Atheist "morality"

I saw a misotheist piece that's hardly worth a read, except that it's a great example of how stupid most atheists are.  (Warning : Skip to my comments following the quoted article unless you want a boatload of the typical atheistic arrogance and derision of reality.  It is not an intellectual experience.)

No need for gods any more

(Image caption) True believers think atheists cannot be expected to behave morally

As societies mature, many outgrow the need for a spiritual superbeing, argues Big Gods: How religion transformed cooperation and conflict

IN THE beginning, there were many gods. Societies entertained supernatural beings of bewildering variety. They resided in the heavens, the underworld and the forces of Earth, in things living and nonliving. They were appeased by worship, ritual or sacrifice, communicated with by oracle or divination. They harboured extreme passions, wielded extraordinary powers, and bestowed gift or punishment at will.

How, out of this pantheon, did a handful of monotheistic and polytheistic faiths come to dominate? Ara Norenzayan's perspective is a kind of theological take on survival of the fittest. In Big Gods, he argues that Islam, Christianity and other world religions prospered because they had a competitive edge over their rivals. They alone offered all-knowing, interventionist deities who judged immoral behaviour, an arrangement that encouraged cooperation among large groups of anonymous strangers – because "watched people are nice people". In short, they allowed groups to scale up: they paved the way for modern civilisation.

It is a neat, grand theory, one that Norenzayan seems well qualified to deliver. A social psychologist at the University of British Columbia, Canada, he had a hand in the experimentation and fieldwork he documents to illustrate the roots and nature of human prosociality.

He is conscious of previous attempts to explain religion in a Darwinian framework or as a by-product of human cognition and draws on them liberally. Furthermore, he grew up amid the violence and religious strife of 1980s Lebanon, curious about why a "once vibrant, cosmopolitan society turned against itself, and imploded" over differences in ideas and outlook.

It is a convincing thesis, and whether or not you buy it, some of its implications are compelling. For example, Norenzayan asks why in religious societies atheists are so profoundly distrusted – as many surveys have shown – rather than simply disliked or ignored. The reason, he suggests, is they are considered freeriders. To the faithful, those who don't believe in divine monitoring cannot be expected to act morally.

But he also finds that prejudice against atheists diminishes in nations with strong state institutions. Police, judiciary, and the rule of law can be as effective as a supernatural power at ensuring cooperation and accountability. This explains Norenzayan's most acute observation, addressed only in the last chapter: some of the most cohesive and peaceful societies are also the least religious. In Denmark, he notes, people don't steal bicycles even – especially – when the bicycles are free to use.

Such countries, largely in Scandinavia, have passed a threshold. No longer requiring their big gods to sustain large-scale cooperative behaviour, they have effectively outgrown them. They have "climbed the ladder of religion, and then kicked it away".

None of this explains why the US, one of the most economically developed countries in the world, is still among the most religious, where more than 90 per cent of people believe in God and close to half in a literal interpretation of Genesis. The US, an outlier in this, is a reminder that religion is about more than cooperation, that belief thrives perhaps because it eases deep existential anxieties where reason and logic cannot help.

The ideas in Big Gods resonate well beyond academic debates on the origins of religion. Think of the recent fracas over Twitter and other social media that allow users to speak anonymously, a privilege that has encouraged some to abuse whoever irks them.

This is what happens when people evade both big gods and secular eyes. If watched people are nice people, the unwatched can be the nastiest of all.

This is a FABULOUS example of the irrationality of atheism.

The article starts off (in a photo caption) by mocking those who think that atheistic morality is any less moral than religious morality.

It then proceeds to claim that religion itself is merely a product of evolution, and then in great arrogance towards the true God, claims that some European countries have evolved so far that they no longer need a concept of "God" and have kicked away from themselves the very concept, able to stand proudly and securely without it.

The author argues that advanced societies replace god with "strong state institutions".  He goes on to claim that "Police, judiciary, and the rule of law can be as effective as a supernatural power at ensuring cooperation and accountability."

Wow!  So atheistic morality is just as good as religious (or actually even better because religions are false), but we need big powerful governments to enforce this morality on people.  That's what he's saying.

Then note :

"Think of the recent fracas over Twitter and other social media that allow users to speak anonymously, a privilege that has encouraged some to abuse whoever irks them.  /  This is what happens when people evade both big gods and secular eyes. If watched people are nice people, the unwatched can be the nastiest of all."

So hang on, we should mock anyone who thinks religion produces better morality than atheism, but the atheist who wrote this is conceding that their definition of morality is limited to doing the right thing when someone's watching.  No talk here of changing people's hearts, or getting people to want to do the right thing even when there's no state to intervene.

In contrast, true religion leads to heart change where people want to benefit other people, even their enemies, just because they love others.  Atheists don't know this kind of love - if I don't know you, and especially if you're getting in my way, I hate you.  That's the typical atheistic indifference or hatred to others.  "Love your enemies" makes no sense to them.  At best, you might put on a face of loving someone just in the hopes of removing their opposition to what you want, or perhaps to position yourself to win over them one way or another.  But to truly love your enemies and do good to those who hate you, for others' sake, not because it makes you feel better about yourself, atheism knows nothing of the sort.  Yet this is true religion, and true love.

So the author begins by mocking the idea that atheist morality is inferior to religious, and then ends by conceding that their idea of morality is simply conforming with the expectations of the big government in power at the time.  Wow, how moral!

Be warned : in that author's scheme, if people aren't moral enough, the solution is a bigger, stronger, more watchful government.  The ultimate end of this line of reasoning is a surveillance state : everyone's actions are monitored, all the time.

But the stupidity of atheism doesn't stop there.  Here's another piece of stupidity in the article : If morality in the populance comes from "strong state institutions", where does morality in the state institutions come from?  Stalin had "strong state institutions",   He ensured those strong state institutions were instruments of cruelty and oppression.  "Oh, but he was immoral!"  Well, if morality is simply whatever the strong state institutions decree, then how can you say Stalin was wrong? 

And so atheistic morality as portrayed in this article becomes a mass of true believers submitting themselves in blind faith to the moral dictums of the ruling class.

On another note, it's interesting the tacit admission that atheism is a fun mental game but unfulfilling :

"[America] is a reminder that ... belief thrives perhaps because it eases deep existential anxieties where reason and logic cannot help."

I guess the true believers in atheism just try and ignore their uneasable deep existential anxieties.  Personally, I have no existential anxieties whatsoever - logic and reason require me to believe in a Creator, and Yahweh of the Bible is He, and so I can have intellectual stimulation and satisfaction and existential wholeness.  But it sounds like the atheist author is conceding he doesn't have it so good.

And so atheism amounts to a bunch of fun mental games that don't make much coherent sense, including rabid claims of moral virtue that on closer inspection fall far short of the true love even of enemies that true religion instils in the heart, and all this for the price tag of deep, irresolvable existential angst.  And they call this a good deal?!!

One final point : the whole article arrogantly claims to trace the origin of "god" and tries to show that "god" is a fictional concept no longer needed (as, by the way, Nietzsche believed long ago : "God is dead" - Nietzsche, but of course now "Nietzsche is dead" - God), but in typical atheist fashion it avoids asking the right questions.  Purporting to trace the origin of "god", they conveniently fail to question the origin of the purported microscopic speck that supposedly exploded for no scientific reason and became everything there is except the laws of physics that somehow eternally pre-existed.  Inept misotheists claim "we've solved that problem - there are simply an infinite number of universies, with infinite variation in their laws of physics and initial arrangements, such that regardless how improbable Evolution might seem, it was destined to happen somewhere".  It's funny how atheists profess disdain for anything "unprovable" and then cling so religiously with blind faith to the unobservable and unprovable plethora of universes.  It gets even more ludicrous when you realize that these atheists are thereby invoking "infinity" - they mock the concept of a God not bound by finite limitations, but then invent a multiverse with the same characteristics.  Truly they are inconsistent and irrational.  But rather than relying on historical documents that describe the origins of the universe, as recorded by an eyewitness (God Himself), they resort to their own speculations.  Imagine trying to understand ancient Rome by looking only at archaelogical artifacts and refusing to read the writings of historians and other eyewitnesses of the day!  You would be stupid.  But that's what atheists are doing.  But the stupidity doesn't end there either.  This infinite set of universes has either been perpetually producing more and more universes (in which case the trail of time stretches out infinitely behind us, in which case we never got here), or else eternally had the full set of infinity universes within it (in which case our universe started at the same time as all the others, so we're back to the "but what started the time clock ticking?" question).  In contrast, the one true God, eyewitness to His own creative work, informs us that it was not a mechanism that commenced the mechanisms of the universe as we know it, but a person.  Volition - in this case Divine volition - is the first cause.  Volition in the paucity of an atheist's understanding is purely mechanical, for after all, the mind is merely a superbly complicated mechanism.  And so they scorn the idea of personhood and volition absent matter, and thus they scorn the idea of a person we call "God" who willed of Himself without mechanical prompt, and from His willing then used His power to create all things we know.  But in so scorning, they have no option but to believe in the unbelievably and perpetually-inexplicably stupid idea that somehow something comes from nothing, or that that which is eternally at rest comes suddenly to motion without cause.  Whilst giving lip service to science, they deny the very most basic tenets of science by claiming the mechanism we know as this universe started with a reaction that had no corresponding action.  Science explains the laws of physics - of mechanisms.  It was never intended to and cannot wholly explain the actions of persons - volitional creatures.  And so God acted - God chose, and followed through on His actions - and this choice, wholly within the will of God, commenced time as we experience it.  Atheists can and do perpetually mock the idea of volition as anything other than the result of mechanism, but in so doing they deride the only explanation that can fit with science and explain the origin of our universe.  And this explains why - as this article typifies - atheists love to mock and deride the idea of God, and arrogantly presume to show that the idea of a "god" came only after humans came into existence, yet they usually daren't touch on the question of where everything came from, for any close analysis of that question reveals atheism to be utter absurdity.  "But you can't tell us where God came from!"  God did not come from anywhere.  God did not come.  God was already and always there.  "But then you just believe in an eternal god whilst we believe in an eternal multiverse!"  Nay, we believe in an eternal God Who is a person with volition.  You believe in an eternal mechanism.  Volition can start things without prior cause.  Mechanisms cannot.  "But volition is a mechanism!"  You believe it so in blind faith.  It is true that volition can be influenced, and exhibit characteristics of mechanisms.  God has made humans so their decisions shape the very nerves in their central nervous system, such that choices become decreasingly less choices and increasingly impulse or habit.  For humans, exercising volition is an act of programming our central nervous system to be more likely to automatically follow an equivalent course in future.  But volition itself is inherently beyond mere mechanism.  Nor is volition the same as randomness.  To the atheist mind, since nothing can exist outside matter and energy, except of course paradoxically the very laws of physics which govern matter and energy, and except also paradoxically things like numbers and logic that defy material explanation - to the atheist mind, anything that is not mechanical then must be wholly random.  Not that there can be any good explanation of true randomness from a strictly materialistic perspective, but atheists will far rather believe blindly in the existence of true uncaused purposeless randomness than in the existence of volition with true moral culpability for decisions made, even though both are beyond the realm of mechanism.  And so we come back to what we've seen repeatedly : atheism is blind faith with inherently irresolvable contradictions that defy explanation and make mockery of the atheist's arrogance in his gorssly over-estimated intellectual fortitude.

No - the issue has never been "god or no god?" or "did god precede us or did we invent him?", but rather which god?  And this atheist confesses that his preferred god is the super-powerful all-monitoring set of "strong state instutions", the which themselves inherently have no higher power to answer to, but to which all citizens should then blindly give their allegiance in faith that its dictates are right.  The strong state said homosexuality was wrong 70 years ago?  Presumably it was right.  It says that homosexuality is right today?  Presumably it is right.  It said 30 years ago we shouldn't kill old people without their consent?  Presumably it was right.  It says in 15 years that everyone has a duty to die at age 70 if they haven't already?  Presumably it's right.  The state is god, and this is rarely so clearly seen and so openly admitted as in this article written by this atheist who exhibits for us a grand display of the moral and intellectual and existential bankruptcy of his beliefs.

Athletic Greens - False Advertisiing

The skinny :

Athletic Greens lies in its advertising.  So how can we trust anything they say?

The fat :

I'd never heard of Athletic Greens before today.  They almost sound too good to be true, but hey, I'm always game to try something that might be good.

But it seemed dreadfully suspicious when I clicked through an affiliate link (from here) and saw a risk-free trial offer "Only Available To Selected Health 1st Readers".

What is this unique offer?

Simple - I sign up for an automatic monthly purchase of their product, and in return I get to pay nothing now for my first delivery.  I have some weeks to decide whether I like the product, and if I cancel my automatic monthly purchase within that timeframe, I don't pay for that first delivery either.

Good and fair.

A lot of businesses offer risk-free trial offers, and so they should.

So how good is the product?  It's purportedly good, but how do we know?

Our best info about the quality of what goes into Athletic Greens is Athletic Greens' own promotional material.  So we have to take it on trust.

And herein lies the problem.

They're liars.  And easily caught out too.

And they might dismiss it with "oh, but that's not a big lie" or "oh, but we do tell the truth about the quality of our product" or perhaps even "oh, but everyone lies a little bit in their sales" (the which is not actually the case), but it all boils down to the same thing : if someone is caught out lying, and then insists that they won't lie again, how do you know that that itself isn't already another lie?

So to test the truthfulness of their claim that this risk-free trial truly was only available to selected Health 1st readers, I Googled and found another Athletic Greens review which included another affiliate link.

I then opened that second affiliate link (from here) on a different computer on a different internet connection.

And here's what I found : a risk free offer, with no difference whatsoever that I could discern from the first one. (It was visually laid out differently, but the details of the offer seemed identical.)

So much for "only available to you special lucky S.O.B. who we're lying through our teeth to right now".

Hey, I don't care if they're selling arsenic or mercury or magic mushrooms or what, provided they tell the truth.  If someone wants to buy cannibis, and the seller discloses the cannibis content of a product, go ahead and buy & sell.  But when a seller resorts to lies to move their product, the foundation of trust is destroyed and the whole basis of the free market system is jeopardized.

Within this context then, it's a little disturbing to discover that Chris Ashenden is the guy behind Athletic Greens, and seems also to be the guy behind a rent-to-buy scheme that courts have ruled was done fraudulently.  Chris The Kiwi, he calls himself, and his page on the Athletic Greens website has mysteriously gone blank.  It's like they're trying to remove his name from association with the company.

So, is the guy a good guy?  I'm sure he thinks so.  I'm sure folk who know him think so.  And maybe even he is a good guy.

But when the very first and very most prominent communication from his business to you is a bold-faced lie - a promise of an exclusive special offer limited to a very special class of people, when actually they give it to everyone - it's hard to have confidence in any of the other claims by the company, including claims of product quality.  Yes, I'm sure it is a reasonably high quality product, but are they taking little shortcuts they're not telling us about?  Does it really taste as good as it does because of the listed ingredients in the promised ratios, or have they diddled with the formula a little, compromising the quality a tad so they'll sell more product because it tastes better?  Can we trust their claims?  And sadly, we cannot.

Which of their claims are truthful, and which are lies?  Again sadly, the only claim we could easily verify for ourselves was a lie.  So what else can we trust?  Without the time, tools, or inclination to spend a big chunk of my life independently auditing their claims, I'm left inclined to choose alternatives from brands that at least look like they're telling the truth.


When our best source of info on a product is the vendor, and the vendor lies, I'm not inclined to support them by giving them business.

There are other green superfoods out there, and lots of people say Athletic Greens is the best, and maybe so.

But my dollars are votes for ethical products and ethics starts with truth.

Exhibits :

Ooo!  Look how special I am!  I get a risk-free trial available to few others :

Oh - wait a mo, use Remote Desktop to another computer on another internet connection somewhere else in the world, and visit Athletic Greens via some other affiliate link, and note the fine-print :

 Hmmm.  So I get a free trial, with apparently identical characteristics, either way, but if I come in via the second affiliate, they don't make a big song & dance about the free trial offer, whereas via that first affiliate link, not only do they make song & dance, but bold-faced lie that somehow I'm super special to get this free trial offer!

Chris The Kiwi is Chris Ashenden - note he gives his last name when referencing his sister :

I guess it has something to do with this?


Note that the blank page appears to be in a WordPress section of their site, and if you invent non-existent urls there, you get the same blank page.  So it seems the page once existed and then was deleted out of WordPress on the Athletic Greens corporate site.  Want proof that the link did exist in the past?  Here 'tis :


UPDATE : Hmmm - I'm having issues with Google's Blogger.com platform choking on my many screenshots. Alas, if you require the screenshots to be convinced, I have them all here on my C: drive but can't get them into this blog post right now, and have other priorities I have to attend to now. But screenshots or no screenshots, the point still stands - this article really isn't about Athletic Greens, but about false advertising generally, and how companies should avoid it and how we "consumers" should vote for companies with ethics we want to see become more prevalent.

Labor claims equality but butchers babies

What would life be like without the ALP in charge?  So horrible, thinks the ALP, that they're enlisting volunteers to doorknock their neighbourhoods and tell their friends what the ALP means to them and why we need them back in power at this election.

So sweet.  Listen to the beautiful words from the latest email seeking to enlist this volunteer army :

Our campaign in Victoria is about empowering people like you to share your stories with friends and neighbours about how Labor has made a positive difference for you. Please share how Labor policies and values have impacted your life with your friends and families on social media using our #thisislabor hash tag.
  Every Labor supporter has a reason why they’ve chosen Labor.  
My reason is that Labor’s the only party that values every member of our community and aims for an equal society.

 I replied :

Please help me understand :

You claim "Labor’s the only party that values every member of our community and aims for an equal society.".

What are Labor's policies towards those not yet born?  Are they not community members at their very most vulnerable?  Doesn't Labor advocate taxpayer funded baby butchery?  How is this equality?  Put them up for adoption - don't butcher them.  THEN you'll be a party that values every member of our community.

Or else how do you justify this gross lie, this disconnect between your words and your actions?  If babies are people - their own DNA, their own blood type, their own tiny beating heart, able to feel pain even halfway through gestation - if babies are people, they are community members.  Protect them accordingly.

Please reply so I can know whether Labor might be worth voting for this year, or whether they're a bunch of hypocrites like paedophile priests saying nice things on one hand and destroying children's lives on the other.

Ouch.  Like paedophile priests, but worse, because at least a victim of paedophilia has some chance (however scant) of recovery and leading a joyful life.  Dismembered babies don't.

Liberal is somewhat better, but for a party that really supports EVERY member of society, you need to look to minority parties like the DLP (Democratic Labor Party) or Australian Christians.  You might object to some of their other policies, but tell me : what's worse, butchering innocent people without trial when they've done no wrong, or making life harder than it needs to be after they're born?  All politicians make mistakes, and these mistakes hurt others, but mistakes that kill others by the thousands each day are a special class.  Politicians that support taxpayer-funded abortion have no business leading our nation.

Capitalism has failed, huh?

Alan Kohler is a frequent advocate of greater government control in the Australian context.  His recent article "The moral bankruptcy of our ruling classes" is just another example.

He boldly declares:

"Capitalism has failed to deliver for the poor and the middle classes."

It disturbs me to see a prominent voice so frequently and so directly arguing in favour of greater statism.

He says that the low and middle classes have been worse off, both under "collectivism" and under "Capitalism".  My oh my - things are bad here, but would you _really_ rather have been starving to death in Communist Russia?

But as I have repeatedly stated, the problem is misdiagnosed.

Here we have collectivist education that prepares people to be good little _workers_, yet supposedly a _Capitalist_ economic system.  Who is going to be entrepreneurial if the schools have spent the better part of a century teaching people to be cogs in wheels?  A large part of why Capitalism is supposedly "failing" is that centralised education (brain-washing) is deliberately preparing people for a life _other_ than as a successful entrepreneur.

Go ask any successful microbusiness owner what they learned at school that helped them succeed in business.  Not much, and certainly nothing that couldn't quickly & easily & cheaply be learned without our collectivist mandatory brain-washing institutions called "schools".

But usury and patents are also huge contributors.

With usury, this collectivist schooling system trains our children to think it normal to hock ourselves up to our eyeballs in debt, as slaves paying _someone_ _else_ a truckload of "interest".  Tell me, if everyone you know is on balance _paying_ interest, then who is _receiving_ it?  Clearly, if everyone you know is on balance _paying_ interest, then someone you _don't_ know is the one receiving it.  Are we then that surprised to discover that indeed, since usury favours the centralisation of power in the hands of rich lenders, behold, rich lenders gain increasing power?

The problem here is not Capitalism - it's failed schooling that trains creative young men and women with immense potential, to become beasts of burden in a system that pours money into the hands of usurers.

Blame where blame is due - blame societal acceptance of usury, and blame schools that conform their entrusted pupils to this oppressive ideal.

And patents - the idea that just because I beat you in a stupid game of legal linguistics (called the "patent" system), I get to tell you what you can't do with your business, your property, and your life.

No wonder people think business is risky - someone you've never heard of, and who had no influence on your success, can shut you down because you didn't pay them for "their" ideas, when in fact you legitimately came up with those ideas entirely on your own.

Since when were ideas "property" anyway?

Since never.

Failed schooling that produces cogs and beasts of burden instead of raising entrepeneurs.  Societal acceptance of usury and interest-bearing debt.  A patent system that induces fear and breeds disinterest in taking initiative.

No wonder Capitalism has "failed".

The real wonder is that Capitalism has still produced 100 billion times better outcomes under these circumstances than its collectivist competitors.

We don't need "the next thing" to replace Capitalism.

Eliminate centralised schooling.  Eliminate usury.  Eliminate the patent system.  Train people to expect to run a successful microbusiness instead of expecting to be a cog in a big wheel they can't comprehend.  And we'll see prosperity like we haven't in a long time.  _Real_ prosperity.  Not this credit-bubble-induced fairy floss fake stuff.

And don't get me started on excessive business licensing laws...

Time type B : time in sequence

Time type A is the smallest moment of time, or at least the four essential characteristics of a moment of time but which can be used in analysing larger discrete "chunks" of time.

Time type B is moments of time in series. An extremely intuitive concept. After all, we live with it. I got up, then I ate breakfast, then I put on my shoes, then I went out to the car, and so on and so forth.

Every person experiences sequenced events. This is "personal experiental time".

You can extend this concept to matter. Every atom and every conglomeration of atoms can be viewed as experiencing sequenced events.

And you can extend this concept to groups of people - "group experiential time".

The relative sequence of events is where things start to get very interesting.

Why do two xyz atoms vibrate at the same frequency? How do you even define the word "frequency" without reference to time? God - who created us and created the physical realm - has set in place such laws as necessary to govern the interplay between our individual personal choices and the actions caused by the laws of physics.

And so there is uniformity between how one person experiences the passage of time, and how another person does, because the same laws govern humans and the material that forms the world around us.

In this context, we count various things - such as the number of times the earth rotates relative to the sun - the which we call "days". Due to the uniformity of the laws God has set in place, people on opposite side of the earth have the same experience of "days" (ignoring variations in daylight vs dark hours, and curious effects deep in the polar regions). And because of this commonality of experience, we can all count together the days and the years, and voila - we now have time as most people think of it, the day which we give a name based on whatever calendar we prefer, and the hour and minute which are tracked by mechnical (and here I include electronic) devices.

So there is nothing special about "time" as in "it's the 21st of February 2008". It only seems confusing because we often start there in our quest to understand "time". In reality, co-experiential time is conceptually several steps along the path. Start with Time Type A, extend to personal experiential time, then group experiential time, and then we can see how the naming and numbering of days and years fits in the picture.

God : in time, or out of time?

A proper understanding of time helps us dispel many misconceptions about God's relationship to time, and our own.

For starters, God is not someone who's been sitting around "forever" on a timeline that stretches out infinitely before and behind us. If God was sitting on that infinitely-long timeline, He wouldn't be here at all, because neither infinity exists, nor do infinite sequences, and a timeline is a sequence.

You think you passed that one? What about perichoresis? There's a popular theory that the three persons of the Godhead are in a perpetual dance, and have been for an infinite period of time before choosing to create humans to join in the dance. The sentiment isn't far wrong, but the details are. God has not been dancing for an infinite period of time. "Infinity" does not exist. And neither do infinitely-long time periods.

So where did God come from? He didn't. He always existed. Something had to always exist. He just happened to be the one.

"So He's been around forever then? You're contradicting yourself!" Nay - He has not "been around forever" if you define "forever" as "an infinite time period leading up to the present moment". God never "came into existence" - He always was. But in His state of perpetual existence, He had a first moment.

God had a first experience.

But how could God have a first experience without a prior cause?

Revisit Time Type A : God was the cause of His own first experience. Not the cause of His own existence, but the cause of His own first experience.

So is God inside time, or outside? This is a common question, and one I pondered on for many years. Surely God is outside time I would think, for He cannot be inside time, locked to the same constraints which bind the rest of us.

In those days, I viewed time as a big box - like a shoebox, with God placed non-spatially outside the box.

But neither view is correct.

Time is not a box in which God is confined, nor a box in which God is not confined. Time (type B now) is the long sequence of events that has transpired from that first ever moment of time (time type A) - that first event in the universe, when God was the cause of the first moment in history.

View time as a long ribbon, ever extending in one direction, with God at the start of the ribbon and causing its extension.

So what about Heaven? So often I've heard preachers or Christians generally announce triumphantly that there'll be no time in Heaven. Baloney! No sun nor moon, ok, but there will be time. Scripture says there will be no sun nor moon, but it doesn't say there will be no time. In fact, it distinctly says that there will be time in Heaven - just not in those words.

Take, for instance, the marriage supper of the Lamb. Tell me, how do you plan to sup without time? How can you have a before state of food in bowl and an after state of a satisfied eater if there is no time? Time, as measured in earth years and days might long be gone, but time will exist, just measured differently (if measured at all - and I suspect it will be - consider for example that even in the perfect creation God gave stars for "signs and for seasons" - i.e. for tracking the passage of time).

Time type A : time at its very essence

At its very essence, the smallest unit of "time" is simply a change of state.

I was sitting; now I'm standing. What changed? My position.

I ate breakfast. What changed? The food moved from the bowl into my belly (with some assistance of course!)

Now, even the act of standing or of eating food is itself a process, but before we zoom in too far, let's consider these processes as a whole. What constitutes a change, a "time type A" moment/event?

It's remarkably simple.

Don't let anyone fool you into tuning your brain out because "that's metaphysics" or with some other scary statement.

Time is really easy to understand.

• Before : You have a prior state;
• After: You have a successive state;
• Effect : You have the set of things that changed between the two states;
• Cause : You have the actor/power/whatever that caused the change of state;

There is no simpler adequate reduction of the concept of time. Every moment of time involves all four of these things.

Applying the concept is easy : I stood up. Prior state? I was seated. Successive state? I was standing. What changed (effect)? My position. How did it change (cause)? Through my action.

Simple.

Elementary.

So let's dig deeper.

Digital existence

We can break down my act of standing into smaller and smaller time segments.

But if we could do so indefinitely, we would find that the series of events involved in me standing up is infinitely long. But infinity is a fiction, and infinitely long series are not series and thus by definition do not exist.

So the only other possibility is that when we analyse the series of events closely enough, we discover that there is a smallest possible event. A smallest possible movement. We see our actions as fluid, as analog, but the world of physics is digital. At the macro level, we perceive an analog world, but the underpinning physics is digital. (Not necessarily binary, but digital.)

The math involved in keeping a digital world running without failure whilst appearing at all macro levels to be analog, is astounding, and testament to the extraordinary genius of the One who designed physics and the physical realm.

Volitional vs mechanical causes

The first "event" that transpired in the history of everything was a volitional event. Physics weren't around at that time. God chose; God did. He chose; He did make physics - the math, the matter, the energy - the whole kit & kaboodle.

When I fire a gun, and the bullet leaves the muzzle at 800 feet per second, what carries that bullet on to the bullseye?

If you answered "nothing", you'd be correct most of the time, 'coz I rarely hit the bullseye.

But whatever it hits, how does the bullet get there?

Well, an object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by another force. (Hat tip Mr Newton.)

Good and well, but what exactly is motion?

Does the bullet propel itself on through space & time?

And how does this relate to time itself?

Think about it : what carries the bullet on through space?

Momentum?

I have a simple answer : the laws of physics.

Sure, the bullet has "momentum", but "momentum" means nothing absent something that acts based on the momentum. If you took a "freeze frame" 3d photo of the universe, you could analyse that bullet, and make guesses about its speed and direction based on the air patterns around it, but if you could only consult the bullet itself, and absent subtle clues like heat patterns from air friction in the direction of travel, you would have no clue how fast the bullet was flying or if it was even flying at all.

Momentum means nothing. Nothing, that is, unless there is something that pays attention to or "does something with" the momentum.

And there is such a thing : it's called the laws of physics.

Events in time that are caused by a person's choice are volitional events. The "what made it happen?" question is answered "by xyz person".

Events in time that are caused by the laws of physics can be referred to as mechanical events. A person - a volitional agent - might have anticipated and intended the event to occur (much as I intend the bullet to strike that bullseye), but it is the laws of physics and the associated series of mechanical events which effect the visible change.

Cause-effect

When my bullet strikes the bullseye, a dull thud is heard.

What caused the sound?

"The bullet striking the bullseye caused the sound", says one.

Incorrect.

Am I to suppose that a bullet has power to create sound? That, absent time, it could somehow cause a sound to ring out? Obviously the bullet can do nothing - indeed nothing can do anything - without "time" of some sort. So, existing in time, does the bullet have the power by which the thud is caused? We say "yes". But let's return to the simplest complete definition of a moment of time :

We have a prior state : the bullet is in the air.
We have a successive state : the bullet is in the target and a thud is heard.
We have a change - the "effect" : the bullet has moved and a thud has occured.
And we have a cause. What caused the change? Did the bullet cause the change by its own power & momentum? Far from it! Take away the laws of physics, and the bullet halts. The laws of physics do not describe observed phenomena, they cause them. And so it is the laws of physics - acting with regard to the physical properties of the bullet - that "cause" the dull thud to sound.

The laws of physics act with uniform predictably based on quantifiable information regarding the physical state of an object.

When we analyse a series of mechanical events, we often describe the sequence of events as a chain of cause-effect links, with the cause of each successive link being the effect of the preceding link. Our terminology in such cases is adequate, but confusing. The prior state is not the "cause"; the laws of physics are the "cause". And the successive state is not the "effect"; the "effect" is the differences between the prior state and the successive state.

Thinking of time as a mere series of "cause-effect" links is inaccurate, but useful as a gross simplification that is widely known. The reality is that the successive state of one moment in time is linked to the prior state of the next. The link between each moment of time is that of the prior and successive states, not that of the causes and effects in operation.

What is time?

Time is trivially easy to understand. We just don't understand it because we're told so many confusing (and irrational) things about it.

Is time travel possible? (Yes.) Can we alter the past? (No.) Can we "branch" the universe by going backwards in time and there altering the past? (Probably not.) Is time infinite? (Yes, but the total amount of time that has transpired at any point in time is finite.) And what is time, anyway? Is it just another dimension? (No - it stands very distinct from spatial dimensions.) Can it be resolved into the ulimate Theory Of Everything? (Not as merely another facet of gravitation, light and magnetism.) Will there be time in Heaven? (Yes.) How old is God? (About 6,000 years - although before you stone me, remember that there was nothing to measure the length of His existence by before He created years. Therefore, in terms of anything measurable, He's only existed for about 6,000 years.)

All these questions are easily answered when approaching the topic from the right perspective.

A note on perspective : modern philosophy adulates the purported incomprehensibility of all things. Hey - this article looks pretty incomprehensible upside-down through a stained-glass window, especially if you've never seen Latin letters before. Point being : if from 99 perspectives it looks incomprehensible, and from one it all makes sense, you're earth's biggest fool if you deny the comprehensible perspective on account of the purported incomprehensibility of it all.

Our analysis will start by answering the hardest question of all : what is time? - and the rest will flow from there.

Different types of time

"I have lots of dough." Do I mean money, or something edible? Using one word for two different things is fine, but if the hearer doesn't realise that the one word can have very different meanings, they end up very confused.

So it is with "time". There are at least five different types of "time".

In a nutshell :

1. Time type "A" : An event - a moment - the smallest unit of time;
2. Time type "B" : A series of events or moments - a period of time;
3. B1 : Personal experiential time;
4. B2 : Group experiential time;
5. B3 : Physics reference time;

Infinite vs infinity

Infinite : outside the realm of finite quantity. ("in" = not, "finite".)

In a sense, "exfinite" is a better word, emphasizing that the thing in question is outside the finite realm, and thus immeasurable.

Zero is not "infinite". It exists in the realm of the measurable.

Very little is "infinite". But before we delve further into that, let's address "infinity".

Infinity : a modern fantasy. Perhaps the prevailing superstition of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Infinity does not exist, except in the minds of deluded men and women.

It is not an illusion, for an illusion is something that appears to exist but does not exist. But there is nothing intuitive or seeming real about "infinity". It is a fantasy which we are taught. In childhood we have no notion of it, and when we have it explained, it makes no sense to us. Eventually, through much repetition from many directions, we forget that we actually have no real idea what this "infinity" thing is, and we take for granted that it exists.

When asked, we insist that we do know what infinity is, but when pressed, we cannot answer.

Is it the largest number that exists? (How do numbers exist anyway? That's another fascinating topic for another time.)

There is much more to say about the fuller implications of "infinite" vs "infinity", but suffice for now to mention the distinction.

More from the religion of pieces

Dozens of new cases of extteme religiously-motivated violence.

Not guesswork - "he was a muslim and he was violent so it was religious violence" - but explicit claims on the part of the assailants that their attacks were religious in nature.

According to idiotic Westerners, it's hateful to say this needs to end, whilst it's clearly not hateful to go around massacring Christians. Muslims, you see, are not violent. Such Westerners extrapolate the Muslims they think they know and presume to impress that perception of Islam on the rest of the world. It's arrogance. It's wrong. And it only facilitates the continued abuse, done by Muslims in the name of Islam.

Wake up and smell the machetes.

Read what's happening even today in first and third world countries alike.

Islam has a violence problem.

---

Is every Muslim violent? Of course not. Many Muslims? Waaay too many. But the key problem is not that there are lots of Muslims who happen to be violent, but that they are violent because of their Muslim religion. And don't you be so arrogant as to tell them that their understanding of Islam is wrong.

I'm apparently "religiously intolerant" for stating these facts, but if you tell a sincere violent Muslim that his religiously-motivated violence is not real Islam, aren't you the one being religiously intolerant, telling him what he can and can't believe in the name of a religion you don't even subscribe to?

Greens favour gender discrimination - female-only swimming

Don't expect sense from the Greens.

Pro-homosexuality, pro-gender-bending of every description, and supposedly "pro-equality".

Yet somehow despite all that, they now claim they want long term dedicated government-funded female-only swimming space.

'It's not just for Muslim women, it's for all women. Pregnant women, older women, women who've just had a baby, women who are self-conscious about their size and weight, women with disabilities.'

Yah - what about man women?

I feel like a woman, and remember, you have no right to tell me what gender I am.

Just look at Occupy Everything - one of the rules purportedly posted at the entryway to one of their camps said you must not assume anyone's gender, but wait for it to be disclosed.

So hey, I might look hairy on my chest, and my breasts might be remarkably diminuitive, but I'm a woman, and I'll sue you if you say otherwise.

Hey - they sued Andrew Bolt for questionning the ethnic identification of fractional Aborigines, so I'll sue the gehenna out of you if you question my gender affiliation.

That's what the Greens stand for, right? Sexual freedom, gender freedom, equality, all that bizzo.

So any pool that purports to be for "all women" but excludes "man women" is absolutely hypocricy on the part of the Greens.

Ever heard of bigender? I could even swim in the women's area one minute, then decide I'm male the next.

And so all those Muslim women so glad to shelter in a protected women's-only swimming area, kindly funded by taxpayers courtesy of Green vision, they might get quite a shock when their female bliss is interrupted by a male who the same Greens define as a female based on self-identified gender affiliation.

And the Greens love it. Well, everywhere except this pool perhaps.

There ain't nothin' Green about women's-only swimming areas when your very ideology says anyone of any birth gender can identify with whatever gender they want.

Kinda looks like an attempt to buy Muslim votes.

Y'know, those same Muslim votes swayed by this carrot, might be most hideously repulsed when the hand that feeds them turns a blind eye to the shemales who grace the same pool.

And this :

'The government is happy to explore ways to meet women's-only options, and we're investigating options at the new Gungahlin facility and in other facilities, both public and private,'

That's nice - so gender discrimination is actually ok, just so long as you favour women?

Get this, men, "gender equality" doesn't mean "gender equality", it means "female superiority". Although of course even Obama admits that - saying publicly in one speech that women will surpass men in accomplishments because, hey, they're just better than men.

And now, winning illogic-of-the-hour award :

'Ensuring broad community access is important and we don't want to exclude half the population from a significant new piece of infrastructure.'

Um - exactly which half of the population is being excluded here? The male half, as far as I can tell.

Last I knew, a lot of femmes like strutting their stuff in front of men. If they didn't, why in my short lifetime has the typical swimsuit gone from one piece to two iddy-biddy-tiny pieces? Why are the 8 year old girls at the swimming pool dressed in outfits more scant than a new bride's lingerie of decades past? As best I can tell, a lot of 'em like it the way it is. If they didn't, they'd wear something ... substantial.

So this "half the population" bizzo is absolute nonsense.

Reference : For our eyes only

UPDATE :

Just a few more salient snippets :

'It's not just about them looking at us, it's about us being exposed to men wearing Speedos.'

'Women who feel they cannot be in swimmers in front of men for religious or cultural reasons are among those likely to use the facility but also older women, those who feel self-conscious about their bodies and women recovering from injury or illness such as breast cancer.'

Swap the gender and see how ridiculous claims of "gender equality" are. Can you imagine the government going along with the following?

'We need male-only swimming areas. It's not just about women trying to alure us, it's about us being exposed to women wearing bikinis. Men who feel they cannot view parades of female flesh for religious or cultural reasons are among those likely to use the facility, but also older men, men who feel self-conscious about lacking a six-pack or recovering from hernia surgery, or illness such as cancer of the privy member.'

Somehow, strangely, the Greens would scream "DISCRIMINATION! GENDER FAVOURITISM!", but they go right along with it - nay, champion the cause - if it puts women ahead of men.

They don't believe their own "equality" mantra.

But then again, hey, who's surprised - Greens ideology just doesn't work when rubber meets road.

Australia's supposedly-excellent financial position

As our Socialist overlordess' treasurer-henchman likes to tell us repeatedly, Australia (supposedly) has survived the GFC with one of the strongest economies in the world - thanks of course to their brilliant fiscal management (y'know, like destroying the roof insulation industry with huge subsidies both suddenly introduced and suddenly removed, leaving long-term players in the industry devastated).

Oh sorry - I got sidetracked.

So yes, this fiscal management, and behold, we're doing so well!

So well in fact that John Giaan (who runs an Australian investment email list), in one of his regular emails just yesterday said the economy's going so strong that he's leaving the sidelines and getting back in the action.

Nice, nice. Nice for him. Bla bla bla.

He mentioned the GFC II / Global Financial Meltdown by name, saying "where is it? I reckon it's not coming at all".

A bit like the guy who said "tsunami? what tsunami?" and hit the beach, just hours before the beach was hit.

Or is he right?

He, and Gillard and her team are the ones in error. (Or of course, in Gillard's case, perhaps merely propogating error without quite so strongly believing it...)

The signs are all around, and getting worse and worse as the months go by.

Lots of others have commented on the situation, and for time's sake, I'm not going to repeat information about the challenges facing our retail sector, or the geographic disparities in our nation at present. Nor will I touch on the very relevant issues of over-inflated house prices due to interest-bearing loans and government intervention.

Instead, I'm going to just focus on the evidence on the ground all around me personally.

For years I've been in business, and hardly ever has a client had a hard time paying.

But over the last 12 months, it's been escalating. And escalating. Clients who appreciate my work, but have been unable to even pull together a mere $1k or $2k when it comes time to pay. When some years ago, they could easily pull together $10k and $20k deposits and milestone payments.

The economy isn't just "tight" - it's strangling. Two businesses close to mine have recently become behind on, or are just about to be behind on, employee payroll - when normally they're going strong.

Another client still owes us from over six months ago - and he's not disputing the invoice or anything, in fact he's even made at least one part-payment towards his debt and keeps reaffirming his intention to pay in full - but he just can't.

This isn't retail. These are companies from diverse industries. Dying. Insolvent or borderline insolvent. And newly so. And oftentimes businesses that have been around for many years or even some decades.

So I add my comment : Australia's economy, despite our national treasurer's boastful comments otherwise, is in tatters. Oh sure, we'll find "a way" through, whatever that means, even if half the businesses across this nation end up closing or some other widespread change affects us all.

But don't let them kid you : we're dead and dying. Not everyone of us. But enough for me to confidently say : it's a mirage - Australia is NOT in good shape economically - it's in a period of catastrophic financial turmoil, and I doubt we'll pass the next two years without extreme and difficult changes.

And based on what I'm seeing at the moment, a lot of that pain will hit long before two years from now.

NKJV 1982 vs 1984/85

For the odd person in the same boat as us :

A group of us are memorising whole books of the Bible using the NKJV translation.

Unfortunately, we were finding minor variations of wording between our different copies of the Bible. (Two printed copies, one iPhone copy, one Android copy, and BlueLetterBible.org.)

Imagine how difficult it is to get word-perfect recital when different copies of the text are worded slightly differently! The meaning didn't change, but it was impeding our memorisation efforts.

We examined the copyright notices and other info but found no indication of different editions/revisions - yet the wording clearly did differ.

Scouring the web found no info, except one passing comment in one article claiming (without reference) that the NKJV has been tweaked multiple times as a commercial decision to make it more like the NIV. Plausible, but without any further evidence offered and no other websites even mentioning that there are different revisions at all, Thomas Nelson is owed the benefit of any doubt as to motives for the changes.

I searched high and low on the Thomas Nelson website, to no avail.

I rang Thomas Nelson, and they said that my particular query would be best emailed to a particular department.

I emailed, shortly before new year, hoping they would answer quickly (because our memorisation was largely on-hold until this was resolved) but knowing that new year and other factors could cause delays.

So I was pleased this morning to note they have replied, and their reply was very helpful.

I don't know if I should reproduce exactly what they sent me, but the short of it is this :

• The NKJV has two editions/versions. The original 1982 version, and a revision made in 1984 and typeset in 1985.
• Thomas Nelson claims the 1984 amendments improved the "accuracy, clarity, and consistency" of the translation. Again, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Thomas Nelson is owed the benefit of any doubt here as to motives.
• My childhood Bible, given to me in 1988, was, by the sound of things, probably old shelf stock of the original (i.e. 1982) version.
• All confusion could have been avoided if for example the revision had a copyright 1984 notice, but unfortunately both original and revised versions carry a copyright 1982 notice and there are no apparent distinguishing features other than looking at particular verses where wording was altered.
• Thomas Nelson said that no list of changes between the original and revised NKJV editions is available. (I'm sure it exists somewhere, but nearly 30 years on, that "somewhere" might be very hard to find.)
• Thomas Nelson said that all electronic copies of the NKJV, and all paper copies using the 1985 typesetting (i.e. all but the oldest copies), are all the 1984 revision.

Many thanks to Thomas Nelson for answering my questions and providing clarity on the matter. This means :

• We can use iPhone, Android and online versions of the NKJV with confidence that the text across these platforms will be identical now and in the future.
• We can compare printed copies to the electronic copies to determine whether the printed copy is the original or the revised/amended text, and for copies that are the original, avoid them for memorisation purposes.

It also explains why the spoken copy of the NKJV I have seemed to have misreadings throughout - the reader was probably using the revised (i.e. 1984) NKJV when I had memorised using the original (i.e. 1982).

How to check your NKJV revision in a single verse

Matthew 2:3a : in the 1984 revision (i.e. all electronic NKJVs, and most printed ones), it says "When Herod the king heard this", whereas in the original 1982 version (i.e. just the oldest printed copies), it says "When Herod the king heard these things".

Again, these are trivial differences with no effect on the meaning - which is perhaps why Thomas Nelson didn't see fit to advertise it as a new revision or update the copyright notice - but it makes a difference when memorising.

(Note also that at least in the Matthew 2:3a exhibit, both "this" and "these things" are italicised, meaning they are implied by the Greek, not directly present in it, so there is no question of variation in literality here.)

So to the rare person out there stumbling on this particular problem, there's the answer, and hopefully I've saved you the hassle of going through this research process yourself.

Thanks again to Thomas Nelson for promptly answering my detailed questions.

Socialists Hate Speech

Socialists love propoganda, but they hate speech.

Two cases crossed my desk in the last 24 hours, and another is ever present.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff dared state in a private meeting that Mohammed, having married a 9 year old girl, "had a thing for little girls."

She was tried without jury and by a lone judge, who found her guilty of "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion", and faces 60 days in prison.

Yup - y'know, those overcrowded taxpayer-funded holding centres need another inmate on account of her expressing accurate but "unacceptable" views.

Case #2 - I'm behind the times - but Miss California (Carrie Prejean) was directly asked on a public TV show what she thought of homosexual "marriage".

Taken by surprise by the unexpected question on a highly controversial topic, she answered with great grace and dignity :

we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think that it should be between a man and a woman.

Remember that in Marxist ideology, anything that advances "the cause" is moral; anything that hinders it is "immoral".

Accordingly, Miss California was targetted on public TV and in other media by high-profile media personalities and subjected to venomous hateful insults and accusations.

But remember - she's the one guilty of "hate speech".

Y'know, Perez Hilton calling her a "dumb bitch" and a "cunt" is not hate speech.

News anchor Giuliana Rancic called her "an ignorant disgrace" and said "she makes me sick to my stomach".

All for politely answering a loaded question by saying "you can believe whatever you want, but since you've asked my belief, I happen to believe xyz".

Clearly, to the Socialist clergy, "hate speech" is what they do - they hate speech.

They love propoganda.

But they hate speech.

Toe the "politically correct" line (i.e. the line that they made the politically correct line over decades - not any line that was politically correct say 100 years ago).

Or else you're a hateful bitch. Or bastard, doubtless, as the case may be.

Methinks, Hitlon, thou speakest of thyself.

Case #3 is of course the ever-present sea of pornography all around us.

We should embrace and celebrate it, apparently, because it represents "free speech".

Hmmm.

Last I knew, "speech" consisted of propositional communication.

I make a claim. You analyse it, and present flaws and/or counterclaims, ideally with evidence (although with Socialists, "what we believe is right" is sufficient evidence in most cases).

Much like what I'm doing here. Propositional communication.

My proposition is simple : Socialists hate speech. They hate it. They love propoganda - anything that enshrines their cause - but they hate speech.

And pornography is actually yet another example.

Supposedly we who oppose pornography in any significant way are blocking "freedom of speech".

That's as stupid as saying that if I get someone's permission to cut them into cubes with a chainsaw in full public view in Times Square, New York (taking said person from the land of the living to the land of the very dead) that to oppose me is to oppose "free speech".

"What a stupid example" I hear, because, after all, any claim and any story that doesn't toe the politically correct line is by definition "stupid" at best, and "hateful" if by any ridiculous stretch of the imagination one can deem it so.

But no, it is the stupid Socialists who are stupid. And the non-Socialists who fall in line who are even stupider - hence this article - let's awake from our stupour and unstupidify ourselves.

But enough stupid wordplay.

The point is, an act or display that is non-propositional, is not speech.

And so Socialists, championing pornography in the guise of "free speech", prove once again that they hate speech.

Or else I could justify any act of cruelty, violence, or even terrorism, in the name of "free speech".

Speech is propositional.

Socialism is propogandistic.

So they're not exactly best friends.

Sure, Socialism uses speech extensively. Because speech has power.

But try speaking against the Approved Beliefs. Not Halal.

Y'see, speech has power, but you must not use speech against Socialism. By Marxist definition, that would be immoral.

And in the meantime, we'll use "hate speech" laws to shut you up if you dare try.

Speech indeed is powerful.

Which is why little micro-speech sites like this shake the world. Y'know, "the pen is mightier than the sword", and all that jazz.

And which is precisely why those who hate speech, codify their hatred of speech in "hate speech" laws.

But Truth has a habit of remaining true, no matter how many people assert otherwise.

Which means by definition, Truth won't go away, no matter how many hate speech laws we create, and no matter how many Elisabeths and Carries we throw in prison or under the bus.

Your mission - nay, your responsibility, whether or not you choose to accept it, has always been the same : find Truth, live it, love it, and tell it.

If I don't see you in prison (or under the bus), it'll be because you spoke up and God had mercy, or else because you stayed silent and I went there without you.

But the nature of war is this : the battle will always come to you.

Always.

So you either step up and engage where the fighting's hot now.

Or it comes to you, and interferes with your "quiet life" some time from now.

Or if in God's mercy, it never gets that far, shame on those who slumbered whilst the battle raged.

Speak now.

Speak wisely.

Speak boldly.

Speak strategically.

Speak with love, gentleness, kindness, compassion, firmness, precision, bluntness, and even anger, mockery, scorn, ridicule and jest as befits the occasion.

Speak. Your enemies will not be silent.

Speak, 'til the tide is turned, and then some, 'til the tide is far retreated, and then some more, until civilisation is established where once there was sea.

Or speak until you are silenced, and not just with legal threats, confiscation, imprisonment, harrassment, threats, and physical harm, but until your tongue and your pen are silenced.

And then write with your foot.

And speak on and on whilst you have breath.

For speech is powerful. And those who hate speech want to silence it.

Love speech.

And use it.

Communists are hypocrites

Hypocrites! On the one hand Socialists claim that it is immoral that anyone should get a better start in life on account of their parents - e.g. through advanced private education, advanced private healthcare, or a sizeable inheritance.

(Hence for example their rabid devotion to death duties aka inheritance taxes, and eliminating competition against public schools as our dearly beloved comrade Bob Brown is eager to do.)

And then the uber-Socialists, known as Communists, give Kim Jong-Il's son a better start in life on account of his father.

(He's been appointed Supreme Commander over North Korea in place of his deceased father.)

If Communists weren't hypocrites, any one of the millions of other North Koreans would have had equal chance to "ascend the throne".

But don't expect Communists to be consistent, nor Communist theory to work in practice.

What's good for you, comrade, isn't good for me, 'coz I have to do your thinking for you. Don't ask questions - it all makes sense to us, and we are your mind. Just keep working, and trust that we have your best in mind.

Yeah right.

Watch out for Canadian terrorists

Seen any Canadian terrorists recently? Better watch out for those Canadians - they can be dangerous.

Probably get it from the bears.

This article is just one of many I want to focus on : Canadian charged in murder of 5 US soldiers in Iraq.

First six words?

"An Iraqi national living in Canada"...

Oh. Ok, so maybe it isn't Canadians generally. I didn't think the ones I'd met seemed that dangerous.

Must be Iraqis then.

But hey - I met some Iraqis too. Not sure they were really a risk.

Oh - the article says more :

"The case offers a glimpse into the murky world of Iraqi resistance fighters who allegedly trolled Arab countries for young, impressionable Muslims willing to give their lives for a promise of Islamic martyrdom."

Ah - I see. Not just any old Iraqis. Muslim ones.

So why does the headline suggest Canadians are a danger? Isn't "Muslim" a more accurate predictor of terrorist tendencies?

Why do so many "newspapers" insist on referring to terrorists as "Asians" or any other designation that disguises the fact that most of them are motivated by their adherence to their understanding of Islam?

What value is a political correctness that dulls us to the dangers around us?

Imagine learning to drive a car by only looking out sideways for dangers. You wouldn't get far. And we try to drive nations like that?

Sure, I know heaps of friendly muslims, as do you.

But let's not pretend that randomness turns hat-toting Canadians into gun-and-bomb-toting terrorists.

In years of yore, they thought that flies and mice arose spontaneously.

We now call that superstition.

Mice and flies arise from specific circumstances.

So too does Islamic terrorism.

Call it what it is, identify how it spreads, and do something about it.

Just stop pretending Canadians or Asians are the problem. Something in Islam is.

Yes, maybe not something in the Islam that Abdul next door practices, but something in the wider range of beliefs called Islam is doing a very good job of encouraging people to blow themselves up to kill non-muslims. Call a spade a spade. These are Muslim terrorists. And they even boast about it, and even tell us that their religious beliefs drive them to these actions.

And don't call it "extremism" either. Forsaking wealth and living every day to quietly serve those dying in pain - that's extremism. That's the kind of extremism Mother Theresa - yep, her again - resorted to. Extremism - even religious extremism - is simply something a long way from the norm, whether good or bad. It's often good. It's often bad. So don't say "Muslim extremists". In fact, from their perspective, you represent extreme evil - hey, that's why they wanna blow you up.

In fact, I could mount a pretty good case that destroying a baby's future life rich with choices, in the name of choice, is atheistic extremism. But you wouldn't want to change your view on that now, would you...

So drop "extremist". Investigate. Enquire. Open mouth to ask. Shut mouth. Listen intently. Don't assume. Ask next question. Whoohoo - now we're getting somewhere.

The Muslims are not all terrorists at heart. Phew! I'm glad about that. Very glad. But the terrorists of greatest risk to us today are Muslims. Let's not pretend otherwise.

UPDATE : Just another of many examples : German man arrested over alleged al-Qaida plot

Righteousness Exalts A Nation - Just Ask Gillard, Clinton and Obama

Gillard sells the CO2 Tax.

"Australia is setting an example for the rest of the world to follow", we're told.

Subtext?

"In centuries to come, Australia will be admired as the country that got the ball rolling, that made the right choice."

Yes, Gillard believes that righteousness - making the morally tough but right decisions - does indeed exalt a nation.

So too does Hillary Clinton. And Obama.

Their latest trumpet blast is a rally to the new crusade against absolute morals in sexuality. Any absolute moral, that is, other than that it's absolutely right to do anything you want with as many other adults go along with it. And absolutely wrong to suggest otherwise.

But behold, this crusade - like crusades of centuries past - is not to be waged in their own borders, but to be exported to foreign lands.

That never asked for it.

Or wanted it.

Yup - crusades2you, no delivery fee.

Courtesy of the US government and its vast diplomatic resources.

Which might just happen to involve at least an inch or two of coercion against foreign countries.

And is explicitly intended to involve leaders forcing unwanted changes on their citizens.

Why this crusade? Why this impulse to spread their particular sexual ideology from sea to distant sea?

Weren't we just told decades ago that colonial England was very naughty when it supposedly crushed poor innocent native cultures, forcing western values in distant lands?

But isn't this exactly the same?

Identical, in fact.

But hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The goal has never been "protecting the helpless from foreign culture", but rather "forcing Humanistic values on others". See, a lot of the old English values were, well, just too Christian. Not acceptable, sorry. We're happy to colonise foreign minds, with taxpayer funds and coercion as needed, but it better be the religion of Humanism we're promoting, or at least, not Christianity, whatever you do, for gawd's sake.

But I digress.

See, Hillary and Obama believe they are saviours, that the world will see them as virtuous leaders - like Martin Luther King and others before them.

That in decades and centuries to come, the names Clinton and Obama will be uttered softly, and evoke a thrill of hope and confidence.

And not just them, but America. The America they led. The America that shoved homosexuality down the world's throat. Will be remembered as a saviour for the world.

In decades and centuries to come, people will say, "How was it that people survived in the early 21st century? Times were so barbaric! We're so grateful that America stepped up and taught the world how to think and act the right way."

The right way.

See, embracing homosexuality is "the right way".

I've not seen Hillary ever explain once why.

But supposedly it is.

Maybe she's a goddess or something? Maybe we should just take her word on blind faith. At least we can see her, unlike y'know like this Yahweh who's invisible.

But note it well : promoting acceptance of homosexuality is morally right, saith she.

As morally right as embracing religious tolerance. Even more morally right than embracing religious tolerance, because religious tolerance requires tolerating those who disagree with homosexuality, and we can't allow that.

It is the right thing to do.

Repeat that, say, hmmm, 100,000 times.

Here - I'll help you. Let's just get all the mass media parroting it too.

There - that's better.

Oh - and if anyone ever disagrees, see to it they're removed from office, so it looks like no-one of any consequence disagrees.

Yeah - cool. We're well on our way to 100,000.

See? You believe it now. Or if not, just say it a few more hundred thousand times.

Homosexuality is morally good. Not.

But see, Clinton and Obama believe it.

And now Gillard, pretending she cares about marriage, acts like she's simply a victim of her party - the Australian Labour Party - which has elected to make "homosexual marriage" national policy.

Poor Gillard - I'm sure she desperately wanted to defend marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman. Y'know, that's probably why she's the first Australian Prime Minister with a live-in boyfriend instead of a spouse. Yeah...

But the key take-home point is this : righteousness exalts a nation, and Gillard, Clinton and Obama all know it.

In their deluded imagination, they honestly believe that future generations will look back and think of Australia and America as great, because of their stance for CO2 taxes / homosexuality respectively.

Their morals are are immoral, but they believe them to be right - i.e. righteous - and they believe that this very righteousness will leave them and their nations exalted in the eyes of history.

Righteousness does indeed exalt a nation. And even atheists instinctively know it.

The question is : what is true righteousness?

The verse continues : "sin is a reproach to any people".

Clinton clearly defines sin : opposing homosexuality.

But her definition is mistaken. Grossly in error.

In her quest to exalt herself and her nation, she strives to earn reproach. She will be remembered. For a while. But not as the saviour she thinks.

More bloodlust from the religion of piece

Despite Australian naivety, the religion of piece has some systemic issues. Y'know, the "tread our line or we'll tear you to pieces" kind of thing. Very moderate. Very pluralistic. Very humanitarian.

This time, a 17-year old fella is bashed to death in school during school hours, by his muslim school teacher and a few muslim schoolmates. For displaying two crosses he was wearing on his person.

The fact that Abdullah living next door in suburban Sydney denounces violence doesn't mean Abdu's a muslim and these Egyptian dudes are just schizophrenic freaks - any more than it means those Egyptian dudes are muslims and those "moderate" muslims around you are freaks. Newsflash : they're all muslims.

It's just some take their holy book more seriously. Which ones, you ask? Now that's a good question...

Uni students do a 180 on abortion

There's a new movie out called "180". Worth a watch.

A wide range of uni students are interviewed one-on-one or one-on-two, and go from pro-abortion to pro-life and pro-adoption.

What changed their minds?

Find out : 180movie.com

All we need is love, Google-style (pro-homosexuality)

So I'm a little behind the times, but I just found out today that Google, my favourite big tech company in the world, is in favour of the destruction of society's most basic instution : marriage.

A little extreme, you'll say.

Here's a one-liner version from their blog :

we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love

For such a smart company as Google, this statement is jam-packed with dumb assumptions :

Fundamental rights?

If it's all relative, then there's no such thing as a "fundamental" right - or are Google themselves "fundamentalists" of some kind? Watch out for those extremist fundamentalists like Google.

Or if it's not all relative, and there are such things as "fundamental" rights, then its obvious that there might also be a "fundamental" definition to marriage. Y'know, like one that maybe, perhaps, excludes homosexual partnerships.

Should not

And then of course there are strange assertions like "should not". By what law? Who says? A lot of people I know aren't too keen on being told what they should do with their life. "Should not" sounds a lot like moralising. Has Google supplanted Yahweh? I think they'll find they're not quite as ready for the task as they think...

Eliminate

By definition, if there is such a thing as a "fundamental" right, it is fundamental. It is impossible to eliminate. You can transgress (violate) someone's fundamental rights but you can't eliminate them.

For example, I have a right to my laptop, and if the government decides to pass a law banning laptop ownership, then I do not lose my right of ownership - the government is transgressing my rights and hence abusing its power.

You can eliminate non-fundamental rights. A non-fundamental right is granted by human will, and it can be revoked by human will.

But a fundamental right, by definition, is not capable of being eliminated.

Whatever their sexuality

Paedophiles, anyone?

Bestiality?

Like, if Google wants to be consistent, why aren't they campaigning for equality for people who want legal recognition of their sexual relationship with their pet goat?

They're not consistent. So they're either blind, or they're pulling the hood over our eyes, and the issue isn't at all what they claim it to be.

Right ... to marry

I have a right to be identified as a Black American. I feel like a Black American. Ok, so my skin suggests otherwise, but it's bigotry and discrimination to say I'm not a Black American, when clearly I am one. I feel like one.

"Wait a mo", you say, "Black American by definition excludes white boys like you". You have a point.

Marriage also by definition excludes homosexual unions.

The Person

Dude - how bigoted and antiquated you are. You need to seriously catch up with the times. Why settle for one? I quite like my threesomes.

And hey, the PETA folk will tell you that pigs are people. Humano-porcine sexual relationships must also be recognised, unless you're an intolerant fascist prude.

They Love

Awwww - all we need is love. That legitimises everything.

Like sex with my 12 year old neighbour.

Well, seriously, try telling her she shouldn't.

Maybe Mohammed wasn't so bad after all, sexually penetrating his 9 year old wife. So long as it was love.

Pity of course that love changes so fast. On again, off again. But that's what divorce is for.

Hey, might as well just give people temporary marriage licenses they can optionally renew - better than forcing people through the hassle of divorce when love takes its random course in another direction...

But seriously, if "marriage" is so unfundamental that we can redefine it from heterosexual to anysexual, it really is a bit extreme to exclude non-sexual and lifelong friendships. Y'know, Harry and I are housemates, and find each other quite agreeable, and really would rather never go through the hassle of finding another housemate. Don't get me wrong - there's nothing "between us" - you catch my drift - we're definitely just mates, in the best Aussie sense of the word. Good mates. He's a good bloke, and so am I. We just wanna, y'know, have some kind of recognition for our commitment to mateship.

We really care about each other. That's gotta be love, you agree?

So marriage it is then, for Harry & I. And Brigette, when you finally drop your prudish two-party restriction.

What now for homosexuals?

It's clear that there's nothing inherent to marriage itself that homosexuals need in order to "enjoy" their homosexuality. Marriage inherently is between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is inherently not so.

I don't call my love for icecream "marriage", but somehow that doesn't detract from my enjoyment of icecream, and I don't see it as a matter of equality. Homosexuality is no different.

So why all the fuss to pretend that the fundamental definition of marriage is not quite so fundamental when perceived new rights are?

The answer is clear : the agenda is to reshape society into a utopia that sheds all vestiges of Biblical morality. Others have tried and failed but people keep on trying. Strange they're so utopian when they deride all concepts of "heaven" - they are themselves believers, they just think they're the gods who'll make heaven on earth.

Sorry Google - nice sentiment, no substance.