Apr 30

noun: the other guy’s belief

usage: Those Hindu’s have weird superstitions about cows and being vegetarian. I just don’t eat meat on Friday’s because the Pope says so.

Apr 29
Definition: Torture
icon1 meezy | icon2 dictionary | icon4 04 29th, 2009| icon3No Comments »

verb: according to the U.S. Govt, something that should go unpunished when you do it, and is less effective if its means are revealed

usage: I can’t believe we released memo’s of how we torture, now inflicting intense pain apparently won’t hurt anymore. When the Japanese did it to us, they deserved to die (so we killed them), but we do it for the right reasons so it is all good.

Apr 28
Definition: Blog
icon1 meezy | icon2 dictionary | icon4 04 28th, 2009| icon3No Comments »

noun: a place to write things you think are profoundly important that no one else cares about

usage: I’ve started writing a new sarcastic word definition on my blog almost every day. They are hilarious. (cricket noise)

Apr 27

noun: a secret collaboration between educational institutions and corporations to produce free labor

usage: Yesterday I started the internship my professor recommended. It doesn’t pay anything, and the hours are super long, but it will give me great experience at kissing ass, getting abused, and making coffee.

Apr 26
Definition: Chair
icon1 meezy | icon2 dictionary | icon4 04 26th, 2009| icon3No Comments »

noun: a thing that ‘has four legs for a reason’ according to my granddad.

usage: Stop leaning back in that chair before you poke your eye out!

Apr 25

verb: to provide just enough rules to prevent accountability without preventing actual problems

usage: Good thing the government regulates my financial institution, otherwise I would feel bad about running this Ponzi scheme by fudging my financial reports.
see: Report

Apr 24
Definition: Report
icon1 meezy | icon2 dictionary | icon4 04 24th, 2009| icon31 Comment »

verb: to present false data as accurate to support a position
usage: “Dear Bank of America, please report to me the huge improvement you have made from last quarter to this quarter to convince the public that our bailout is working, Sincerely U.S. Gov’t”

Apr 6

Seen here [ Hitchens Debate Video ]

Quick note about this synopsis. It may seem like a biased review, and I suppose it is to a certain extent, but my intention was to do the following: Pick out any argument that was particularly interesting (whether particularly good or bad or whatever) to me. In doing this it just so happened that most of the apologists’ arguments were not new or even framed in a new light, and therefore uninteresting. If anyone finds something I skipped to be particularly interesting, feel free to reply.

16:00 – Seven of the faultiest logical arguments you will hear this week

30:15 – Moderator tries to argue that Hitchens’ arguments/philosophies are only applicable to a few people. However, he comes out and says christianity is for the weak and un-intelligent. Even if you assume his argument is correct, still seems like he loses.

37:00 — Hitchens makes a good point (although sidestepping the original question to a degree) about the idea of a compassionate god. And also about the amorality of suffering in this life being ok because it is promised to be rectified in another.

40:00ish — Argument between “believing in god means there will be justice for wrongs in this life” vs. “believing in no god means humanity is responsible for bringing justice, not sitting idly by”.

52:20ish — Hitchens asks a good question about morality. Apologists bring up responses by rewording the question. He says name an action I couldn’t take. They list actions he wouldn’t take.

1:00:00 — Hitchens develops a cold. Then makes a decent point that christianity says “I created you sick and evil, now get right or else go to hell”

1:05:00 — “I’m a Christian and I have a monopoly on morality”. Then an audience member makes a good question. Then the moderator (really are you moderating at this point?) answers for the apologists.

1:08:00 — Hitchens goes off on a tangent for no reason, everyone is confused and silent, answer the question plz.

1:12:00-1:20:00ish — Snapdragon! One of the apologists admits that things are caused by evolution. Then after a long discussion they say that without god music, love, poetry, etc. doesn’t have any meaning. What?

1:33:00ish — apologist says the bible is a practical book, not a speculative book and that we should use it as a practical guide to every day life. Then to prove his point he murdered Hitchens for being a heretic and allowed the panel to rape his daughters.

1:37:00 — Hitchens makes a humorous derisive comment about believers in general. That is what I think is entertaining about him, he’ll say whatever in front of whomever.

1:39:00 — Crazy old guy in the audience demands the microphone based on discrimination, raises argument based on scientific knowledge, then admits he doesn’t understand science.  Also, crazy.

1:51:00ish — Hitchens closing. Meh. His very last thought was amusing.

1:56:00 — Last apologist’s closing statement. Lists 10 arguments that he says Hitchens didn’t refute. I agree, he didn’t directly point out the logical fallacies with each of those arguments. However, it is a good list of arguments for christianity that are easily refuted in a 15 minute logical analysis, or 2 minute search of the internet. He then claims atheism is and has been proven false. Cool. “You didn’t prove me wrong to my satisfaction in this one particular sitting therefore you are wrong.” At least one of the apologists stepped up (unfoundedly) to be directly confrontational at the end.

Apr 5
Charity Bet
icon1 meezy | icon2 service | icon4 04 5th, 2009| icon3No Comments »

Just a quick post to share the results of a bet I recently made.  A friend (http://terrbear.org) and I recently made a friendly bet about eating out with all proceeds going to the charity of the winner’s choice.  Well we ended in a split of him owing $100 and me owing $50.  So here is what I would like him to do with his $100:

I choose this charity:

Just kidding. If you ever donated there, I would stop being your friend.  Science FTW.

Really, I choose:

They provide aid in countries with severe poverty and/or violence. But instead of just giving a hand out, they try and help people/communities become self sufficient. They also give focus to women and try to help them become fully respected and participating members of society.

I also choose them because they have low administrative overhead costs and can allocate a high percentage of donations towards their programs.

Anyone else reading this, it would be cool if you donated as well.