Another Top 10 list! The Top 10 Posts of 2009 roundup

Because it’s virtually a sacrosanct feature amongst blogs as far as I can tell and because I always like to showcase my stuff anyway, here are, via the data from Google Analytics, the ten most viewed posts on this blog in the year 2009 (ie – since Preliator’s inception last July). Some of these posts I truly am proud of, and others leave me scratching my head as I wonder, “how in the hell did that make the Top 10 list?”.

#10: “I just want to know what her problem is” – October 30
Wherein I comment on a report that states that there are numerous cases of men in British Columbia, Canada, who claim they’ve been kicked in the balls in the streets by a random woman, apparently for absolutely no reason at all (on their part, that is).

#09: The science of pedophilia, morality, and free will – December 26
A reader brings up two interesting medical cases of people who suddenly began showing pedophiliac urges after brain injury, when they had been seemingly perfectly “normal” until then. Also brings up deep questions regarding morality and free will.

#08: Men, wanna live longer? Stare at boobs! ^{[Updated – hoax!]} – December 10
A specious report on a supposed German study that (supposedly) concluded that staring at women’s breasts was healthy for men and increased their lifespans. Even though I apparently fell into believing this was genuine like an idiot until informed otherwise, that still didn’t stop this post from being the eighth most visited post of the year. Weird. (But, on the other hand, I just knew that title would get me somewhere in terms of page views.)

#07: “Does faith make you happy?” – December 18
USA Today’s Faith & Reason blog asks whether faith makes people happier in general than a lack of faith. An anti-religious rant of mine ensues in which I affirm that, yes, having your head and heart filled with fluff about how a supreme being is in control of everything and watching over you, and how your enemies and other nonbelievers are gonna fry in Hell, does tend to elevate your spirits.

#06: Only in the Nanny State of Britain: when the victim is the one jailed and not the criminal – December 15
A man and his family are terrorized by a knife-wielding house-robber and his crew, are tied up and threatened with death. Unfortunately for the robbers, the family father escapes, gets help, and proceeds to whack the living shit out of the burglar. And then gets jailed for 2.5 years – whilst the burglar gets nothing. Hope those bruises and cuts really sting. My sympathy for weapon-wielding burglars and would-be murderers is just about nonexistent; sorry.

#05: Another example how atheists should not go on Fox Newz – December 23
Not unless they wanna be mocked and bullied, as was poor Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, when she was “interviewed” by Faux Newz bitch Laura Ingraham. Infuriating video.

#04: As if we needed more evidence demonstrating how pot is not the devil – December 14
Not only is marijuana not gonna kill you (unless you’re beaten to death for driving too slowly on the highway), but it might even actually help your brain, as research finds that an agent in street-sold weed actually promotes neurogenesis (ie.: creation and development of braincells) and may help combat anxiety and depression. (But then, any pot-head can already attest to that.)

#03: Another rant on how not all animal sex is animal abuse – December 19
Another one of my rants on the unfairness and cruelty of the persecution, both social and legal, faced by people who engage in sex with animals when the animal is not harmed in any way, shape or form. Spurred on by a particularly insensitive and royally dumbass quote from a law enforcement official about how, apparently, having sex with female horses makes Michael Vick’s horrific brutality towards dogs pale in comparison. Unreal.

#02: What it all comes down to … – December 18
In which I post a comic in which the problems with acting in the face of Global Warming all boil down to: “What if Global Warming is a big hoax and we all create a better world for nothing?”. Damn straight. (I sorta suspect much of the traffic that bumped this post up to the #2 spot is due to the source site being Pharyngulated, itself.)

#01: Saying that labeling children is wrong = FASCISM!!!1!! – November 20
It’s no surprise that this post is my #1 – it has, to itself, 20 times more comments and is responsible for up to a full quarter, if not a third, of the blog’s total traffic. It all started as a casual dissection of columnist Ed West’s “FASCISM!!!” nonsense in the Telegraph regarding the British Humanist Association’s “Please Don’t Label Me” bus ad campaign which told people not to label children along religious or political ideologies until they’re old enough to choose for themselves. A perfectly reasonable message. Ed West didn’t think so. So, I tore into his silly article … and my little post was tweeted. Which truly kicked the ball down the snowy mountain and started a hell of an avalanche.

(Yes, don’t worry, I have noticed how all but two posts were posted this last month of December; that doesn’t change anything. The point of this list is to enumerate the top 10 most visited posts, regardless of whether they’re chronologically clustered together or not.)

Well, this is obviously my last post of the year. It’s been a long one, full of both excitement and misery, brilliance and sheer, bottomless-pit-esque stupidity. But then, so is every year, no? So: see you in 2010! =P

“There is no God”: what we say vs. what we mean

“Atheist”/“Godless”: Ain’t this the most wicked cool ambigram or what?

We atheists sure know how to tick off the believers and the faithful with our repeated assertions that “There is no god” and its cousin, “There is probably no god”. Now, Hemant Mehta asks: which is it? A valiant question.

I hear atheists saying both of the following statements and it would be nice to have it cleared up.

Which statement should atheists be using?

1. There is probably no god.

2. There is no god.

I should note that when I say “probably no god” in #1, I mean any amount less than 100% certainty.

I can’t answer for others, neither being in their heads nor privy to their beliefs and thought processes, but I certainly can answer for myself and for what I say, versus what I mean. Personally, when I say, “There is no God”, I’m simply using the shorter, more convenient and less tedious-to-repeat contraction of, “There is almost certainly no God or gods”. Of course, there always could be one or more god(s). But then, there could be a tooth fairy, leprechauns and unicorns as well. We certainly have never proven that they don’t exist. But, the fact that we’ve never seen one, that they don’t appear to have any effects on the world, and that their existence would defy common sense and logic, is more than good enough to lead us to believing, and proclaiming, that they simply don’t exist.

I simply use this exact same logic towards god(s), who insofar have been utterly absent in our natural world. There is no trace, not the slightest, most subtle of hints, of a divine influence or being. So, why should we believe in one? There simply isn’t any good reason to, period.

What about you, dear reader(s)? If you don’t believe in god(s), what do you say on a regular basis? How likely is it, to you, that god(s) exist at all?

(via Friendly Atheist)

Dissecting Cheney & co.’s bullshit, via Rachel Maddow

Republicans have been having a jolly good time these past few days since the attempted terrorist attack on Delta Airlines flight 253, getting the outrage machine cranked up at full about the failings of Obama and his administration when it came to protecting American lives and ensuring air travel security and whatnot. This is, of course, a blatant case of fear-mongering hypocritical nonsense, and no-one is more of a war-monger or a dishonest dunce than is Dick Cheney. No-one in the media or amongst the Democrats seem interested in shutting them up with only a rudimentary amount of fact-checking to quell their lies, so I suppose it was up to Rachel Maddow to dissect the bullshit. And she did beautifully. (Naturally.)

The whole thing is a great watch as she tears through all the lies and mindless babble, but below is the part that really stands out, at the 6:43 mark, when she describes just how and why Republicans not only get away with jackass stunts like this, but somehow act as though it were their responsibility to do so:

‘For the most part, Democrats are letting these charges from Dick Cheney and the rest of Republicans go unanswered – even though these are charges that collapse very quickly in the face of even rudimentary fact-checking. But, even if you step back from the specific, ridiculous claims that they are making, consider what Republicans are trying to do, here. Republicans apparently think they can survive the fact-checking problems they will have here if anybody ever decides to look into these things they’re saying. They think they can survive the fact-checking because they imagine they have this transcendent credibility on national security matters. A credibility on national security that – what, transcends the facts of their record?

Exactly right.

The world of journalism and the media needs about a hundred more like her to counterbalance against all the incompetent twits who claim to share news and who do little more than spread conservative talking points and lies without bothering to take five seconds to filter the bullshit out of them. If I wanna watch unfiltered Republican lies and hypocrisy go unanswered, I’ll tune in to Faux Newz, thank you very much. The rest of the media should be held to (much) higher standards.

(via @todayspolitics)

A butthurt Ken Ham and a succint response

Recently, Prof. Lawrence Krauss, renown physicist and author of many great books including The Physics of Star Trek, visited Ken Ham’s ludicrous Creation “Museum” for a brief stroll, before commenting on its absurdity in the Cincinnati Enquirer using mean pointy words like “lies”, “travesty” and “religiously motivated fraud”. This is all exact to anyone who knows anything about science and about how utterly devoid of merit Creationism is, without even having to visit Ham’s $27 million folly.

Of course, Ken Ham felt a wee bit stung by this and let the silliness rip on Krauss:

Krauss himself got criticism from some in the secular press because he had not even visited the museum to see it for himself. Presumably because of this criticism, he did come some time later and walked through the Creation Museum exhibits with AiG’s CCO, Mark Looy. Mark actually timed Krauss’s visit. He took a whole 22 minutes to walk through the museum, most of the time asking Mark Looy questions and only occasionally glancing at some of the exhibits. Considering it would take a person nearly one and a half hours to watch the programs in the various theatres, including the Planetarium and SFX theatre, plus take 2 hours to watch all the 50-plus videos in the various exhibits, and a further two hours to read all the signage—it was obvious Krauss wasn’t the least bit interested in researching the content of the museum (as one would expect from a real scientist and well-known anti-creationist commentator), but only visited presumably to tell people he has seen the Creation Museum and thus could comment on it—what a farce!

Wow. Sounds like someone’s feeling a little butthurt.

Then, from Larry Moran over at Sandwalk:

Now, let's be fair to Lawrence Krauss. He's a very smart guy and I'm certain that it didn't take him 22 minutes to recognize that the museum was a farce. I'm sure he stayed an extra 21 minutes just to be polite to his host.

*Zing!*

(via Friendly Atheist)

The most brutal Dick Cheney smackdown, EVAR

This.

DICK THE COWARD.... It was only a matter of time before Dick Cheney decided to trash the president again.

"As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won't be at war."

Let's review a few pesky details. First, it was Cheney's administration that released some of the alleged terrorists who plotted the attack into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" in Saudi Arabia, only to see them become terrorist leaders in Yemen. It was also Cheney's administration that gave Abdulmutallab a visa to enter the United States in the first place.

Second, let's compare some "low-key responses." President Obama addressed a failed terrorist attack three days after it occurred. Eight years ago, when a terrorist tried to blow up an airplane under nearly identical circumstances, then-President Bush waited six days before making brief, cursory public remarks. Five days after the attempted terrorist attack, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refused substantive comment altogether, telling reporters, "That's a matter that's in the hands of the law enforcement people." A White House spokesperson would only say at the time that officials were "continuing to monitor events."

Democrats, at the time, didn't launch an assault against the Bush administration, and we didn't see Al Gore condemning the White House. It simply didn't occur to Democrats in 2001 to use the attempted mass murder of hundreds of Americans to undermine the presidency.

Eight years later, Dick Cheney believes his principal responsibility is to destroy President Obama -- the man Americans chose to clean up the messes Cheney left as a parting gift after eight years of abject failure.

This recent piece from James Fallows continues to ring true: "The former vice president, Dick Cheney, has brought dishonor to himself, his office, and his country. I am not aware of a case of a former President or Vice President behaving as despicably as Cheney has done in the ten months since leaving power.... Cheney has acted as if utterly unconcerned with the welfare of his country, its armed forces, or the people now trying to make difficult decisions. He has put narrow score-settling interest far, far above national interest."

Dick Cheney is a coward and a disgrace.

Amen to that. No – halle-fuckin’-lujah.

(via @todayspolitics)

♪It’s a beautiful day …♪

Yes, Bono, I can hear you when you sing. Because I’ll be there. Literally.

U2 concert tickets. For July 16. All mine. My preciousssss …

Oh, how I love turning 18, if only for this. (Note that should it rain on July 16, it would be definitive proof that there is no God, if he would ruin such a blessing. … Then again, it might just as well be proof, if it’s taken as him smiting me, the unbeliever …)

xkcd + Star Wars + Wikipedia = INTERNET WIN

The latest xkcd nearly sent me to my own grave, ironically enough. (Out of laughing, in case I needed to clear that up. Sheesh.) (Note: be sure to view the full sized image to be able to “get it”.)

[Click for full size]

He never was very good at self-control with that stuff …

Also, here’s why it pays to be a quick little Net-browser such as I:

That line disappeared the very next time I refreshed the page, just moments later. I can’t decide which I love more: the xkcd legion’s quickness and influence, or the Print Screen button. =P

Another illustration of Congress’ effed-up priorities

So, let’s see. At the moment, America is facing two wars abroad, dealing with the passage of sweeping healthcare reform legislation, trying to cope with an ailing economy that, in itself, is a cause for countless other headaches including a peaking rate of unemployment, a skyrocketing national debt – and this is all in addition to the “usual” issues (such as the environment, shrinking of the middle class, crime, civil rights such as abortion and gay marriage, and so on). So, what does Congress judge best to do in such times?

How about jumping into this “War on Christmas” bullshit, then? Which is exactly what Rep. Henry Brown (R-SC) and 74 cosponsoring Republicans is doing in pushing forth a bill that would essentially condemn people for saying “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas”.

Yes, yes … seriously.

BROWN: ‘[…] we don’t wanna get so empowered by doing that that we forget the real meaning of Christmas by using “Happy Holidays” or, or “Joy to the Seasons”, or some other word rather than “Merry Christmas” so we can reflect the true meaning of Christmas. I think giving is good, I think bringing families together at Christmas is very important, but I think, also, we can’t forget, though, in all of this, the true meaning of Christmas, which is Christ’s birthday.’

[…]

BROWN: ‘Every year, more and more people are shying away from Christmas and using “Happy Holidays” or some other means of expressing this, this special time for us.’

Listening to this pathetic droning waffle, only one thing comes to mind … yes …

Perhaps the most lasting effect left by the dumbass Republican demagogues in Congress.

I hardly need to explain how and why the fact that 75 Congress Republicans truly believe that the “War on Christmas” is not only credible, but even something worth taking precious time in Congress debating over in the face of all the other crucial issues they have yet to deal with, is utterly, mind-numbingly embarrassing. It’s a complete disgrace.

A bad similarity between Barbies and science for girls

For kids, girls are always the weaker half of their demographic: the boys are out playing sports, blowing stuff up in videogames and picking fights every few days, whereas girls are at home, having tea parties with their stuffed animals and playing with dolls. (An interesting correlation to how things were before the advent of the women’s rights movement, in fact.) And, of course, a crucial part of this “distinction” between the sexes is how girls are generally weaker and more insipid than the boys, and also how they’re crazy for pink.

Of course, once kids grow up, this sort of distinction is usually left behind as it rightfully should be as it becomes apparent that girls can make it in this world every bit as easily as boys can. No more is such a vapid and silly distinction made. (Well, generally. I’m not saying the fight for women’s rights is over, but it certainly is on better grounds than ever.) As teens, and later as adults, the female half is regarded as being an equal part of the human species, every bit as able as the male half.

So, I have to wonder: what in the hell is wrong with this picture?

In case you can’t tell what’s going on here, this is a snapshot from a page of a Toys ’R Us that showcases some of the available toys in the science equipment domain. We see microscopes and telescopes – yet in each category, there is a pink, decidedly “girly” version of the tool. This would be bad enough as it is, although perhaps still borderline permissible – some girls do like pink, after all – but then, they went and even made these pink, “girlish” models substantially weaker than the others. (The regular microscopes have 900X and 1200X capabilities, but the “girl version” only goes up to 600X; the regular telescopes have 250X and 525X capabilities, yet the “girl version” is limited at 90X.)

Normally, I’d be the first to tell others and myself to calm down, that appearances can be deceiving and that perhaps we aren’t seeing the full picture, but it’s rather hard to see such a clear and ridiculous distinction between toys for boys and toys for girls and not conclude that someone, somewhere, apparently doesn’t expect girls to be as good in science, or to be as deserving of performing equipment, as boys. Of course, I’m not saying Toys ’R Us is sexist, or the catalog – such would be a baseless and stupid claim. But there is something going wrong, somewhere, if someone thought it was a good idea to print such silliness.

Your thoughts? Is this just, perhaps, an unfortunate little error? Or is this plain sexism?

(via Pharyngula)

It’s that time of the year again …

The day when the Earth celebrates having completed yet another orbital trek around that big flaming gas-ball in space since my forced ejection from that warm, dark, cozy place I called home for 9 months. (I could swear I tried to crawl back in.) I guess I’ve grown a few more inches, lost a few pounds, and gained plenty of sardonicism.

(Well, technically, my time of birth is supposedly at 9 AM sharp, but I’ll still be sleeping then, so I’m posting this now. =P)

Still trying not to get my hopes up that my mother may have gotten my U2 concert tickets for her “super special present that I’ll never guess, and that is neither computer-related, a new electric guitar, nor clothes, and that she’s had for a little while” …

Now, remember that I want lots of cake. In the form of comments. It makes my existence feel validated. =P

(Holy hell, forgot to mention: I’M 18!!!!!)

(… so in the U.S., I still can’t drink booze! Ha, sucks to be you, unidentified 18-year-old American reader. =P)

Last edited: (12-29-09 @1:22 AM) – Added the last two lines.

Stupid Quote of the Day: Supercrank on morality, redux

I know Vox Day nurtures a hearty dislike for PZ Myers, as is particularly evidenced by his continued seething over the fact that PZ really has better things to do than to debate morons of his genre when it comes to topics that Vox has consistently proven to be utterly ignorant and misinformed about, but when it comes to the point where he uses any little quote of PZ’s as an excuse to enter a stupendously irrational screed, chances are he may have a bit of a problem.

"There is no eternal standard of right and wrong."
- PZ Myers

I thought that was a quotation worth noting. Read the whole thing so you can appreciate the context; it is an object lesson in why biologists teaching community colleges would do well to avoid attempting both logic and philosophy. Of course, the Fowl Atheist's stated belief in the absence of any eternal standard of right and wrong and his implied belief in the absence of any objective standard of right and wrong doesn't prevent him from constantly labeling various actions and individuals as being either right or wrong. I don't think PZ is demonstrating hypocrisy here, however, so much as simple incoherence. One has to be aware of one's inconsistency before one attempt to maintain a pretense, after all.

It is both hilarious and deeply ironic that someone whose ability to reason correctly is so demonstrably nonexistent should nevertheless see fit to declare: "We should build our morality on reason." The thought is neither original nor tenable.

There is so much condensed dumbassery in there that it’s hard to know where to begin. Just about every sentence is its own fallacy. First of all, though, it’s really quite interesting to note how Vox mentions how he doesn’t “think PZ is demonstrating hypocrisy” and even encourages others to read the post itself to glean its context, as the fact that the very continuation of PZ’s quote proves that Vox basically not only took that quote out of context as an instigator to his silly diatribe, but completely missed the point as though it were going out of fashion. Here’s the proper context:

There is no eternal standard of right and wrong. It has changed from generation to generation; what was considered right and wrong in the Biblical Middle East would horrify us with its injustice if implemented in 21st century America, and reciprocally, a Judean priest from the 1st century BC would be calling for the wrath of Jehovah to fall upon those licentious, evil people like Pat Robertson or James Dobson, who lead millions into a life antithetical to ancient Jewish custom.

Palin’s book is garbage. Literally.

Just ask the poor heroes of the sanitation department, who are feeling rather overwhelmed. It’s a contamination of bad literature like never before.

What did you expect? Just like her mind, Sarah Palin’s book is full of *bleep*.

(via Fur Affinity Forums)