A blog of infinite Choobism, and thence of incredible awesomeness.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Smirking assholes

While sitting on the toilet this morning my thoughts turned to religion, as they often do when I am immersed in a cloud of toxic ass gas. For some reason I had a mental image of the pope in Turkey sitting on a tiny toilet shitting his guts out after a dodgy kebab, and laughing like the demented sithlord he is. Despite being an ex nazi, a well known cunt and possibly a goat rimmer, he is not a stupid man. Also, he must have access to a lot of secret documents in the Vatican secret stash (not to mention some of the finest porn known to humanity). Therefore, he simply has to know that the Catholic church is a massive scam. Why else is he constantly smirking? He’s like someone walking out of a casino with a ton of money after a rigged card game. He wants to burst out laughing, but he can’t because it might ruin the con. One of the only times he can let loose is on the the crapper (which back at his pad is probably made out of solid gold) so it is very likely that while he is emptying the bomb bays he is also laughing like a maniac. The guy who has to wipe his holiness’s arse must think he’s crazy.

Even less intelligent con merchants have been known to have the same kind of smirk. Just look at G W bush. The man would have to be on his best form to qualify as a moron. The fact that he is in charge of anything more powerful than the dildo he uses on his own ass is one of the strangest things ever to happen. The man is beyond stupid. He probably thinks Hemmingway’s “A Farewell to Arms” is the courageous story of a quadriplegic with a heart of gold. But he’s always grinning. Why? Because he got away with the biggest heist in the history of the world. Him and a few thousand of his friends managed to rob trillions of dollars from the US treasury. They may only have been able to collect a fraction of the money they looted, but a fraction of trillions is still a pretty good haul. Mission accomplished? Hell yes. Not the mission you were thinking about though. No wonder the chimp can’t stop smiling. One of the biggest morons ever was a part of an amazing sting. And he got to fuck some A-rabs in the process. The next time you see someone silently smirking to themselves remember, they are probably up to something. It might be worthwhile giving them a bit of a smack just in case they deserve it.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

choke on it Jeebus

This is a response to Stern; a splendid fellow from the Raving Atheist:

I am not sure I fully understand your question, but I will say this: appeals to an undefined "quantum vacuum foam" are weak. The actual structure of spacetime is not well understood; it may contain singularities, in which case, all bets are off. However, remember, that vacuum was created along with the spacetime (it IS the spacetime) so the energy was already there. Does the vacuum contain energy? You know it does biyatch.

There are similar postulates concerning vacuum energy that also have no evidence and mixed acceptance as far as their theoretical liklehood goes. I fear this happens a lot, as a result of string theory. I have recently come to consider string theory as a fat man clinging to the back of science as it tries to swim across an ocean of confusion. After > 30 years string theory still has nothing whatsoever to say about reality. How is that even science? Being hard to understand is not sufficient in my book. Otherwise we ought to be studying shaft theory, a course which could only be taught by his woman.

For the record, I originally wanted to be a string theorist. I was sucked into physics by the allure of theoretical cosmology, and I got very decent grades in my quantum and relativity classes, but as it turned out I was much better at experimental physics, and my mathematical skills fall short of string theory by an amount I can't even calculate. Indeed, theoretical physics of most types is probably not something I would be good at. I might be able to make a mediocre career at it, but it would be a bad choice for me to even try. I am much more suited to experimental physics, and I am doing rather well at that. In order to intelligently design an experiment one has to know enough theory to shape the way you will set up the experimental apparatus and collect and analyse the data. [That is very different from being able to create new theories.] However, it does mean that one has to understand those theories that have been put out there. After all, theorists have no fucking clue about experiments (most of the time) so in order for experiments to actually be done, those who do them have to know what it is they are trying to measure.

Now, as to the original point: you seem tro be saying that sucking energy out of the vacuum violates conservation of energy. This might be true, if the vacuum itself had no energy, but we know that it does. Can we get at it? That's a hard question, and I don't know the answer. However, I know we can get at it in bits, as in quantum fluctuatoins in energy (e.g., virtual particles). However, I will now admit, I have a long standing dilemma. As you may or may not know, I work with antimatter; I am still not quite sure I understand what the fuck it is. Part of my love of theoretical physics was instilled by the pure beauty of the Dirac equation. It's so fucking elegant I feel the need to bend it over a keg and assfuck it. This equation, if you don't know, is what you get if you put a relativistic Hamiltonian into a Schrodinger-like equation. However, Dirac knew that you have to make the spacelike and timelike terms be of the same order (they are not in the Schrodinger eqn), and he got an answer that predicted antimatter. This prediction came out of the fact that E = MC^2 is only half the story. In fact E^2 = M^2C^4 +c^2p^2. This has many implications.

(1) If m = 0: { E^2 = p^2c^2} [E = pc; massless particles have momentum]
(2) if m >0; {(p = 0; E^2=m^2c^4): E = +/- mc^2}
(3) if m <0; U. B. trippin.

What I am getting at is that in the Dirac eqn, the fact that the Hamiltonian has the Einstein energy term means that you get negative energy soultions for the antiparticles, so really antimatter has negative energy. This doesn't sit well with me. I have tried to understand what it really means but have never recieved a satisfactory explanation. The concept of negative energy is hard for me to understand. In fact I don't understand how the negative energy solutions to the Dirac eqn should be interpreted. Dirac traded negative probability (cf Kaluza) for negative energy, and it is a very beautiful theory, but I freely admit don't really understand the implications of it. It is intriguing though. The wave function you get has the form of exp(-Et) so a negative energy can be interpreted as a positive energy moving backwards in time (Feynman), but this is almost never taken seriously. Causality would shit blood if it were. I believe this is one more indication that the true nature of time is not currently understood, and I think that a quantum theory of gravity must explain this in order to succeed. I look forward to someone else figuring it all out and then explaining it to me in a way I can understand.

If you take Dirac at face value, antimatter has negative energy. The existance of negative energy particles can easily fuck with conservation laws that assume only positive energy. It's some funky shit for sure, but it farts in the face of jeebus, and that can only be a good thing.

Monday, November 20, 2006


Some people have suggested that in order for atheists and theists to get along there should be a measure of respect, and that meaningful debate should occur that is devoid of vulgarity and personal attacks. I say fuck that retarded bullshit. If someone says to me that they believe that the earth is under attack from shapeshifting lizard creatures that have infiltrated the highest levels of government and are hell bent on establishing a new world order and enslaving humanity I will tell them to shut the fuck up and finish bagging my groceries. I most certainly won’t respectfully agree to disagree or think deeply about what they have said and see if there is any common ground between what we both believe. If I did do any of these things you would, quite rightly, think I was a fucking imbecile. But instead of alien lizard shapeshifters we have cosmic Jewish zombies. We have proven hypocrites who recommend eating flesh and drinking blood, and tell you that you will burn in a fiery pit of hell for all eternity if you don’t do what they say. And I’m supposed to respect this point of view? Don’t make me fucking laugh.

The only thing this (and other similarly idiotic fairy tales) has got going for it is that there are a lot of assholes who believe it. That is it. No objective reasoning can possibly render these ideas palatable to someone who has not been brainfucked. No study of the available evidence can ever lead one even to have any doubts that this is not all demented man made fiction of the most fecal variety. Indeed, it takes a slow process of cuntification before one can accept these ideas at all. And I should respect this because there are a shit load of cunts? Not bloody likely.

And it gets worse. A central tenet of this malodorous dung residue (in all of its incarnations) is that if you are not on board you can expect the most unpleasant punishment imaginable. A poor choice of lunch can send you to hell if you forget to repent. Acting in a manner that is central to your existence, and that as a biological imperative is by definition caused by your creator, can send you to pitchfork alley in no time. What kind of cunt of a god would punish humans for eternity just for doing what he created them to need to do? This is the point of view I should respect? Dream on shitgoblins.

It is built into religions that atheists are the scum of the earth. Arabs and Christians and Jews will happily kill each other over who has the best god, but when confronted with the evil of atheist homosexuals they will set aside their differences. That is one of the most fucked up things I can think of. People who will kill children because of their religious views will work with people that hold those same views to prevent a couple of dudes from doing anal. If that isn’t retarded I don’t know what is. Respect? Contempt is too good for this kind of jism faced goat felcher. Why should I respect the blatantly absurd beliefs of someone who tells me that I am evil, that I will burn in hell and that only their point of view can save me? Fuck them all deep in their godholes.

Religious cunts are afforded far too much respect in general. They should be held to the same high standards as courts of law, scientists and journalists. If a journalist wrote a story about how great god is and cited a vision as his source would it get published? Sadly, it might, but it would be clear to all that it was utter wank. You don’t see particle physicists postulating a Christron that goes around making al the other particles behave. That would be asinine indeed. And why can’t a religious judge just pray to god to determine if someone is guilty or not? Because it would be fucking retarded, that’s why. And yet these Christ punching sleaze merchants can enjoy tax free status, can freely spout their mumbo jumbo and demand that those of us not afflicted with TCS (total cunt syndrome) treat them with respect! Well, I always treat theists with the respect they deserve. We may not always agree on how much respect that is (none), but I don’t care. Dialogue with theists is like foreplay with a rapist, and I don’t care for it at all. Fuck them; fuck them all.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Pastor Ted Haggard: HOMO

There can be no doubt that the revelation that Haggard is a gay drug fiend is quite hilarious. Indeed, making fun of this guy is just too easy, and one can hardly do a better job than has already, inadvertently, been done by those trying to minimize the impact of this incredible gift from fate. However, even as a vehement anti-gay mega church bullshitter Haggard and his ilk are really not very important. Their hateful diatribe regarding homosexuality, and morality in general, is simply the public face of a very common viewpoint. One might be tempted to think that, as the pastor of a large flock of sheeple, wankers like Haggard are particularly dangerous. However, this is not really true. They are nothing compared to loathsome pundits like Limbaugh or O’reilly. It is true that a lot of people are probably made more homophobic by the asinine drivel that is preached in the mega churches, but the same buy-bull-shit can be heard in thousands upon thousands of other smaller indoctrination centers around the country. Phelps, with his nonsensical “god hates fags” comedy routine would seem to be a direct threat to the liberties of homosexuals, but in reality he is just a sad old man with no real influence at all. Those people who stand with him would stand with anyone who told them what to do. They are typical sheeple; fools of no consequence. All of these shitgoblins are worthy of contempt, but at some level one has to feel sorry for them. How twisted must they be to rant on and on about things that don't affect them at all? In the case of Haggard, what internal hatred he must feel, to spend so much energy assailing that which he knows he is. In the words of a very wise man, I pity the fool.

A lot of normal people (atheists) sometimes say that they sort of understand the appeal of religion. The comfort it brings may be based on illusion but it can seem real just the same, and this tiny concession to the irrationality of believing in made up sky bastards helps us to understand the insanity of true believers. What then of the true believer who is denied any such comfort because his true nature as a human being is in direct conflict with the tenuous precepts of his duplicitous belief system? This way leads to mental torment of a particularly nasty variety: the self inflicted kind. Despite what the Christ punching religiots think, atheists are not automatically amused by the suffering of theists. In this particular case it is hard not to laugh. The intrinsic hypocrisy of religion in general has been beautifully revealed, as has the old adage that implies that the most vehement homophobes are probably as bent as a nine bob note themselves. Haggard has done us all a service by showcasing these truisms, but on a personal level his anguish brings me no pleasure. Ironically, some of his sheeple might even start to think that homosexuality is not wrong, if his brainwashing is powerful enough for them to still accept him. Either way, he must be frightfully ashamed, and probably even a hit of crystal meth and good asspounding will not be able to cheer him up.

Thus, I say to my fellow atheists that this hilarious event is an opportunity to demonstrate that we are not malicious lovers of schadenfreude. That being Godless does not mean we are uncharitable, and that even a loathsome bigot like Haggard can elicit sympathy on a personal level. Being without god does not in any way make us less kindly. On the contrary, since we must determine our own moral stance rather than have one arbitrarily handed to us, we own our actions in totality. We must take the blame for our transgressions, and similarly our more noble deeds must be acknowledged. This is one of the many ways that intellectual freedom, the ability and desire to think for oneself, and freedom from irrational dogmas make atheism the one true attitude.