FALSE TEACHINGS

I recently came across a book called FAST FACTS ON FALSE TEACHINGS, by Ron Carlson and Ed Decker, originally published in 1994.

The first chapter is called "Atheism." Let's see what they have to say:

"It is philosophically impossible to be an atheist, since to be an atheist you must have infinite knowledge in order to know absolutely that there is no God."

They go on to point out that having infinite knowledge would mean you were God.

The first statement seems correct, but the second is faulty. Having infinite knowledge doesn't make you a god, just like creating the universe doesn't make you a god—at least, not the god the god-folks want for a god. They long for a god that's paying attention to them, protecting them, preparing a place in heaven for them.

A superior entity might possess infinite knowledge and yet have no interest in doing the other stuff. In fact, knowing all about human beings might make an all-knowing creature want to toss the whole kit and caboodle into hell.

Also, a god who can create universes is not necessarily the sort who would stick around for the boring part of dealing with humans and their annoying crap. Better to go off somewhere and create a new kind of universe. Plus, there's the distinct possibility the habit of messing around with universe-creating forces might go off the rails. A guy could get blown up in the process of kick-starting a universe. Big Bang? Big Kabloowie! And goodbye God.

Even so, Carlson and Decker have started off well condemning atheism as flawed. In reality, you can't really know for sure there is no god. Hell, there could be legions of the bastards zooming around helterskelter and keeping out of sight—a bunch of guys with a strict hands-off policy when it comes to human beings.

(Gods on other planets might do all kinds of cool things for their non-human inhabitants.)

Unfortunately, the authors get into trouble when they list the proofs God left for us so we'd have no excuse for not believing in him.

First: The existence of the universe, which God famously created at the beginning of the Bible. If you can see the world (or sense it in any way), you're looking at proof God exists. Since he made everything, if you detect anything outside your own head, that's proof of deity. (And don't forget, he created your head, too, so solipsists planning to deny the existence of the world still have to give it up for God.)

Second, the desire to know God. That you seek God is proof God exists, since that desire was placed in your heart by God himself. (Which is why it's especially galling to him when folks settle on a gold-plated idol for a god.)

Third, God literally split history into two parts when he came to earth as a human being, setting off the whole Anno Domini deal. A major event known to all!

Fourth, God wrote the Big Book of God and gave it to us so we might soak up the lovely details.

Thing is, three of the four proofs absolutely rely on the Bible being 100% true.

If God didn't create the world, having a world in front of you doesn't carry the force of proof.

And if Jesus of Nazareth wasn't an incarnation of God, then maybe nothing at all happened and folks split history into two parts for no good reason.

Problem is, Jesus seems only to exist inside the covers of the Bible. When he died, it's said the sky turned black, there was an earthquake, and dead folks popped out of the ground and wandered into town, to be seen by many. I get the feeling an event that dramatic would have made the papers, yet it appears nowhere in history texts, just in the Bible.

Finally, if the Bible wasn't actually written by God (or by humans inspired by the living God), then it is no kind of proof of God.

As for the desire to know God, I think this is bogus.

Some says there is a god-shaped hole in the human psyche, causing us to seek endlessly for some sort of supreme being. This desire may be real for some, but I believe it is learned, not innate. Folks tend to grow up within the religion of their parents. If the kids become restless, they may indeed check out one religion after another. Or go raw dog in disgust.

Historically, we end up creating gods (and formal religions to deal with them) because we need answers to some basic questions. Simple information, like how the tilt of the earth's axis causes seasons, actually goes a long way to eliminating the need to come up with supernatural explanations. The bitterest winter will end eventually, whether or not you pray to God about it.

I see the question of God's true nature to be imaginary. It has no proper answer because it is not a real question.

Q: "Why is the sky full of green polka dots?"

A: "It's not."

You really don't have to go into detail here, despite the fact our inclination is to invent whole schools of thought on the subject, folks analyzing the precise shade of green, cataloging the number and variety of size of individual dots, and formulating methods of demonstrating which one is the King Dot—and which his evil twin.

It's a thing we like to do, but that doesn't mean it's likely to be useful.

(Folks also study lists of winning lottery numbers looking for a pattern that will make them winners. That can only work if the lottery is flawed or crooked.)

In another chapter of their book, Carlson and Decker detail the nature of God, in all cases referring to the Bible to back up their claims. I get the feeling if you asked those guys how they knew God was real—and stopped them from whipping out the Bible—they'd be speechless.

This is called circular logic. They know God wrote the Bible, etc., because the Bible told them so. That's not proof, just an assertion. Books explaining Christianity are jam-packed with Bible quotes, which is why they're all likely to be specious.

When you come down to it, folks believe in God because they believe in God. QED.

There is no further explanation possible. Those who remain unconvinced are condemned to wander the earth unsatisfied till the end of their days, seeking an answer that doesn't exist.

Sucks to be us, right?

But here's some good news: If you keep alert on your quest for God you might stumble upon excellent reasons to kill a bunch of folks. Great fun!

Being human is like playing a vast, X-rated video game. You won't learn anything important, but you could have lots of fun. Unfortunately, this game is massively multi-player, so you may not last long. The nerds have mastered the controller and are scarily fast on the FIRE button.

STARBUCKS' WAY

A week or so back a pair of black guys were arrested out of a Starbucks in Philadelphia. The cops were called because (the manager told the 911 operator) the men refused to order anything or leave the coffee shop. The cops arrived, handcuffed them behind their backs, and led them out.

All caught on cell-phone video.

Folks were instantly outraged. "They didn't do anything!" Precisely.

Look, I've never stepped foot inside a Starbucks, but from what I've seen in commercials and on TV shows, it works like this: You come in, go to the counter, order your coffee, get your coffee, and leave. Or stake out a table for a while to sip the glorious fluid. The idea is, you get your coffee first, then decide what to do with it.

The black guys didn't do this. They just sat down. And when asked, refused to order or to leave. That isn't "nothing." That's trespassing. Which is a crime. And so, the inevitable outcome.

News accounts seem to have left out some details. Did the guys explain they were waiting on a third guy? Did the two have money for coffee, or were they counting on the third guy to buy them coffee? When the cops arrived, did they give the men a chance to leave on their own power? I don't know.

Anyway, they were arrested. And later released, when no charges were pressed.

But of course that won't be the end. We have a healthy course of public outrage to work through. Protests, and so forth. Apologies from CEOs and such like.

At some point during the afternoon of Sunday, April 29, a gazillion Starbucks are going to close so the employees can get some sensitivity training.  It's said they need to be more attuned to racial stuff.

My question, what exactly are they going to learn in these training sessions?

Let's say the existing policy is that anyone can go into a Starbucks and sit down (or use the bathroom) without ever buying anything. Just have a seat, look around, smell the coffee (it usually smells better than it tastes, unless you add a lot of junk to it), check out the folks writing screenplays on their laptops, and so forth.

Make a day of it!

Assuming this to be the current policy, the only thing baristas need to be reminded of is that this rule applies to black guys, too. Problem fixed!

Thing is, I'm pretty sure this is not the standard business model of the average Starbucks. Not that I'm experienced, but I'd bet a little money on the notion you have to buy something to hang out at Starbucks. And if you're not willing to play along, you should be willing to hit the sidewalk.

In this particular case, maybe the guys could have waited outside for their friend to arrive. Refusing to leave is downright confrontational.

And remember, this is not the South during the Bad Ol' Days, black folks staging a sit-in at a lunch counter that refuses to serve them. That was legitimate civil disobedience—and a necessary action.

The thing in Philadelphia was something else.

So what are Starbucks' employees going to learn on Sunday? An actual new policy where anybody can sit without buying anything? Or a new policy where you have to let black guys do whatever they want because it looks bad if you hold them to the same standard as everybody else.

White patrons who witnessed the incident said the guys were only arrested because they were black. That was crystal clear.

Really?

Say you get back from grocery shopping and you're hauling a bunch of bags in from the car. When it's all over you notice a couple of black guys have slipped inside your house and are sitting on your living-room couch, having a conversation that doesn't concern you. What are your options?

Do those guys live in your house now? Is this some sort of reparations for several hundred years of (truly) horrible treatment in this country?

If you call the cops, does that make you a racist? Are those guys doing this just to make a point?

Forcing the race issue seems to be the new normal. While it's unlikely black guys commit crimes just so they can get into confrontations with white cops, there have been a number of instances where—after escalating the situation by refusing to cooperate in their arrest—black guys try their luck with suicide by cop.

(See KNOWLEDGE IS MURDER, my post from a few weeks ago.)

Maybe we learned something from the ending of the "guy murdering people on the sidewalk with his van" incident in Toronto. The suspect made repeated and dramatic attempts to get the cop to shoot him, but it didn't work. The cop resisted the impulse to submerge himself in a sea of paperwork for the next few months. Instead, he went after the man with a spring-steel combat stick. It did the trick.

Are Canadian cops simply less likely to pull the trigger? Maybe. Or maybe they face less pressure to gun guys down. Also, in this case, both men were white.

I may be way out of line, but every time I see black guys getting arrested I wonder if the Black Lives Matter movement somehow set the scene. BLM folks are nothing if not defiant in the face of what they see as outrageous behavior by white cops. I worry this sense of defiance might force otherwise unwilling guys to act out as the martyr—whether or not death is on the table.

"What are you going to do?" they seem to ask. "Shoot me?"

How do they win if the answer turns out to be yes?

KNOWLEDGE IS MURDER

Let's recap, shall we:

Human beings are the stupidest and meanest creatures in the universe, as far as can be determined. Despite this—or because of this—our heads are jam-packed with vital knowledge, every single bit of it true. We know what we know and we can't be wrong, far as we know.

Knowing stuff is our wheelhouse.

In reality, human beings are full of crap, pretty much wall-to-wall. How come? Easy: We're the crap people. We make up a bunch of crap, then get to work killing folks over it. We got crap in our heads and murder in our hearts.

To be fair, we're pretty sure we're not making it up. Most of our excellent head crap is thought to have come directly out of God's golden poop-hole—which means it's the best crap ever. (Turns out we made up the God part.)

But we should be proud: Human beings are the only known source of idiotic nonsense in the entire universe.

How is this possible? First: You can teach a human child anything and they'll believe it forever. Next: A grownup's brain will literally edit the observable world to provide its owner with proof all the improbable crap in there is true.

And to make it a lock, the brain is also the authority on the question of how much proof is needed to do the job. It should be no surprise, we always get the perfect amount of proof. The process is seamless and undetectable.

And this is not a heavily-guarded secret. We can see the truth of what I'm saying in every direction—when we look at other people. Clearly, those guys are deranged goofballs. Unfortunately, we don't realize it's happening to us, too.

Is it any wonder this planet-sized ball of divine crap is making life hard for us? The fact is, certain chunks of knowledge lead straight to death, one way or another.

For instance, radicalized Muslims know they have to blow themselves up in crowded places to defend their religion. As a bonus, they're also getting revenge for the many Muslims who have died in the War on Terror, fighters and innocent civilians alike—and they know the fighters were also blameless, guys doing what they were required by the Quran to do.

Another example: In Sacramento, California, the Black Lives Matter folks are busy championing yet another martyred black youth, Stephon Clark. The fellow's brother suggests schools should be named for the man, shot by cops in his grandmother's back yard.

(Newscasters always mention the grandmother's back yard, as if that were in any way relevant.)

The BLM folks know this depressing fact: White cops are murdering black men whenever they can, for no reason—and doing it on camera if possible (including their own body cams). BLM folks also know cops lie when they claim they thought the victim had a gun (as they did in the Sacramento case). Without a doubt, according to BLM, those cops executed the man.

Human knowledge, baby, good as gold and twice as heavy!

Or is it? Except for a couple glaring counter examples, the evidence of murder in an overwhelming number of cases is simply not there. What seems to be happening is standard cop behavior, dealt to all—black and white, alike—who dare to defy authority and resist arrest.

I've written about this before (PART TWO, etc.), but I need to make a further point. Is it possible the BLM movement is encouraging black men, on some unconscious level, to take an action that precipitates the most extreme result?

Did Stephon Clark heed the Siren call of landing on the Big Board of Beloved Martyrs? Did he take a "shooter's stance" (as the cops have said) in order to get the inevitable response? Was it de facto suicide by cop?

I know how this sounds: I'm blaming the victim. But just because it sounds bad doesn't mean it can be ruled out.

The BLM folks make it their business to insure every black man knows he's in constant jeopardy of being murdered by cops. It doesn't matter what you do, the cops will shoot you down in cold blood. Everybody knows this by now, with fresh proof arriving every day.

Can you really say this "knowledge" has no effect on black guys when they see a cop car in the rear-view mirror?

Seriously, if violent death is inevitable, why not go out a hero?

Faced with that possible outcome, might not the cops be extra nervous when chasing black men? Is the fellow going to force the issue? Is he leading them into an ambush? According to BLM wisdom, an ambush of cops might well be warranted.

And has already happened numerous times.

Look, I get why the BLM folks accept their "knowledge" as accurate. The history of black people in this country is over-stocked with blatant murder perpetrated by self-righteous white a-holes. No question, the notion of white cops killing black men for no reason is on that spectrum.

That doesn't mean it's happening.

Doesn't mean it's not happening, either. But in every case the black man who was shot was refusing to cooperate with the arrest, forcing matters to escalate to a deadly conclusion.

Some folks think these outcomes could have been avoided. If the black man had a weapon, why couldn't the cops shoot the gun out of his hand? Because that only works in the movies. Cops are trained to aim at center mass.

(But here's a question: Why didn't the cop in Baton Rouge move his muzzle a few inches and shoot the fellow in the arm on the gun side of his body? At point blank range he'd have no chance of missing, and it's unlikely the fellow would have died.)

Folks also want to know why cops fire so many bullets. First, every cop on the scene is going to discharge his weapon. Nobody can hold back, thinking his brother cops will do the job. They might all hesitate, with fatal results.

But why do they shoot so many times? Cops are trained to end the threat with decisive action. You shoot until the matter is settled without a doubt, even after the guy is on the ground.

(By the way, cops standing and firing into a prone man on the ground is likely to result in back wounds. Also, when people are being shot, they tend to turn from the source of bullets. Back wounds don't prove the cops started shooting when the man was facing away from them. In Sacramento, police helicopter video showed the man advancing toward the cops before falling to the ground.)

And consider this: Cops almost never fire their weapons in the line of duty. So when they do, they can get pretty jacked up. Some of them may go overboard in panic, despite their training, and fire an excessive number of rounds.

Folks want to know why cops shoot guys before they know definitively the suspect is armed. Couldn't there be a rule saying they can't unholster their weapons until they've been shot at once or twice? Sorry, but cops would never agree to something that put them in such a disadvantageous position. Whenever it looks like the guy has a gun, cops have to go with that scenario—for their own safety. They have maybe half a second to react. As the saying goes, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Bottom line: You can always trick the cops into killing you, if that's what you desire most in this world. I think it would be better to remove that level of despair from your life. Be great if the BLM leaders could find a way to do it, instead of falsely adding more terror and confrontation to the mix.

But that's not how they see it. And there's no way they could be wrong, far as they know. They're just human beings doing what humans do best.

The ultimate solution, as I've mentioned before, is to arm cops with Star-Wars-type phasers set permanently on stun. Never any need for deadly force. The bad guy wakes up in the back seat of a cruiser on his way to getting booked.

We need a modern version of the Manhattan Project to produce phasers before this country is burned to the ground—destroyed by irrefutable human knowledge.

Folks, we invented irrefutable knowledge, and by God we know how to use it.