Straw men, just another way to exploit a disaster.

Some people exploit disasters for money, sex slaves, fame, votes and sympathy, but Richard Dawkins and Loftus have decided to exploit the Haiti disaster to build a man of straw:

Where was God in Noah's flood? He was systematically drowning the entire world, animal as well as human, as punishment for 'sin'. Where was God when Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed with fire and brimstone? He was deliberately barbecuing the citizenry, lock stock and barrel, as punishment for 'sin'. Dear modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated Christian, your entire religion is founded on an obsession with 'sin', with punishment and with atonement. Where do you find the effrontery to condemn Pat Robertson, you who have signed up to the obnoxious doctrine that the central purpose of Jesus' incarnation was to have himself tortured as a scapegoat for the 'sins' of all mankind, past, present and future, beginning with the 'sin' of Adam, who (as any modern theologian well knows) never even existed? To quote the President of one theological seminary, writing in these very pages:

"The earthquake in Haiti, like every other earthly disaster, reminds us that creation groans under the weight of sin and the judgment of God. This is true for every cell in our bodies, even as it is for the crust of the earth at every point on the globe."

You nice, middle-of-the-road theologians and clergymen, be-frocked and bleating in your pulpits, you disclaim Pat Robertson's suggestion that the Haitians are paying for a pact with the devil. But you worship a god-man who - as you tell your congregations even if you don't believe it yourself - 'cast out devils'. You even believe (or you don't disabuse your flock when they believe) that Jesus cured a madman by causing the 'devils' in him to fly into a herd of pigs and stampede them over a cliff. Charming story, well calculated to uplift and inspire the Sunday School and the Infant Bible Class. Pat Robertson may spout evil nonsense, but he is a mere amateur at that game. Just read your own Bible. Pat Robertson is true to it. But you?

Educated apologist, how dare you weep Christian tears, when your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering: suffering as payback for 'sin' - or suffering as 'atonement' for it? You may weep for Haiti where Pat Robertson does not, but at least, in his hick, sub-Palinesque ignorance, he holds up an honest mirror to the ugliness of Christian theology. You are nothing but a whited sepulchre.

Riding on the coat tails of more popular atheists, Loftus, being the blind follower he is, follows suit as well.

I was thinking of doing my own post on this topic. I have heard Christians say Pat Robertson is a moron for suggesting the Haitian disaster was a divine judgment for too long now. No, they are the morons. Pat Robertson represents Christian tradition, not them, as Dawkins said in a Washington Post column

Listen Christian, ever exegete Isaiah 45:7 (NIV):

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Does your God do this or is Isaiah mistaken?

Claiming "modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated Christians" are not true to the bible or are morons for disagreeing with Pat Robertson on whether or not the Haiti Disaster was divine judgement is Dawkins and Loftus at their best. They menacingly circle around their opponent and attack. They land punches, elbows and knees, until the man of straw they're assaulting is nothing more than a pile of scattered straw. The "modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated Christians" are just as biblicaly justified for disagreeing with Pat Roberston than Roberston is for saying what he said. God creates disaster yes, the bible clearly says that in Isaiah. Does that mean God caused every single disaster? does that mean God caused the earth quake in Haiti? no it does not. Does God causing the flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah mean that God caused every single disaster? or caused the earth quake in Haiti? no it does not.

God saying "I create disaster" is no more conclusive He caused the specific disaster in Haiti(or every disaster for that matter) than it is conclusive that Roberto Succo causes every murder or a specific murder in South America because he said 'I Kill People.'

Saying or insinuating that God caused the disaster in Haiti because He caused disasters in the past is logically fallacious.


At this point it has become plainly obvious that neither Dawkins nor Loftus knows what they're talking about, and Loftus's case it is extremely ironic since his challenge to exegete Isaiah 45:7 was nothing but a false dichotomy. Truth is, that unless God told Pat Roberston to directly say that, then neither he or the "modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated Christians" know exactly Who or what caused the earthquake and since both views are biblical neither can be accused of being not true to the bible. The fact that Pat Robertson is an elder is grounds for respect, not infallibility.

How can you deny him the title of the illist?

Canibus is by far the best emcee. PERIOD.


Not only is that one of the greatest examples of skill on the mic , but this line, taken from that song, has to be one of, if not the best set of bars in a rap song.

The personified dry humor of cum-laude alumni
A wise man sees failure as progress
a fool divorces his knowledge and misses the logic
And loses his soul in the process
obsessed with nonsense with a caricature that has no content

Completely mind blowing.

Calling it.

With the release of BioShock 2 coming up I can't help but make a prediction based upon it's story.

Fast forward 10 years after BioShock ended, and there's a new lunatic running the battered city. Her name is Sophia Lamb, and unlike Ryan, she's dismissed all notions of the power of individualism. She preaches about collective effort and the effects of the many working in unison can have, bringing about a kind of religious revolution within Rapture.

This will no doubt bring forth a slew of psuedointellectual, historically incompetent gamers and non-gamers ready to give their 'zomg, religion is so evil' arguments, all while ignoring the previous game that was centered around rapture being completely secular.

Ninteodo fans showing their age.

Matt sums up Nintendos laziness in a great article.

...Nintendo has been cutting costs and taking shortcuts ever since it launched Wii. Not unanimously, of course -- it still goes all out now and again and delivers unequaled traditional experiences like Super Mario Galaxy, one of my favorite games of all time. It has the artistic quality and the technical knowhow to push Wii harder than any other company. But often, either to save time or money, to keep smaller teams or simply because it just couldn't care less, it doesn't bother.

I wonder if maybe Matt isn't showing his age a bit. I mean, if you think about it, people around my age (24-28) grew up on Nintendo, SNES, N64 etc. etc. and those systems had a bunch of great games out, but these great games came out when we were 8-15. Nintendo isn't being lazy, Nintendo is doing what they've always done, make games for people ages 8-15. At that age, just about any game is fun. The thing to take into consideration here is the age group. A lot of the games that the 24-28 year olds today find terrible and average are a blast to 8-15 year olds today, just like it was 10 years ago, the fundamental difference being that the 24-28 year olds back in our day were not 'experienced' as the 24-28 year olds are today, video games were just beginning to peak back then and we peaked with it, we grew up on video games. Now we've switched positions. Now we're the 24 year olds, and since we 'grew up' with Nintendo and Nintendo 'grew up' with us, we're expected Nintendo to follow us, but that isn't going to happen. Nintendo is going to continue to do what its known for, making great games for the younger age group, with the occasional hit for our age group, and how can we blame them? if it weren't for their games that captured our interest in our youth, then our age group might be left with little to no foundation today. Speaking from personal experience, Nintendo games of the past play a huge part in the xbox and playstation games of today, and it would be selfish of me to deprive someone else of that foundation because I want Nintendo to continue to exclusively market to my age group today. It isn't lazy, it isn't cutting corners, its simply marketing to a certain age group that we are no longer a part of, and its what Nintendo does best.

Picks for ultimate fighter!

Kimbo vs Housten Alexander: Housten Alexander. Judging from his most recent fight with Roy Nelson, Kimbo is still too tentative to be in the ufc. Yes, Housten has been knocked out twice, but so has Kimbo(3 times if you include his fight against gannon). Not to mention Kimbo he has had a history of difficulties with the concept of MMA, he has never looked good against any seasoned, valid, MMA fighter, PERIOD. Although I do have to point out, this is a good match up for Kimbo, as his record indicates he wins these types of fights, but I think Housten Alexander is too "MMA" oriented for Kimbo, oppossed to people like Tank Abbot who were basically street fighters in the MMA sport, as it is no surprise at all Kimbo would be people like that.

Jon Jones will beat Hamil. Jones has every conceivable advantage. Speed, strength, reflex. Jon Jones is just a beast plain and simple.

Roy Nelson wins based off of experience alone.


Marcus Williams and Matt Matriol....who cares. I say Marcus wins based upon Matt being demonstratively scared to death when Marcus got into his face in the show.

Sorry for the long absence, been busy.

Update: My prediction for Marcus Williams and Matt Matriol was wrong. Marcus lost because...well...he's terrible. His stand up was just atrocious, his take down attempts were laughable, and when he was actually on the ground, he was a little less than average. As far as the prediction goes, this would be my fault for basing the outcome of a fight on a smack talking altercation, rather than on fighting skills.

Update: My prediction for Kimbo vs Housten Alexander was wrong. First off I want to say WHAT KIND OF DECISION WAS THAT?!!! I thought it was pretty clear that Alexander won that fight! He won the first round, lost the second, and won the third based upon the leg kick and the final elbow at the end. It really sucks to accurately predict everything except the decision. I was completely correct, Kimbo was tentative in that fight. He waited the entire fight. He didn't even cut off the octagon for crying out loud, he didn't even check those leg kicks until the very end of the fight. His 'ground game' was nonexistent, all he did was capitalize on Alexander slipping, it's not like he took him down or swept him or transitioned from guard to mount or anything, he just kinda did a ghetto slam and like rolled into mount. I don't see a future for Kimbo in the sport, especially as he keeps squeaking by on these decisions.

Update: Finally(I wrote 'fianlly' because I was going to write 'finally I made an accurate prediction' and I started writing this update before the the disqualification was announced). OMG!!! LOSS BY DISQUALIFICATION? MAN! TALK ABOUT UNACCOUNTED FOR VARIABLES! SERIOUSLY? yet another accurate prediction of everything except the decision. My prediction for Jones vs Hamill was wrong, yes it was wrong based on a technicality, but wrong nonetheless. Still, my description of the fight was accurate and Jones just has too much skill for Hamill. Although I need to point out that I see Jones falling victim to the same fate as roy jones jr.

Update: I got one right. Roy won.

Come one come all.

Come see what has to be the most dishonest, stupid, idiotic, hypocritical atheist on the internet.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=133943

Keep it locked. Whenever his entertainment value wears thin I'll be sure to make a post that contains all of his idiocy.

For the last time, it's not racist!

The NY Times makes the comment about transformers and star wars.

There’s a serious disconnect in the movie between the image of power that those GM brands are meant to convey and the bankrupt car industry they now signify. That disconnect only deepens with the introduction of two new Autobot characters, the illiterate, bickering twins Skids (Tom Kenny) and Mudflap (Reno Wilson), both of which take the shape of Chevrolet concept cars. The characters have been given conspicuously cartoonish, so-called black voices that indicate that minstrelsy remains as much in fashion in Hollywood as when, well, Jar Jar Binks was set loose by George Lucas.

Neither transformers nor Star wars are racist. Bays and Lucas' portrayal of black people is simply not racist. The 2 robots in transformers along with Jar Jar in the star wars movie accurately depict plenty of black people today and if they were the only portrayal of black people in those movies I would most definitely agree they were racist. However, in the Transformers movie, Tyerese plays an articulate, competent, literate, intelligent black person who attained the highest enlisted rank (E-9 Chief Master Sargent) in the USAF, and in star wars Samuel L Jackson played a wise JEDI MASTER. If you're going to accuse the movies as being racist based upon the negative portrayals of blacks in the movie, then are they at the same time not racist based upon the positive portrayals of blacks in the movie? the truth is there are black people that act like that and blacks that are not, just like they're ignorant whites, asians and mexicans, plain and simple, but those movies cannot reasonably accused of engaging in minstrelsy or racism since they are neither saying nor insinuating that all blacks act like mudflap and jar jar binks. One is engaging in a huge logical error by hurling accusations of racism based upon the movies negative portrayals of black people while at the same time ignoring positive portrayals of black people in the very same movies.