Comedian Jamie Kilstein was in Chicago the other night at the Lakeshore Theater (which is the best place ever) and had wonderful material about Rick Warren, Ted Haggard, women’s ministries at Saddleback, gay rights, the Bible… and all the other wonderful topics you love to discuss 
I heard him channeling a little Patton Oswalt there for a moment. Anyone else?
Also, I think he took about one breath during that entire piece.
Gotta love him.
(Thanks to Jeff for the link!)
On top of previous summaries, Zeno now recounts the tale of my visit to Sierra College. One amusing feature of the Q&A at Sierra was that a notorious creationist showed up, and I caused him considerable distress by turning his complaints against him by asking him to give his best evidence for god, and also by viciously inviting him to our post-talk libations. I am such a poopyhead.
I also got one horrified reaction to my Davis talk published by a faitheist. It's hilarious. The author professes to be an atheist, but then defends Christianity. Sort of.
Christians may refer to themselves as a "flock," but they aren't sheep. It takes courage to say you believe in something that can't be proven. When scientists formulate hypotheses, they are vulnerable to critique, and they must conduct research to remove all doubt. Religious believers must deal with the same vulnerability, but with the knowledge that they can never prove the existence of a God. Religion takes bravery.
Well, gosh. Then I guess the bravest people of them all are the ones who pick the most absurd, most ridiculous, most insane religious beliefs. If courage trumps reason as a virtue, the greatest thing you can do is flail madly for lunacy.
Read the comments on this post...Hey! You took advantage of my prolonged absence trapped in a metal tube hurtling at 37,000 feet above the Atlantic to fill up the last endless thread. Sneaky. You're making it hard to keep up.
Go ahead. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm in Ireland and you're not, so I don't care.
Read the comments on this post...I have arrived in Dublin, and am having a lovely time. I had a taxi driver with the most wonderful accent get me to a nice hotel, and am contemplating a stroll around the area to find some Guinness. This is my strategy for handling jet lag: I stayed awake through the entire flight, jogged about through Heathrow (what's with all the weird post-industrial corrugated metal tubes you've got to go through to get to your gate?), got to the Dublin airport, fumbled my way on to a bus, and wandered about finding a place to stay…and now I'll just push on for several more hours until I collapse in exhaustion, never mind what hour my biological clock tells me it is. Then hopefully everything will be reset and tomorrow I'll be operating on Irish time.
At least I better be. Atheist Ireland/blasphemy.ie have plans for me. I'll be speaking at the Buswells Hotel at 7:30pm tomorrow (1 February), in a free talk on militant blasphemy. It should be fun! Bring bail money.
Read the comments on this post...
I can still remember one of the few practical demonstrations I observed in my first year university physics class many years ago. This illustrated conservation of momentum. It involved our lecturer climbing on to the lecture room bench and standing on a plank of wood resting on (empty) beer bottles laid on their side (to reduce friction).
When he jumped forward by a small distance, the plank of wood shot back by a larger distance (conserving momentum). It was a risky experiment and several beer bottles broke.
I am not sure how many students appreciated the physical law being demonstrated. Practical demonstrations were not common in teaching those days. I suspect for many it just reinforced in their minds that this particular lecturer was, if not mad, at least eccentric.
In these more enlightened day I hope teachers use every advantage to practically demonstrate physical laws. Some of the videos being recorded on the International Space Station ISS could be useful for this.
Last week Astronaut Jeff Williams demonstrated the acceleration experienced inside the cabin during a planned ISS reboost. The ISS is reboosted periodically to maintain its orbit, and to prepare for visiting spacecraft, such as the space shuttle (a launch planned this week) and Progress vehicles.
Jeff’s experiment demonstrates that objects will continue in motion unless acted on by a force. In this case he shows that a free-floating body will move relative to the station when the station is accelerating.
A simple demonstration of an important physical law.
via YouTube – Space Station Reboost.
A man in Contra Costa County, California has a problem with the name of local peak Mount Diablo. He’s a Christian (you’re amazed, I know) and he has a suggestion for an alternate name: Mount Reagan.
[Arthur] Mijares, a devout Christian, says he believes the word “Diablo” — Spanish for “devil” — is “derogatory and profane,” according to the federal board report. Mijares was unavailable for comment Thursday.
In 2005, he attempted to change the name to Mount Reagan, but the board, citing its Commemorative Naming Policy, told him the late president needed to be dead for at least five years before receiving such an honor. The former California governor died June 5, 2004.
Mijares argued that the devil, or “diablo,” was a “living person” so that name should also be prohibited. He eventually settled on three alternative options: Mount Yahweh, Mount Miwok or Mount Ohlone.
By Mijares’ logic, does that mean Yahweh is dead?
This all just shows me that even when all is calm, fundies will do anything to stir up trouble where none exists.
(Thanks to Lauren for the link!)
Gravensteen is one of the castles of the Count of Flanders. It's located in the middle of Gent (Ghent in English) and it's an excellent example of an early medieval castle (extensively restored).
We spent a great deal of time in the torture chamber and Ms. Sandwalk took lots of pictures of the various instruments used to "persuade" the prisoners. She also got pictures of the guillotine that was used in the late 1700's and early 1800's. [Photo Credits: top [Wikipedia], all others are by Ms. Sandwalk.
1. Assuming, that is, that you are a descendant of one of his legitimate children.
Somehow, I managed to stay quite sheltered throughout my years in public school. Nerdy and awkward, it wasn’t hard for me to have no friends my first year. I attended a small private school until seventh grade, when my mother tried to homeschool me. She still worked nights, however, and wasn’t very interactive. I would feel frustrated for not knowing about an upcoming test. I also missed my friends and the school atmosphere from day one. I hated homeschooling and we fought every day. It lasted three weeks until my parents decided to let me go back to private school. By that time, however, my two younger brothers were in school, too, and they couldn’t afford three private school tuitions. So in eighth grade, to public school I went.
Let’s just say I was not prepared for life outside the Christian bubble. I didn’t know pop culture references, fashion, hair or makeup (which my parents still refused to let me wear), or much of anything. Except the classwork. I won the spelling bee for my grade and the speech contest for my grade and for my county, much to the chagrin of some other people who were used to winning everything academic. This led to much taunting and teasing, which I don’t talk very much about to this day. People made fun of me, my clothes, my hair, my name, everything. The speech I wrote was about the dangers and evils of television, which certainly didn’t help me win friends or influence people! 
Those eighth grade boys were cruel! The girls weren’t much better. My parents wouldn’t let me date, so people whispered that I was a lesbian, which at the time, was a huge insult to me. (Sorry, my GLBT friends.) I didn’t really understand the concept of homosexuality; I only knew it was bad. So, nope, didn’t date anyone. Not that anyone really wanted to date me anyways, but one guy did ask me out and I turned him down. The only teacher who stuck up for me? My atheist science teacher, who actually deserves his own post.
I took Algebra I in a semester in seventh grade, but public school didn’t offer Geometry for eighth graders, so I re-took Algebra. I didn’t do very well because it was a different textbook that employed different methods, and my teacher would count off if I didn’t use her method. This confused me. At the end of the year, she told me I wasn’t ready to move on to Geometry, and made me sign up to re-take Algebra. I still felt confused at the beginning of ninth grade, but my family then moved an hour away and I started a new school. Their book was closer to my seventh grade book and I made a 98 both semesters. My teacher looked at me one day and shook his head, “You should really be in another class!” he chuckled.
I did have one friend in eighth grade, a girl who had attended private school with me in the sixth and seventh grade. We both took choir, though we had it different periods. Choir became my escape. I sang soprano, and I loved it. I can hit the high notes. At my peak, I could hit the last C on the piano. I sang out my frustrations, my sadness. For whatever reason, I would get too nervous during auditions and sing quite horribly, so I didn’t make it into All Region, but I didn’t care. I would also write. My characters became who I wanted to be. I didn’t write much poetry, but I did write a lot of fiction. I would also lose myself for hours in books. Janette Oke, Bodie Thoene, Robin Jones Gunn. They didn’t help me win friends, however. . .
I did have friends at church. As an eighth grader, I became eligible for youth group, and my youth group was my salvation. We weren’t like normal youth groups. There were so few of us that they stuck eight graders through college students in a lump. We would eat dinner and play games at people’s houses. Church was my one safe place, and I withdrew further into it. Evil public school became a catalyst for me to retreat into my sheltered home and church.
(Note: It’s the early hours of the morning where I live, and my scanner is in the room where Steve is sleeping. Check back later, and I will post some pictures from eight grade.)
(Note also: I think someone with a bird fetish has a birthday coming up…)
Read the comments on this post...“REAL” blokes don’t like going to church because they don’t want to “sing love songs to a man”, because the “vicar wears a dress”, because they feel like “mongrels on parade at Crufts” and because they want to be waited on by women rather than queue for coffee after the service.
These are a few of the distinctly non-PC views garnered in a survey done by a dotty Bath-based outfit called Christian Vision for Men, which has discovered that the churches have lost nearly half of its males aged under 30 because it has become “too girly”.
Priests in frocks, especially deliciously camp characters like the Most Rev Mark Shirilau of California, are a turn-off for "real" men
The charity declares in its mission statement:
We are catalysts for an emerging band of brothers across the UK who want to see the nation won for Jesus. We are the back up team for a passionate, energetic bunch of Jesus’ followers who are focussed (sic) on introducing men in the UK to Jesus and then getting them gripped and excited by their faith and equipped to live the adventure.
The charity, according to The Times, admits some of its ideas for getting masculine tushes back on pews might not be seen as politically correct.
These include redesigning the interiors of church buildings to make men feel more at home. Instead of the usual flowers and statues of the Virgin Mary, they ask:
How would it go down to decorate with swords, or pictures of knights, or flaming torches?
Great shades of the Crusades, or what?
There’s worse from CVM:
Maybe it’s not ‘politically correct’, but men quite like the attention of women! They also like to be waited on – so long as they are not made to feel guilty. Instead of having to queue for coffee, why not ask some of the women to go round with trays of coffee and biscuits or chocky bars? Coupled with a charming smile, many men would find that very attractive!
What? No topless vicarines and a scattering of lap-dancers?
Then there are the those excruciating hymns, or modern worship songs. Quite apart from the sheer embarrassment of having to sing out loud when the tune might go too high or be in an unfamiliar key, CVBM advises clergy just to look at the words.
“Jesus, I am so in love with you,” or “Beautiful one I love, beautiful one I adore”, for example, are just too – er – poofy! Many men wouldn’t sing that to their wives, let alone another man, the charity advises, and adds:
The image of church is ‘women and children’ – action songs or kid’s plays just emphasise this. The decoration is often very feminine – flowers, embroidered banners. The vicar often wears a dress… It can be embarrassing to be next to someone in uninhibited delight of worship, or in tears.
Then there’s the issue of men not wanting to want to feel brainwashed by reciting words that they don’t believe:
The language can be off-putting, even the word ‘love’ has undertones of the love of a man for his woman – they’d rather ‘admire’ or ‘respect’ another man. Think how they will respond if called to be Jesus’s lover, or to be ‘intimate’ with him. Don’t play into Satan’s hands by using language that he has corrupted.
Among the changes recommended by CVM, a member of the Evangelical Alliance, is to use the World Cup to boost falling congregations. The charity wants vicars to erect big screens above the pulpit during this summer’s World Cup in South Africa, and even serve beer during games.
Carl Beech, General Director of the CVM and Baptist Minister, said:
The World Cup is when pretty much every bloke in the country bonds over a common goal. Why can that not be done in a church? The decline has been steady for a while but has accelerated over recent years.
The problem has become male culture versus church culture. Too many sermons talk about Jesus’ love, compassion and grace which are great but not male concepts. Men want to know about his great decision making and leadership. That is what they recognise. Churches are very pastorally driven whereas blokes are looking for decisions not discussions. The breakdown in most churches is now 70 per cent women to 30 per cent men.
The Bishop of Lewes Wallace Benn admitted there was a problem.
The relatively small number of men in our congregations is one of the pressing issues facing the church today. Within our Christian concern for all ages, both sexes and every ethnic group, we need to address reaching men with the good news of the Gospel as a key concern.
I know now that I am daily presenting my favorite 366 bands you have stopped bothering to look anywhere else for tips about new music worth investigating. But, nonetheless, you can find a ranked list of critics’ favorite 1,934 albums released in 2009 here. For the (considerably shorter) rankings lists based on critical consensus of years past (stretching back to 1971), you can find those here.
Your Thoughts?
Filed under: Music, Music Reviews Tagged: Pazz and Jop
Pursuant to a thread at Pharyngula, a particular book was mentioned. So Googling it up, I found this wonderful bit of folderol:
By now you've probably heard about that infamous movie so many people are talking about called EXPELLED, starring Ben Stein. No? OK, so if you haven't seen it yet, you should. This film played for a limited engagement in theatres across the USA in 2008 (but don't go rushing out to buy the video until you've visited the offers from our partners at the "Order Online" tab above). If you missed the movie (or just want to read up on what others are saying about it) you can check out another movie trailer here, and read some reviews and commentary about it here.
‘Limited engagement’ actually translates to ‘invitation only’ across a limited amount of showings, and I’m sure we’re all up on this non-issue that Stein tried to stoke a non-fire in the intellectual underbrush.
So why am I even mentioning this movie? Because the book Slaughter of the Dissidents (SOD) picks up where the movie "Expelled" leaves off. If you thought Expelled was mind-blowing, then this book will educate you even further about this important issue of repression of freedom and discrimination currently playing in academia today, along with many case studies of expelled scientists and educators (some of the SOD case studies also focus on some of the "Expelles" introduced in the movie).
I thought it was mind-blowing that Stein imagined he even had a controversy, let alone a point.
"Expelled" has taken many Americans by surprise. Suddenly, a growing number of people are wondering: what is this discrimination against Darwin skeptics all about? What do you mean we kick people out of academia just for asking questions about evolution! Is this really true? And just how bad is it really.
Like all empty incendiary rhetoric, it’s really not all that bad. Nobody’s been ‘slaughtered’, either physically or metaphorically. It’s simply scare-mongering, is what it is.
Well, in a word, the treatment of Darwin skeptics in our culture (scientists, educators, and students) is very poor. Many of them endure incredible humilation and eventual loss of their jobs. But even worse, being a Darwin skeptic for many of these people is a complete career-ender. Of course, there are many who try to argue against such claims, as you can see by visiting sites like "Expelled Exposed." We plan to provide some rebuttals to those arguments at some point in the future. But for now... SOD will serve as a starting point.
You won't believe some of the reasons many educators have lost their jobs, and how they often get blackballed from academia, or why some students failed to get an otherwise earned degree. This pernicious form of discrimination is not only widespread in the U.S. but is also nauseating to most Americans. SOD goes into great detail about how and why it occurs, and provides you with scores of actual case studies. As you read this book you'll discover that one of the most precious things we own is at risk, right here in America. What is that?
In a word,
FREEDOM
The price you pay for going against the scientific consensus (and especially on a topic that has been proven up and down and sideways to Muskogee) is…well, ridicule is something you’ll have to endure, especially when you don the martyr’s cap and cry ‘poor me!’ when you propound twaddle.
Freedom to disagree about some aspects of evolution without losing your job or being denied an earned degree. Freedom to tell people you dare to question any aspect of evolution on scientific grounds - without referencing any religious text.
Either the author doesn’t understand the definition of ‘aspect’, which is:
1. appearance to the eye or mind; look: the physical aspect of the country, 2. nature; quality; character: the superficial aspect of the situation, 3. a way in which a thing may be viewed or regarded; interpretation; view: both aspects of a decision. 4. part; feature; phase: That is the aspect of the problem that interests me most. 5. facial expression; countenance: He wore an aspect of gloom. Hers was an aspect of happy optimism. 6. bearing; air; mien: warlike in aspect. (6 will do for now), or he’s being deliberately misleading about the ‘any aspect’ phrasing. Either one wouldn’t be a surprise.
And also the freedom to let others know what you personally believe outside of science without having such an utterance turn into a rabid witch hunt.
That’s utter nonsense, otherwise notables such as Ken Miller and Francis Collins would be pilloried in accordance with this ‘logic’.
Do you know it has reached the point in America where, on this subject at least, if you are an educator and you opine that you have reservations about any aspect of evolution based on scientific evidence, you are often immediately labeled as "religious" (whether you really are or not), and you are (often) immediately determined to be 'unfit' to teach science or get a science degree?
Unmitigated crap. Maybe a biology degree, but this ‘any aspect’ accusation is ridiculous.
And speaking of religion, it looks like we live in an era where freedom OF religion has been twisted to mean freedom FROM religion. Some groups supporting this type of discrimination proclaim that "Freedom depends on free thinkers," unless, of course, you happen to be 'religious'.
I don’t think I need to go any further with this. Of course, you can’t have freedom OF religion unless you have freedom FROM religion. This isn’t ‘discrimination’ – this is fact. It’s an equal playing field now – and this is the standard argument from martyrdom, except that we are all now familiar with the lies the Christians tell us, the lies they believe and will fight for, against all odds and evidence.
In addition, I might add that this execratory bit of work has an introduction by none other than “Dr.” D. James Kennedy. For those of you unfamiliar with this particular fuckwit, he was that same idiot who made the repugnant ‘documentary’ titled Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, which has been debunked and repudiated (but is still for sale!). Also, a hardcore theonomist.
One can only hope that this disorder we term religion will wilt away, that the human race can move onwards to greener pastures.
Till the next post, then.
Call me a skeptic, but when I hear the words Nigeria and a $200k investment opportunity, I think scam. Apparently the Catholic church holds no such bias. Rev. Robert Chukwo stands accused of embezzling $196K from two Parishes and the La Crosse Diocese. He sent to money home to “earn a better interest rate.” …and pay no attention to the container full of furniture and luxury goods he sent to his “nun” back home in Nigeria. It’s all good, what with the flood and all, it would have got all wet anyway.
I can ask the usual questions here. Why was there such lax oversight? Why was a priest allowed to re-direct funds destined for use by flood victims? Why didn't somebody notice a priest driving a Bentley? Wait… I made that one up. But you get my point. Here is yet another example of a priest allegedly taking advantage of his flock for his own enrichment. Religion offers no moral advantage, none at all. Pastors like Rev. Chukwo are moral con men who teach the gospel of self-interest.
I’m sure he was “a man of God”, and he was “doing God’s work”, and blah, blah, blah… Just please don’t tell me about the assumption of innocence or use the phrase “Who are you to judge?” Remember, the point of these posts is to show that religion offers no moral advantage. If pastors are raping your children and stealing money meant for the poor, you should you at least be asking the question, “How is this moral beauty?” But you won’t.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=24fc827c-4738-43dd-bfe6-ed7f1f440ab2)
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
