Bad news, ladies

Kay Hymowitz has an article about the modern phenomenon of single young men remaining in a lingering adolescent bachelorhood, in contrast to men of the same age 50 years ago who more typically had a home, a wife, and a family. Today’s young woman seems to be accomplishing more, and showing greater maturity and responsibility, which kinda makes the males look bad. But Vox Day knows just what to do about the situation: blame women for the way young men behave when given freedom of choice.

There was no shortage of women who didn’t like it when men were responsible for everything. They wanted to vote, they wanted to work, they are demanding a turn to take the reins. Fine, says the modern young man, who has been subjected to 16 years of feminist propaganda that women are just as good – better, in fact – than men at pretty much everything. Not being given to whining and being largely practical, the young man is happy to leave the responsibility to the women who are demanding it. Who in their right mind would trade models, games and football for marriage to some controlling bitch who’s as likely to leave you as not?

The bad news, ladies, is that Mr. Day, sterling specimen of manhood, is married, and thus no longer available. Ouch, eh? What Would It Take For An Atheist to Believe?

I’ve added a new apologetics blog to my list, and in this post, the author raises a question we’ve seen before.

I therefore put to my former fellow-atheists the simple central question: “What would have to occur or to have occured to constitute for you a reason to least consider the existence of a superior Mind?”

The context is a discussion of Anthony Flew and Roy Varghese’s book I Believe in God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind. (Or more precisely, lost it: since when does an accomplished, articulate and incisive author like Flew suddenly need a hack ghost-writer like Varghese in order to express himself on paper?) However the question above is near and dear to my heart, so let’s consider it.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Schaeffer Zombie

Heard another interesting Dobson this morning. I picked it up on my car radio as I was driving to work, so I missed parts of it, but someone from Focus on the Family was interviewing Dobson and talking about, what else, the family. They spent the first five minutes or so talking about how the family was not a political issue, but a spiritual issue. That led to a discussion of how important “the family” was in God’s perfect plan, and how a Christian who doesn’t defend the family is betraying Jesus. And then, oh by the way, Dobson casually mentioned, in passing, that there’s an election coming up that could have a devastating negative impact on the family, and he was concerned about that. He wasn’t going to get into candidates or anything like that, because the family is a spiritual issue not a political issue. But Christians need to take steps to defend the family, “and I think you all can figure out what I mean by that.”

Yeah, right, “the family” isn’t a political issue (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say-na-more, knowwhatImean?). But what was really interesting was when the interviewer started “channeling” the late Francis Schaeffer.

Read the rest of this entry »

D’Souza on Bush’s “honesty”

Actually Bush Didn’t Lie, or so claims right-wing spinmeister Dinesh D’Souza.

Two leftist organizations have released a study that claims that the Bush administration lied about Iraq. Somehow I think we’ve heard that one before.

And of course, if people have known since 2002 that Bush was not telling the truth about Saddam’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction,” why, that must mean we’ve already debunked the people who were saying so. Yeah, that’s it, we’ve heard this one before, so it’s OK to ignore. We’ll just assume that it’s been dealt with.
Read the rest of this entry »

Is it ok for a clergyman to get his sister-in-law pregnant?

One bishop says “Yes”.

“Because he said, ‘you know, the adultery issue was for the little ones.’ It was for the — the people, the, you know, commoners. It wasn’t for people who God elevated and trusted with special things like this, relationships like this. And that’s the way he explained it to me.”

Ok, the article isn’t entirely clear, but it would seem that the above remarks are those of former Bishop Earl Paulk, explaining why DNA testing showed that his “nephew” was really his son.

Green family offers Oral Roberts U. $70M to go legit

Tulsa World reports that the Green family is offering up to $70 million to beleaguered Oral Roberts University, provided the latter can settle the lawsuits against it and re-organize into a structure that offers less opportunity for future abuses.

The Green family plan would infuse ORU with $62 million, adding to the family’s unconditional $8 million donation in November, and it would usher in shared governance, in which professors would weigh in on university decisions and direct the academic aspects of the school.

When the Green family believes the conditions of the proposal have been met, amended bylaws and articles of incorporation will be filed with the secretary of state, the news release said. That is when a new board of trustees will become ORU’s governing body, replacing the board of regents.

Whether this will fix the holes in the walls, or merely paper over them, remains to be seen. This could, however, be the first step in yet another conservative religious school’s long, slow slide into liberalism, objectivity, and enlightenment. Honest scholarship and open accountability have ever been the bane of conservative attempts at higher education.

Learn, fight hunger, kill time all at once at –

I’ll let this one speak for itself:

Feeling guilty about wasting time at work on computer solitaire? Join the growing guilt-free multitude at, an online game with redeeming social value.

The game presents a word and four choices of definition. Pick right, and the cash equivalent of 20 grains of rice is donated by site advertisers to the U.N.’s World Food Program.

That’s worth a field trip to–and don’t limit yourself to just one trip!

The abortion threshold

I was listening to Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” broadcast again, and this time he had a pre-recorded speaker (whose name I did not catch) making a–surprise!—evidence-based argument for the pro-life position. He was a lively and interesting speaker, and he raised some non-trivial arguments against abortion that I think are worth a discussion. His basic approach, couched in the form of an argument he once had on a plane, revolves around four points which he reduced to the acronym SLED. According to this fellow, “there are only four differences between a newborn and a fetus: Size, Level of development, Emergence from the womb (i.e. birth), and Degree of dependency. Do any of these give us a reason to say that the fetus is not a person?”

He then proceded to argue that, for example, size should not matter. After all, are the lives of tall people worth more than the lives of short people? Are tall people “persons” to a greater degree than short people are? What about level of development? Is a 24-year-old more human than a 14-year-old? or a 12-year-old than a 2-year old? Teenagers are not quite fully developed yet, let alone younger children. Does that make their lives less worthy than the lives of older, more developed folks? What about birth? Where you are doesn’t change who you are. Why would moving six inches down the birth canal transform you into a human being from…uh, whatever you were before? And what about level of dependency? Are diabetics less human because they depend on medication and/or insulin to stay alive?

Read the rest of this entry »

Founder of the pro-life movement

As we saw earlier this week, the Bible does not label abortion as murder, nor does it classify “the unborn” as persons. Where, then, did the religious right get the idea that abortion is such a mortal sin? Daylight Atheism has the answer.

Ask any observer of American politics today to name the most influential figures of the religious right, and some familiar names are likely to come up – Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye, James Dobson, John Hagee, Tony Perkins, Roy Moore, and others. But one name that’s not as likely to appear is Francis Schaeffer. That is a regrettable oversight, because even though Schaeffer died in 1982, he is possibly the one person most responsible for the existence of the religious right as we know it today.

A most intriguing read. I’m adding it to the Recommended Reading list.

XFiles Friday: God is a moron (according to creationism)

(Book: I Don’t Have Enough FAITH to Be an ATHEIST, by Geisler and Turek, chapter 5)

They say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and this week Geisler and Turek continue their attempt to “enlighten” us about a subject they apparently know dangerously little about: biology.

While our space observations have yielded the Anthropic Principle of physics (which we discussed in the last chapter), our life observations are yielding an equally impressive Anthropic Principle of biology.

To show you what we mean, let’s consider so-called “simple” life—a one-celled animal known as an amoeba. Naturalistic evolutionists claim that this one-celled amoeba (or something like it) came together by spontaneous generation (i.e. without intelligent intervention) in a warm little pond somewhere on the very early earth. According to their theory, all biological life has evolved from that first amoeba without any intelligent guidance at all. This, of course, is the theory of macroevolution: from the infantile, to the reptile, to the Gentile; or, from the goo to you via the zoo.

Read the rest of this entry »