Chubby Nickel Audio Vlog

“In God We Trust” is on our money. “One nation, under god” is in our pledge of allegiance. The constitution and bill of rights was based on the morals of Christianity. So our country must have been meant to be a Christian country and therefore we should allow Christians to do whatever they want and screw anything else. Keep the ten commandment monuments in courts and in public places and keep that nasty Qur’an out of those places. Keep trying to get people to swear to the bible under oath and teach creationism in science classes.

If you detected sarcasm… well there was a bit. I will express my views in the order that I feel like with no particular organized strategy.

The bill of rights in no way comes straight from the bible. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me[...]” does not coincide with the first amendment which tries to protect the peoples freedom to choose and practice whatever religion they want. Also in the first amendment is the freedom of speech, which goes against many Christian actions.

Now there is a difference between people who call themselves Christian and people that are Christian. The difference is whether they are peaceful people who respect others whether they are “sinners” or not (like Jesus did), or if they ignore Jesus’ example and go around telling everyone they are going to hell and should not spread the word of Satan… I mean reason.

“In God we trust” was not on our money until after the civil war, and took several decades until it was on all our currency. So to say that the country was founded on God because its on our money is like saying the chicken hatches into an egg.  Sure its on our money now but so are numbers, and the numbers have been there for longer. So I believe the country was founded on numbers.

The pledge of allegiance remained unchanged for a long time. It was written in 1892. In 1923 “my Flag” was change to “the Flag of the United States,” and then “of America” was added to that a year later. The words “under God” added after “one nation,” were first added in 1951 by the Knights of Columbus for their own use, and was not officially recognized until 1954. So we were not a nation under God until 1954.

While I have no problem with people worshiping their religion, I find it against the founding fathers ideals to try and force it down the throats of every one. These religious intrusions into state affairs goes against the idea of separation of church and state.

There are a lot of people that can be right all the time despite having no idea about what they are talking about and pulling “facts” out of their asses. You see, being right is more about attitude and speaking the right way than it is about the truth. After reading this you will be able to be right all the time just like Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Kent Hovind, Kirk Cameron, Sean Hannity, Ray Comfort, Ann Coulter and other assholes.

Being Wrong

This article is about being right and not being wrong? Relax jerk, this is just a tactic. The more you focus on how right you are and less you focus on being wrong; the righter you will seem. But if you never say that you are wrong then how can anyone trust you? A person has to be able to admit when they are wrong, but you also have be right all the time. This is very tricky, so whenever people bring up how wrong you are, always act like you are right now matter how many silly “true facts” they present. The only time you admit to being wrong is in the past… well kind of. You pick some silly unimportant “fact” or “prediction” that you were wrong about (you should have lots to work with after following this guide), and you quickly apologize (spend no more than 27 seconds talking about it), not for being wrong, but for being presented faulty information and not knowing immediately it was false. This keeps you from ever admitting you are wrong while being able to say that you can admit when you are wrong.

Statistics and Facts

Reading statistics and facts and learning stuff is hard and time consuming. Trust me the time is better spent shaking your man stick or rubbing your woman hole. In reality, its not the truth that is important here, its how well you can make shit up. If you are talking about how farms are bad for the people and only serve to decrease the food supply, then say some crap like, “73% of all farms take more food to make the crops than they produce.” BAM! Statistic nailed. It is important to note that the number “73%” was used. The tens is not very important but refrain from it proving your point too well and never use 0 or 5 as the ones digit because then it just sounds made up (which is good for you if you’re arguing and the real statistic is 25%). The main point here is just to make shit up, while making it sound reasonable but undeniably proving your point.

Rapid-Fire

Knowing lots of stuff, being able to remember it all and being able to release lots of good facts in a row is very effective. But you don’t need to know the stuff: work from hearsay, crackpots, crazy ideas, whatever you thought of last time you passed out from intoxication and most importantly; throw in some facts that are actually true every once in a while. The true ones people will believe and if you have some true facts in a bunch of bullshit, then people will believe all the bullshit too. Then you can use any of those “facts” for anything since you stated them already and no one objected (use ‘em even if they did). For practice and learning watch a Kent Hovind Creationist video, he loves this tactic. The longer the string of “facts,” the smarter and righter you sound and as a bonus; the more “facts” you can use to prove your other points.

Predictions

Now a lot of people think they have to think, study and work at making predictions… bah! That is a huge waste of time you could spend thinking about how amazing you are. Did Nostradamus have to sit there study, think and learn about what he was predicting? No, because he knew all he had to do was make a ton of predictions and retards would focus on the ones that kind of match something that happened. Now unless you want to wait until you are dead and have some crazy people prove how right you were, you are gonna have to toot your own horn… if you can bend that far. Its more important to get a lot of predictions out there than to get accurate predictions out there. Whatever comes to your mind as something that could happen, you just spit it out. What about accuracy? Have you even been listening? We are gonna use the shotgun effect: One you have shot a huge load of “predictions” all over your audiences faces, you never bring them up again whatsoever… unless one of them happens to be close to something that happened, then you shout out how awesome you are for seeing this X amount of time ago. Don’t forget the “I told you so’s”. Remember all the wrong ones? I told you to forget them until they somewhat come true!

Who’s the Master?

Remember to listen to the professional bullshit artists listed at the top to learn from them. They have been doing this for a long time and have a lot of professional experience… and if you lack the experience don’t worry about it, just say that you do have the experience. People don’t do research until after and by then no one cares anymore.

That’s it for now, remember: Its more important for it to sound true, than it is to be true. Next time I will show you how to make a fallacy look like a valid argument, the foundation in the sky, how to avoid direct questions by redirecting them and turning a straw-man argument into an epic David and Goliath battle for truth (where you are David).

When I was watching the news one day, I saw what was happening to Miss California USA Carrie Prejean, I heard the funniest… and saddest thing about free speech I ever heard. Some stupid pundit said that she was practicing her freedom of speech and was getting attacked for it.

This is stupid for a few reasons: she was not being attacked for practicing free speech and other people also get to practice free speech. She was being attacked for her views on gay marriage, not because she was practicing her right to say it. Free speech is (as I plagiarize Thunderf00t from youtube.com) “free speech is a no-holds-barred arena.” Which means if you are going to say something in this arena, you should expect other people to also say something about what you said. Now if she has the right to publicly express her views, then other people have the right to publicly counter those views. There is no way to maintain freedom of speech while “protecting” people from being humiliated because they expressed their views.

The only way for someone to keep their right to free speech is to allow people that have other views to express themselves. There is no other way. Freedom of speech is not just a cliche term, its something that no one should take for granted. Yes, people will say something that you disagree with, someone will call you names, some one will attack your beliefs, someone will attack what you said. If you cannot see the importance of free speech then consider this on selfish terms: If you want to regulate what someone else can say, you are destroying your own right to say what you want to say.

So enjoy people that disagree with you, enjoy people calling you names, enjoy defending yourself, enjoy learning and most of all: enjoy freedom of speech.

Like parents mis-use the Santa Claus myth to get their children to behave, once a person loses the childish notion the only true God is the one you happen to believe in, then an awakening occurs which often causes a sort of revolt towards rules, ethics and parents.

When a child learns that Santa is a myth and is not real despite what their parents told them, the child feels like they have been betrayed by the very people that are supposed to be protecting and teaching them. If the Santa myth had often been used to coerce the child into behaving properly, then the child is more likely to be harder to coerce into behaving properly when they learn the truth about the myth.

This is a parallel to when a child no longer believes in the religion of their parents. If the religion of the parents was used to convince their children to behave without explaining more than, “because God said so” or “because God said it is bad,” causes a similar Santa style revolt on ethics and values. Its not because there are no morals without God, its because the child was not taught a higher, universal reason for behaving a certain way in society.

This hypothesis (I will not call it a theory because it has not been developed or studied yet), can explain why there is a period of social dissent as a child matures into an adult. Maybe I am wrong about it, but its OK to be wrong, its the most efficient way for humans learn.

To test, we would need a group of about 200 split almost evenly between religious families and non-religious families. Half of each group would then teach their child morals according to the Bible, and the other half would teach the children morals according to how it affects to society. Then track each child and see how they feel about their parents beliefs throughout their development into adulthood.

I am not saying that the world be better without religion, I am saying that children need to be taught to understand morals mean more than being punished or rewarded.