Feb 24, 2010

Application Process

1:14 am. I missed the wish. Oh well.

Good news. I made it through the first round of RA applications. This means I have to do an interview with Eileen (assistant Dean of Students) next week.

Philosophy midterm in a few hours. Let's see how much of that I remember.

Word of the Day: Yo

Quote of the Day: "I will not be contained!" Aaron Vedder

Feb 17, 2010


The Canadian Tenors.
It is all so patriotic.

I am giving up television for Lent, which began today. This means...no olympics...no LOST until Easter.


Word of the Day: feminism

Quote of the Day: "Her head supports a cloud." Dude in the opening song of Beauty and the Beast

Feb 12, 2010

February Blahs

Home tonight. Reading break is much needed.

A rose from a friend, and a book from another.
Applications finished.
Now on to school work.

Word of the Day: Petty

Quote of the Day: (After Geo insulted me..) Kait: 'That was mean!' Geo: "That wasn't mean, that wasn't even well constructed!"

Feb 3, 2010

On Poetry

Oh, Canadian Poetry. I am so glad that he was able to visit RUC.

Word of the Day: Emerging

Quote of the Day: "You know the day's not over, right. There can still be funny things!" Amanda

Feb 2, 2010

Improbability of God or of Atheism

Richard Dawkins. Atheist extraordinaire. If those arguements weren't fallible enough for you, I offer you, dear Reader, 'The Improbability of God".

Now, my questions to you, Mr Dawkins are this: How do you feel about being an evolutionary blip? Show me the point in which humans evolved from apes. You can't find the missing link? Hmm.

Here is my issue with Mr. Dawkins. It's all fine and dandy to go around spouting out one's view, even his... but it seems as though, in his effort to falsify religion, he has developed his own. It is unclear to me whether it is the concept of a God he has a problem with, or whether it is the religion he has a problem with. In both cases, his facts are flawed. Darwin did not set out to disprove God, in fact, he hoped his research in evolutionary theory (which Darwin also admitted was just theory), would help with the division between science and religion. Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Nietzsche, Heraclius, Averroes, (the list goes on) all believed in a God-like being. They felt a higher presence, they knew that the universe was governed by...something.

Dawkins would say that they are philosophers, and he is a scientist and therefore those are irrelevant to his message.

But consider this. Parmenides talked about being and unbeing. Being is. Unbeing is not. If atheism were true, that there is no God, and we've all been led to believe something that is false, how is it that the notion of God would still exist. The feeling of a universe governed by ...something. Can this be replaced by scientific explaination? I'm skeptical to say it can be. If unbeing is not, the notion of God would not exist. By suggesting there is no God, Atheism has proven that here is one. God would be unbeing, and therefore the entire idea of him would not exist.

And this is just one of the many arguements that has come out Mr. Richard Dawkins' work. In the spirit of controversy, I thought I would add this.

Word of the Day: philanthropist

Quote of the Day: "I am very disappointed in you." John Locke (LOST)