He's Ill-Defined

The first thing you need in or­der to ac­cept the ex­is­tence of an en­ti­ty is a def­i­ni­tion for it. If you lack that, how can you say it ex­ists at al­l? He could ring my door­bell and ask for a cup of sug­ar, and I still would­n't be sure, be­cause he could be re-de­fined at any time.

For ex­am­ple, is god om­ni­scien­t? Is he allmighty? Is he the guy with the ele­phant head? Is he im­ma­te­ri­al? Does he an­swer to prayer? Is he a he? Did he have a kid? Did he have his kid by turn­ing in­to a swan be­fore go­ing on a date?

Since de­pend­ing on what godist you ask he will an­swer at least one of those dif­fer­ent­ly, I have to de­clare his ex­is­tence im­pos­si­ble.

Of course we could try to ac­cept the def­i­ni­tion of one godist club and try to see if that spe­cif­ic en­ti­ty ex­ist­s, but that doesn re­al­ly work ei­ther, be­cause god fans have a ten­den­cy to move the goal­post­s. What's "the word of god" be­comes lat­er an al­le­go­ry, de­priv­ing us of any ev­i­dence on which to base our en­quiry.

Most­ly, godists say that the know god ex­ists be­cause they feel it in their hearts or some­thing sim­i­lar­ly hare­brained. Come on, if I told you I feel the east­er bun­ny in my kid­ney, it would make about as much sense.

The Excluded Middle and Popularity

Ei­ther some­thing is true or its op­po­site is. Ei­ther you ate some of that cake, or you did­n't. Ei­ther god ex­ists or he does­n't. Easy, right?

But why could­n't god ex­ist? Well, let me ask you, why don't the oth­er gods ex­ist? You are a zoroas­tri­an: why does­n't Zeus ex­ist? You are a mor­mon, why does­n't Quet­zal­coatl ex­ist?

Ev­ery godist is per­fect­ly hap­py with the oth­er gods not ex­ist­ing, so it's not ex­act­ly a ground-shak­ing no­tion. It's clear that when­ev­er you hear any­one talk about a re­li­gious ma­jor­i­ty, he is full of crap.

Re­peat af­ter me: you are not part of a re­li­gious ma­jor­i­ty, be­cause most peo­ple be­lieve your god does­n't ex­ist. We athe­ists are just smarter and more con­sis­ten­t.

And no, you can't re­treat in­to "o­h, mus­lims jews and all chris­tians be­lieve in the same god" be­cause that's nut­s. Jews be­lieve in a god that does­n't let them eat ham. Mor­mons be­lieve they are or­dered to use mag­i­cal un­der­wear. Catholics be­lieve they eat meat wafers each sun­day, it's just that it look­s, feels and tastes like a crack­er, but it's "re­al­ly" (su­per)hu­man beef. For each group, the oth­er's be­liefs are bar­bar­ic and (if they are hon­est) a lit­tle nut­s.

No, I am not say­ing you in­di­vid­u­al­ly are nut­s, you nut­cas­es, I am say­ing you are con­di­tioned to be­lieve your par­tic­u­lar idio­syn­cra­sies are less nuts than av­er­age, but they aren't, just like my dad's habit of putting may­on­naise in the soup was nuts and my be­lief that Unión de San­ta Fe will some­day win a tour­na­ment is nut­s.

IOW: most­ly harm­less, but nut­ty any­way. OTO­H, some peo­ple's be­liefs make them be­lieve that killing al­bi­no kids is a prop­er be­hav­iour so some of you godists are re­al­ly, re­al­ly nut­s, ok?. Not all of you, but those who aren't should take a good hard look at what be­liev­ing in in­vis­i­ble friends does to some peo­ple.

It's Unethical to Believe in Heaven and Hell

Con­sid­er my three year old kid. There is a rule that he has to eat a rea­son­able amount at din­ner, and if he does he can watch one TV show be­fore bed as a re­ward.

In uni­verse A: One night he's very tired, so he does­n't re­al­ly want to watch TV, he wants to go to bed, but he still eats his din­ner be­cause it's good for him.

In uni­verse B: One night he's very tired, so he does­n't re­al­ly want to watch TV, so he does­n't eat his din­ner be­cause there's no re­ward.

Be­liev­ers will tell you that hu­man na­ture is B. That if there was no prom­ise of car­rot (heav­en) and stick (hel­l) hu­mans would have no morals and would act like in­sane he­do­nist­s, hurt­ing each oth­er in a fren­zy, and that we on­ly avoid such a ter­ri­ble fate be­cause of the civ­i­liz­ing in­fuence of the church­es and the moral­i­ty in­duced on us by re­li­gion.

I say bull­crap. I say I pre­fer if my kid does what's good for him not be­cause he's ex­pect­ing a re­ward or (worse!) be­cause he's scared of pun­ish­men­t, but be­cause he un­der­stands that if he eats his din­ner he's go­ing to be strong and healthy, and that it makes me hap­py and that he wants me to be hap­py be­cause he likes me.

Of course, be­ing a three year old, he some­times does­n't want to eat his din­ner. So I try to con­vince him. But if he does­n't, he does­n't, and there's no TV, and there's no tantrum, and he gets a kiss good night.

The con­cept that there is a lot of peo­ple who hon­est­ly be­lieve that they are moral be­ings on­ly be­cause there's an in­vis­i­ble guy who will hurt them if they aren't scares me. I find it deeply re­pul­sive. I find re­li­gion's prom­ise of eter­nal (or even tem­po­rary) pun­ish­ment in the af­ter­life re­pul­sive and creep­y.

If you be­lieve in an af­ter­life, and you be­lieve in heav­en and hel­l, and you act nice be­cause of it, you are a creep. You are, like re­li­gious peo­ple like to say, a creep in your own heart. You are not good. You are evil but just think you can't get away with act­ing out your evil. You are a chick­en. If the de­ity you be­lieve in ac­tu­al­ly ex­ist­s, he knows it, so you are screwed any­way.

I pre­fer to be good for my fel­low men be­cause there's noth­ing else be­yond. If there was a heav­en, then we live in a crap­py wait­ing room. No! We live in the re­al world. What's be­yond is fic­tion or guess­work, you can't count on it, you can't throw away re­al life for it.

Conclusion

You are a bit nuts and your in­vis­ble friend does­n't ex­ist. You don't need to get a life be­cause you al­ready have one, you just need to stop ask­ing for sec­onds and eat your din­ner. Have fun.

Cooking is easy

You may be in­tim­i­dat­ed by those who cook and make it look com­pli­cat­ed. Don't be­lieve a word they say. You can cook a per­fect­ly fine meal for 1 to 4 peo­ple in half an hour.

For ex­am­ple, if you have dry pas­ta, any kind of pro­tein (chick­en, seafood, ground beef, sausages, chori­zo, fish, what­ev­er), a bouil­lon cube (veg­eta­bles, beef, what­ev­er), gar­lic, onion and/or any­thing like it, and a glass of wine (op­tion­al) you can cook it like risot­to

And here's the best part: read that recipe, and here's all you need to know to cook it:

• Toast the dry pas­­ta in kin­­da hot oil (o­live oil if you have it, or what­ev­er).

• Add chopped onion­s, gar­lic, pep­pers (or what­ev­er) for 3 min­utes.

• Add 1/2 cup of wine (it says white, but red wine will work, it will just make it taste "heav­ier" and change the colour). If you don't have wine, use broth. Wait two min­utes or so un­til it's al­­most dry.

• Add broth slow­­ly while stir­ring.

• When the pas­­ta is still kin­­da hard, stop adding broth, add pro­tein (chopped small so it cooks com­­plete­­ly) and a bit more broth and lemon juice (or not).

Or you can do this:

• Sauteé onion­s, gar­lic what­ev­er and pro­tein, then put it aside and save it.

• In the same oil, toast the pas­­ta. This makes the pas­­ta tasti­er.

• Re-add the pro­tein and veg­­e­ta­bles, then add wine and broth slow­­ly

• When the pas­­ta is the way you like it, eat it.

See what I did there? I did it al­most ex­act­ly the oth­er way around. And you know what? It's still go­ing to taste good. Why? Be­cause cook­ing is very fault tol­er­an­t.

Yes, you will hear all the time about the per­fect point for this, and the per­fect sea­son­ing for that, and ... it's 90% bull­shit.

Sure, if you over­cook the pas­ta it's go­ing to be sog­gy crap, but you can avoid that by be­ing min­i­mal­ly vig­i­lant about it and buy­ing a freak­ing $4 kitchen timer

Cooking is fun

Once you get over the no­tion that it's hard, cook­ing is easy to en­joy.

If you have a kid, he can help. If you have a spouse, he/she will like that you are tak­ing care of the meal.

It's great for un­wind­ing af­ter be­ing stressed. Strange­ly, chop­ping gar­lic re­lax­es me.

Have a mi­crowave and a 3 year old? Then you can do this:

In one bowl mix:

• Two beat­­en eggs

• Add vanil­la (or don't)

• Add a bit of but­ter (or veg­­etable oil)

In an­oth­er bowl:

• 1 cup of reg­u­lar al­l-pur­­pose flour (or whole wheat flour)

• a bit of bak­ing pow­der

• a bit of salt

• half a cup of sug­­ar

In one of those bowls add some­thing else. If it's moist, add it with the eggs and such, if it's dry, add it with the flour and such.

That "some­thing else" can be choco­late chip­s, wal­nut­s, shred­ded car­rot, ba­nanas, sliced ap­ples, jam, what­ev­er.

Once each bowl is mixed, mix them to­geth­er a bit un­til they "mesh". Don't work it too hard or the re­sult will suck.

Then get two (or three, or one, or four) mugs (or cup­s, or muf­fin trays, or any­thing that's mi­crowave-safe) and fill it half-way with the re­sult­ing bat­ter.

Mi­crowave it un­til it looks good, then eat it. If you are not sure if it's cooked, stick a wood­en tooth­pick in it and see if it's dry when you pull it.

Your 3 year old can take care of the dry bowl (he does sim­i­lar things in kinder­garten, you know?) as long as you help with the mea­sures. And most im­por­tant­ly: he can take care of start­ing the mi­crowave, so tec­ni­cal­ly he can say he cooked it (3 year olds are very in­to tech­ni­cal­i­ties).

Again, see what I did with that recipe? You can re­place al­most any in­gre­di­ent with some­thing else (I don't rec­om­mend not us­ing eggs, though) And it will prob­a­bly work.

And you will end with a flour-­cov­ered kid, which is a bonus, be­cause then he won't make a fuss about his bath.

Cooking is good for you

I have high blood pres­sure and I'm fat. But you know what? I have not gained any weight since I start­ed cook­ing for my­self, 10 years ago. I gained a lot be­fore that, though.

Now I can cook semi-healthy food for me, and do it with the low sodi­um I need. Sodi­um is a habit, so af­ter you are eat­ing low sodi­um for a few weeks you don't re­al­ly miss it.

If you are a nerd, you prob­a­bly are a bit too seden­tary, so eat­ing "right" will help you.

And most im­por­tant­ly, you know what you eat. Sure, you al­so need to take care of what in­gre­di­ents you buy, but did you know that piz­za has a like 400% markup? And that you can do a rea­son­ably healthy piz­za in, like, 40 min­utes of work?

The on­ly trick is start­ing 3 or 4 hours ear­ly.

But if you use home­-­made dough, chopped toma­toes for sauce, gar­lic, pep­per­s, and not too much cheese... it's not a ter­ri­bly un­healthy meal.

And of course, you can al­ways do a sal­ad. Come on, how hard could that be? It's chop­ping things up and pil­ing them, dude!

And it can be tasty and fill­ing. You just need to do a lot of it ;-)

Cooking is cheap

A mi­lane­sa (sort of a bread­ed steak?) in a cheap restau­rant wil cost you about $25. For that mon­ey you can make 7 or 8 at home.

A good piece of prime meat in a restau­ran­t? $50. That buys 2 pounds of prime meat in the mar­ket for you to cook.

A rea­son­able lunch menu for of­fice work­ers costs about $30. For that mon­ey my fam­i­ly of 3 eats twice. And bet­ter. And more.

You can make your­self the most awe­some sand­wich in the world for un­der $10, with any­thing you imag­ine in it and take it to the of­fice.

And, most im­por­tant­ly...

Cooking is Applied Nerdiness

Cook­ing gives you a way to eas­i­ly ex­per­i­ment with re­al-life chem­istry, gives you some­thing con­crete to show for your ef­fort af­ter a whole day cod­ing things you can't re­al­ly show your fam­i­ly.

Why does ham taste well with apri­cots and not with ap­ples? Or does it? How about chili? Does it go well with sour cream? How about pep­per on a straw­ber­ry?

But for­get about adding: What can you re­move from a recipe and still make it work? What can you re­place? If you can make ba­nana bread, can you make ba­nana crois­sants? (no you can't, they taste awe­some but they look ghast­ly)

How can you go through life with­out won­der­ing if you can re­al­ly cook fish with just lemon juice? Ex­act­ly how long do you cook rice in your mi­crowave so it looks creamy and taste great with­out re­mov­ing ex­cess liq­uid? Did you know you can steam 2 pounds of pota­toes in 10 min­utes with a plas­tic bowl and some plas­tic film, and they will make the most awe­some mashed pota­toes you ev­er tast­ed?

Your kitchen is an awe­some place. In­stant noo­dles suck.