walang bathala
no god

Some syllables are implied by context, but the text literally reads:

wala bahala
nothing whatever

The native written language of the Filipinos, the Baybayin, is a syllabary that the majority of men, women and children were proficient in. It was used to write receipts, records, and is still used in the writing of poetry by some small tribes to this day. The Spanish Conquistadors were impressed by the literacy rate, and made short work of latinizing the script, and printing prayer sheets for the natives. Magellan, who'd tried to divide and conquer by exploiting existing tribal conflicts, met his end on the archipelago. Legend has it, he was mortally wounded by the spear of Datu Lapu Lapu; and that he retreated to his ship where he bled to death. After three hundred years of Spanish occupation, the Filipinos were able to organize a revolution. While largely successful, the Spanish managed to cede their interest in the islands to the waiting Americans, who at that point had imperial pretensions. The Philippines are predominately Catholic to this day, and many Filipino Americans struggle to find pride in their cultural identity.

An illustration for presuppositionalists. This is a charitable comparison, since a box can actually be useful shelter in a pinch.

I'm losing patience with some of the theists again. I don't know how anybody puts up with it. I was drawn back here by some pretty decent debates, but lately it's not a debate with a lot of them. It's explaining rudimentary concepts and the meanings of words, over and over again, to some of the most intellectually dishonest reptiles I've come across. You know who you are. I feel soiled by our conversations; like your idiocy and contempt for logic has somehow infected me. If someone tries to redefine a word, or pull this tabula rasa crap again, I'll respond exactly once. If you repeat yourself,

In this sketch I attempt to exorcise my memories of a YouTube "debate" between two jilted quasi-intellectuals.

We appreciate good design when it overcomes obstacles[1], to achieve some end[2], working within physical rules[3]. A design can be considered efficient when it uses fewer steps, and elegant when it seems natural and obvious. While many arguments for Creationism/Intelligent Design are based on the supposedly great design of biological entities, they overlook a glaring question: how this premise of design matches with the concept of an omnipotent deity. Let me illustrate based on my concept of design.

1. I am omnipotent: What obstacles must I overcome?
2. I am omnipotent: Since I know all, and essentially do all, what end could I possibly want to achieve?

This video saddens me in so many ways.

Humanity has been able to survive, and even thrive and become the dominant species on the planet, despite possessing numerous physical disadvantages when compared to much of the animal kingdom. We are not the fastest, largest, stealthiest, strongest, pointiest; nor the best at swimming, nor do we even have an innate ability to fly. Alone in the wilderness we are little more than a walking snack for a much more physically gifted beast. However, although many predators use numbers to their advantage, their capacity for cooperation and innovation pale in comparison to the human. We are among the few animals to get over our fear of fire, to create tools, communicate abstract concepts, collect and pass on our knowledge, and to go from adapting to nature, to adapting nature to suit us. The staggering effect of our unique place in the animal kingdom should by now be self-evident.

THE MASTER CLEANSE MEME

Lemonade enthusiasts seem to consistently fail to explore the reasoning, let-alone science, behind a diet confined to water, lemon juice, maple syrup, cayenne pepper, salt, and herbal laxatives. There are few calories present in these ingredients, so there's no question a person subsisting on this will lose weight during their fast. But is it fat or muscle they're losing? They take it for granted the claims of detoxification are valid, anecdotally supported by excessive mucous in both their mouths and in their waste. But why suppose this is a built up “toxin” rather than, say, a by-product of the laxative or their cayenne-irritated organs? People seem to blindly accept the methods, and also seem genuinely surprised by the weight loss resulting from their malnutrition: as though it were confirmation that this is the correct way to starve. It takes a heroic lack of curiosity not to wonder how this motley hodgepodge of kitchen detritus had ever been assembled. Personally, I'm waiting for an updated version involving canned pumpkin pie filling, cigarette butts, yellow mustard and baking soda.

I want to talk about some of the things I used to believe in when my universe was smaller. Some of my family had always been in the habit of visiting a new age shop on the westside. They sell statues, crystals, rocks, medalians, buttons, herbal tea, window stickers, prisms, and lots of books and magazines. One such book, "Behold, A Pale Horse," was lent to me by a cousin. She still displays it proudly, alongside a giant yellow book called "The Matrix." It was supposedly written by a former navy man, William Cooper, who emplored in the introduction, "I have no reason to lie to you," or some such. It was my first exposure to the most dark and rococo or conspiracy theories. The moon landing is a hoax, the government is holding aliens, the Trilateral Commission and the Illuminati are running the world, and the government plans to ignite Jupiter into a second sun. Last I'd heard, the author was involved in a shoot-out with police on lawn.

The Creation Science/Intelligent Design movements are, at their best, an imitation of science that fails to incorporate its defining characteristics in a way that could transform it into an actual science. The scientific method helps one overcome his/her subjectivity in interpreting data and generating hypotheses. The religiously-based pseudo-sciences begin and end with their prejudices. A scientist is forced to continually reevaluate his/her assumptions based on new data. Their religious counterparts start with a seed of the already implausible, and proceed to spin elaborate rationalizations around what is plainly the failure of their hypothesis.

Here's another head-scratcher: "Higher Power." I've heard non-committal "spiritual" people refer to this, even quizzing me on whether I believe in one, with a straight face. Though not a typical conversation of the sort, a (former) friend made some kind of argument about energy. "When you fart, that's energy," he continued. I simply said I didn't believe in a "Higher Power."

You're not escaping the logical problems of "god" by muddying the language. What is this "power" "higher" than? Is it hotter, bigger, smarter, heavier: what? There are innumerable things bigger, hotter, more energetic than us. Maybe we'll find something smarter someday. But what's it have to do with anything? Advocates of this "higher power" -- that's likely just a bastardization of whatever "god" they're too lazy to worship in earnest -- are of course supposing that they have some kind of access to this "energy," that it's relevant to them in some way.