neighbors, and to the mentally ill being tortured as a "cure".
It is frustrating that even though these theories were all specifically created to oppose Christianity and have such anti-Christian implications and have such horrific histories, that so many Christians still believe them. Too many Christians accept "science" as a pseudo-religious authority capable of enlightening us on things that science is wholly incapable of addressing. Science can tell you how the material world works. It can tell you: if you have this cause, then you will have this effect. It can tell you: if you want to get this effect, you can do it with this cause. But the methods of science are powerless against the Big Questions, and any scientific theory that claims to address one of the Big Questions should be taken with extreme skepticism.
time dilation and Civilization
Donald Crankshaw has a post about a computer game
idea that sounds really good. I'd shell out $50 for it.
The game (or at least Donald's interpretation) is inspired in part by the game of Civilization --the first game that made me realize I had a serious gaming addiction. Interestingly, I've explored the idea of a story --also inspired by Civilization-- that is very similar to Donald's game idea.
Like the game idea, my story is about time dilation and technological progress. In my story, a cabal of rich villains kidnaps a few thousand young adults, mindwipe them, and drops them naked on an uncharted planet. The villains plan to return to the planet in 10 generations or so and set up as technologically advanced gods among a population of savages.
The hero is a historian who arranges to get left behind when the villains leave. Like all of the high-tech villains the hero has extended-life treatments so he expects to live until the villains return (although it's a dangerous world...). His task is to protect the people from the villains by guiding their social and technological development to give them the ability to defeat the villains when they return.
From my point of view, this story has two interesting subjects. First, there is the technological development --especially the very early developments such as language, fire and trade. Second, there are the god-like moral issues such as: if you encourage a peaceful civilization, then the people won't have any idea how to fight when the villains return. If you encourage a warlike civilization, then they will know how to fight, but in the meantime a lot of people will suffer.
Firefox substitute browser
So I'm posting this from the Waterfox web browser. No, that's not an obscure joke. I'm really using a web browser named Waterfox
. It is based on Firefox but is compiled for 64-bit platforms so it should be faster.
I was moving to Chrome. I thought I was familiar with Chrome because I use it quite a bit. But what I hadn't taken into account is that I use it almost exclusively for Google sites like Google Drive. It turns out that for general sites I couldn't take all of the
I've been using Waterfox for all of about 20 minutes and already discovered a layout bug. Sigh. I hope that is not the way that things are going to go because other than that, it is working out nicely. It installed and immediately snarfed up all of my Mozilla settings, and it seems very responsive. Here's keeping my fingers crossed.
Christians not welcome at Mozilla
I've been a loyal user of Mozilla products since the beginning, but I've just switched to Chrome. They've just fired a Christian
because of fears that they would be boycotted over his Christian beliefs about marriage. So, now they are being boycotted by me. It's not a very big boycott, but still...
If you are using any Mozilla products, I encourage you to switch. If you know anyone who uses a computer and isn't very computer literate and would like to join this boycott of 1, please offer to help set them up with Chrome or some other browser.
I've also sent a letter to Mozilla's press department, inquiring about the extent of their religious discrimination. Here it is:
Subject: purging the Christians
I have several questions I'd like to ask in light of Mozilla's firing of Brendam Eich for being a Christian.
First, I'd like to know if Mozilla is now going to purge all of the Christians from its ranks or are only high-level positions forbidden to people who follow that religion? If it is level based, how high a position is a Christian now allowed to hold at Mozilla?
Second, Muslims and religious Jews have similar views towards homosexual behavior that Christians do. Are Muslims and Jews also subject to this employment discrimination at Mozilla or only Christians?
Finally, I'm not an expert, but I know that there are both federal and California state laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of religion. Did the Mozilla personnel who made this decision consult with their legal department before firing someone based on their religious beliefs?
Thank you in advance for your answers.
I'll post a followup if I get a response.
if this were a movie ...
So, a former navy petty officer with a couple of minor gun-related brushes with the law and a pass into a secure navy yard, suddenly starts hearing voices and a few weeks later guns down 12 people
in that secure facility for no apparent reason.
A SWAT team that probably could have stopped the murders was ordered to stand down, and no one knows why or by who. Even the patrol officers on the scene had the gunman outnumbered and were probably equipped with bullet-proof vests but they didn't try to go in and stop him unit until a half hour later when more police arrived. If either the SWAT team or the patrol officers had gone in as soon as they could, many lives could have been saved. Apparently nearly everyone who was killed was killed between the time that the SWAT team was called off and time that the police started to clear the building.
And now someone, somewhere seems to be throwing up roadblocks to finding out why the SWAT team was told to stand down. The leader has been replaced and four team members have asked for and been denied leave.
So I was thinking about how this would play out in a movie. Let's say there is a government or political agent --let's call him Mr. Jones-- who is tasked to silence a potential risk who knows something about --I don't know, some political scandal involving Libya , say. Let's call this guy Whistleblower. Let's say Whistleblower is in a sensitive position so if he dies, even in an apparent accident, there is likely to be an investigation that might cause problems. What to do, what to do.
I know! How about a workplace rampage killing? Blood, gore, weeping wives and mothers ... the whole bit. That would lead to an investigation for sure, but the investigation would be mostly focused on the killer not the victims. The news media would focus endlessly on the killer's history, his family, his mental health issues, and most importantly, on how "assault weapons" were involved and the sizes of the clips. With constant badgering on these side issues by the press, the investigators aren't going to have much time to think about hidden motives and wonder why those particular people were killed.
Unfortunately, Whistleblower works in a secure navy yard, so Mr. Jones has to find someone --let's call him Patsy-- with a security clearance to commit the act. Hmm. How about a retired navy petty officer who is still working on base as a contractor? Or maybe Mr. Jones has to get Patsy the job to get him on base. If Patsy has a couple of minor gun-related police incidents in his past, that's just terrific --something more for the press to worry at, like a dog worrying at one of those tough plastic chew toys that is all kinds of fun to chew but doesn't actually contain anything like meat.
Oh, sure, someone might point out that the explosions of workplace/school violence generally come from passive/aggressive men who want their first (and probably only) true act of violence to really count rather than the sorts of just-plain-aggressive men who shoot out someone's tires. But no one is going to care about that when they are just desperate to find a way to explain this horrific act of violence.
So you find your Patsy and pay or blackmail him somehow. You coach him to act deranged and tell him pretend to hear voices for a couple of weeks before the attack. Mr. Jones tells Patsy that he is laying the ground work for an insanity defense, but Mr Jones plans that Patsy will not survive long enough to need a defense. For Mr. Jones, the insanity act is just something to toss to investigators and press to keep them from looking for other motivations. It's also easier to do than to set up a serious work conflict to explain the killing without getting Patsy fired over the conflict.
In addition, Patsy gets some training on how to get a shotgun through security --not something one would expect a navy petty officer to know about. You also have to set up someone to control the police and navy response to make sure Patsy gets time to get to Whistleblower. Get someone on the police force to put off the response for as long as possible. Let's call him Henchman. Henchman has to be high-enough level to keep the police from going in and to keep the navy SWAT team out. As a backup, you have to get to someone in the chain of command of the SWAT team and make sure that anyone who might overrule that person is out of communication for a half hour or so.
OK, then! Now we are ready for the big scene. Patsy goes in and starts shooting people, the police response teams are delayed just long enough to make sure Patsy can get to Whistleblower and a dozen or so other victims to hide who he was really after.
There is some fallout, of course. The SWAT team is upset about being called off and trying to find out why they were. So fire the team leader to send the others a message. No one is interested in this story of how the murderer was allowed an extra half hour of killing except for some British rag and a few tea-bagger bloggers. The mainstream media is too busy looking for an anti-gun political angle and anyway is so used to being stonewalled on important investigations by the most transparent administration in history that this little thing hardly arises to the level of notice.
Whistleblower will have a nice military funeral, but it's just one of a dozen so it doesn't merit much notice. Within a few weeks everyone will move on except for a few straggling commentators who bring it up over the next year or two as an example of how we need to make involuntary mental treatment easier or how we need to keep guns in the hands of only the military, the police, and the bodyguards of Important People. This later group will never note the irony of using a gun rampage by a former military person as an argument for how we can only trust military people with guns.
So I'm just wondering. Is anybody looking into the victims to see if there might have been a particular motive for killing a particular person?
a helpful note on the design of user interfaces for sip phones
A sip phone program is a computer program that lets you make phone calls. The last two sip programs that I downloaded both had a user interface that looks like a cheap mobile phone. There are no menus. The main window contains no useful information except for the phone number that you just dialed. You have to dial by clicking the number buttons on the image of the phone with your mouse. If there is any way to create a phone book to dial from or any way to dial from history, I couldn't figure out what it was, possibly because I've never used the freaking model of phone that they based their user interface on. In light of my less-than-enjoyable experiences with these programs I hereby post this helpful open letter to the makers of these programs:
It seems to have escaped your notice that mobile phones are designed to be carried in a pocket and intended to be used in various non-ideal conditions including one-handed. What this means, as any non-moron could tell you, is that the user interface of a mobile phone is a compromise. It is the best that phone designers could do given the very harsh constraints under which they were operating.
These compromise user interfaces suck in comparison to the user interface on a regular sized computer. Tiny keypads suck compared to full-sized keyboards. Little screens that can only show 10-digit numbers suck compared full-sized monitors. Obscure buttons scattered around a device suck compared to menus that use actual WORDS to tell you what they do.
And what this in turn means (designers of Windows 8, take note) is that when you design a user interface on a full-size device that was built to enable convenient, powerful user interfaces, you do not copy the user interface from a tiny device that was designed to be carried in a pocket. You freaking morons.
I don't know what reasoning leads multiple designers to make this idiotic mistake. Do you think the saccharine cuteness is going to give you a competitive advantage? So how does that work? I suppose you envision some teenage girl downloads your software, installs it, and goes, "Hey, that looks like the kind of mobile phone my grandfather use to carry back in his youth (he's dead of old age now)! Isn't that cute! Giggle! In fact it's so cute to have to pick out digits one at a time with my mouse instead of JUST TYPING THE FREAKING NUMBER that I'm going to tell all of my friends about this wondrously cute application! Giggle!"
Or do you think familiarity with mobile phones is going to make this application more accessible because typical users of Windows or MacOS are too stupid to get their heads around an application that dials phone numbers using the same sort of user interface that practically every other program on their computer uses? I mean, they can figure out browsers, spread sheet programs, word processors, email, games, and dozens of other programs, but dialing a phone number --that's a bridge too far! We are talking about PHONE NUMBERS here! That's complicated! We can't confuse people with a normal user interface because they might forget they are making a call and think they are entering their credit card number or something!
Or am I being too charitable in ascribing this practice to reasoning?
You freaking morons.