Where Boredom Meets Procrastination

Jon Lajoie is so great.

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:25:45 -0400

Jon Lajoie is so great.

I can always count on Carl Sagan to posthumously help turn a...

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:21:10 -0400

I can always count on Carl Sagan to posthumously help turn a sour mood into at very least a mediocre one.

ourheartsofsteel: de-lou-sional: mswyrr: iamlesbatron: boodle...

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:53:37 -0400

ourheartsofsteel:

de-lou-sional:

mswyrr:

iamlesbatron:

boodle-bay:

thefingerfuckingfemalefury:

chichiwho:

Stop filming & help me

Cat: HUMAN

HUMAN

DO SOMETHING

FOR GODS SAKE HELP

This never gets old lol

Lmao

puppies: HAI THAR NEW FRIEND

YOU SMELL DIFFERENT

ARE YOU A SPECIAL KIND OF PUPPY??? :D ?

tHE EYES

HUMAAN

This gif sums up my experience in crowds to a tee.

confusedtree: worldfamousprofessor: dingraha: please watch...

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:22:28 -0400

confusedtree:

worldfamousprofessor:

dingraha:

please watch this video please watch this video please watch this video please watch this entire fucking god damn video

this is the most illegal thing i’ve seen in the entire history of wrestling

I can’t focus I can’t feel i need to fucking think

Wrestling is real fuck you if you say otherwise.

smilingsollux: I love that we can ask Brenan any question about pretty much anything and he will...

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:56:51 -0400

smilingsollux:

I love that we can ask Brenan any question about pretty much anything and he will give us the straight forward and geek answer we expect seriously my little bro is a genius

The physics of mosh pits.

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:54:48 -0400

The physics of mosh pits.

knight-of-stars: vanehwasreal: my sister sent me a text saying “for the next 30 years you have to...

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:26:20 -0400

knight-of-stars:

vanehwasreal:

my sister sent me a text saying “for the next 30 years you have to live with one person in the same room all the time. afterwards you have to kill them. would you choose someone you like or someone you hate?”

I have never been more distraught in my entire life

it’s funny because maybe you’ll grow to hate the person you like and start to like the person you hate

The plot of every road trip movie ever.

The Argument Against Apologetics

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:20:37 -0400

deconversionmovement:

The following are two versions of the same argument; there may be another version, but I’ll withhold that for the time being.

P1 If Jesus wasn’t who the NT says he was, Christianity is false.

P2 Jesus wasn’t who the NT says he was.

P3/C1 Therefore, Christianity is false.

P4 If Christianity is false, apologetics is pointless.

P5 Christianity is false.

P6/C2 Therefore, apologetics is pointless.

Basically put, if Jesus wasn’t the son of god, didn’t die for our sins, didn’t resurrect and didn’t ascend to the right hand of the father, Christianity is false. Since Christianity is false, the defense of Christianity is pointless—especially since its defenders seek to ascertain its truth.

Here’s another version of the argument for anyone who objects by stating that Jesus didn’t have to be who the NT said he was for Christianity to be true. I would strongly disagree with this objection anyway, but it is worth addressing in advance.

P1 If Jesus didn’t exist, Christianity is false.

P2 Jesus didn’t exist.

P3/C1 Therefore, Christianity is false.

P4 If Christianity is false, apologetics is pointless.

P5 Christianity is false.

P6/C2 Therefore, apologetics is pointless.

These arguments aren’t really meant to show that Jesus didn’t exist or that Christianity is false. It’s the conclusion I call attention to. If Jesus wasn’t who the NT says he was or if he didn’t exist, Christianity is false—and if Christianity is false, the defense of it is pointless. I call attention to the conclusion because it makes my point succinctly. The atheist’s main objection against Christianity should be that its founder is a myth or likely didn’t exist. Upon making this objection, the Christian cannot turn to apologetic arguments for god; it should be a monumental concern for the Christian. It is the equivalent of making the claim that Muhammad didn’t exist; if this is ever proven true, it follows that Islam is false. Unfortunately, for Christianity, it has been demonstrated that if Jesus existed, he wasn’t the Christ of the NT; it has also been speculated (prominently by the likes of Richard Carrier and Robert Price) that Jesus might not have existed at all. What Carrier calls the best case for the notion that Jesus never existed is set to be published later this year: On the Historicity of Jesus Christ.

If you’re a Christian and the argument doesn’t make sense to you, perhaps you should read authors other than the Christian scholars that are abusing their majority by misrepresenting what skeptical authors have written and attempting to establish truth by repetition. X number of scholars repeatedly shouting that Jesus existed and was who the NT says he was doesn’t imply that that’s true. Read the skeptics! If you don’t know where to look, you may start here. By the way, for all of you aspiring apologists, you’re clearly wasting your time by devoting time and energy to a pointless endeavor; the founder of your religion is a myth and if this isn’t your biggest concern, it is clear that you have no interest in what’s true.

Please tag your porn.

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:36:26 -0400

Please tag your porn.

"Conservative Republicans in our nation’s capital have managed to accomplish something they only..."

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:35:43 -0400

“Conservative Republicans in our nation’s capital have managed to accomplish something they only dreamed of when Tea Partiers streamed into Congress at the start of 2011: They’ve basically shut Congress down. Their refusal to compromise is working just as they hoped: No jobs agenda. No budget. No grand bargain on the deficit. No background checks on guns. Nothing on climate change. No tax reform. No hike in the minimum wage. Nothing so far on immigration reform. It’s as if an entire branch of the federal government — the branch that’s supposed to deal directly with the nation’s problems, not just execute the law or interpret the law but make the law — has gone out of business, leaving behind only a so-called “sequester” that’s cutting deeper and deeper into education, infrastructure, programs for the nation’s poor, and national defense.”

- Robert Reich: The Quiet Closing of Washington (via azspot)

Also according to Greek mythology, Zeus assumed the form of a...

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:20:00 -0400

Also according to Greek mythology, Zeus assumed the form of a swan to seduce a woman and have sex with her.

limited-probabilities: amemoryhangson: Im sorry but Im genuinely quite angered by those people,...

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:07:25 -0400

limited-probabilities:

amemoryhangson:

Im sorry but Im genuinely quite angered by those people, particularly, those who don’t believe in the Catholic faith, who claim to know certain things about the Bible when clearly, they DON’T study it or read it as much as we (Catholics) do. So it confuses me. How can you assume all these things about the Bible or the Catholic faith itself when your knowledge about it is not as abundant as ours? So please, stop saying all these things about Catholicism when you’re not an expert to begin with.

I’m sorry, but here’s a study in which they measured religious knowledge and not only did atheists and agnostics do better than Catholics in general religious knowledge, they also did better in Bible knowledge and in knowledge of Christianity. The thing is that most atheists were raised religious (usually Christian) and then deconverted from the religion they were raised in. Deconversion isn’t a decision to be taken lightly, so most atheists do a lot of research in the process to be as sure as possible that they are right.

If your knowledge of Catholicism is really so superior, why don’t you use it to counter what atheists are actually saying rather than just telling us to shut up? Telling people they don’t know what they’re talking about is never as effective as giving them the knowledge they lack.

It’s interesting how common of an accusation this is from the religious to the atheistic when it’s so apparently rare from one religion to another. Why do you, a Catholic, so flippantly discount the sayings of Mohammad without having read the Koran? If you’ve read the Koran (already you’re going better than most Catholics, I must say) why do you discount the gnostic gospels of early Christianity without having even read them? Why do you discount the Greek and Roman gods without having even read about all of their exploits?

If you’re going to say that atheists and agnostics don’t have the right to disbelieve in Catholicism because they may not have read the Catholic version of the Bible, don’t go telling me that you don’t believe in something else–anything else– without having read the source material about it first.

I finally finished The Portable Atheist, which I’m pretty proud of/happy about. Now, I’m...

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:16:50 -0400

I finally finished The Portable Atheist, which I’m pretty proud of/happy about. Now, I’m going to give Breakfast With Socrates another chance because it’s a great idea that I disliked the first time I read a chapter or so. Hooray for reading.

On definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic" or why I call myself an agnostic atheist

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:47:14 -0400

limited-probabilities:

Interesting thing I’ve noticed. Okay, so we all know that the term “atheism” kind of has two definitions:

the claim that there is no god

the lack of belief in any gods.

The second is the more colloquial definition (and possibly the sociological definition, but I haven’t looked into that) that we tend to agree on on this website and the first is is, I’m pretty sure, the more technically correct one in philosophy.

“Agnosticism” also has multiple definitions.

the claim that one doesn’t know or it can’t be known whether or not there’s a god (although the term “agnosticism” can apply to other things, besides whether or not there is a god)

when one doesn’t know whether or not one believes in a god.

The first definition is the more technically correct one and the one that we tend to agree on here on Tumblr. The second is a random colloquial one that, much like the colloquial definition of “theory,” has an obnoxious tendency to get underfoot.

So why do I call myself an agnostic atheist and why do I make such a big deal about using my particular definitions? Well, it all comes down to the purpose of language- to communicate. And calling myself an agnostic atheist seems like the most effective way to communicate my stance. More on that in a minute- first an excursion into contextualism.

Contextualism is the idea that words have different meanings in different contexts. For example, you know that the word “theory” means something different when I’m talking about the theory of evolution vs. my theory that my friend Sarah has a crush on my friend Mitch, right? Anyone who’s had a quality science education understands that. The terms “agnostic” and “atheist” are also like that, but it isn’t as well known, so you have to be more clear.

By the technical definition I am an agnostic because I don’t claim to know whether or not there is a god, but I do know that I don’t believe in a god personally so by the colloquial definition I am an atheist. In the context of having a legit philosophical discussion with people who actually knew the terms, I would just call myself an agnostic. In the context of casual categorization I am an atheist. So I call myself an agnostic atheist to leave the least amount of space for people to misunderstand my stance. If they don’t understand, they at least know they don’t understand.

Our system of separately stating whether or not you claim to know and whether or not you believe is user friendly and easy to explain. The purpose of language is to communicate clearly and this system does that, so I say that we should encourage it.

limited-probabilities: julieuscaesar: WHO THE FUCK IS ATHEIST I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU *an...

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:44:58 -0400

limited-probabilities:

julieuscaesar:

WHO THE FUCK IS ATHEIST I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU

*an atheist

“Atheist” is not an adjective.

Yeah, I am one. What do you want to know?

It’d be great if they were looking for someone named “Atheist” because that person needed to be interrogated, or something.

Anyway, I’m also an atheist and happy to answer questions about it.

ksmith56: Abandoned Tumblr Dude this scares the fuck out of...

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:37:44 -0400

ksmith56:

Abandoned Tumblr

Dude this scares the fuck out of me

Is there a way to make my dashboard actually look like this? That would be incredibly cool.

I'll stop posting about this now

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:34:18 -0400

I copied in this and it returned Cory Doctorow, this and Cory Doctorow again, and my only poem ever returned H.P. Lovecraft.

I’m going to paste it all in there (except for the poem because stylistically it doesn’t fit and might screw things up) and see what happens. Putting everything in the text box returned Dan Brown. So, it’s possible that I write like Dan Brown. Still no real opinion on that but this is fun.

This thing helps me remember how much fun that writing is. I should write long stuff more often.

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:25:48 -0400

This thing helps me remember how much fun that writing is. I should write long stuff more often.

Inspired by Wil Wheaton's reblog last night,

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:12:00 -0400

I went on iwl.me to see who an algorithm thinks I write like. I’m a scientist, so I conducted multiple trials.

The first thing I pasted in was a couple-page long bit that I wrote about science for a writing internship and it came back that I write like Dan Brown. I don’t really know how to take that because I’ve never read anything by Dan Brown. Second trial, I pasted in this, which I’m also pretty proud of. It came back that I write like Vladimir Nabokov. Again, no real opinion formed with that. Third trial, I pasted the last few paragraphs of this post, where it’s all stuff I’ve written. It came back that I write like Mary Shelly, which I’m fine with. She wrote Frankenstein, which I had to read for English before sophomore year of high school. I’ll probably continue to find things I’m proud of writing to paste in there to see how many different authors I get. This is fun.

EDIT: I tried putting in the last few parts of this and I got that I write like H.P. Lovecraft, who wrote one of my favorite parts of The Portable Atheist. That’s great. And now this is written in the style of David Foster Wallace. Cool.

dragoctosaur: ramblingsarcasm: dragoctosaur: amandabynesnipples: Okay. In a gay relationship,...

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:07:00 -0400

dragoctosaur:

ramblingsarcasm:

dragoctosaur:

amandabynesnipples:

Okay. In a gay relationship, the one who pays for the date is usually the one who suggested it and asked the person on the date. If there’s ambiguity, we ask like any normal person would. ~~Or at least that’s always how I’ve done it.~~

That seems so straightforward! It seems like straight relationships are more complicated in that respect because there’s the idea that the guy is the one who should pay, then there’s the idea that that’s unfair, and you can’t be sure what your date thinks about it and it’s awkward to bring it up. I always assume we’re paying separately unless stated otherwise (or unless it’s expensive, but I don’t have experience with that), but I haven’t been on enough dates to be confident about that. I know some girls who think a guy isn’t worthwhile unless he pays for dates and I definitely don’t agree with them, but you never know if a guy has heard about such girls and is not paying for both because he thinks you’re one of them and isn’t that into you or isn’t paying for both because he’s doing something like what I’m doing. I don’t know.

It’s confusing to me that this is a big deal to people.

It’s not that it’s a big deal, it’s just that it’s an unknown, confusing factor in an already confusing and anxious situation. You’ve been dating the same girl for how long? I would assume that you have a system in place by now, but in my world of uncertainty and singlehood it is confusing as hell.

Our system in the past has basically been that when we’re together, whoever’s house we’re closer to pays for the first meal because the other person has had to pay for plane tickets or something. After that, we generally either split it or we’ll look at each other and say, “Who has money to spare right now?” Whoever answers first will pay. This summer, I think we’ve split everything but one meal and one that I took her and her brother out to at midnight or whenever it was that we ate.

Even before I was in a relationship, though, it seemed like a weird societal expectation that the guy would always pay. It’s completely possible, though, that that’s in part because I’m very shy and uncomfortable with imposing that I’m going to pay for something if not told to do so. So I guess the strangeness that I saw is in part a reflection on me.