Why I Am Not Agnostic

Most Atheists are, in fact, agnostics. They know there is no proof that god does exist, but many will concede that they cannot, in fact, prove that god does not exist either. They simply cite the lack of evidence for god as a reason to not accept the proposition of his existence. I, on the other hand, am convinced of the non-existence of god, or at least they Abrahamic conception of god, because I believe it to be completely incoherent. I, in fact, can't believe it, because it makes no sense.

What I find specifically nonsensical is the idea that god created time, ie. that time and the universe had a beginning, and god is responsible for that beginning. God himself, however, did not have a beginning. This implies that god can exist in a state independent of time. This is incoherent. Time is a necessary condition for existence. Nothing can exist, not even god, in a state in which there is no time. If time had a beginning, then everything that exists also had a beginning, including god.

In order for something to be said to exist at all, it must exist for a period of time. If time had a beginning, how long did god exist before that beginning? Zero seconds, in other words, god did not exist before the beginning of time. The only way the idea of an eternal god, ie, a god without a beginning makes any sense is if time also had no beginning. It is only in an eternal universe that an eternal god makes any sense.

Marriage

I wince whenever I see someone in their 20s getting married. I've always felt like marriage should be for old people. Getting married is what you do when you figure you're too old to attract any more sexual partners, so you cling to the one that still seems to find you attractive and you don't let go.

Now, I know plenty of people who are married, who, I'm sure, are sincerely in love and will probably stay together, but I just don't see why couples like that bother to get married. If you really love someone, why get the state involved in it? Benefits aside, it just all seems so insecure to have a big party celebrating the fact that you will never have sex with anyone else ever again and sign a legal contract testifying to it. That doesn't sound to me like something you would do with someone you really love. It sounds like something you would do if you're desperately insecure about your ability to attract a mate.

Anti-Natalism

There is currently a debate among vloggers on YouTube about the merits of anti-natalism, the position that people should not reproduce due to the suffering inherent to existence. I don't consider myself an anti-natalist, but in way this position kinda makes sense. One of the ethical questions raised by the prospect of artificial intelligence is whether, in the event that we create a machine capable of consciousness, and on top of that capable of emotion, we should give it the capacity for suffering. There's something kinda disturbing about deliberately giving a conscious being the ability to suffer. The only reason you would do such a thing is because you wanted this machine to actually experience that suffering. This seems almost sadistic. Even if you also make it capable of pleasure, and ensure that pleasure makes up the vast majority of its experience, to add in the ability to suffer still seems rather cruel. So when we think we've discovered a way to create a machine that can suffer, some will question whether actually doing so is morally acceptable.

But isn't it odd that we never usually ask this question about creating a child? Why do we not feel that creating a child, which is no less capable of suffering or any less likely to actually suffer, is equally immoral?

The best answer I can come up with is that some of us maybe see it a chance to live our own lives again. It's a chance to redo our childhoods but with the knowledge and advice that we never got. It's become a cliche that parents want their children to have all the advantages that they never had. We all think about things we would have done differently and maybe how much better our lives would be had we only known then what we know now. Being a parent is an opportunity to do exactly that, if only vicariously.

Proof the Republicans Are Posturing

This article proves that all this noise Republicans are making about Obama violating the War Powers Act is just a pretense. They're not actually going to DO anything. They want Qaddafi taken out as much as anyone. They just want an excuse to criticize.

Why Democrats Don't Defend Each Other

The best example of this is the way Al Gore distanced himself from Bill Clinton. Given that most people did not give a shit about Bill Clinton's personal life and his approval ratings continued to rise all the way through the impeachment process, this was not only unnecessary, it was strategically stupid.

The real question though, is not so much why Democrats won't defend each other as it is why Republicans never seem to get any heat for defending the guys in their own party when they get into trouble. It's clear why Democrats wont defend each other; they don't want the stink of scandal to rub off on them. The real question is why the stink never seems to stick to Republicans who defend corrupt Republicans.

Obama's Interpretation of the War Powers Act

As I said earlier, the attack on Libya, while arguably justifiable, and legal according to international law, is of questionable constitutionality due to the fact that Congress has not declared war on Libya, nor has an authorization for the use of military force been issued.

Obama's defense is that the War Powers Act does not apply to American involvement in Libya, because American soldiers are not being put in harm's way.

The relevant text of the War Powers Act is as follows:
"SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations."

Now, I suppose one could interpret the prohibition of unapproved introduction of forces "into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated" to be intended simply to keep soldiers out of situations where they would be harmed. It seems to say "don't go into a war zone, and don't go into a place that is clearly becoming a war zone." The text, however, seems to prohibit more than just being introduced into hostilities. It also seems to prohibit involvement in hostilities. The fact that American forces are not somewhere they can be shot at, does not mean they are not involved.

Of course, if mere involvement in hostilities is that standard by which we should judge whether an action need congressional approval, then there are potentially many other conflicts in which American forces have involved themselves that must now be turned over to Congress.

Two Kinds of American Exceptionalism

When Republicans accuse the Democrats of not believing in "American Exceptionalism" and when people on the left reject the idea of "American Exceptionalism", it's clear that they are talking about two different things. When Republicans say they believe in American Exceptionalism, they are saying they believe that America is exceptionally awesome. When those on the left criticize American Exceptionalism, they are criticizing the idea that America should be exempt from the rules and expectations placed on other countries. The American Exceptionalism to which these critics are referring is that which says America is right to try the Japanese for war crimes for waterboarding POWs, but should also be able to make an exception for itself when it comes to the same practice.