The Foggiest 2

The Back Page of the Greatest News Site In the Universe

Friday, September 29, 2006

Grammatical Implications Sex Tits

Ahem... Now that we have your attention...

the Foggiest presents
Grammatical Implications

Please read aloud with a haughty old-English accent

Let us review the statement: God is good. If this is an analytic statement, like A = A, then the terms should be exchangeable, which they are not (“the movie was good” and “the movie was God” are not synonymous). That being obvious, good must be defining of God in some substantive sense. “Triangles are three sided” is a good example of a substantive definition. A triangle has a three-sided characteristic. God has as a good characteristic. Having three sides does not denote a triangle, however. In the same manner, good does not denote God. Furthermore, a triangle cannot be understood without the concept of three sided-ness. Thus God cannot be understood without the concept of goodness. Therefore, not only can one be good without God, one cannot have God without good. QED.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Leave Feedback Day Starts Today!

Starting today, and until we deem fit, we invite all readers to leave feedback in the form of comments under each article as part of Foggiest News Corporation's,
Leave Feedback Celebration! So enjoy yourself, keep reading and leave some feedback!

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Trivia Time!

At the age of 14, [Former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger] joined the Hitler Youth, as was required of young Germans of the time, but was not an enthusiastic member (emphasis added).

He campaigned against liberation theology, which had gained ground among priests in Latin America and elsewhere as a means of involving the Church in social activism and human rights issues.

He also described homosexuality as a “tendency” towards an “intrinsic moral evil” and has previously called for pro-choice politicians to be denied Communion.

Hans Kueng [a former colleague of Pope Benedict - then Cardinal Ratzinger] was stripped of the right to teach Catholic theology at the University of Tuebingen in Germany in 1979 after challenging Roman Catholic doctrines such as papal infallibility.

According to modern historians, it is not only shown how closely the Vatican worked with the Nazis, but also how through the Catholic Church most of the leading Nazis escaped after World War II (Ref: The Unholy Trinity by Mark Aarons and John Loftus).

The Crusades were a series of Roman Catholic “holy” wars to wrest control of the Holy Land from Muslims. They produced some of the bloodiest battles in history.

One of bloodiest battles is that of AD 622 when Catholics fought and were defeated in a crusade against the Persians and the Jews. Some 60,000 Catholics were killed and 35,000 enslaved.

The fall of Jerusalem left the Catholic world shocked and mourning.
Pope Urban II unleashed a savage Catholic army and started these later Crusades. This “righteous” army marched 3,000 miles to conquer the Holy Land.

This explains why according to Muslims and Jews, history proves the Catholic Church to be one of the most militant institutions ever created as the so-called “holy war” is concerned.

Source:, by FR. Joachim Omolo Ouko

Monday, September 18, 2006

A Rebuttal

To those who criticize space (see the article by Copernicus in the latest Foggiest news) the argument that there is a lack of knowledge does not hold water. There are several ways to tackle this issue:

First, a lack of knowledge from a biased observer does not entail a total lack of knowledge on the subject. I believe that many people would agree that the Sun is not the god Ra prancing around the sky in his chariot (correct me if I am wrong) or that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe. Granted, not everything is known about space and whatever we do seem to know now might not be true in the coming centuries. That is the hallmark of science however. Not dogmatic, unchanging truth but rather a progression to a greater understanding of the universe in which we live. If this progression is rejected, one must not only throw out ideas about space, but also the things science has given us that we take for granted such as soap, medicine, eye-glasses and even beer (yes, there is a science to beer).

Second, a lack of knowledge about space is something that the scientists researching space admit to. So in essence, one would be cherry-picking ideas from the exact people in question. How would one know that there is a lack of knowledge? It seems as though one would need to know how much knowledge there is out there and have to compare it to what we know now, and that idea is absurd. If the claim that there is a lack of knowledge is based upon previous leaps and breakthroughs in science that alter our perception about the nature of space, then that entails one of two things. Either the lack of knowledge claim is championing the progression of science and is seen as a good thing or the claim is lambasting science and thereby advocating that whatever we know from science is bad (in that case, we should say goodbye to hygienic products and get back to some good ole blood-letting and witch-burning).

Third, why is a lack of knowledge attributed just to the idea of space? There is about as much knowledge about space related topics as there are about brain related topics and the study of the brain is not being questioned. No topic, regardless if it was relating to anything on the earth or anything in the cosmos, started out with a complete breadth of knowledge that was ripe for the picking. Knowledge is not some “out there” sort of entity that humans tap into but is rather the categorization that humans put onto the world in order to make sense out of it. That is why knowledge grows and alters and sometimes, entirely changes. Humans find out the best way to explain a given topic and use that explanation until a better one is discovered or invented.

The idea that space “sucks” is obviously not a well thought out idea and is more a bullying, let’s pick on the dork on the playground, sort of argument. Not a fan of logic or coherency, the space sucks crowd I doubt leaves the confines of their home town, are wary of anyone that speaks a different language and think that they are God’s gift to the planet. Ironically the charge that the space-nerds live in their parent’s basement is closer to their own situation. While the nerds enter a world on the cutting edge of human understanding, the space-sucks crowd revels in its own cynicism. This crowd when pressed will show its true colors in that not only are they hostile to space but also to the very nature of science. If all the answers are not present right now, then it is not and never will be worth the bother.

Space is not such a hostile topic though when it is seriously considered. Sure, some concepts might be a little difficult to grasp but that can be overcome. Life is much more interesting when one considers the possibility that humans might not be the only form of life around and are probably not the only form of life. This speculation starts out as just an idea but it sparks an interest that can be transferred into the realm of science and then can therefore be adequately explored to the best of our knowledge, a knowledge that I am sure will be taken for granted.

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Even God outsources!

Teach the Controversy!

A truer statement has never been spoken.
And yet in spite of recent events in the domain of science, I believe controversy has not reached far enough. Sure, talk of evolution in biology classrooms is controversial, but I want controversy to be taught across the board. Why limit it just to those biology classrooms? Let’s spearhead an initiative to teach the controversy in astronomy classrooms as well. Astronomy is good and all but wouldn’t it benefit if it were taught alongside astrology? I mean, astrology is held to be true by a majority of the population and children should know that there are other options out there other than just boring-old-astronomy. But that is not all. Who says alchemy is outdated? Probably the dull chemist, that’s who. Isn’t the idea of turning ordinary household items into gold or discovering the elixir that will grant immortal life, way more exciting? That’s why when kids enter their science classrooms, they should be brought both of these competing theories so that they can choose which fits. They are the deciders, right?

Going to the doctor’s office can be just as fun too. Medical school advances the germ-based theory of disease but that can be just as wrong as evolution, astronomy or chemistry. Instead of germs, many people believe that it is a bad spirit that has clouded your soul. Instead of a scary needle filled with who-knows-what, teach the controversy and allow holy rituals to be performed. Who knows, either can be right, they are both just theories.

And what about boring old church? Once you walk in, the priest talks about just one thing – Christianity. Why not have a Buddhist monk teaching the controversy? Or someone from the Nation of Islam, a Dreamtime aboriginal tribe member from Australia or a leader from the local fraternity of Freemasons (sorry, no women). Let the congregation decide which sounds best. I mean, come on, they are all just theories.

See, wouldn’t that be much better?

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Creation vs. Evolution

Mark this day in history as the day that those godless heathens known as evolutionists lost the battle to the ever right and moral creationists. The blow was simple yet eloquent and delivered shockwaves across America with a thunderclap of righteousness. Evolutionists did not see it coming, how could they? They only have the power of man on their side. They who are right have the immeasurable power of God. The blow took three words and those three words will haunt any geologist, paleontologist, archaeologist or astronomer that will choose to pursue knowledge through “purely scientific” means rather than through the group of books that has defined man’s destiny since 4004 B.C., otherwise known as the Bible (oh and that B.C. stands for Before Christ, another example scientists fail to acknowledge). These three words in sum are: were you there? Something so succinct can be quite voracious. For example, paleontologists try to convince the children of this Christian nation that dinosaurs lived for several hundred million years up to 65 million years ago when some magical force wiped all of them out. “But… were you there?” asks one young innocent Christian child trying to understand how the Bible and God fit into this understanding of the world. With nothing to rely on but the imperfect and miscalculated tests of the scientific community, the paleontologist stammers for a quick response to stifle the young child. The paleontologist was not there, he realizes, and therefore cannot know what happened in these supposed millions of years ago. But combining the powers of science with those of the Lord, one is able to precisely document the nature of the dinosaurs and their imminent relation with man along with a multitude of other facts such as the date of creation, which if I am not mistaken is January 1st of 4004 B.C. (just joking, I know that it was really the nightfall before Sunday the 23rd of October of 4004 B.C. - thank you James Ussher!).

Let’s take another example: light from the stars takes “millions” or “billions” of light years to reach Earth. This poses a problem, claim astronomers, considering the brief amount of time the Universe has been around. Apparently no starlight would reach Earth until many thousands of years after Creation thus implicating that the three magi would not have had a star to guide them to Jesus in the manger on the 25th of December. This directly contradicts the Bible. Giving these “scientists” the benefit of the doubt that they already know they were not there, step two of the airtight argument comes in to play. If these people had any knowledge of the Bible they would know of God’s awesome power and would rightly conclude, like all true believers have, that God put the light in route to its earth-bound destination. It’s a fact and it is called created antiquity. With a one-two punch, the believers are victorious. Evolutionists will have quite a tough time with this foundation shocking argument.

Just for fun let’s take another example. What about the Holocaust? If you ask me, I was not there and knowing that God is omni-benevolent as well as omnipotent, according to biblical teachings, I conclude that it did not happen. How could it with a god like God? God is omni-benevolent and will not harm anyone unless it is serving some important lesson that is only known by God. God is also omnipotent and can make it seem as though these terrible things did occur without actually doing any harm. The same goes for slavery or for any war before the date of my birth. Actually all of “history” before my date of birth did not happen considering I was not there. But my presence in the flesh is nothing compared to the willful hand of God, so at any point before now, God has already created the antiquity to make it seem as though all this history has taken place. Everything I grew up doing, thinking and learning is only a product of God’s wondrous imagination. Everything up until this present moment is only the work of God and no other. I actually have not written anything here. This is created antiquity. Make sure to ask God though if I was here.