Monthly Archive for June, 2009

Boob Tube Series

BarneyAtTheBoobBoxInBlackAndBlue.jpg
BarneyAtTheBoobBoxInBlackAndGreen.jpg
BarneyAtTheBoobBoxInBurntOrange.jpg
BarneyAtTheBoobBoxInPastel.jpg
CavemanCableVisionsInGreen.jpg
CavemanCableVisionsInOrange.jpg
SeekingAScreenSaviorInPeach.jpg
SeekingAScreenSaviorInRed.jpg
SeekingAScreenSaviorInSilver.jpg
StaringBackAtMeInBurgundy.jpg
StaringBackAtMeInSilver.jpg
StaringBackAtMeInYellow.jpg
TellAVisionInCelery.jpg
TellAVisionInTaupe.jpg
TubeTopTrinketsInGold.jpg
TubeTopTrinketsInWhite.jpg

The Grim Paradolia

I presume that this “image” was “captured” just moments before Jesus is supposed to have said what Jesus was supposed to have said just before he kicked the bucket bought the farm handed in his chips had his card punched 404ed himself went on a date with Princess Di put on a red shirt and beamed down to the planet gave up the ghost.

Can you spot the mystery guest?

Jesus vs Death

Jesus vs Death

Yes, it’s our old friend Dr Evil The Grim Reaper!

El Grimo Reapero

El Grimo Reapero

Tell him “hi” from me, next time you see him. Unless I see him first, of course!

/hattip: Outside The Interzone

The Secret Life of the American Teenager

I've been working on a lengthy and pedantic follow-up to last Sunday's post about the Obama administration's brief in defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. But in the meantime, I'm going to tell you why I love "The Secret Life of the American Teenager," which returned to the ABC Family Network last Monday.

First, Molly Ringwald is in it. Molly Ringwald!

Second, remember Olivia Hussey who played Juliet in Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet? Well, her daughter India Eisley is in it, and she plays exactly the kind of sarcastic middle school girl I would be if I were a middle school girl.

Third, the season opener incorporated the following sequence of events:

Scene 3: Grace, abstinence-'till-marriage-pledged evangelical Christian, has not spoken to her father since he became angry at her announcement that God won't mind after all when she has sex with her boyfriend Jack. She's on the phone with her mother and brother, who are in the car after dropping the father off at the airport. Expository dialogue reveals that the father, not seen to this point, is taking off on a private plane to render medical aid in a third world country. Grace, who is sprinkling flower petals on her bed in preparation for Jack's arrival and the imminent loss of her virginity, refuses to call her father and apologize before the plane takes off.

At this point it is obvious to anyone watching that John Schneider (Bo Duke from "The Dukes of Hazzard") has not returned for a second season in his role as Grace's father, and the plane is going to crash. (Mrs. P: "Dude, the plane is going to crash." Holy Prepuce: "The plane is totally going to crash.")

Scene 7: Grace, no longer a virgin, delivers the most frank, mature, and empowered address about adolescent sexuality ever spoken on American television. She is happy, fulfilled, in love with her boyfriend, at peace with herself and God. Coming from this character, it is a stunningly bold alternative example for a generation made to feel dirty and fearful about its sexuality by abstinence-only curricula and the Promise Keepers.

Scene 8: Jack comes downstairs. Grace's mom and brother enter, crying. The plane has crashed. Jack announces that he and Grace have just had sex. Grace comes downstairs. Grace's brother, who has Down Syndrome, says (of their deceased father), "you killed him!"

Yes!

The Secret Life of the American Teenager

I've been working on a lengthy and pedantic follow-up to last Sunday's post about the Obama administration's brief in defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. But in the meantime, I'm going to tell you why I love "The Secret Life of the American Teenager," which returned to the ABC Family Network last Monday.

First, Molly Ringwald is in it. Molly Ringwald!

Second, remember Olivia Hussey who played Juliet in Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet? Well, her daughter India Eisley is in it, and she plays exactly the kind of sarcastic middle school girl I would be if I were a middle school girl.

Third, the season opener incorporated the following sequence of events:

Scene 3: Grace, abstinence-'till-marriage-pledged evangelical Christian, has not spoken to her father since he became angry at her announcement that God won't mind after all when she has sex with her boyfriend Jack. She's on the phone with her mother and brother, who are in the car after dropping the father off at the airport. Expository dialogue reveals that the father, not seen to this point, is taking off on a private plane to render medical aid in a third world country. Grace, who is sprinkling flower petals on her bed in preparation for Jack's arrival and the imminent loss of her virginity, refuses to call her father and apologize before the plane takes off.

At this point it is obvious to anyone watching that John Schneider (Bo Duke from "The Dukes of Hazzard") has not returned for a second season in his role as Grace's father, and the plane is going to crash. (Mrs. P: "Dude, the plane is going to crash." Holy Prepuce: "The plane is totally going to crash.")

Scene 7: Grace, no longer a virgin, delivers the most frank, mature, and empowered address about adolescent sexuality ever spoken on American television. She is happy, fulfilled, in love with her boyfriend, at peace with herself and God. Coming from this character, it is a stunningly bold alternative example for a generation made to feel dirty and fearful about its sexuality by abstinence-only curricula and the Promise Keepers.

Scene 8: Jack comes downstairs. Grace's mom and brother enter, crying. The plane has crashed. Jack announces that he and Grace have just had sex. Grace comes downstairs. Grace's brother, who has Down Syndrome, says (of their deceased father), "you killed him!"

Yes!

Camp

Here are some pics I took yesterday.

Camp

Here are some pics I took yesterday.

Feynman for all!

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Bill Gates, but his philanthropic gestures aren’t generally among them (this is, of course, an obvious exception).

Gates has apparently recently purchased the rights to a collection of lectures by physicist, author, skirt-chaser and bongo player Richard Feynman, and will be making them freely available to the public.

From Symmetry Breaking magazine:

Bill Gates recently bought the rights to a series of lectures by legendary Caltech physicist Richard Feynman. The former Microsoft head’s purchase shows that the cultural and scientific legacy of Feynman remains strong even 21 years after his death.

The lectures, given in 1964 as part of Cornell University’s Messenger Lecture Series, were filmed by the BBC, who had retained the rights since. Gates purchased the lectures for an undisclosed amount.

But what would the former Microsoft head want with the copyright to lectures by the revered physicist? In a recent interview with the CERN Bulletin, Gates said that his only plan is to make the footage freely available to the public.

The videos themselves don’t yet appear to be online, but I’m sure that’s one of the places they’ll first appear.

/hattip Atheist Media

Psychodiva’s Mutterings FCD 2009-06-27 17:21:00

Q: How can I make an interesting blog?
Asked by scotthut

A: lol- mine is not interesting - so yu may want to head on over to Sean the blogonaut or Nullfidian or Pharyngula.

Ask Psychodiva a question.

Psychodiva’s Mutterings FCD 2009-06-27 17:21:00

Q: How can I make an interesting blog?
Asked by scotthut

A: lol- mine is not interesting - so yu may want to head on over to Sean the blogonaut or Nullfidian or Pharyngula.

Ask Psychodiva a question.

Britaine’s Firste “Newe Atheiste”?

Thanks to a contributor to today’s NSS Newsline, I’ve been made aware of this awesome record of civil proceedings from sometime in the early 17th century.

6 DECEMBER, i CHARLES I. Memorandum of the presentment for recusancy and of the insolence of one Richard Beake of Kentish-towne who (on being duly and lawfully summoned by John Corey, one of the bailiffs of the Sheriff of Middlesex, to appeare at this session at Hickes Hall) answered to the same John Corey “that he cared not a f for the Justices, and that he had not been at church for tenn yeares, nor wold goe to churche for all the Justices could doe, adding further, Lett the Justices kisse his A” S. P. Reg.

Richard Beake of Kentish-towne is now a hero of mine.

I’ve also learned a new word: recusancy. It means “fuck you, churchy”.

Oh, FFS, here we go again…

Yes, it’s that time of the month where someone decides to have a go at the “New Atheists”. I’ll simply link to it for your interest, but it was this comment from (yet another ignorant and “oh woe is me!” christian) that somewhat piqued my relatively low-key ire.

They wrote:

This study convinces me even more that New Atheism has all the qualifications of a being its own religion. It seems to be becoming more organized and the tenets of its “faith” more scripted or set in place, with even four? main “bishops”; ie. Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.

Reading Dawkin’s quote and your description of his love for and faith in the great Cosmos, I’m struck with how “worshipful” his devotion is to the Universe.

You wrote, “He approaches science poetically, demonstrating that it can enrich our lives and aid us in a search for meaning and purpose. “The world and the universe is an extremely beautiful place, and the more we understand about it the more beautiful does it appear,” Dawkins explains.
It is this belief in the power of science to open our eyes to the awe-inspiring splendor and mystery of the Cosmos and its contents that drives Dawkins’ passion for evolutionary biology and his criticism of religion.”

To me this is just one religion criticizing the others. “Nothing is new under the sun.”

In my opinion, the intolerance of the new atheist is only a result of his/her commitment to their own set of beliefs and their worship of what is seen rather than what is unseen. The resentment to Christianity, in particular, definitely stems from the spiritual side of things, even from those who deny its existence. Have you ever met a religion which doesn’t resent Christianity?

I felt a need to respond, so I wrote:

Whatever “New Atheism” is (and it’s patently obvious that this isn’t a label that atheists apply to themselves except in the context of rebuttals to arguments like this), a “religion” it certainly isn’t.

Organised? If by that you mean that there are discussion fora, community web sites, (arguably) sceptical conferences, then yes. If you mean that we all gather in a bunch of rooms every so-often and pat ourselves on the back, you’re onto a wrong ‘un.

Tenets? What on earth is a tenet of atheism (or “New Atheism”, whatever)? Even the most elastic definition I could find (dictionary.com) defines a ‘tenet’ as “any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., esp. one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement.”

The closest tenet of so-called “New Atheism” then could be the collective position (as per the original definition of “atheism”, rather than the populist strawman definition) that we don’t believe in gods. Any gods. All gods. Not just the christian gods.

Bishops? Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Grayling? Really? They hold services every now and then and tell us exactly what to think based on their pontifications of our holy books? Oops, we don’t have any.

Faith? What faith? Atheism is a respondent position, not an accusatory one. It’s a position based on the question “do you believe in the existence of any gods?” and if the answer is anything other than “yes”, then one is, by definition, an atheist.

Worship? An appreciation of the fact that we’re alive in the here and now and can look at the universe with a sense of wonder and try to figure it how it works? Please.

You’ve also completely ignored to tell us what the rest of our supposed religion’s trappings are. So, please tell us what our “holy book” is, what our “rituals” and “traditions” are, where our “churches” are, what our “dogmas” are, who our “popes” and “saints” are, how we “pray” and what we “pray” for.

I’m surprised you didn’t go the whole hog and call us “militant” while you’re at it. By ‘militant’ you would of course means “doesn’t shut up when told to”, rather than the usual definition of militant meaning going out with a gun and shooting someone, or carrying a belt of plastique into a crowded market place. You know, the usual use of the word ‘militant’, it’s even one you can find on Fox News! But then conflation and equivocation is a traditional refuge of the unreasonable mind.

It’s typical of people like you to call atheism a “religion” and then deride it. Just in case you don’t get it, this fails for at least two reasons:

1) it’s a strawman argument and anyone with even an ounce of common sense can see through it; and
2) by calling it a religion and then decrying it as such lends absolutely no credibility to any religion, especially that of the arguer.

There are other reasons, but I’m not entirely convinced that you’d understand why your accusation fails for the two reasons above, and frankly it’d be a waste of time.

“New Atheism” is nothing if not responding to the unjustified demand of “you can’t criticise religion (especially mine!)” with the flat answer of “yes, I can, why can’t I?”.

Atheists, “New” or otherwise, can hold any number of positions including an appreciation, an indifference or a hostility to classic organised religions, including (but certainly not exclusively) christianity.

[Comment broken here due to length.]

To claim that we resent christianity en masse is to a) completely fail to understand the basic position of an atheist (see above fro hints); b) play the “persecution” card (don’t worry, we know it’s in the christian scripture, so we expect it) and c) demonstrate that you appear to think that everyone who is an atheist used to be a christian (but obviously not a True Christianâ„¢) which is not only untrue but absurd and only serves to show a startlingly narrow experience and mindset.

Your basic argument (and pay attention because there’s a big point here, but I’ll write slowly so that you can keep up) seems to come down to “New Atheism has all the qualifications of a being its own religion … [because] [h]ave you ever met a religion which doesn’t resent Christianity”.

Completely risible.

And I laugh at you (no, not because you’re a christian before you decide to replay the same persecution card) but because you can’t seem to reason your way out of a wet paper sack, even with the aid of a chain-saw and an angry claustrophobic ferret.

I can’t help feeling that it’s like smacking a 4 year old for something it doesn’t understand it’s done wrong.

Problems with Pascal’s Wager

Is there an advantage to believing in God?

Ever since the days of Blaise Pascal in the 17th century religionists have used the ‘Pascal’s Wager’ argument to claim that believing in God has a distinct advantage over non-belief. It goes like this:

Even though you might not be able to prove God’s existence, you’re still better off hedging your bets – or waging – as though God does exist because, if true, you have everything to gain and have nothing to lose.

Sound’s entirely reasonable, right?

Well, before you answer that question, consider these points…

  • Exactly which God do we believe in? There are literally hundreds, in not thousands, of conflicting conceptions of God (and gods). We would have to factor them all into the wager
  • At the very best, only one conception of God could ever be correct. But the odds of anyone choosing the correct one are extremely low. Hardly anyone living today is even aware of all the different conceptions of God. (According to some religions, believing in ‘false gods’ carries the most severe punishments)
  • Furthermore, for all we know, all of the existing conceptions of God could be utterly wrong. God may be malevolent or not reward belief. He may even punish people for belief – including those who believe in Pascal’s wager
  • God may even be ‘rational’ in the sense that he rewards honest attempts at objective reasoning and not care about beliefs. In which case, Pascal’s wager would be entirely pointless and possibly damaging
  • An omniscient God would presumably see through the deception – which, again, might be punishable.

Religionists, then, have no assurance that they stand the best chance of avoiding the wrath of  God. Sure, they can conjure up a God who would reward them in a future life for their own particular religious beliefs. But it would be just as easy for the next person to conjure up a very different (and equally unprovable) God with a very different set of attributes.

Neither should religionists be content with ‘generic’ deism because that itself may invoke the wrathful anger of a jealous God.

But, the religious may ask, if any God exists then surely atheists will be in for a rough ride? Even this isn‘t certain. Again, if God actually rewards critical thinking and punishes belief, atheists may well be the ones on the receiving end of God’s blessing at having passed the earthly ‘reason test’, while the religionists will be the ones losing out for having abandoned their God-given capacity to think rationally.

But there’s an even more fundamental consideration that ought to concern religionists – what if there is no God at all? Furthermore, what if spending your life believing in a God that doesn‘t actually exist is not simply a harmless delusion?

Think about it. To genuinely believe in a God – such as the God of the Bible or the Koran, for instance – you would have to act and think in ways that satisfies the desires of that imagined God. This omniscient God would presumably be judging your every move and monitoring your every thought, both awake and asleep.

You would also have to shun any scientific knowledge that conflicts with your religious doctrine. Equally, you would have to give up your capacity to make moral judgements based on reason.

Unfortunately for others, your belief in God may have consequences beyond your own personal experiences. No doubt you would have to teach your children to believe in the same falsehoods as you do. You would need to condemn those who choose not to believe as you do.

As a believer, you would also probably vote for the party or the presidential candidate who appears to be ‘closer to God‘. You may even join, fund or support a group to prevent life-saving stem-cell research or abortions. You may even preach hate against perfectly decent people for being unrighteous, ungodly, homosexual, atheist, rational.

In a sentence, you would have to believe in superstitious bronze age mythology at the expense of your reason, all with the imagined approval of the creator of the universe.

That’s a huge price to pay for something for which there is no definitive evidence or even a likelihood of actually being true.

So yes, you do have something to lose by believing in a God that doesn’t exist. You lose the fullness, the enjoyment and the reward of living a life seeking genuine knowledge. You also miss the true wonder and pleasure of discovering how the real world actually works, freed from bronze age superstitions which, however comforting, are just plain wrong.


Lev

Thanks, Lev! I normally hate using blogs as messengers, but I didn't have another contact method. :)

Lev

Thanks, Lev! I normally hate using blogs as messengers, but I didn't have another contact method. :)

Gay marriage debate chart

Gay marriage debate chart

Gay marriage debate chart

/hattip: The Good Atheist & @almightygod.

Science Centre Promoting Pseudo-Science?

I recently came back from a trip to Dynamic Earth in Sudbury, Ontario with my daughter's class. Great facility and a fun tour into a inactive mine!

However, while perusing the Gift Shop I came across some magnetic jewelry. However, under the display was a bunch of cards from the manufacturer of the jewelry that was extolling the virtues of magnets and how researchers are finding health benefits from them.

Wait.

Pseudo-scientific claims at a Science facility?!?

I've sent off a letter to them and will post their response. The letter is below:

On June 11th, I was a parent volunteer with a Grade 5 class visiting Dynamic Earth. The kids thoroughly enjoyed the facility and enjoyed learning about the science of mining, rocks and minerals.

As always, the gift shop is a fun place for the children to browse and find science-related gifts and memorabilia. However, I was shocked and deeply disappointed to see a small card on display near the magnetic jewelry that was promoting the 'health benefits' of wearing magnetic bracelets. Although I misplaced the card, I remember it saying something about 'researchers have found benefits of magnets for health'.

I am a teacher, skeptic and staunch defender of science. How could a 'science' facility actually promote pseudo-science about magnetic jewelry?

I've taken the liberty to give you a website that looks at the research done on 'magnetic healing' here:

http://skepdic.com/magnetic.html

However, I'm sure you have real scientists at your facility that could look up research into 'magnetic healing' and form their own opinions.

Please, for the good of science, remove any and all claims that magnets might heal people. A scientific facility has an obligation to promote real science and never, ever, promote pseudo-science that is permeating our culture and standing in the way of valuable research. If people want to buy jewelry that is magnetic, fine, but don't promote non-scientific nonsense.