Saturday, February 24, 2007

Flogging the deceased equines

I have read so much about this in the last few months. It's atheism vs. theism (namely Christianity) and the argument is morality. The atheists can't seem to get it through their heads that they have no basis for morality.

First we should talk definitions. When I speak of morality I mean: The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. It is important to realize that morality is behaving in the way that you ought to behave. Morality is not defined as that which is legal. I am certain Hitler made it legal to kill Jews, he could never make it moral. Morality is objective. Meaning independent of point of view. If it is wrong for me to murder someone it is wrong for everyone. {Atheists like to say that their morals are superior to Christian's morals and later say that there is no objective morality. Of course your morals are superior, but so are mine!}

It seems clear from this that morality cannot be determined by people. People disagree. Liberals say abortion is moral, conservatives say it is not. One is right, or neither is.

Morality then can't be determined by majority rule. (although, wouldn't it be nice to actually vote on abortion?) Think two cannibals and a missionary deciding on whats for lunch. Is it moral to eat the missionary because the two cannibals outvote him? Does it really change this if the whole world gets to vote?

Then the atheist runs into more trouble: You need an objective standard. This standard must be unchanging. Murder can't be immoral today and moral tomorrow. Roe vs. Wade didn't make it moral to kill the unborn. For Christians, God is the objective standard. Atheists have no objective standard.

If a cat kills a mouse, is it murder? Most say no. (The rest are idiots.) If a cat kills another cat, is it murder? Is there a standard of behavior for animals? No, there is not. Other than the law of the jungle. Kill or be killed, eat or be eaten. It is survival of the fittest. The atheist says we are just another species of animal. If a chimpanzee can kill an eat another chimpanzee, why can't a human?

{It is at about this point that an atheist will jump in and say "wow, look at how immoral the Christians really are!" We are looking at your worldview, dummy}

The logical implication of the belief that humans evolved, and that God doesn't exist, is that we are also under the law of the jungle. What about the laws of men? Remember, legality does not equal morality. The theory of evolution claims that we are the result of a blind process, that has no goals. The universe doesn't care if humans exists. Our emotions and social structure are the products of eons of evolution. We are simply self replicating meat machines whose only 'purpose' is to replicate the selfish gene. Evolutionary success is determined by survival of the species, generally accomplished by producing the most offspring. (It must kill the atheists to realize that by this measure they are less 'fit'.) Mother earth is not crying over the extinction of the dodo. She won't cry over the extinction of all life.

Once you realize this, what room is there for morality? You are trying to tell my that your close relative is the monkey down at the zoo that throws his poop at you, yet you have a great set of morals for me to follow. Why should I? What is the reason that I ought to behave as you say? There is none.

So it boils down to, I can now do whatever I want to you. Might makes right. Animals steal from each other all the time. And kill each other, etc. The Christian says people are special. We are made in the image of God and we are above the animals. The atheist says we are animals.

You an' me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel

I guess I am just a little more fit than you.

You can argue that your rights are being violated, but rights are made of the same stuff morals are. We can amend the Constitution. (the 28th amendment: all atheists shall be ground up for fertilizer)

Atheists cling parasitically to society's moral values, keeping only the ones they like. But, if you can throw out some, you can throw out all of them. The result is Nihilism.

This is one reason that our society will fail if things continue as the are. As atheism becomes more prevalent, morals will slowly erode. First kill the unborn, then the old and infirm, then the stupid. I am not saying it will become right, just that it will happen. Woe unto those that fall into the arbitrarily chosen class of people to be exterminated! People will slowly come to the realization that once they give up the 'imaginary friend' they can do whatever they want.

Now an atheist does have one valid argument: He can say that since your god doesn't really exist, you don't really have any morals either. You just think you do.

That is really the best they can do.

Monday, February 12, 2007

I'm Back

Score, Coyotes 3, Giraffe 0.

The coyotes were not too plentiful this year. Had fun anyway.

So I am catching up on blogs. Erik posted at Nate's

I've been waiting for this post to ask this question.

Looking into long range target shooting. What would be a good rifle? Models, not just rounds. I am assuming y'all are gonna say the .308

I missed the discussion, but I will post here anyway.

Define Long Range. Some use a .308 for 1000 yard shooting. A .300 mag would do better for that far. I assume you are a beginner. If that is the case, I don't think I would jump right in and start shooting a big magnum. They kick. A lot. Unless you have a muzzle brake. Then they are extremely loud. Both recoil and blast contribute to flinching, which will ruin your shooting. For a beginner, a .308 is just fine. Or a .30-06. Most shooters won't get good enough to use the extra performance that a magnum brings. Either cartridge will be easier on the shoulder, and both will work at to 1000 yards. The .270 was mentioned. It is a fine hunting cartridge, but it isn't the best choice for long range shooting. There are very few match grade bullets made in that caliber. I suggest finding somone who will let you shoot a rifle before you buy it. If you find the recoil to be harsh, a .260 remington would be an excellent choice. Ammo will cost more for this unless you reload. There are many match bullets for this caliber. The 1000 yard becnhrest crowd is into the .260 (6.5mm) caliber. They generally use the 6.5-284, a wildcat round. That means you can't buy factory ammo for it. Another choice is the .223 remington. As a military round, ammo is cheap and plentiful. It is not a long range round, though, just a good choice to introduce one to rifle shooting. You can get a dedicated long range rifle later if you want. I figure you can't have too many guns.

As for models, don't let Nate fool you. The Remington 700 is a fine choice. As is a savage. The savage will be cheaper. Both have excellent accuracy. I should note, that firearms are individuals, and there is no guarantee that a particular brand or model will always be accurate. Even two guns that come off the same manufacturing equiment can be different. The Remington 700 and the Savage models are known for accuracy. In a particular shooting organization I belong to, the Remington 700 and Savage models win nearly everything in the stock rifle class. No other brand or madels have much of a presence. If you get a remington 700 that doesn't shoot well, a gunsmith can usually correct it easily. Stay away from the Remington 710. They are a Bic throwaway.

Tikka is also a good rifle. It has a very slick bolt, and Tikkas are also known for accuracy. I have nothing against Winchester or Browning, but no experience with them either. I am intrigued by the new Icon made by Thompson Center. This is their first bolt action gun, and they consulted with a lot of gun people on the design.

If money is tight, I recommend the Stevens 200. It is basically a Savage, without the better stock and trigger. If you can afford the savage, get it. The accu-triger is pretty good.

Don't forget to budget for a quality scope. I would plan on spending as much or more for the scope as on the rifle. Good scopes include the Leupold VX II or VX III, Nikon Monarch, and Monarch Gold, Bushnell Elite 3200 or 4200, Sightron S1 or S2, Weaver Grand Slam, or a Burris Signature Series. There are better scopes, but you start talking thousands instead of hundreds. A cheaper alternative might be A Leupold VX1 or a Nikon Buckmaster, or a Burris Fullfield 2. Avoid cheap scopes like Tasco, Barska, Simmons and BSA unless you can't afford a good scope right away.

More scope magnification is better, but you start losing field of view when you get too high. Mirage will also affect you more at higher power.

A heavy barreled rifle is generally more accurate, but it is also heavy. If you plan to carry the rifle much, in a hunting situation, then a heavy barrel may be a detriment. You carry a rifle a lot more than you shoot it when hunting. For shooting at a range, the heavy barrel might be preferred.

Monday, February 05, 2007

Se ya.

I am going on a little hunting trip. Hunting coyotes. And prairie dogs, if they poke their head up. Maybe a bobcat. Coyotes are quite the challenge. At least around here. Some places have more of them, and they are a lot less wary.

Why hunting coyotes? I guess because that is all there is to hunt this time of year. Sometimes I find that what my family considers a vacation is pretty different from what 'normal' people do. So I won't try to explain too much, as I doubt that I can. I doubt very much that we will see more than a few other people out there. That is part of the appeal.

We will be staying in a camper. So we are not really roughing it. No doubt we will watch a lot of movies and play a lot of pinochle. I plan to take a camera.

See you later.

Friday, February 02, 2007

Breaking news

Well that miserable rodent says to expect an early spring.

This morning on the television they said he has an accuracy of 39%. Not confidence inspiring, but way ahead of the average weatherman.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

That darn Ole

Ole and Lena came into some money. Of course, they couldn't agree on how to spend it. Ole wanted a new pickup, and Lena wanted a new sports car. Finally, Lena put her foot down. "That car tops out at 240," she said. "If you can find something that will do better, get that, otherwise we are getting that car"

Ole went out and bought the pickup. Then he bought Lena a bathroom scale.