Author Archive for HumanistDad
I saw an ad on TV today for CAND, the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors. It invited the viewer to go to their website, so I did (www.cand.ca).
The ad specifically said it had "science-based" medicine. After going to the website, I found their section on Research. Here is the research that CAND provides, in its entirety (emphasis mine):
That's it.
So, the collaboration between naturopaths and real doctors is in its infancy and naturopaths do their own research - that's reassuring!
As well, the 'profession' values research and science but is looking for an 'appropriate use' of it and needs to 'find research methodologies'. In other words, real science doesn't work with naturopathic therapies because it keeps coming up with -FAIL-.
If the tests come up wrong, it's not the treatment that's broken, it's the science. Reminds me of the people who think that if science contradicts the bible, it's the science that must be wrong (ya, YOU Ken Ham).
Because I'm feeling like a prick today, I've emailed the people at CAND asking for 'independent, scientific research from a leading university in the U.S. or Canada' that will back up their ad's claim of 'science-based medicine'.
This might be fun.
The ad specifically said it had "science-based" medicine. After going to the website, I found their section on Research. Here is the research that CAND provides, in its entirety (emphasis mine):
The burgeoning interest in natural medicine has initiated an important trend of increasing collaboration between naturopathic medicine and conventional medical schools and research institutions. This cooperative relationship is still in its infancy, but steady progress is being made. Naturopathic doctors have been invited to sit on various committees organized under Health Canada. NDs also work as individual researchers in institutions and in their private practice.
The naturopathic profession in Canada recognizes the value of research and seeks to make appropriate use of science to further the understanding and advancement of naturopathic medicine. As professional health care providers, it is part of our responsibility to our patients that we are critical thinkers regarding the known limitations of conventional medical research. The challenge is to find research methodologies that understand and are equipped to evaluate multi-factorial and individualized naturopathic treatments.
That's it.
So, the collaboration between naturopaths and real doctors is in its infancy and naturopaths do their own research - that's reassuring!
As well, the 'profession' values research and science but is looking for an 'appropriate use' of it and needs to 'find research methodologies'. In other words, real science doesn't work with naturopathic therapies because it keeps coming up with -FAIL-.
If the tests come up wrong, it's not the treatment that's broken, it's the science. Reminds me of the people who think that if science contradicts the bible, it's the science that must be wrong (ya, YOU Ken Ham).
Because I'm feeling like a prick today, I've emailed the people at CAND asking for 'independent, scientific research from a leading university in the U.S. or Canada' that will back up their ad's claim of 'science-based medicine'.
This might be fun.
From the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/558529):
Why did I suspect this guy was a church-goer as I scanned the article? No Virginia, being religious doesn't automatically mean you are moral.
COVINA, Calif.– A man who killed nine people in a Christmas Eve massacre dressed as Santa apparently intended to flee to Canada, but his plans were dashed when the inferno he created melted his red costume onto his body, police said yesterday.
...
Pardo, 45, fired a shot into the face of an 8-year-old girl who answered the door...
Police said Pardo had no criminal record or history of violence, and
neighbours and others knew him as a friendly man who was a volunteer usher at his parish church.
...
The 8-year-old girl was released from hospital yesterday, officials said.
Why did I suspect this guy was a church-goer as I scanned the article? No Virginia, being religious doesn't automatically mean you are moral.
In today's Toronto Star, Tom Harpur (yes, the author of 'The Pagan Christ'!) is reporting that a Muslim scholar has decided that Muhammed probably didn't exist:
Once again, the default position on any belief needs to be, "I don't believe until you provide evidence to back up your claims."
It doesn't really matter whether Muhammed, Jesus, Socrates or Einstein ever existed. We only need evaluate what they said or did. It seems that religious people only connect historical figures to a god to justify the absurdity of what they want to believe.
Questioning of Prophet's existence stirs outcry
Muslim academic says research leads him to believe Muhammad is a mythical figure
Dec 23, 2008 04:30 AM
Tom Harpur
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
A noted Muslim scholar has provoked a huge controversy in Europe by openly questioning the existence of the Prophet Muhammad.
The Islamist at the centre of the storm in Germany over whether Muhammad ever existed as an historical figure says he is simply following the conclusions of many years of rigorous research.
Muhammad Sven Kalisch, 42, the chair of Islamic Studies at the University of Muenster and whose duties include training teachers for the rising number of Muslim students in German high schools, has created a furor by stating that in all probability Muhammad was a mythical creation.
He told the Star in a recent phone interview that his research leads him to believe that the three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have mythical origins.
German police worried about a possible violent backlash have told the professor to move his offices to more secure premises. But Kalisch says there have been no specific threats and he is far from being "in hiding" as some bloggers and other rumour-mongers have claimed.
However, the Central Council of Muslims in Germany to which the four largest organizations of the country's 3 million-strong Muslim community belong, has stopped its co-operation with the university's Centre for Religious Studies over the professor's stand.
A spokesperson for the council, Ali Kizilkaya, has said if the Prophet Muhammad didn't exist then the Qur'an doesn't exist.
"This would mean that we would have to abolish the religion altogether," Kizilkaya said. "We are convinced the Prophet did indeed exist and that the Qur'an is the word of God."
Michael Marx, a Qur'an specialist at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, has warned his colleagues that Kalisch's views will "make it difficult" for German scholars to work in Muslim lands.
The traditional view of Muhammad is that he was born in Mecca in Arabia, about AD 570 and died in Medina around AD 632. The Qur'an, Islam's holy book, is composed of revelations believed to have been given to him by God through the archangel Gabriel. There are about one billion Muslims in the world today.
"My position with regard to the historical existence of Muhammad is that I believe neither his existence nor his non-existence can be proven," Kalisch said in a statement. "I, however, lean toward the non-existence."
He told the Star he holds the same position regarding Abraham, Moses and the other Jewish patriarchs, as well as Jesus Christ.
There have been threats, campaigns for his dismissal from his post, and dozens of media interviews, commentaries and editorials. According to Der Spiegel magazine, a group of more than 30 German academics have signed a petition supporting Kalisch's right to scholarly freedom of expression.
Kalisch studied and practised law before returning to college to take a Ph.D. in religious studies. He speaks fluent English, Turkish and Arabic as well as German.
He was born in Hamburg of a German father and a mother of Mongolian descent. They were nominal Protestants and when he began early in his teens to follow up on the Asian line of his heritage he decided to learn Turkish.
That led directly to an exposure to Islamic teaching and at 15 he decided to convert. "I was attracted by the emphasis on one God instead of a trinity," he says. "It seemed in many ways a very rational religion."
But, he differed from typical religious converts to a new faith in that he never stopped questioning. "Religion should never contradict reason," he says. "I could never accept any doctrine or belief that goes against my rational mind."
Kalisch said he realized early in 2001 that when the same scientific methods are applied to investigate Muslim claims of historicity as are used on Jewish and Christian origins, similar problems arise at once. He found that traditional theological positions soon collapse once hard evidence is sought. He discovered there is as much "myth-making" in Islam as in Judaism and Christianity. And so his current process of "rethinking Islam" was begun.
Asked whether he thought his public airings of his findings will destroy peoples' faith, he said: "It will destroy a literalist faith, a faith no longer reliable because of reason. But, the God I believe in is not a god of literalists. He is the Ultimate One. God doesn't write books. All the various sacred books are the product of human minds and experiences. They can be helpful but they must be interpreted for today."
Kalisch maintains non-Muslim scholars who agree with his hypothesis but keep silent out of "respect" for Muslims are in fact treating them as though they can't handle the truth.
"That's not respect, it's putting Muslims on the same level as small children who can't think and decide for themselves and whose illusions of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny one doesn't want to destroy."
Once again, the default position on any belief needs to be, "I don't believe until you provide evidence to back up your claims."
It doesn't really matter whether Muhammed, Jesus, Socrates or Einstein ever existed. We only need evaluate what they said or did. It seems that religious people only connect historical figures to a god to justify the absurdity of what they want to believe.
Here's a fun video by Adam Savage of MythBusters as he explains his obsessions with Dodos and the Maltese Falcon:
I don't get it.
Neal Adams, a comic book artist, created an animation to promote the idea of a 'growing earth'. This idea proposes that all the continents were once all together and then pushed apart - not by plate tectonics, but by an expanding earth! Of course, he blames a scientific conspiracy for suppressing the truth which automatically sets off my 'bullshit detector'.
What I don't understand is, why get so worked up about it? I was looking for clues that this idea has some connection to religion but I didn't find any. The earth is still billions of years old in this idea and the proposed mechanism for an expansion sounds like science. Global warming conspiratists likely want to continue living the way they want without worrying about future consequences but I don't see how believing in 'plate tectonics' is a social threat. So, why is Adams and geologist Dr. James Maxlow so keen to present their ideas?
Is it a simple case of hard feelings because 'the establishment' has refuted them?
Here's the Adams video:
I also found a speech by Dr. James Maxlow at the 'Nexus Conference' which appears to be supported by Nexus Magazine. According to its website, Nexus Magazine is,
Oh. Kay.
Here's part 1 of Maxlow's speech (I couldn't be bothered to watch the other 13!):
Anyone have any ideas on why they're trying to promote this idea?
Neal Adams, a comic book artist, created an animation to promote the idea of a 'growing earth'. This idea proposes that all the continents were once all together and then pushed apart - not by plate tectonics, but by an expanding earth! Of course, he blames a scientific conspiracy for suppressing the truth which automatically sets off my 'bullshit detector'.
What I don't understand is, why get so worked up about it? I was looking for clues that this idea has some connection to religion but I didn't find any. The earth is still billions of years old in this idea and the proposed mechanism for an expansion sounds like science. Global warming conspiratists likely want to continue living the way they want without worrying about future consequences but I don't see how believing in 'plate tectonics' is a social threat. So, why is Adams and geologist Dr. James Maxlow so keen to present their ideas?
Is it a simple case of hard feelings because 'the establishment' has refuted them?
Here's the Adams video:
I also found a speech by Dr. James Maxlow at the 'Nexus Conference' which appears to be supported by Nexus Magazine. According to its website, Nexus Magazine is,
a bi-monthly alternative news magazine covering health breakthroughs, future science and technology, suppressed news, free energy, religious revisionism, conspiracy, the environment, history and ancient mysteries, the mind, UFOs, paranormal and the unexplained.
Oh. Kay.
Here's part 1 of Maxlow's speech (I couldn't be bothered to watch the other 13!):
Anyone have any ideas on why they're trying to promote this idea?
Again I hear a theist ask the question about life and purposes. But they just don't get it. The problem is that their question is wrong.
What is the purpose of life?
The question itself presupposes that there IS a purpose but that needs to be established first. Therefore the first question to ask is:
Is there a purpose to life?
When we look at the evidence it becomes apparent that there isn't a purpose to life. It just is.
Although most of us create a purpose for our lives, I can't say what is the best purpose to have. It's safe to say the starting point for a purpose is to keep living!
What is the purpose of life?
The question itself presupposes that there IS a purpose but that needs to be established first. Therefore the first question to ask is:
Is there a purpose to life?
When we look at the evidence it becomes apparent that there isn't a purpose to life. It just is.
Although most of us create a purpose for our lives, I can't say what is the best purpose to have. It's safe to say the starting point for a purpose is to keep living!
First, Jesus gets protection from The Terminator:
Explaining Jesus in ways so simple, even a baby could understand it:
Finally, who could resist one more look at Jesus, The Musical:
Explaining Jesus in ways so simple, even a baby could understand it:
Finally, who could resist one more look at Jesus, The Musical:
(Warning! Today's post may be offensive ;) )
Pedro Timoteo wants to know which of the following two signs are offensive:
I replied to his post stating that both are offensive. They are both false statements and I believe false statements are offensive.
However, many other statements are true but can be offensive to many people. Consider this sign:
Here is a statement that is not false, but yet offensive. I'm uncomfortable with my children reading statements like this but I have difficulty explaining why. For most people, swearing is considered to have a time and place. In general, we don't swear in public places (at least, we're not supposed to). We don't swear at work, in school, around children or the elderly or in church. I threw in church because I think that we unconciously consider some places (or people) 'sacred'.
Jonathon Haidt discusses this in 'The Happiness Hypothesis'. Even 'liberals' who claim that the sacred is a myth find certain places near and dear to them. Consider your loved ones, where you got engaged, that first car, or that place in nature that you once stood and contemplated the universe - now imagine someone is urinating on them. Perhaps this is offensive to you.
Haidt writes that it's part of our psychology to be offended by things that disgust us. All swear words refer to things that we find disgusting - bodily fluids and waste materials, corpses, sexual impulses, etc. We also swear to attack the sacred to elicit an emotion of disgust. The French say "Tabernacle!", we might yell, "Motherfucker!" both of which are meant to bring up negative images of traditional sacred objects.
I agree with Haidt when he says, "...conservatives have a better understanding of moral development." (Pg. 178, The Happiness Hypothesis) We don't want children growing up in a world that allows the humiliation of our sacred objects in the public sphere. It's important that children learn that there are things worth holding as sacred (parents, teddy bears, home, etc). We want them to respect people and places that hold significance and not destroy those things that others hold sacred. To do this, children need to know what sacred things 'are' and have a chance to build their own. Swearing in public is offensive because it elicits the same emotions as watching someone humiliate a loved one (albeit, not as severe). And, in public or in our homes, we deserve the right to not have our sacred objects attacked.
Thus, I think I can safely propose two comments about offensive behaviour:
1. We will not allow the promotion of untruths as this is offensive.
2. When we feel we want to be offensive (swear, sell Baby Jesus Butt Plugs, criticize religions, etc.) we'll be careful to keep it out of public places.
Pedro Timoteo wants to know which of the following two signs are offensive:
Sign A: There is a God.
Sign B: There is no God.
I replied to his post stating that both are offensive. They are both false statements and I believe false statements are offensive.
However, many other statements are true but can be offensive to many people. Consider this sign:
Fuck, I don't like paying my taxes.
Here is a statement that is not false, but yet offensive. I'm uncomfortable with my children reading statements like this but I have difficulty explaining why. For most people, swearing is considered to have a time and place. In general, we don't swear in public places (at least, we're not supposed to). We don't swear at work, in school, around children or the elderly or in church. I threw in church because I think that we unconciously consider some places (or people) 'sacred'.
Jonathon Haidt discusses this in 'The Happiness Hypothesis'. Even 'liberals' who claim that the sacred is a myth find certain places near and dear to them. Consider your loved ones, where you got engaged, that first car, or that place in nature that you once stood and contemplated the universe - now imagine someone is urinating on them. Perhaps this is offensive to you.
Haidt writes that it's part of our psychology to be offended by things that disgust us. All swear words refer to things that we find disgusting - bodily fluids and waste materials, corpses, sexual impulses, etc. We also swear to attack the sacred to elicit an emotion of disgust. The French say "Tabernacle!", we might yell, "Motherfucker!" both of which are meant to bring up negative images of traditional sacred objects.
I agree with Haidt when he says, "...conservatives have a better understanding of moral development." (Pg. 178, The Happiness Hypothesis) We don't want children growing up in a world that allows the humiliation of our sacred objects in the public sphere. It's important that children learn that there are things worth holding as sacred (parents, teddy bears, home, etc). We want them to respect people and places that hold significance and not destroy those things that others hold sacred. To do this, children need to know what sacred things 'are' and have a chance to build their own. Swearing in public is offensive because it elicits the same emotions as watching someone humiliate a loved one (albeit, not as severe). And, in public or in our homes, we deserve the right to not have our sacred objects attacked.
Thus, I think I can safely propose two comments about offensive behaviour:
1. We will not allow the promotion of untruths as this is offensive.
2. When we feel we want to be offensive (swear, sell Baby Jesus Butt Plugs, criticize religions, etc.) we'll be careful to keep it out of public places.
"No, no, no! You mustn't criticize my religion, it's offensive!"
Critics of the FFRF sign are complaining that it was too offensive to religious people. Well, too. damn. bad! Theists don't get defend their faith by claiming it is offensive to do so.
If I criticize your faith and then you go out and riot - it's your fault! It reminds me of people who blame the rape victim. "You shouldn't have been outside alone," "You shouldn't have been wearing a skirt," "This wouldn't have happened if you had on a burqa."
Bullshit.
Religious people have the right to fill their houses and churches with all kinds of religious nonsense but they don't get to advertise it free in the public square. And if they do, I sincerely hope the FFRF (and the rest of us too!) fight this injustice with protests. Until religion retreats to the domain it belongs, may the secular side continue to offend.
Critics of the FFRF sign are complaining that it was too offensive to religious people. Well, too. damn. bad! Theists don't get defend their faith by claiming it is offensive to do so.
If I criticize your faith and then you go out and riot - it's your fault! It reminds me of people who blame the rape victim. "You shouldn't have been outside alone," "You shouldn't have been wearing a skirt," "This wouldn't have happened if you had on a burqa."
Bullshit.
Religious people have the right to fill their houses and churches with all kinds of religious nonsense but they don't get to advertise it free in the public square. And if they do, I sincerely hope the FFRF (and the rest of us too!) fight this injustice with protests. Until religion retreats to the domain it belongs, may the secular side continue to offend.
Bill Donohue and Bill O'Reilly (is there a correlation between Right-Wing blowhards and the name 'Bill'? Just kidding, sorry Mr. Maher) have both called the FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) sign 'Hate Speech'!
Hate speech. I though hate speech had to be against a person, not an idea. Can you have hate speech against an idea? Bill O'Reilly compared the sign to the KKK putting up an anti-black sign beside a monument to Martin Luther King. But the FFRF sign criticized religion, not religious people. The foundation of Freedom of Speech demands that ideas be criticized and discussed.
But, Bill Donohue inadvertently let the cat out of the bag! While O'Reilly was making non-sequitors, Donohue told us exactly what the problem was with the sign in the eyes of the religious: "...this is designed to neuter our message." Gotcha Donohue! The purpose of your nativity display is to promote the message of Christianity using a public forum. Strictly forbidden by your constitution! Put the display on the lawn of a church or believer's property but not in a secular, public arena. Microsoft and Coke can't do it and neither can you!
It just doesn't matter if the religious really, really beleive their message is so important. It applies only to the religious and not on public display. Secular messages are likely more important and apply to everyone.
The good news is that controveries like this can only benefit secularists and atheists. Ignorant people likely already side with the religious but the educated, informed and enlightened religious people will understand what is going on and begin to support 'our' side. This can only swell our ranks and truly allow our secular societies to emerge.
Donohue with Dan Barker:
Bill O'Reilly spouting emotional nonsense to keep the money coming in:
Hate speech. I though hate speech had to be against a person, not an idea. Can you have hate speech against an idea? Bill O'Reilly compared the sign to the KKK putting up an anti-black sign beside a monument to Martin Luther King. But the FFRF sign criticized religion, not religious people. The foundation of Freedom of Speech demands that ideas be criticized and discussed.
But, Bill Donohue inadvertently let the cat out of the bag! While O'Reilly was making non-sequitors, Donohue told us exactly what the problem was with the sign in the eyes of the religious: "...this is designed to neuter our message." Gotcha Donohue! The purpose of your nativity display is to promote the message of Christianity using a public forum. Strictly forbidden by your constitution! Put the display on the lawn of a church or believer's property but not in a secular, public arena. Microsoft and Coke can't do it and neither can you!
It just doesn't matter if the religious really, really beleive their message is so important. It applies only to the religious and not on public display. Secular messages are likely more important and apply to everyone.
The good news is that controveries like this can only benefit secularists and atheists. Ignorant people likely already side with the religious but the educated, informed and enlightened religious people will understand what is going on and begin to support 'our' side. This can only swell our ranks and truly allow our secular societies to emerge.
Donohue with Dan Barker:
Bill O'Reilly spouting emotional nonsense to keep the money coming in:
Maybe I'm wrong. I've always thought of Deism being a separate category from Theism but after an IRC with a couple people on http://www.ustream.tv/channel/the-atheist-experience I'm starting to wonder if my understanding is wrong.
I've never considered Deism as a subset of Theism (or the inverse) but as both being a separate branch of god-belief in general. Deism, as I understood it, is a belief in a god (or gods) that created the world and no longer interferes with it. Theism is a belief in a god (or gods) that created the world but also actively fiddles with it and interferes with people's lives (a 'personal' god). Under these definitions it is possible to be an atheist and a deist. However, if Deism is a subset of Theism then an atheist cannot be a deist.
Atheism is simply the non-belief (or non-acceptance) of Theism. So, is it possible to be an Atheist and a Deist?
I've never considered Deism as a subset of Theism (or the inverse) but as both being a separate branch of god-belief in general. Deism, as I understood it, is a belief in a god (or gods) that created the world and no longer interferes with it. Theism is a belief in a god (or gods) that created the world but also actively fiddles with it and interferes with people's lives (a 'personal' god). Under these definitions it is possible to be an atheist and a deist. However, if Deism is a subset of Theism then an atheist cannot be a deist.
Atheism is simply the non-belief (or non-acceptance) of Theism. So, is it possible to be an Atheist and a Deist?
Shermer and Phillips talk about god. This isn't a formal debate; more like a armchair discussion:
Part 1
The other parts are here at Alecs DeLarge on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=AlecsDeLarge&view=videos
Part 1
The other parts are here at Alecs DeLarge on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=AlecsDeLarge&view=videos
Via Pharyngula, (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/im_sure_it_was_a_very_solemn_c.php)
Darth Vader joins the Catholics:
That one reminded me of this parody on the New Pope:
Darth Vader joins the Catholics:
That one reminded me of this parody on the New Pope:
Ironically, this video is a speech on 'Peace TV'. The message is that we have two choices: be a Muslim that obeys Allah whether you like it or not (since Allah dictates what is good) or choose to go to hell and be tortured in unspeakable ways for all eternity. This is a 'peaceful' choice?
Even though the speaker is a Muslim it doesn't really matter. Whenever he speaks of Islam try substituting 'Christianity' and see how the message stays the same. No Christian can denounce the immoral lunacy this man preaches without pointing their finger back on themselves. As an atheist though, I get to point at all of them!
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Responding to his idiotic points:
1. His description of Hell - How can he know any of this? Which is more probable: Hell is as he says or he is spouting out a giddy, pornographic view of torturing people that he hates?
2. Moral Selectivism - He claims one person's idea of good is another's idea of bad. However, he enjoys using attacks against Islam as an example of what 'others' think is good but doesn't apply the same logic to Muslims who think they are doing 'good' to others through terrorism, decaptitations, genital mutilation, riots over cartoons, etc. Oh, I forgot, god is on their side so they know what is good. Silly me, why can't I just understand this simple concept?
3. Should you fire an employee that you pay, who is secretly working for someone else? Allah, of course, is paying us by providing food and clothing and we're either worshipping something else, or even worse, no one! Ok god, I'm still waiting for my check...
4. A new manager informs employees of new rules but some prefer to follow the old ones - Oh, so Muhammed was god's new 'Dick Cheney', I get it. So, either follow the new rules or go straight to a tortuous hell for all eternity. You're not allowed to quit the company or have any say in the changes - just follow with a smile or have your skin ripped off your body over and over again. Have a nice day!
5. Secular Humanists think they are the centre of the universe - Ok, so if I do something that makes other people happy and I feel good then I'm a SELFISH BASTARD that must be SENT TO HELL TO DRINK PUSS THAT HAS LEAKED FROM OTHER PEOPLE'S WOUNDS! But, if I do something because I think the Easter Bunny approves of it, I get to be multi-orgasmic in heaven. I realize I could be wrong about that last sentence.
6. Do what god says whether you like it or not - Yikes! How can I be sure god said it and I'm not being tricked? I really need to know because something is telling me to poison the water supply and I certainly don't want to go to hell, so, umm, ..... ?
7. Pay some of your wages back to the company's pension plan - You can refuse (smile!) but then you don't get the benefits from the company and we have to send you to hell to have your brain boiled, drink boiling water that burns your insides and wear fiery sandals (I like sandals, wouldn't hell make you wear fiery uncomfortable shoes like the ones children wear to church?). But what if the company takes the pension money, buys luxurious jets and makes large deposits into offshore bank accounts then runs away? Nah, that could never happen...
Even though the speaker is a Muslim it doesn't really matter. Whenever he speaks of Islam try substituting 'Christianity' and see how the message stays the same. No Christian can denounce the immoral lunacy this man preaches without pointing their finger back on themselves. As an atheist though, I get to point at all of them!
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Responding to his idiotic points:
1. His description of Hell - How can he know any of this? Which is more probable: Hell is as he says or he is spouting out a giddy, pornographic view of torturing people that he hates?
2. Moral Selectivism - He claims one person's idea of good is another's idea of bad. However, he enjoys using attacks against Islam as an example of what 'others' think is good but doesn't apply the same logic to Muslims who think they are doing 'good' to others through terrorism, decaptitations, genital mutilation, riots over cartoons, etc. Oh, I forgot, god is on their side so they know what is good. Silly me, why can't I just understand this simple concept?
3. Should you fire an employee that you pay, who is secretly working for someone else? Allah, of course, is paying us by providing food and clothing and we're either worshipping something else, or even worse, no one! Ok god, I'm still waiting for my check...
4. A new manager informs employees of new rules but some prefer to follow the old ones - Oh, so Muhammed was god's new 'Dick Cheney', I get it. So, either follow the new rules or go straight to a tortuous hell for all eternity. You're not allowed to quit the company or have any say in the changes - just follow with a smile or have your skin ripped off your body over and over again. Have a nice day!
5. Secular Humanists think they are the centre of the universe - Ok, so if I do something that makes other people happy and I feel good then I'm a SELFISH BASTARD that must be SENT TO HELL TO DRINK PUSS THAT HAS LEAKED FROM OTHER PEOPLE'S WOUNDS! But, if I do something because I think the Easter Bunny approves of it, I get to be multi-orgasmic in heaven. I realize I could be wrong about that last sentence.
6. Do what god says whether you like it or not - Yikes! How can I be sure god said it and I'm not being tricked? I really need to know because something is telling me to poison the water supply and I certainly don't want to go to hell, so, umm, ..... ?
7. Pay some of your wages back to the company's pension plan - You can refuse (smile!) but then you don't get the benefits from the company and we have to send you to hell to have your brain boiled, drink boiling water that burns your insides and wear fiery sandals (I like sandals, wouldn't hell make you wear fiery uncomfortable shoes like the ones children wear to church?). But what if the company takes the pension money, buys luxurious jets and makes large deposits into offshore bank accounts then runs away? Nah, that could never happen...
More and more I'm coming to realize that debating is less and less relevant in today's world. The idea of a debate is simple enough: two (or more) debaters have different opinions on a course of action or truth claim and they each present compelling arguments to convince the audience to their point of view. However, the problem is that most debates use arguments, not evidence, to state their case. Arguments, however, are not always based on scientific evidence and instead are based on emotions.
When listening to someone present an emotionally-charged argument I'm beginning to realize that as the emotion increases, the evidence decreases. In other words, when you have little evidence (or in the face of contradictory evidence) appeal to the listener's emotions. This works because our emotions are far more developed than our logic and we are more likely to react to, and remember, our emotions. The 'truth' of the argument now rests with how it made us feel not the logic behind it.
Churches and pseudoscience purveyors have known this, either consciously or unconsciously. Blaming atheists, homosexuals or Jews for the ills of society is easy to do. Simply show that they displease god and when god is upset, god causes bad things to happen. Why? Because the Bible says so. Bad things bring out negative emotions therefore believers now connect these people to their emotions.
Now, try to use logic to show that atheists are not the cause of the problem. It takes a long stream of logic and there will always be questions requiring answers. But the listener must work to follow the logic and may forget the reasons whereas the emotional response is almost instantaneous and easily recalled.
It seems that believers in religion and pseudoscience have stalled in their evolution of thinking. Arguments that rely on emotion are no longer relevant now that we have the scientific method of acquiring evidence and actually testing ideas. We know this works because science has allowed an exponential increase in human knowledge and technology.
As Jonathan Haidt outlines in his book, 'The Happiness Hypothesis', our mind consists of an elephant and a rider. The elephant represents autonomic brain functions and our emotions. The elephant, for the most part, does what it wants. The rider is our logic and reason but it is not in control of the elephant. Instead it is a slave or advisor to the elephant. It is given control only when the elephant wants to be controlled. It's important to recognize that in this model, the elephant came first and has been very successful through its evolution. The rider evolved to assist the elephant and add variety to the elephant's choices. This, too, was successful in evolution.
To move forward we must work hard to train our elephant to give more control to the rider. Debating through emotions can no longer be accepted, we must teach through science and reason. Maybe our next leap in evolution will be to give our rider a whip.
Here's a talk by Jonathan Haidt that inspired me to read his book:
When listening to someone present an emotionally-charged argument I'm beginning to realize that as the emotion increases, the evidence decreases. In other words, when you have little evidence (or in the face of contradictory evidence) appeal to the listener's emotions. This works because our emotions are far more developed than our logic and we are more likely to react to, and remember, our emotions. The 'truth' of the argument now rests with how it made us feel not the logic behind it.
Churches and pseudoscience purveyors have known this, either consciously or unconsciously. Blaming atheists, homosexuals or Jews for the ills of society is easy to do. Simply show that they displease god and when god is upset, god causes bad things to happen. Why? Because the Bible says so. Bad things bring out negative emotions therefore believers now connect these people to their emotions.
Now, try to use logic to show that atheists are not the cause of the problem. It takes a long stream of logic and there will always be questions requiring answers. But the listener must work to follow the logic and may forget the reasons whereas the emotional response is almost instantaneous and easily recalled.
It seems that believers in religion and pseudoscience have stalled in their evolution of thinking. Arguments that rely on emotion are no longer relevant now that we have the scientific method of acquiring evidence and actually testing ideas. We know this works because science has allowed an exponential increase in human knowledge and technology.
As Jonathan Haidt outlines in his book, 'The Happiness Hypothesis', our mind consists of an elephant and a rider. The elephant represents autonomic brain functions and our emotions. The elephant, for the most part, does what it wants. The rider is our logic and reason but it is not in control of the elephant. Instead it is a slave or advisor to the elephant. It is given control only when the elephant wants to be controlled. It's important to recognize that in this model, the elephant came first and has been very successful through its evolution. The rider evolved to assist the elephant and add variety to the elephant's choices. This, too, was successful in evolution.
To move forward we must work hard to train our elephant to give more control to the rider. Debating through emotions can no longer be accepted, we must teach through science and reason. Maybe our next leap in evolution will be to give our rider a whip.
Here's a talk by Jonathan Haidt that inspired me to read his book:
Bob Marley acting as his own legal counsel:
Expelled is on Youtube here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/virtualprophecy
It probably won't be up for too long as I'm sure there is some sort of copyright infringement. I'm just glad I could see it without giving a dime to the producers!
Everything that needs to be said about the movie likely has. My only purpose in watching it was to try and understand the point of view of the IDers. I think the three big points that IDers will rally around are:
1. ID is a competitive theory to Evolution - this is nonsense. ID is an idea, it hasn't made it to hypothesis let alone theory. Sorry, but schools don't have time to teach ideas in science.
2. Evolution leads to atheism - maybe, but so what? What if it lead to Hinduism, or Jainism? Just because an established theory based on mountains of fact and evidence changes a person's worldview doesn't mean the theory is wrong. It is the dogmatic preservation of worldviews that leads to conflict, not the ability to change.
3. Evolution is a dangerous idea that leads to mass murder - this is an emotional conspiracy theory that, I think, honestly strikes fear in theists. They really do think that Hitler's godlessness is what made him evil (no one knows for sure if Hitler was godless). No matter how much we try to counter the idea they will still cover their ears and hum loudly. But again, even if we could prove that the Holocast was completely due to evolution that still doesn't make the theory wrong.
So, if you're home ill or doing a mundane chore, watch Expelled if you want to make it worse.
http://www.youtube.com/user/virtualprophecy
It probably won't be up for too long as I'm sure there is some sort of copyright infringement. I'm just glad I could see it without giving a dime to the producers!
Everything that needs to be said about the movie likely has. My only purpose in watching it was to try and understand the point of view of the IDers. I think the three big points that IDers will rally around are:
1. ID is a competitive theory to Evolution - this is nonsense. ID is an idea, it hasn't made it to hypothesis let alone theory. Sorry, but schools don't have time to teach ideas in science.
2. Evolution leads to atheism - maybe, but so what? What if it lead to Hinduism, or Jainism? Just because an established theory based on mountains of fact and evidence changes a person's worldview doesn't mean the theory is wrong. It is the dogmatic preservation of worldviews that leads to conflict, not the ability to change.
3. Evolution is a dangerous idea that leads to mass murder - this is an emotional conspiracy theory that, I think, honestly strikes fear in theists. They really do think that Hitler's godlessness is what made him evil (no one knows for sure if Hitler was godless). No matter how much we try to counter the idea they will still cover their ears and hum loudly. But again, even if we could prove that the Holocast was completely due to evolution that still doesn't make the theory wrong.
So, if you're home ill or doing a mundane chore, watch Expelled if you want to make it worse.
I keep hearing theists argue that there is a god because of design, or morality, or how it 'feels right'. From there, of course, they're happy to say how this god is a Christian, or Muslim, Jewish, etc (ya, ya, they're the same, I know).
However, I can't understand how ANY theist argument proves the existance of ONE god. Every one of their arguments could just as easily describe many gods (a sun-making god, a planet-making god, black hole god, etc.).
From now on, I think I'll start challenging theists with this:
Without using a holy book, give evidence that it's impossible for 2 or more gods to exist.
However, I can't understand how ANY theist argument proves the existance of ONE god. Every one of their arguments could just as easily describe many gods (a sun-making god, a planet-making god, black hole god, etc.).
From now on, I think I'll start challenging theists with this:
Without using a holy book, give evidence that it's impossible for 2 or more gods to exist.
Want to get your kids interested in chemistry? Why not show them how to destroy a gummy bear:
Now this is funny!
Now this is funny!
Potholer54 on Youtube has an excellent series of videos, including the 'Made Easy' series. He's a former Science Journalist who is now making free science videos based on his past and recent research. The videos below are Part 1 and 2 of his Climate Change series (at least one more Part is on the way):
Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Climate Change - The Objections
He carefully looks at the science of Climate Change and gives a balanced view of the proponents and skeptics - using science to determine who is most likely correct, imagine that! Enjoy.
Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Climate Change - The Objections
He carefully looks at the science of Climate Change and gives a balanced view of the proponents and skeptics - using science to determine who is most likely correct, imagine that! Enjoy.
I turned 40 yesterday and, remarkably, today feels the same as yesterday. Maybe it hasn't hit me yet but I certainly don't feel 40. No mental crisis, no failing ability, no longing for the past or fearing of the future. I am.
Honestly, I think it's atheism that has protected me through this transition. I've spent an embarrassing amount of time reading atheist books, watching atheist videos and thinking atheistic thoughts and have found... contentment. It's amazing to have a mind that can freely contemplate and look with wonder at the universe. The understanding that science is the best tool we've ever created to make sense of the world and provide technologies to make life more enjoyable.
When I look back at human history I recognize that I live, in almost every way, a far better life than virtually every other human who ever lived. Shelter, food, love, knowledge; I could go on. The Pharoahs who deified themselves, collected immense wealth and made slaves of their people didn't have a toilet, air conditioning or basic medicine - but I do!
If Life, as they say, begins at 40, I'm ready.
Honestly, I think it's atheism that has protected me through this transition. I've spent an embarrassing amount of time reading atheist books, watching atheist videos and thinking atheistic thoughts and have found... contentment. It's amazing to have a mind that can freely contemplate and look with wonder at the universe. The understanding that science is the best tool we've ever created to make sense of the world and provide technologies to make life more enjoyable.
When I look back at human history I recognize that I live, in almost every way, a far better life than virtually every other human who ever lived. Shelter, food, love, knowledge; I could go on. The Pharoahs who deified themselves, collected immense wealth and made slaves of their people didn't have a toilet, air conditioning or basic medicine - but I do!
If Life, as they say, begins at 40, I'm ready.
I'm a subscriber to DonExodus2's channel on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2). He's a Christian that has made some excellent science videos. He's not a creationist but he did make a two-part video on why he believes in god. He seems to be intelligent, highly educated and yet, he believes. I have always been fascinated by people like this. I suppose the only real answer is that they want to believe.
In trying to think of an analogy for why this is, so I came up with a 'god puzzle'. Imagine we believe that god gives us a great puzzle to solve and all the abilities we'd require to solve it. We go out into the world and begin finding pieces of the puzzle (the beauty of butterflies, DNA is the building block of life, gravity is warping of space/time, etc.). We eagerly put these pieces together knowing that the final picture will be the definition of what god is. However, when we have only a few pieces left we look at the puzzle and are horrified! Instead of a description of god, we can plainly see it says, "God does not exist."
As a freethinker, we can overcome our shock and become enlightened. We've done it, we've solved the puzzle! For a believer, the truth paralyzes them. Their options are to let go of their preconceived ideas or to deny what they see (maybe demons are tricking them). They may smash the puzzle and attempt to hide the pieces forever. Or, in the case of educated believers, they simply refuse to finish it. They'll continue to collect puzzle pieces but will stop putting them together. They'd rather spend time finding pieces than solving puzzles.
I always thought that this would make a good plot for a story. God exists, however, god decides to create a puzzle that proves god's non-existence. This god gives people the ability discover this truth. Upon their death, god gives the greatest reward to those who use their abilities properly and stand firm in their belief that there is no god. Heaven, it turns out, is reserved for honest atheists!
Here's one of DonExodus2's evolution videos:
In trying to think of an analogy for why this is, so I came up with a 'god puzzle'. Imagine we believe that god gives us a great puzzle to solve and all the abilities we'd require to solve it. We go out into the world and begin finding pieces of the puzzle (the beauty of butterflies, DNA is the building block of life, gravity is warping of space/time, etc.). We eagerly put these pieces together knowing that the final picture will be the definition of what god is. However, when we have only a few pieces left we look at the puzzle and are horrified! Instead of a description of god, we can plainly see it says, "God does not exist."
As a freethinker, we can overcome our shock and become enlightened. We've done it, we've solved the puzzle! For a believer, the truth paralyzes them. Their options are to let go of their preconceived ideas or to deny what they see (maybe demons are tricking them). They may smash the puzzle and attempt to hide the pieces forever. Or, in the case of educated believers, they simply refuse to finish it. They'll continue to collect puzzle pieces but will stop putting them together. They'd rather spend time finding pieces than solving puzzles.
I always thought that this would make a good plot for a story. God exists, however, god decides to create a puzzle that proves god's non-existence. This god gives people the ability discover this truth. Upon their death, god gives the greatest reward to those who use their abilities properly and stand firm in their belief that there is no god. Heaven, it turns out, is reserved for honest atheists!
Here's one of DonExodus2's evolution videos:
This video is no longer relevant but I'm disappointed that I didn't see it during the American election:
Have a thirst for Physics, Evolution, Cosmology, etc? Check out Zuke696's playlist:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=Zuke696
No shortage of videos here!
http://www.youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=Zuke696
No shortage of videos here!

Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription

