Monthly Archive for July, 2009Page 3 of 6

another pic of my bike… bikes

Published

on July 21, 2009

They're taking over! Lets see, in the foreground without the wheels is my baby. I was cleaning it and decided to take some pics. Behind that is my Bowery, my single speed beast that I tear around town on. Behind that is the tank, it easily weighs more than the other two combined, it's my dads old Schwinn super sport. Barely noticeable is my old Trek 800 mountain bike off to the right without wheels. I also had a POS huffy beach cruiser but I gave that to a friend.

Oh and I was reminded of something very important last week. If you are leaning hard into a corner, DON'T PEDAL! If you do the inside pedal can strike the ground lifting at least your rear tire off the ground at which point you're pretty much fucked. The problem for me is I'm still used to cars where you want to power out of the turn. Which does leave me wondering how one turns quickly on a fixie? The gray bike has the option of being a fixed gear meaning that if the rear wheel is turning then so are your feet, I tried it once and didn't care for it but maybe I'll try it again, its supposed to be good in slick conditions because you can tell the instant you lose traction.

Retesting Drivers

Published

Kilgore Trout

on July 21, 2009

This subject came up at the time of the last kid getting hit by a car on a bike because the driver was 81 years old. But it wasn't talked about much because the police said age was not a factor it was a blind corner and there was nothing she could have done. I was recently reminded why retesting drivers is a good idea at any age.

I met a very cute woman who has gone partially blind in one eye. She warned her passenger, my friend, that she isn't a very good driver, especially at night. There was a little bit of driving on the sidewalk involved with there commute. This isn't just an age thing, this woman is probably younger than me or about the same age. She is a very nice person from the one time I met her but her ability to drive safely has changed. She had a tumor removed from her brain in the the process lost considerable amounts of vision in one eye. Not trying to say anything bad about this wonderful person I'm just using her as an example of why retesting drivers is not just an age issue and should not be thought of as one. People change and just because they knew the rules when they were 16 doesn't meant they are still capable of driving in a safe manner. Plus anyone who claims age discrimination is forgetting that we already discriminate based on age when it comes to driving, but apparently age discrimination is only acceptable when discriminating against those who can't vote, which is also age discrimination.

Retesting Drivers

Published

Kilgore Trout

on July 21, 2009

Two in a row!

Published

Vince

on July 21, 2009

Same friend, same comedy team from the UK, same giggle factor.

Two in a row!

Published

Vince

on July 21, 2009

Same friend, same comedy team from the UK, same giggle factor.

“A different way of knowing”

Published

nullifidian

on July 21, 2009

I’ve often come across the idea that religious (and other non-evidence-based) ideas are “a different way of knowing”.

“A different way of knowing” what, precisely?

What does their “way of knowing” say about those materialistic things in the universe, like the speed of light? How about electron spin? The mass of Jupiter? Integral mathematics? The calorific value of set honey? The resonant frequency of quartz? The conductivity of copper? Allele frequencies in populations? The decay rate of ²³⁸U? Mass/energy conversion rates? Transistor energy barriers? Molar masses? The structure of DNA or diamond or dopamine?

How about something closer to home?

What’s the ideal sonic profile of a church for organ music? The aesthetics of a stained-glass window? The most comfortable shape for a pew? The ideal colour for priestly robes? The ideal number of choristers to sing a reasonably rousing rendition of Handel’s Messiah?

How about something a bit more metaphysical?

Why (according to them) is it wrong to kill or steal? Why shouldn’t homosexuals share a loving relationship? Why should sex be reserved for marriage, and marriage alone (which is of course only ever between one man and one woman)? Why are condoms “evil”? Why is ever-so-tasty bacon not allowed? Why are their favourite ancient stories considered as fact and all others of that ilk are just (and “obviously”) myth, or simply false? How does the doctrine of a “trinity” make any sense when, in every single other case that humanity has ever considered, 1+1+1=3?

Why is their particular interpretation of their scripture “better” or “more correct” than that of any of their heterosectarian neighbours? Why should they enjoy special privileges, often enshrined in statutes, that the rest of us cannot? Why are their opinions considered beyond criticism? What gives them the idea that they are entitled to judge the rest of us by their standards, especially when they often cannot live up to them themselves? What should we believe is true, without any evidence whatsoever, and why should we believe them over their competitors in the marketplace of ideas and opinions?

How can we use this different way of knowing? What is the process for acquiring new knowledge? How can we check that our results are correct? How can we test our newly acquired knowledge against alternate scenarios? What could falsify whatever we think we’ve gained from our different way of knowing, if we’re somehow completely on the wrong track? To what other domains can we apply this different way of knowing?

What things do they know—and how do they know them—that the rest of us cannot, and that isn’t simply an appeal to ancient manuscripts, traditions, personal experiences, authorities, popularity, flattery, fear or emotion, red herrings or hasty generalisations, or guilt by association, or cherry picking, or biased samples, or trying to shift the burden of proof, or straw men, or slippery slopes, or equivalent to just making-shit-up to suit their own preconceptions, preferences or prejudices?

Answers on a postcard (or perhaps just in the comments).

Praise Mithra! I won something!

Published

nullifidian

on July 21, 2009

Daniel Florien of the Unreasonable Faith blog recently ran a competition to win a copy of Robert Wright’s new book The Evolution of God, and I won!

Considering that one of the conditions of the competition was to pray to Mithra that I would win, I did so. However, not really knowing how to pray, mine went something like this:

Hi Mithra. I don’t know if you can hear me down here, but I’d be grateful if you somehow managed to wrangle it so that I could win Daniel’s competition for The Evolution of God. Thanks.

Well, it appears that my simplistic appeal for Mithra to rearrange the necessary matter and circumstance in the universe to ensure my winning was, in fact, successful. W00t!

Therefore it must be the case that Mithra exists (there may be other gods, but he’s my favourite now), as there’s no possible way that I could have won if I hadn’t petitioned Him. Nope, not a hope in hell. Filling out the form to enter the competition was just a formality.

So, cheers Mithra for doing whatever gods do to allow people to win competitions. Oh, and thanks also to Daniel for running the competition and Wright for donating the books as prizes.

Of course, this now means that I really should update my book list soon. Bugger.

Thanks again Daniel. And Mithra, obviously.

Camp Quest

Published

possum_momma

on July 20, 2009

P1 and I are back from camp. Let me first say that the setting was beautiful. I love California Gold Country and this was no disappointment. The Yuba River looked so inviting. The trees and vegetation were green and dense. The history jumped out at you around every bend - culminating in P1 and I discovering one of the earliest cemeteries in northern California. I could've wandered around all day, but we had to get to the hotel room in Sac.

Our original plan was to stay with the kind folks at Quest/Ross on Saturday night. Unfortunately, P1 was (understandably) ready to be headed home. She wasn't feeling 100% and the cabin wasn't well ventilated. Next year - we're bringing fans! So sadly, we decided to head into old town Sacramento for the night. Where, one we got a cool room, a decent mattress, and a meal, she was feeling much better.

To Chris Lindstrom, thank you for putting on such an amazing camp! You asked us to think of things to do to make next year better and I have a list of things I'd like to help with. Let's get together and talk! Seriously! It was nice meeting you. OH! You can just call me about the check and we'll get that straightened.

To Terri = thank you for being P1's second mom. I heard so much about you on the way home!
To Brian = We will HAVE TO get together. Thank you for entertaining my poker shark for an evening. ;)
To Matt = You've done it! Great job! Would love to keep in contact with you.

Let's organize some central valley meet-ups for Quest!

http://picasaweb.google.com/bedellcl/Quest?authkey=Gv1sRgCL7F0tP21o-szAE#

more later..

Camp Quest

Published

possum_momma

on July 20, 2009

Project Tuva: Feynman online

Published

nullifidian

on July 20, 2009

I posted last month about Bill Gates having purchased the rights to a lecture series by Richard Feynman.

As a follow up to that, it turns out that the Cornell Universityâ€™s Messenger Lecture Series are now (allegedly) available on the Microsoft Research web site under something called Project Tuva.

I say “allegedly” because I’ve repeatedly failed to access that web site all day¹. Which is a bit crap for one of the richest corporations (and individuals) on the planet.

Oh, well—perhaps tomorrow…

/hattip to The Perplexed Observer

Perhaps it’s because I generally use a Mac or Linux and haven’t touched Windowsboxen in absolutely ages, but YMMV

To Think or Not To Think

Published

pseudonymouse

on July 20, 2009

There is an expanding body of evidence pointing to innate neurocognitive differences between liberals and conservatives. It is well known that conservatives are more likely to be religious, and liberals to be atheistic. It is also well-established that liberals and atheists tend to be better educated and to score higher on IQ tests.

Conservative religious and liberal atheists differ in their criteria for making moral judgements, and these differences parallel Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development.

I'll start with a partial list drawn from familiar material, and I will continue to expand the information.

1. Reduced activity of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), an area devoted to detecting discrepancies, in conservatives versus liberals. The ACC has been dubbed the "truth center":

Differences in brain activity of conservatives & liberals [ Amodio, D. M., et al. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nat. Neurosci. doi:10.1038/nn1979. [Abstract] ]

2. Differences in personality profiles of believers versus atheists:

Personality and Religiosity

Here are a couple of pertinent videos:

Is this thing on..?

Published

Vince

on July 19, 2009

I know it has been FOREVER since I posted anything here. Life will do that to you.

This one was sent to me by a friend and who suggested it would find an appropriate home here:

Indeed!

Is this thing on..?

Published

Vince

on July 19, 2009

I know it has been FOREVER since I posted anything here. Life will do that to you.

This one was sent to me by a friend and who suggested it would find an appropriate home here:

Indeed!

Sunday is fundieday!

Published

nullifidian

on July 19, 2009

It amazes me that, in the 21st century, people still base their lives around ancient myth. But that’s exactly what a bunch of christian loons in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland are doing.

What’s their beef? Well, it’s because a ferry company, to comply with European equality legislation is running ferries between Stornoway on the isle of Lewis and Ullapool on the (Scottish) UK mainland.

On a Sunday!

Shock! Horror!

Yes, that’s right: there are a bunch of fundies on an obscure (but pretty) little Scottish island in the Atlantic that think having a boat moving on Sunday will damn their eternal souls to ultimate doom. DOOM!

From the BBC:

The controversial first scheduled Sunday ferry sailing from Stornoway on Lewis to mainland Scotland has gone ahead as planned.

There has been strong opposition on the island, where the Sabbath day has traditionally been strictly observed.

A small group of protesters prayed and sang a psalm as cars boarded the boat, but several hundred people clapped.

Supporters said it would boost the economy of the Hebridean island and offer local people freedom to travel.

Of course, this is just another example of a bunch of narrow-minded religionists wanting special privilege to force others to follow their self-imposed rules under an appeal to “tradition”.

The BBC continues:

As cars lined up in the ferry terminal car park, protesters gathered in silence behind a banner.

It read: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy”.

They sang Psalm 46 – God is our refuge and our strength – and prayed for the nation to “turn its back from sin and wickedness”.

A number of women wiped away tears as they prayed for a return to the Lord’s commandments.

Wiped away tears? Because a ferry is sailing on a Sunday? I can’t even begin to consider comprehending the “logic” that must be floating around in the heads of these people. Truly, it boggles my mind.

Indeed, they also try to make a secular appeal (sadly again to tradition) as a purely religious one would rightly be laughed out of Caledonian MacBrayne’s boardroom. Again the BBC:

A leaflet handed out by a group of local churches said that the peace and tranquillity of the islands was enjoyed by residents and visitors alike.

It said: “By and large we like it like this.

“We are not oppressed by a quiet Sunday.”

It wished tourists who came to Lewis by ferry a “happy and blessed trip to the islands”.

Yes, these tourists will of course be welcomed when they go to the island to do the touristy things that tourists do. Just not on a Sunday. Because being a tourist (or a resident that has things to do on a Sunday) is obviously going to interfere with the tranquility of the island.

[facepalm]

I’ve been to a couple of the islands of the west coast of Scotland, and seen this sort of thing first-hand. Most businesses and shops are completely shut, except the larger supermarket chains which often have very restricted opening hours (12pm-4pm/5pm is not uncommon), and the booze aisles are usually shuttered all day even though Scottish law allows the offsale of alcohol after 12pm.

There are always two things open on a Sunday regardless: churches and pubs. The Scottish islands have historically have had a higher per-capita incidence of both religiosity and alcohol/drug abuse than the general Scottish population. I’ve sometimes wondered if this anachronistic attitude to Sunday working has anything to do with it.

I’m not sure what the relevant European equality legislation is, so can’t comment on that. As far as I’m concerned, the ferry company should be free to run ferries any day of the week that they choose and people are willing to pay for, irrespective of the whims of a few religionistas and their chosen dogma.

Here’s some advice for these morons: if you want to keep Sunday “holy” then just stay off the damned ferry on a Sunday. Actually, shouldn’t you still be on your knees in church or something, keeping Sunday “holy” all day? Just keeping it “holy” only in the morning seems just a tad convenient…

BBC: Sunday ferry makes first sailing

Encounter with a Proselytizer (Part Two)

Published

Teleprompter

on July 18, 2009

I apologize for the length of time which has elapsed since Part One. Thank you for waiting!

I received a phone call when I was at home several days later from the pastor of the church which handed me the brochure about Jesus.

I struggled to think of something coherent to say to the preacher on the other end of the line. Here I was, talking to him directly. What was I going to say? Was I going to make a fool of myself?

I told the pastor that I had been handed the glossy bulletin, that I had read it, and that I decided to call the included number to discuss some questions I had about the information in the brochure.

For my first question I stammered, "What does your church think about the Bible?"

He relayed to me the teachings on Biblical inerrancy: that everything in the Bible is truth, and that the Bible is internally consistent. The preacher also mentioned that his church exclusively uses the King James Version of the Bible.

I asked him why the church uses the King James Version? He replied that the King James Version used direct translation from the "original" languages of the Bible. I did not proceed further with this because I am not knowledgeable enough about the history of the Biblical documents to contend with his claims.

Another angle which my conversant preacher had emphasized about the Bible was that it contains God's messages. It was given to humans, but God had written it ahead of time, so the Bible was God's perfect word to humanity.

I decided to ask the pastor about certain tenets of Biblical morality. I discussed certain acts of genocide and crime in the world today: Serbia/Kosovo, Rwanda, etc.

Did he agree that these acts were wrong? Yes, he did.

I then cited the book of Joshua: the slaughter of the various tribes of Canaan whom the Israelites supposedly displaced.

If the Bible condones an act of terror that we agree is untenable, then why should I follow its teachings as a moral guide?

The preacher directly informed me that the slaughter of these peoples was really the work of God, not the Israelites, and that they were really evil, anyway.

I asked the pastor, "If God told you to murder someone, would you do it?"

He retorted that he would never murder someone, but if God murdered someone, he would understand why God did it.

Just as God slaughtered many of the Canaanites for their immoral ways, God could similarly "send judgment" to many Americans today for the current state of our immoral society.

But the bottom line, the preacher reasserted, is that Jesus saved us, and God sent the Bible to us. The real important point is whether I believe that or not.

"Do you believe in God?" he stated sharply.

"I don't know," I answered.

"You don't know? But the Bible is God's Word!" the pastor responded. "This book talks about Jesus and why he came, so Jesus was either telling the truth or he was a liar. Do you believe what the Bible says about Jesus?"

"What if the people who wrote the Bible made up the stuff that Jesus said?" I inquired.

(My query was ignored and previous assertions were repeated.)

"How can you not believe the Bible?" he asked incredulously. "It contains the words of Jesus. Do you believe them?"

"I could write a book about President Obama and say that he said something, but that doesn't mean he said it," I retorted.

My acquaintance was not amused by that comment. He abruptly ended the conversation.

"Look, if you don't understand this about the Bible, I can't even talk to you."

I thanked the preacher for the discussion, and hung up the phone.

Maybe I should've used some other analogy besides Barack Obama...my second thought was Harry Potter...never mind.

Some conversations are doomed to futility.

Pitiable and Pwned

Published

pseudonymouse

on July 18, 2009

You have to feel sorry for them. They have staked their lives and their "future" on society-manipulating lies. They are repeatedly refuted and publically trounced, but they either cannot see this, or they see it but refuse to admit it. Why are they so easily pwned? They are mostly poorly educated, certainly mostly narrowly educated, and are typically logic-deficient. They mostly lack basic comprehension and have zero critical thinking skills. In fact, they appear to believe that critical thinking signifies no greater cognitive challenges than entertaining negative thoughts.

Who are "they"?

They are fundamentalist religionists and creationists.

Here's a pertinent section of a brief dialogue with one. GooTube's 500 character limit and non-consecutive posting of comments necessitates this format. I reproduce it because he is attempting to claim that he did not say what he did, or rather, that he did say what he did not. Considering that this particular creationist frequently accuses others of lying, I think that this is precious:

Creationist:

The New Testament contains several independent sources ...

Response:

Copycats are *not* independent. Pagan writers contemporaneous with Jesus would be considered independent. None of those writers mention any of the events and some falsify the historical references. The NT contains 200,000-400,000 errors, some of them significant and deliberate alterations, some added as late as the early 17th century. The Gospels are cross-contradictory on significant details.

Creationist:

Saying the NT is a "copy" or the Gospels are copies is a lie. And so are your so-called "Bible errors and contradictions". I have already slammed this video's author on that one. Are you wanting to get your ass kicked too? Give me just one of your so called "contradictions" or "errors" in the New Testament. Don't cut and past tons of them from some web page because I'm not going to waste my time answering each and everyone. Just one will do.

I did so. Here. The creationist's denial was predictable.

Creationist:

I already covered these so-called contradictions. These aren't contradicts. They depict each individual's perspective of the incident. I will only waste my time with your first line. You need to explain to me why you think Mt 28:1, Mk 16:1, Lk 24:1 and Jn 20:1 are contradictory.

(Actually, no I do not need to explain any such thing. He requested some evidence, I provided it. There is lots more where that came from.)

Response:

Yes, they are contradictions. They say different things. That's what a contradiction is -- saying something different.You made the claim that the Bible contains no errors and no contradictions. Prove it. Denial is not proof.

Creationist:

No, they don't contradict. That is why I wanted you to explain to me where you think they are contradicting so I can see exactly where you are hallucinating a contradiction.

Response:

It comes as no surprise that you have a problem acknowledging the differences between accounts of who visited the tomb, jeffrey. I take it that you agree with all the other contradictions.

Creationist:

There are differences in the accounts but no contradictions. Exactly where are you seeing this? you need to explain it to me because it's not in the Bible. The contradiction exists in your imagination.

(Interesting that he acknowledges "difference", but denies "contradictions". As I demonstrated, the contradictions, and many more, exist in the Bible and not merely in my imagination.)

Response:

I suggest that you haul out your dictionary and check the definition of contradiction. Not that I would ever expect you to be honest enough to admit that a contradiction is a contradiction. After all, you have already contradicted yourself within your comments.

Btw, who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

This could prove interesting!