Monthly Archive for August, 2009

Believing in magic…and then some.

After reading a post by the Secular Thinker, I repaid a visit to Ray Comfort’s blog to see what tripe he came out with today.

This is what I get-
A simple-minded man once maintained that the story of Pinocchio was true. A wooden doll did become a human being. He not only believed that it was true, but he maintained and that he had evidence to back it up. He said that its proof was that there was such a thing as a wooden doll of the type spoken of in the story, and that it has been also proven that there was once a child that looked like that doll. Therefore, in his mind, that was evidence that the wooden doll came to life. He didn’t see the disconnect between the two thoughts.

Then he said that his theory was scientific, he was intelligent, and anyone who didn’t believe as he believed was unintelligent and unscientific. Yet everyone knew that non-life cannot become life.
Ray Comfort brings up this story of a mystery man believing something on anecdotal evidence, who claims it is scientific (and by the way, claiming something scientific does not make it so). Why would Ray tell us this story? The hint is in the final sentence. A nickel if you guess what he’s going to write about next…
Such describes the modern atheist. He has an adamant belief that there’s no evidence that there are any gods, and yet he himself is part of life. He believes that non-life produced life, and he doesn’t see the disconnect. Then he tries to justify his belief by embracing the wild speculation of Darwinian evolution, the theory that he believes is "not complete but is more compelling than believing in magic."
While I certainly wouldn’t state that all atheists have an adamant belief that there’s absolutely no evidence that there are any gods (and God with a capital “g” too Ray, your God isn’t any exception), I would ask that if he does, so what? The only thing you should be able to do before you criticize this atheist is demonstrate that there is evidence for a god claim. And if you make a God claim, and fail to demonstrate how it is true, then anybody is justified in disbelieving your claim and stating there is no evidence (that we know of) for it.

Ray then goes on to say that the atheist believes life came from non-life. You see, Ray Comfort is a man who offers his readers nothing but gross characterizations, false dichotomies, and straw men fallacies. The fact that we may admit not knowing how the universe originally began automatically makes Ray assume we mean nothing came from something. That’s untrue. Also, because we do not know how the universe originally began automatically makes Ray assume that God must’ve done it. He still fails to demonstrate how this is true, not realizing that when you posit a positive belief you should have evidence to back the assertion up lest you be condemned to false beliefs. Then, like is custom for Ray, he ties the theory of evolution into his post (no surprise there).
I have practiced magic for many years, and have watched the astounded expressions of thousands of people whose eyes where easily fooled by my hands. Prestidigitation has taught me that human beings are extremely gullible, and never has there been such mass gullibility as with the case of those whose believe the theory of evolution without compelling evidence. For them, a bump on a whale-bone becomes positive proof that whales had legs, or some amino acid means that chickens were once dinosaurs. Obscure non-transitional fossils become attestation that humans are actually primates. This is the conviction of the simple-minded, who believe anything that paleontologists and professors pontificate.
I agree, people who accept the theory of evolution without looking at the evidence are gullible- fortunately, most rational people I know have indeed analyzed the evidence. Ray Comfort may understand that his statements are either gross mischaracterizations or flat out lies, but he either does not know or care. If he does not know, he should do some more research on his part and read the comments on his own blog to gain a better understanding; if he indeed does not care, however, then he is intellectually dishonest. His last sentence, besides being mildly insulting, is highly ironic. Ray Comfort is a man who will believe anything in that canon of 66 books written long ago. Do the claims in these books have to be substantiated? No. That’s good enough for Ray.
No doubt the argument will continue until Kingdom come between those that love God, and those that don’t. But I have looked at the "evidence" for evolution, and I don’t believe as they do. I am not afraid of their "starter information" because their "finish" doesn't exist.
Ray offers up a false dichotomy: Either you accept evolution and hate god, or you love God and reject evolution. Not everybody who accepts the theory of evolution is an atheist. There are many Christians who accept the evolution (Kenneth Miller, for starters).
I choose rather the evidence that is backed up by the power of the Creator, who promises to reveal Himself to those that obey Him (see John 14:21). There is no greater evidence for truth. When God reveals himself to any human being, the argument is over.
Ray Comfort, there is greater evidence than that for truth- any evidence at all.

________________________________________________________
On a side note, I decided to turn on word verification for the time being- these spam attacks became worse than I thought. I hope you don't mind.

Believing in magic…and then some.

After reading a post by the Secular Thinker, I repaid a visit to Ray Comfort’s blog to see what tripe he came out with today.

This is what I get-
A simple-minded man once maintained that the story of Pinocchio was true. A wooden doll did become a human being. He not only believed that it was true, but he maintained and that he had evidence to back it up. He said that its proof was that there was such a thing as a wooden doll of the type spoken of in the story, and that it has been also proven that there was once a child that looked like that doll. Therefore, in his mind, that was evidence that the wooden doll came to life. He didn’t see the disconnect between the two thoughts.

Then he said that his theory was scientific, he was intelligent, and anyone who didn’t believe as he believed was unintelligent and unscientific. Yet everyone knew that non-life cannot become life.
Ray Comfort brings up this story of a mystery man believing something on anecdotal evidence, who claims it is scientific (and by the way, claiming something scientific does not make it so). Why would Ray tell us this story? The hint is in the final sentence. A nickel if you guess what he’s going to write about next…
Such describes the modern atheist. He has an adamant belief that there’s no evidence that there are any gods, and yet he himself is part of life. He believes that non-life produced life, and he doesn’t see the disconnect. Then he tries to justify his belief by embracing the wild speculation of Darwinian evolution, the theory that he believes is "not complete but is more compelling than believing in magic."
While I certainly wouldn’t state that all atheists have an adamant belief that there’s absolutely no evidence that there are any gods (and God with a capital “g” too Ray, your God isn’t any exception), I would ask that if he does, so what? The only thing you should be able to do before you criticize this atheist is demonstrate that there is evidence for a god claim. And if you make a God claim, and fail to demonstrate how it is true, then anybody is justified in disbelieving your claim and stating there is no evidence (that we know of) for it.

Ray then goes on to say that the atheist believes life came from non-life. You see, Ray Comfort is a man who offers his readers nothing but gross characterizations, false dichotomies, and straw men fallacies. The fact that we may admit not knowing how the universe originally began automatically makes Ray assume we mean nothing came from something. That’s untrue. Also, because we do not know how the universe originally began automatically makes Ray assume that God must’ve done it. He still fails to demonstrate how this is true, not realizing that when you posit a positive belief you should have evidence to back the assertion up lest you be condemned to false beliefs. Then, like is custom for Ray, he ties the theory of evolution into his post (no surprise there).
I have practiced magic for many years, and have watched the astounded expressions of thousands of people whose eyes where easily fooled by my hands. Prestidigitation has taught me that human beings are extremely gullible, and never has there been such mass gullibility as with the case of those whose believe the theory of evolution without compelling evidence. For them, a bump on a whale-bone becomes positive proof that whales had legs, or some amino acid means that chickens were once dinosaurs. Obscure non-transitional fossils become attestation that humans are actually primates. This is the conviction of the simple-minded, who believe anything that paleontologists and professors pontificate.
I agree, people who accept the theory of evolution without looking at the evidence are gullible- fortunately, most rational people I know have indeed analyzed the evidence. Ray Comfort may understand that his statements are either gross mischaracterizations or flat out lies, but he either does not know or care. If he does not know, he should do some more research on his part and read the comments on his own blog to gain a better understanding; if he indeed does not care, however, then he is intellectually dishonest. His last sentence, besides being mildly insulting, is highly ironic. Ray Comfort is a man who will believe anything in that canon of 66 books written long ago. Do the claims in these books have to be substantiated? No. That’s good enough for Ray.
No doubt the argument will continue until Kingdom come between those that love God, and those that don’t. But I have looked at the "evidence" for evolution, and I don’t believe as they do. I am not afraid of their "starter information" because their "finish" doesn't exist.
Ray offers up a false dichotomy: Either you accept evolution and hate god, or you love God and reject evolution. Not everybody who accepts the theory of evolution is an atheist. There are many Christians who accept the evolution (Kenneth Miller, for starters).
I choose rather the evidence that is backed up by the power of the Creator, who promises to reveal Himself to those that obey Him (see John 14:21). There is no greater evidence for truth. When God reveals himself to any human being, the argument is over.
Ray Comfort, there is greater evidence than that for truth- any evidence at all.

________________________________________________________
On a side note, I decided to turn on word verification for the time being- these spam attacks became worse than I thought. I hope you don't mind.

Coolest intelligent design protest of the year

OK we have winner for 2009 (yes it is early and if someone else wins even better). The winner is.... The Raëlian movement(wikipedia article). The protest was for intelligent design. It was on Venice Beach in California, the women went topless the men wore bras. The religion teaches about the revelations received by a French journalist who covers the race car circuit over a period of 6 days by aliens who are the biblical Elohim.

Congrats

Congratulations are in order for my friend Berlzebub and his family.

He's the proud new papa of two beautiful baby girls.



Congrats

Congratulations are in order for my friend Berlzebub and his family.

He's the proud new papa of two beautiful baby girls.



Fistians and Fuzzy Illogic

Fundamentalist Christians have taken to calling themselves Evangelical Christians because "fundamentalism" excites deservedly negative sentiments. The name may have changed, but the problems remain the same.

I have decided to refer to rigid, right-wing, bigoted, Biblical literalist creationists as Fistians. These are the Christians who give Christianity a bad name because of their unJesusian lack of compassion and their obstinate ignorance in opposition to knowledge. (I considered coining the term Fustians, which does have the advantage of rhyming appropriately with "fusty". I opted to rhyme with Christians and with "fist". I reserve 'fundamentalists' for anti-modernist movements in various religions. Besottism refers to a subset of zealots.)

Fistians and pseudointellectual advocates of intelligent design creationism share the religiosity-motivated credulity that typifies LAME thinking in the Misinformation Explosion Age.

David Colquhoun addresses this problem of intellectual dishonesty and fuzzy illogic in a Guardian Unlimited article entitled the age of endarkenment.

The past 30 years or so have been an age of endarkenment. It has been a period in which truth ceased to matter very much, and dogma and irrationality became once more respectable.
Colquhoun is author of the Improbable Science blog in which he expands upon his exposition of the reasons that we should be concerned about the "New Credulity.":

This matters when people delude themselves into believing that we could be endangered at 45 minutes' notice by non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

It matters when reputable accountants delude themselves into thinking that Enron-style accounting is acceptable. It matters when people are deluded into thinking that they will be rewarded in paradise for killing themselves and others. It matters when bishops attribute floods to a deity whose evident vengefulness and malevolence leave one reeling. And it matters when science teachers start to believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago.

In my opinion, the root causes of this problem of fashionable ignorance lies in a number of failures:
● the failure of educational systems to teach critical thinking skills and to instil a love of learning and truth-seeking.
● the failure of the media to make it clear which competing position is valid, rather than boosting ratings by pumping up the volume on issues that supposedly have no clear right side and wrong side.
● the failure of experts to insist that expert knowledge should not be discarded simply because it is opposed by a vociferous, jeering, ignorant rabble of the religiously motivated.
● the failure of those in power – such as Giorgio Dubaya Bush – to eschew endorsement of religiously motivated ignorance.
● the failure of polite liberals to vigorously point out the deluded and deceptive content of creationist pseudoscience, misinformation, and unfounded attacks on scientific knowledge.
● the resultant failure of the lay public to doubt popular bandwagons and to realize that they must be cautious about what or whom to believe in this Misinformation Explosion Age.

And, very difficult or impossible to remedy:
● the failure of religious organizations to ensure that their ministers are well educated and not highly prejudiced (theological colleges are devoted to teaching apologetic deceptiveness).
● the failure of political organizations to ensure that those ministries that are tax exempt are not the religions that preach hatred, lies, and intolerance.
● the failure of search engines, websites providers, and publishers to assess the value of content (for example, search engines can determine whether a site is contaminated by spam and phishing, yet do not provide warning that content is false or unreliable.)


Because peer pressure is not confined to teenagers, the public, as Madison Avenue well knows, will respond to that side of an argument that is presented flashily, passionately, repeatedly, and with the appearance of certainty.

The public, particularly that in America, has been deluged with messages from religion, which is treated with dare-not-criticize protection. As a result, America ranks alongside Iraq in its level of religiosity despite its position as the standard population (IQ=100) against which IQ scores are standardized.

However, the price paid for holding religious belief sacrosanct (if you will excuse the pun) includes the confusion of students, the deterioration of educational standards, and the near demise of critical thinking, knowledge, and rationality.

Most people reduce their efforts to the minimum necessary to meet expectations. So, if we permit continued dumbing down of standards and lowering of educational expectations so as to protect self-esteem, intellectual standards will fall still further. So long as we present the implicit and explicit message that truth does not matter and that every opinion counts, we will maintain the ever decreasing standards.

In nations that value education and intellectuals, politicians who live down to the "average guy" image are not elected to the most powerful executive positions. As the world has recognized with disdain, Giorgio, purchased Ivy League degree or not, would not have appealed to voters. More particularly, he would not have appealed a second time to voters were they able to detect executive deceptions.


: Social bookmark this page :
..

New York and “Two Principles: All The Religion We Need”

nyc

Once I rented, and then sat in awe watching the nine-part classic Baseball from Ken Burns, I knew I’d made a wise choice in subscribing to Netflix. Access to great documentary series like this, that my local video store does not carry, made it a simple matter to get my hands on the rest of the incredible films made by Burns and his brother Ric. My wife and I just finished the sixteen-plus hours of their New York series, which I cannot praise highly enough.

Anyone interested in American history in general will appreciate this series of PBS films; lovers of Gotham will be enthralled and utterly captivated. I certainly was.

The first seven episodes, which comprise the original version, are each two hours in length and cover the history of the city from the time of Henry Hudson, up through the late 1990′s. Some of the specific events that are dealt with in detail include the initial founding of New Amsterdam by the Dutch, the role of the city during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War draft riots, the creation of Central Park, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, the creation of the subway system, the role of Tammany Hall, the impact of the urban renewal projects, and the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge. Iconic figures, some familiar, and others not, are painted in rich detail, including Austin Tobin, Robert Moses (“If the ends don’t justify the means, what does?”), Fiorella La Guardia, Boss Tweed, Alexander Hamilton, Al Smith, Petrus Stuyvesant, and DeWitt Clinton. You’ll be surprised just how they, and many others, shaped this chaotic, utterly unique city into what it is today.

An eighth episode was added in 2003 that covers, as one might expect, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. And while this epilogue includes much disturbing footage of the attacks and the aftermath, and was physically painful to watch at times, the majority of the two-plus hours running time was devoted to the fascinating history behind the construction of the towers, and how most of the residents at first despised them, but eventually came to embrace them. Philippe Petit’s famous high-wire crossing is covered in detail (with plenty of direct commentary from Petit himself) and was absolutely spellbinding.

I was especially impressed with the way that the final episode closed, looking forward to how the city would rebuild Lower Manhattan, a process now well underway with the construction of the gorgeous tower that will be One World Trade Center.

Mario Cuomo, the former governor, had this to say about a memorial for 9-11. Despite a few ideas I’d take issue with (atheism is a religion?), I was quite moved by this sentiment, and his notion of what religion really should be:

I would like to see some depiction of all the religions. List them all: Atheism, Ethical Humanism, Catholicism, etc., and you notice that each of those religions, these value systems, have two principles they share in common. And the two principles started with monotheism and the Jews. Zedakah and Tikkun Olam. Zedakah means generally, we must treat one another as brother and sister. We should show one another respect and dignity because we are like things, we are human beings in a world that has nothing else like us, and we are to treat one another with love, charity, use your own words. The second principle is what do you do with this relationship. Well, we don’t know exactly how we got here, why we got here, etc., etc. That’s for minds larger than ours. But we know that we are like kinds, and we should work together and make this as good an experience as possible. Tikkun Olam. Let us repair the universe. Now, Islam believes that. Buddhism, that has no God, believes it. Every Ethical Humanist I ever met believes it. Those two principles: we’re supposed to love one another, and we’re supposed to work together to make the experience better: that’s all the religion we need, really, to make a success of this planet.


Taking the Ricky

Creationism with Ricky Gervais

Creationist Dictionary for Dummies


Excerpts from the definitive Creationist Dictionary for Dummies:

Apologetics

: concocting fancy excuses for the reality that there is no evidence for any deities.

Belief: mental state that is equivalent to knowledge if 1. the Bible says it's TRUE, 2. enough fellow believers agree that it is true.

Cognitive Dissonance

: an uncomfortable feeling that arises when creationists are faced with facts and logic; a feeling that elicits classic creationist coping strategies.

Coping Strategy (Creationism)

: see entries for crealogic, creation science, critical thinking, education, evidence, PROOF, theory, or invent your own.

Crealogical

: see entry for Logic (Creationism)

Creation science

: science fiction for those who literally swallow godidit myths

Critical thinking

: negative thoughts about any unwelcome idea

Education

: anything regurgiquoted from AiG or a similar website

Educational Qualifications (Creationism)

: anything that can be purchased online, or claimed to have been attained, without a requirement for learning (similar items can be purchased by online ministers).

Educational Qualifications (Science)

: something to be approached with derision or incredulity.

Evidence (Creationism)

: anything taken, or invented, to supports one's favourite belief.

Evidence (Science)

: something that must be denied, derided, or twisted to creationist purposes.

Faith: creationism must be RIGHT because lots of fools believe in it.

Falsification: 1. declaring ad nauseam that unwelcome facts are WRONG, 2. inventing misinformation for the sake of making an illogical argument against a scientist, evolutionist, or atheist, 3. Lie-orama.

Godidit (also Goddidit)

: of course He did!

Knowledge: any strongly held belief, regardless of intrinsic truth value.

Lie-Orama: expensive falsifications that depict dinosaurs cavorting with humans.

Logic

: 1. quoting cherry-picked scriptures, 2. regurgiquoting misinformation, 3. resorting to fallacies of logic, particularly in emotional arguments.

Logical argument (Creationism)

: using creationist logic (aka crealogic) and making irrelevant, negative remarks about the holder of any unwelcome idea.

Logical argument (atheism, science)

: dangerous, faith-testing arguments from generally better-educated evolutionists, scientists, and atheists.

PROOF

: declaration that CREATIONISM IS RIGHT and GOD EXISTS.

Refutation of creationism

: something that must be ignored, or denied, at all costs.

Theory

: the latest desperate creationist invention that is intended to deny reality.

© Creations for Literalists


Unpaid Advertisement: see our new apologetics publication Applied Fallacies of Logic, the definitive aid for those occasions when trolling, false flagging, and votebotting are just not enough.

Another Unpaid Advertisement: MacLiar's Guide to Disreputable Colleges and Universities, the definitive guide to unaccredited purveyors of false qualifications or should-not-be-accredited religion-affiliated institutions of lower learning.

Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism

_____________________
There are so many falsehoods in creationism that AronRa speaks very, very quickly. Not a dull moment.



A Message Sent to a Creationist

If I get an answer, I'll post it here.

You said "I believe in Creation.  I have a few questions for those of you who don't. If we came from monkeys, where did the monkey come from? If we originated from one-cell creatures that evolved over time, where did they come from? No matter how far back you go and say we evolved over time, there is always that question. Where did that organism come from that started everything?"

This is basically all one question, and it's what we call a question of infinite regression.  One can always ask "well where did THAT come from?"  One can even ask that question about God.  Fortunately that question falls outside the bailiwick of the Theory of Evolution.  The theory of evolution does not speculate on where the first life form came from.  The abundant evidence for evolution makes clear that evolution happened and is still happening.  But none of that precludes a deity.  If you choose to believe that the first life form was the product of the divine, that's fine, evolution makes no assertions either way to challenge or support such a belief.

Which is why it's a little misguided to argue that one must choose between creation or evolution.  There are literally billions of religious people the world over who accept the evidence for evolution and continue to believe in their deity of choice.  There's no necessary conflict between those two beliefs.

Regarding the rest of your post "I have even heard some one say that we evolved from non-living rocks. Unbelievable."

Now you are getting into a different subject, and it's not part of evolution, you are speculating on what in science is referred to as abiogenesis (life from nonliving matter).  The reason why it has that name is that there is no argument (among those familiar with the evidence) that the planet existed before life did.  At one point there was only nonliving matter here, and then there was living matter.  How?

It's an interesting question... how do you get from nonliving matter to living matter?  Abiogenesis isn't a theory, there isn't enough evidence for us to know for sure how the first life forms came into being (and honestly there probably never will be)--there are a number of competing hypotheses, and many of them have points both for and against.  But the belief in divine creation is also an example of abiogenesis... if it was a god, he must have created life out of something.  Surely it is within the power of a supreme being to take some raw chemicals and assemble a living thing.  I doubt you would claim "God couldn't do that".

The most likely conclusion is that the first life form was molecular, a simple chemical compound that could make imperfect copies of itself.  At the lowest levels it becomes impossible to distinguish between biology and chemistry--and it's quite likely the first "life" would be something we would barely recognize as alive.  You may find it unbelievable that we evolved from "rocks", and that is a mind boggling proposition.  However that a simple duplicating chemical compound might have formed in a sea of chemicals bathed in solar radiation and sitrred by tides isn't all that mind boggling at all.  Once you have anything that copies itself with errors, then natural selection kicks in and begins to result in changes to that "organism" over time.

All very interesting, but when it comes to the genesis event, whatever it was, we'll never have an eyewitness or a fossil that will allow us to know the nature of that event.  Fossil molecules, I suspect, would be rather hard to find. :-)

Therefore I don't concern myself with it, and I concern myself with what we DO have evidence for.  The notion of a supernatural being that actively affects the universe and created anything is an interesting notion... a pretty spectacular claim.  But for a person with an evidentiary worldview I can't possibly just accept such a claim without evidence.  Since the evidence is lacking, I'm not going to adopt such a belief (pending further evidence of course)--that's the reasonable assumption to make.  So there we are.

What I do note of the "God Hypothesis" is that historically it has been supplied as an explanation for the unknown for any number of questions and phenomena.  As science has advanced the answer to each of those previously divine phenomena (planetary motion, earthquakes, thunder, lightning, volcanoes, rainbows, etc, etc, etc) the divine has been found to be unnecessary, and the God Hypothesis simply moves to a new unknown, filling the gaps on the shelves of knowledge, to be perennially relocated when the books that explain those gaps are written and shelved.

The unknown is mundane.  There will always be unknowns.  And since the supernatural has been invoked to explain every single unknown in the history of humanity, the fact that it is invoked to explain the origin of life isn't very compelling to me.  The hypothesis doesn't have a very good track record, and the mere fact that something is unknown is not evidence for a supernatural agent.

So while I do not know what the original life form was, or how it got here, I'm inclined to think it was some sort of entirely natural event.  That's the more reasonable assumption based on what we know about the world.  I'm not going to make assumptions based on what we DON'T know... that would be imprudent in my opinion.

That said, I bear no ill will to those who do.  There are many great things religion has brought humanity (including, ironically, science itself).  So if you want to believe in a divine being, an afterlife, redemption--more power to you I say.  Especially if it brings you happiness or comfort in difficult times.  I don't share that belief, but I see no reason either of us should condemn the other.

Obviously I tend to get quite angry with people who ignore evidence and spread disinformation.  That's to be expected from someone who holds an evidentiary worldview.  (And of course, I am as human as the next guy.)  Which is why you could sum up my opinion on the subject at hand like so:

"To believe in the divine is a personal choice, and there is nothing wrong with it.  To ignore the evidence for evolution is to be willfully ignorant."

And that's all I have to say about that.  I hope you found this message to be a useful answer to your questions.  I'm actually not interested in debating theology (I think debating things for which there isn't any evidence is fairly pointless), but if you have any questions about evolution, I'd be happy to try and answer them if I know the answers.

Dante vs. Huck Finn

This essay is the introductory chapter in The Infernova.

Two unlikely facts collided at the event of my birth, with potentially lethal consequences. The first fact concerned the genes that my parents carried in their cells. The second concerned the memes they carried in their heads.

Genetics first: my father was Rh-positive; my mother was not. They had a son before me who inherited the paternal blood type. His birth was without incident, but it set up potential problems for subsequent children. For during the violent process that is childbirth, some of my brother’s blood was introduced into my mother’s circulation, and her immune system, having never seen this Rh-feature before, developed antibodies against them, and would remain permanently antagonistic toward such cells. This was not an issue until it was my turn to arrive. As again some amount of blood was exchanged during birth, my mother’s antibodies found their way into my bloodstream, and began their destructive work on my cells. This is, and was at the time, a well-understood condition, called Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn. It can result in anemia, seizures, brain damage, and death.

This disease is straightforward to treat: the infant’s blood is simply exchanged. The antibodies from the mother are pumped out, and Rh-positive blood is pumped in.

Now as for my parents’ memes: as they were Jehovah’s Witnesses, they were carriers and victims of a set of wild ideas about Life, God, and How We Are Supposed To Act. Witnesses believe in all manner of nonsense, but critical here is their idiosyncratic interpretation of particular Bible passages, such as Acts 15:28-29:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.

They read this as an injunction to abstain from blood entirely: it isn’t just an edict against imbibing it, but against taking it intravenously. Even to save your life. Or your child’s life.

As these two facts came together in early 1967, my father informed the medical staff that the transfusion was not an option. The hospital thought otherwise, thankfully, and obtained a court order from the state to proceed with the transfusion. My father was also given some education involving terms such as manslaughter, in order to help dissuade him of any thoughts about absconding with me or otherwise attempting to prevent the treatment. The blood exchange was performed and I recovered in accordance with the expectations of medical science.

I learned of all this when I was an adult, long after my parents had split up, and my mother told me about it, at last lifting a decades-old burden from her conscience. Although they were both Witnesses at the time of my birth, my mother’s innate maternal senses overruled the religious mandates, though she kept this to herself. Privately she was quite glad that the State of New York stepped in to save her child’s life.

From day one, my life has been profoundly affected by religion. As you might imagine, I’m not sympathetic to the views of the Witnesses in particular, or organized religion in general.

Not every Witness child requiring serious medical attention is saved by the courts. Sometimes the parents prevail–usually with an older child trained well enough to parrot their parents’ views and convince a judge of a certain level of maturity; enabling them to effectively choose suicide, a choice, ironically, that most religions will not extend to terminally ill, suffering adults.

A gruesome series of such accounts can be found in the May 22, 1994 issue of the Witnesses’ Awake! magazine. ”Youths Who Put God First” is the cover story, and it details case histories for a number of children who managed to avoid a blood transfusion and subsequently died. Vignettes of young lives cut short by wasting disease are troubling; far more disturbing is the article’s celebration of their martyrdom. And it seems as if we’ve become numb to this sort of idiocy these days, with the routine suicide bombings in the ”holy lands” that originate from the same irrational mindset.

For, just as with religious terrorists, the motivation behind the stupefying actions of the Witnesses is a hysterical concern with What Happens Beyond The Grave. Open the their literature and the root causes for their behavior are laid bare. They firmly believe in an Armageddon that is imminent, where God will launch a massive assault upon the earth, from which only they will be spared. After that, eternal life in Paradise awaits.

Whereas the Islamic version of heaven seems tailored to appeal to sexually repressed males and their hopes for unending pleasures of the flesh, the Witnesses would seem to target a younger audience. Their ubiquitous, colorful renderings of Paradise On Earth feature pastoral scenes of seaside picnics, exuberant families of young and old, racial harmony, and always the animals. A docile lion that allows children to climb all over him has appeared more than once (right now I’m looking at one of their illustrations where a beach ball lies between the ex-carnivore’s paws). If you want your Youth To Put God First, pandering to their innate affinities can’t hurt.

Obviously, the children discussed in the Awake! story demonstrated great courage, which I don’t mean to disparage, but I do mean to attack the root causes that forced them to act so. To persuade them to honestly believe they’d go to a better place–for eternity–by employing fantasies that would strengthen their resolve to suffer a needless death, is simply evil. These children are to be pitied. The monstrous ideas, institutions, and adults that put them in such situations, that misinformed their decisions with such lethal nonsense, are to be reviled.

The concepts of eternal rewards, and the suffering and trials needed to secure them, seem part of our interior makeup. When used as a template for narrative, when the mythology stays allegorical, when it all lies merely at the heart of a story arc, then they enliven and make resonant much of our literature and lore. But when religions wield them and bully us into taking them literally, all manner of conflict and misery result.

The original work that this book parodies, Dante’s Divine Comedy, blends both the allegorical and literal perspectives of religious myth. Read it like Homer’s Odyssey and see a perilous quest to find a peaceful home at last. Read it literally and see magnificent poetry wasted on the religious nonsense of a backward age. (Imagining what his immense talents might have celebrated had he lived in an age of human progress is what first inspired me to build my own narrative with the structure he used.)

Dante’s trip through Hell, great literature that it is, was motivated by the ethics of punishments and rewards, where God’s wrath is to be avoided and eternal bliss is to be achieved. Dante’s trepidation in Hell is palpable at times, but it’s always quite clear that he’s not really in danger of becoming a permanent resident. He’s a tourist; a student going through a process of striking and effective deterrence, like a seventh grader in shop class, forced to watch a documentary film that might have been named What Happens To Kids Who Don’t Wear Safety Glasses. Even before he completed the entire odyssey, the fate of Dante’s soul was never really in doubt. The visit to Hell was temporary. Paradise would be forever.

Dante’s choice to tour that terrifying abyss may be seen as a brave act by some, but it absolutely pales in comparison to another momentous literary decision involving eternity and Hell. A choice that was made by an astounding character that appeared some six hundred years later; a homeless waif on a different kind of odyssey: Huckleberry Finn, who was definitely not A Youth Who Put God First.

In Chapter 31 of his Adventures, struggling to do his duty and return the slave Jim to his owner, Huck is certain that Providence watches his every move with great interest. Will he attempt to purchase the tenuous freedom of a being considered subhuman, at the cost of his own soul? The climax of the book is the moment he finds the courage to ignore the sticks and carrots proffered by the religion of his society, and to make the bravest choice of all–to act true to his own self and his own conscience:

I was a-trembling, because I got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: ”All right then, I’ll go to hell.”

He does the right thing, and he does it in spite of a certain conviction that he will suffer endless torment for it. A more breathtakingly moral decision would be a challenge to find in any other works of literature, including those considered to be ”holy” books.

There has never been an intelligent person of the age of sixty who would consent to live his life over again. His or anyone else’s.” Mark Twain wrote, and given the era, I can’t say I blame him. And as he set out in his little known, satirical Letters from the Earth, heaven did not look to be much more desirable than the other place. I hope he’d forgive me for bringing him back to life in my story. Based on his affinity for contraptions (he invested heavily, and without profit, in an 18,000-part automatic-typesetting machine called the Paige Compositor, about which he wrote, ”All the other inventions of the human brain sink pretty nearly into commonplaces contrasted with this awful mechanical miracle…”), I thought it fitting to perform his resurrection by extrapolating forward the information technologies that have proliferated in our time, technologies that connect words and machines in ways that likely would have pleased him greatly.

Two examples of such extrapolation can be gleaned from the writings of professors Nick Bostrom and Frank Tipler. Bostrom, an Oxford philosopher, developed a clever argument for the so-called Simulation Hypothesis, which asserts a nonzero probability that we are all living in a vast computer simulation, while Tipler, in his book The Physics of Immortality, proposes an ”Omega Point” in the future where humans have colonized space, built supercomputers that can support human consciousness, and resurrected everyone who has ever lived. However small the likelihoods of such eventualities, they at least provide semi-plausible examples of purely naturalistic ways in which ”godlike” power could eventually develop and how a kind of eternal life could occur. They are more credible than anything traditional religion ever offered, and afford us an opportunity to look at such admittedly fascinating concepts as immortality, for once, through a lens not smeared with the dirty thumbprints of theism.

Many fine people are believers, of course, and I would be amiss not to acknowledge the important function religion often serves in providing narratives for our lives. Most of us seem to need a structure around which to base our actions. But that scaffolding can be built from better materials than a black rock in the desert or splinters of a cross. Purpose can be found without stupefying dogma and life-threatening irrationality to accompany it. To set out my own narrative, of how we err, and how wishful thinking can lead us so wrong, is why I wrote the parody that follows. Mix in equal parts of love for Dante’s genius and Twain’s spirit. My paradise, a destination seen at the start and end of my New Inferno, isn’t Dante’s, and it certainly isn’t the Witnesses’. It’s the world revealed by science, bit by bit through the meticulous and honest work of men and women speaking a common language, seeking understanding and benefit for all.

The paradise toward which science works is tied down to no particular geographical place, but I can’t help but locate the site of my own Divine Comedy in the state where my story started, where J.D. Salinger’s famous fictional youth descended through his personal inferno to eventually glimpse paradise for a moment with his sister in Central Park. Not far from there is the Waldorf- Astoria, where my parents honeymooned and set the biological dominoes in motion that would so affect me in a few years. Where, on one side of the Brooklyn Bridge (with its odd status as a kind of icon of gullibility), sits the world headquarters of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (which may in fact be the World Headquarters of Gullibility). And where a clear and horrific demonstration of the destructive power of faith-based thinking was made in the form of an elaborately planned mass murder on a September morning.

But mostly I see the city as symbolic capital of the state that saved my life in 1967. ”I Love NY” is, for me, much more than a famous slogan.

You don’t need religion to have holy places.


My God, creationists are STUPID

God of the Gaps pens Misleading Pseudoscience for Dummies, an allegorical text that scores Z- in science.
(Blasphemy is a victimless "crime". Besides, I enjoy it!)

I mean it. Creationist are not only ignorant, but they are arrogant about it. I say this because they flaunt their ignorance and crow about their deluded, uninformed beliefs as though this is a cause of pride. To assume that one knows more than the experts is arrogance in my book.

Ooops, I'm forgetting that the Bible is the supreme science textbook. Never mind that its metaphysics has been soundly and repeatedly falsified.

I shall be eternally [joking] grateful to Bishop Ussher for providing a falsifiable date for the biblical "age" of the Earth, and by extension of the universe.

Creationists either lie or propagate falsehoods told by other creationists. They either do not know the facts or they deny them. They are not only illogical, but they often contradict themselves within a few sentences. If their pronouncements are challenged, they invent "information". Again, frequently contradicting what they said prior to the challenge.

They do all of this within the context of poor grammar, and bad spelling. Not to mention CAPS, which make them RIGHT.

Here's a fool ranting about the universe. I particularly enjoyed this one because of the hilarious malapropism. The fool can't even accurately name what he is denying.




"They are starting to piss me off,they earth is not billions or millions of years old.They have no proof that the big band theory is true,but they teach it like it really happened."

(That's fair. Creationists piss me off. Have done for a long time.)

Um, it's the Big Bang, not a mega-orchestra.

Yes, the Earth is about 4.7 billion years old (judging by meteorites). The oldest known rocks are over 4 billion years old.

No, radioactive decay does not lie, and no, geologists do not use radiocarbon dating to determine the age of the Earth. (Our planet is far too old for this method to be applicable.)

Um, scientific hypotheses attempt to best explain observable facts. If hypotheses survive falsification, they graduate to being termed theories. This means that scientific theories follow upon something that actually happened.

What more could one expect from someone who equates the rapid inflation of spacetime to a very large collection of brass, wood, strings, and hot air? Or did he mean a huge collection of guitarists accompanied by drummers and amplified to deafening levels? Hence the bang? Either way, I'm willing to bet that he'd also deny cosmic microwave background radiation, even though he's undoubtedly heard that.



.

Tick Tock

Permit the components of clocks to mutate and undergo natural selection, and what do you get? Experimental refutation of the jumbo-mumbo argument for intelligent design creationism.



YouTube.

Articles : eSkeptic Michael Shermer Not Intelligent, Surely Not Science David Brin The Other Intelligent Design Theories: Intelligent Design is only one of many “alternatives” to Darwinian evolution Robert Camp Can Intelligent Design be considered scientific in the same way that SETI is? Tom McIver Who Designed That? Creationism v. Intelligent Design Bruce Grant Intentional Deception: Intelligent Design Creationism Burt Humburg & Ed Brayton Kitzmiller et al versus Dover Area School District Reading Room Intelligent Design & Creationism


Blogs: Greta Christina The Blind Watchmaker Makes a Watch: A Nifty Video About Evolution : No More Mr. Nice Guy! The watchmaker is blind, and the cretinist emperor is naked : Pharyngula How to evolve a watch : Tangled Up in Blue Guy Debunking the “Watch in a Box” Strawman : BlogCadre How to evolve a watch : cartoon The Watchmaker

It went better than I thought it would

….but still….

so, essentially what i’ve done is migrate MY (not the guest-bloggers) content from otherwhirled.com over to here. that went pretty well, although, there were 1,297 items in the import file and i’ve only got 933 here, i believe. meh. and i’ve tried numerous times to import the missing content to no avail. no WP error message or anything. meh, again. pfft.

at any rate, the oldest stuff (ironically being that which was most faithfully represented in the import) lost the attached images years ago. that was back before i understood that yahoo doesn’t cache news images, sorry. they’ve been gone at the otherwhirled, too, sadly….all this time. more recent works from mid-2008 forward or so, i saved the images on my own server, so those are still good to go. i’ve even got them doubled up.

so, for those of you who only know me through unenslaved.com and twitter, these old posts may provide some interesting insights into where i’m coming from. for everyone else, consider these old posts some blasts from the past. i will be trying to re-find some of the old, missing images on the more popular posts. i have a semi-photographic memory, but that will be an ongoing process.

coming up next is actually getting this blogroll going. yay, fun. stay tuned. peace.

Mental Slavery, FTL!

Yes, I know, this blog is supposed to be about freeing oneself from mental slavery, and ironically, the bulk of my efforts here to date have involved the stuff we do on Twitter. It’s funny how that works, yes, but there’s a reason why it’s happened that way. It’s not just my own mental slavery to Twitter, but the several types of mental slavery that essentially equate to gainful employment and taking my job seriously.

All of which changed last week when I resigned my position. I’m not terribly thrilled with the prospect of having to choose between restarting my former business (19 months ago, I quit 16 years of self-employment to take that job), or putting my head back on the chopping block known affectionately as “job hunting,” but it was exactly this concept of mental slavery that prompted me to leave. I’ve never been totally thrilled with the idea of playing by the rules, and when the rules are written by people who really don’t understand the paradigm, following those rules becomes even more bogus.

And that’s about all I’ll say about work. They’re good people, but the industry they serve will hopefully go away with national health care reform anyway. My own bitching and moaning about our health care system was a bit duplicitous on certain levels.

Anyway, late last Thursday and most of Friday were spent in reflection on the various things in my life for which I have forced myself into strict and/or linear ways of thinking. I don’t have a set rule or methodology for this kind of self-analysis. Partly, it’s a bit of compare/contrast with similar past experiences and also between the various things I have going on right now. It’s also just a general assessment of where my mind is at, and how the thought-patterns I use when I’m teaching could be applied to other situations. In short, I discovered several aspects of my life weren’t exactly being approached in an unenslaved way, and that was quite frustrating for me. I try to be holistic about these things. They’re not just good ideas, you know.

Ironically, one of the most enslaved ways of thinking I believe I undertake is this belief that I don’t have time to blog. That’s really just not true, but I make it true, since I don’t take the time to do this very often. See where I’m going with this thought? We make our own realities; we enslave ourselves in these ways. At least, I do, but I really doubt I’m alone. But we do this all the time, in love, in activities, in all sorts of things. We tell ourselves that we don’t have time to do a thing when really, we’ve simply put other things first, or we want a rest, or….whatever. But since we repeat the lie of “not enough time” to ourselves so often, we believe the lie, so “not enough time” becomes real.

Which, of course, is quite easy to say, now that I do have the time. Except that I don’t. I take job-hunting pretty seriously, and when it’s done right, it’s like the most time-consuming job there is! Nevertheless, I’ve resolved to blog and vlog here more, hopefully with a semblance of consistency, because I do have several subjects that I want to communicate on. The trick for me will be finding a new job, or a set of contracts For example:

  1. The…er…stigma of the word Atheist and how that simple word halts communication with certain mindsets
  2. Getting people to understand that Agnosticism is not, in and of itself, a final conclusion
  3. Working together with people who subscribe to disparate beliefs to affect social and governmental reform
  4. Beginning to turn the tide of perception of those Atheists who work in the public sector, into a good thing. Away from the not-so-tacit ‘requirement’ that public servants be religious.
  5. Remembering the works of freethinkers, humanists, secularists and atheists who have had a profound impact on our culture

Those are just a few of the things I hope to undertake here in the upcoming weeks. I will (hopefully) no longer hold myself bound by this get-nothing-done mental slavery.

Peace.