Showing posts with label reason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reason. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
'Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future'
There is a book, released last year, entitled 'Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future' It's about the disconnect between scientists and the general public. The book's homepage: http://www.unscientificamerica.com/ talks about the issue.
Here is an excerpt:
Some of our gravest challenges—climate change, the energy crisis, national economic competitiveness—and gravest threats--global pandemics, nuclear proliferation—have fundamentally scientific underpinnings. Yet we still live in a culture that rarely takes science seriously or has it on the radar.
For every five hours of cable news, less than a minute is devoted to science; 46 percent of Americans reject evolution and think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old; the number of newspapers with weekly science sections has shrunken by two-thirds over the past several decades.
The public is polarized over climate change—an issue where political party affiliation determines one's view of reality—and in dangerous retreat from childhood vaccinations. Meanwhile, only 18 percent of Americans have even met a scientist to begin with; more than half can't name a living scientist role model.
The situation is pretty bad down there in the US (not sure how we're faring overall here in Canada, but I do know we're experiencing a fundamentalist uprising, and the asociated antiscientifc sentiments are rearing their ugly heads as well). Biased news media outlets pick up a story that conforms to their preconceived notions (say, Anthropogenic Global Warming is false) and gladly report it ad nauseum, hammering home the message for the viewers....all without bothering to either wait for things to come clear, or do some honest appraisal and fact checking.
And once the people hear it on tv...it's gospel. They don't think critically. They don't do the research themselves. Look at the whole 'climategate' thing. And, as the old saying goes, the lie spreads quickly and sticks, so even if the truth eventually gets out, it's too late (or something like that).
Another example was the supposedly suppressed EPA analysis of a climate change bill. Fox news was all over it, saying that the EPA did not include in its report a 98 page document generated within the agency that questioned the science of global warming.
Of course, if anyone had bothered to do any, you know, reporting, they would have found that the report was written by two non-climate scientists working for the NCEE, who relied heavily on the work of a leading figure of an industry front group to write their report, which was actually nothing of the sort. They regurgitated pseudoscientifc nonsense from the front group's website. But the damage had already been done, and the science of global warming was further undermined in the public's eye.
So, what the hell do we do? Do scientific establishments need to hire full time PR firms to counter this bullshit before it does the damage it so often does?
Do we revamp the education system so it puts more focus on critical examination and less on blind acceptance and submissiveness to authority?
WHAT? What can we do? Are people too far gone? Is everyone too busy with their ipods and such that they don't have time for the science anymore? Are we too accustomed to having our knowledge delivered to us in quick 3 minute soundbites? I mean, how many people actually refer to the actual science? I love asking deniers of AGW or Evolution,
People deny decades, and even centuries worth of multidisciplinary scientifc evidence, and all they have to go on is some biased news stories, a couple of articles on the internet, and most importantly, selfish reasons for wanting to deny these things, religious, political, financical, or otherwise.
It's incredibly sad, and it threatens our actual futures. Yes, no hyperbole. It threatens our very future.
Here is an excerpt:
Some of our gravest challenges—climate change, the energy crisis, national economic competitiveness—and gravest threats--global pandemics, nuclear proliferation—have fundamentally scientific underpinnings. Yet we still live in a culture that rarely takes science seriously or has it on the radar.
For every five hours of cable news, less than a minute is devoted to science; 46 percent of Americans reject evolution and think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old; the number of newspapers with weekly science sections has shrunken by two-thirds over the past several decades.
The public is polarized over climate change—an issue where political party affiliation determines one's view of reality—and in dangerous retreat from childhood vaccinations. Meanwhile, only 18 percent of Americans have even met a scientist to begin with; more than half can't name a living scientist role model.
The situation is pretty bad down there in the US (not sure how we're faring overall here in Canada, but I do know we're experiencing a fundamentalist uprising, and the asociated antiscientifc sentiments are rearing their ugly heads as well). Biased news media outlets pick up a story that conforms to their preconceived notions (say, Anthropogenic Global Warming is false) and gladly report it ad nauseum, hammering home the message for the viewers....all without bothering to either wait for things to come clear, or do some honest appraisal and fact checking.
And once the people hear it on tv...it's gospel. They don't think critically. They don't do the research themselves. Look at the whole 'climategate' thing. And, as the old saying goes, the lie spreads quickly and sticks, so even if the truth eventually gets out, it's too late (or something like that).
Another example was the supposedly suppressed EPA analysis of a climate change bill. Fox news was all over it, saying that the EPA did not include in its report a 98 page document generated within the agency that questioned the science of global warming.
Of course, if anyone had bothered to do any, you know, reporting, they would have found that the report was written by two non-climate scientists working for the NCEE, who relied heavily on the work of a leading figure of an industry front group to write their report, which was actually nothing of the sort. They regurgitated pseudoscientifc nonsense from the front group's website. But the damage had already been done, and the science of global warming was further undermined in the public's eye.
So, what the hell do we do? Do scientific establishments need to hire full time PR firms to counter this bullshit before it does the damage it so often does?
Do we revamp the education system so it puts more focus on critical examination and less on blind acceptance and submissiveness to authority?
WHAT? What can we do? Are people too far gone? Is everyone too busy with their ipods and such that they don't have time for the science anymore? Are we too accustomed to having our knowledge delivered to us in quick 3 minute soundbites? I mean, how many people actually refer to the actual science? I love asking deniers of AGW or Evolution,
How much of the actual research have you read, or even glanced over? Hell, how many abstracts have you read?The answer is usually none.
People deny decades, and even centuries worth of multidisciplinary scientifc evidence, and all they have to go on is some biased news stories, a couple of articles on the internet, and most importantly, selfish reasons for wanting to deny these things, religious, political, financical, or otherwise.
It's incredibly sad, and it threatens our actual futures. Yes, no hyperbole. It threatens our very future.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
You're Not An 'Agnostic.'
We're all agnostic. If your answer to the question ''Do you believe in a god'' is yes, you are a theist. If it's anything but yes, then you are currently an atheist.
Theism=Belief
A-theism=Lack of said belief
Gnosticism=Knowing
Agnosticism=Not knowing.
We all either believe or not, but no one ''knows'' for sure. Hence, the agnosticism part. Whether or not you believe is a matter of being convinced by the evidence. ''What evidence?'' you may ask.
Well, pick a religion.
You know the ''holy'' books, the arguments, the stories, etc etc? That's the evidence. If you don't find any of them compelling enough that they have convinced you of their veracity, and none of the non specific arguments for a deity like the cosmological or teleological argumets have convinced you, then you're an atheist.
If they have convinced you, then you're a theist, and are either a deist (convinced by the nonspecific arguments, but not by a specific religion), or you were convinced by a specific religion and now are a Hindu, or a Christian, or whatever.
You cannot just simply be 'An Agnostic.'
Theism=Belief
A-theism=Lack of said belief
Gnosticism=Knowing
Agnosticism=Not knowing.
We all either believe or not, but no one ''knows'' for sure. Hence, the agnosticism part. Whether or not you believe is a matter of being convinced by the evidence. ''What evidence?'' you may ask.
Well, pick a religion.
You know the ''holy'' books, the arguments, the stories, etc etc? That's the evidence. If you don't find any of them compelling enough that they have convinced you of their veracity, and none of the non specific arguments for a deity like the cosmological or teleological argumets have convinced you, then you're an atheist.
If they have convinced you, then you're a theist, and are either a deist (convinced by the nonspecific arguments, but not by a specific religion), or you were convinced by a specific religion and now are a Hindu, or a Christian, or whatever.
You cannot just simply be 'An Agnostic.'
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
New Research: Atheists 'just as ethical as churchgoers'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7189188/Atheists-just-as-ethical-as-churchgoers.html
Few excerpts:
People who have no religion know right from wrong just as well as regular worshippers, according to the study.
People who did not have a religious background still appeared to have intuitive judgments of right and wrong in common with believers, according to the findings, published in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
The team looked at several psychological studies which were designed to test an individual’s morality.
Dr Hauser added: "The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments
You can read more at the link I posted above.
To this, I think the only thing I can say is, "duh!" To any reasonable person, this is quite obvious. However, unfortunately, there are many people out there who feel that someone such as myself, has no moral compass.
They could not be more incorrect. Hopefully now, at least a few of these people will be stripped of such notions. The notion that one needs religion to be a moral person is incredibly outdated and misguided, and it's time to put it to rest.
Few excerpts:
People who have no religion know right from wrong just as well as regular worshippers, according to the study.
People who did not have a religious background still appeared to have intuitive judgments of right and wrong in common with believers, according to the findings, published in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
The team looked at several psychological studies which were designed to test an individual’s morality.
Dr Hauser added: "The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments
You can read more at the link I posted above.
To this, I think the only thing I can say is, "duh!" To any reasonable person, this is quite obvious. However, unfortunately, there are many people out there who feel that someone such as myself, has no moral compass.
They could not be more incorrect. Hopefully now, at least a few of these people will be stripped of such notions. The notion that one needs religion to be a moral person is incredibly outdated and misguided, and it's time to put it to rest.
Sarah Palin: 100K for Q/A, Still Needs Crib Notes
So Sarah Palin uses crib notes for a Q&A session, during which she was asked general queestions about concepts and things she supports. She is unable to even recall her own stances on policy?
Here's the question for which she needed to consult her hand:
What are the top three priorities once there's a conservative president and congress?
....
---
Can someone please, please, help me out here. Explain to me how someone so incredibly useless can get paid 100K for a speaking engagement, and possibly run for president, after all of the stupid, stupid things she has said? And even now after this, people will continue to take her seriously.
What must one do to lose credibility anymore? It used to be that people had integrity, and were qualified for the positions they were running for (and even if they didn't, and weren't, they knew how to hide it).
Now......ya, I don't understand it. You can be a war criminal and still get paid huge money for speaking engagements, rather than be placed in jail like you should be (Bush), you can be a complete and utter dolt, still get paid for speaking engagements, get hired to work for a news channel (if you can call it that) and possibly run for US presidencey (Palin).
What the **** is going on down there?
How did we get this far? We have free speech on trial in Amsterdam, we have this woman who:
1) Doesn't know her own policies
2) Still fails prescreened questions
3) Tried to ban books
4) Thinks foreign policy consists of proximity and visibility
etc etc etc
And somehow, rather than be made a laughing stock, she:
1) Has a million plus selling book
2) Gets paid 100 thousand dollars to speak to disenfranchised people about greed
3) Was a presidential running mate
4) May be running for US presidency in 2 years
etc etc etc.
It hurts. It honestly hurts. I'm only 28, and I can honestly say I sometimes feel like I might as well give up, it's over. This is one of those times.
Am I the only one who gets nostalgic for time periods in which he did not even live? I see images and video of the early 20th century, and I wish I was there....but, yes, I am aware of the rose tinted glasses thing. I know the folly of the ''sinking ship'' view of the current generation.
It's just so hard sometimes......
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Geert Wilders: on trial for telling the truth
Two Years in Jail for "Offending People?"
This blog, by Douglas Murra, a bestselling author and award-winning journalist based in London, describes an ongoing trial in Amsterdam, which consists of a popular politican being put on trial for.......are you ready for this?
Offending Muslims.
Yes, freedom of speech is on trial in Amsertdam.
A small excerpt:
The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.
I’m sorry? Whoa there, just a minute. The man’s on trial because he ‘offended a group of people’? I get offended by all sorts of people. I get offended by very fat people. I get offended by very thick people. I get offended by very sensitive people. I get offended by the crazy car-crash of vowels in Dutch verbs. But I don’t try to press charges.
Yet, crazily, this is exactly what is going on now in a Dutch courtroom. If found guilty of this Alice-in-Wonderland accusation of ‘offending a group of people’, Wilders faces up to two years in prison.
If anyone doubts the surreal nature of the proceedings now going on they should simply look through the summons which is available in an English translation here. It shows that Wilders is on trial for his film Fitna. And for various things he has said in articles and interviews in the Dutch press.
This video talks about the issue:
This blog, by Douglas Murra, a bestselling author and award-winning journalist based in London, describes an ongoing trial in Amsterdam, which consists of a popular politican being put on trial for.......are you ready for this?
Offending Muslims.
Yes, freedom of speech is on trial in Amsertdam.
A small excerpt:
The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.
I’m sorry? Whoa there, just a minute. The man’s on trial because he ‘offended a group of people’? I get offended by all sorts of people. I get offended by very fat people. I get offended by very thick people. I get offended by very sensitive people. I get offended by the crazy car-crash of vowels in Dutch verbs. But I don’t try to press charges.
Yet, crazily, this is exactly what is going on now in a Dutch courtroom. If found guilty of this Alice-in-Wonderland accusation of ‘offending a group of people’, Wilders faces up to two years in prison.
If anyone doubts the surreal nature of the proceedings now going on they should simply look through the summons which is available in an English translation here. It shows that Wilders is on trial for his film Fitna. And for various things he has said in articles and interviews in the Dutch press.
This video talks about the issue:
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Purpose of Life
I read a post over at What Worries Jeff Dee? dealing with life, and the purpose of it.
What is the purpose of life? Is there purpose in it? If so, is it subjectively or objectively determined?
Well, if The Merovingian is correct, purpose is merely a label ascribed to the relationship between cause and effect, which means that the "purpose" of which people speak is merely a deterministic outcome linearly based on caual factors.
Or, he and I, as well as the overly pretentious Architect, are full of shit :P
In all seriousness (sorry, just re-watched the Matrix Trilogy), I'm of the opinion that there is no purpose inherent in life.
From an evlutionary persspective, our main drive is to procreate, and, psychologically, we have a heirarchy of needs (Maslow, was it?)....but purpose?
Not the way I see it. There is no purpose. It just is, and it is up to us to define one for ourselves, if we choose to do so. Does this depress me?
No, but suppose I can understand why religion is so attractive ;)
What is the purpose of life? Is there purpose in it? If so, is it subjectively or objectively determined?
Well, if The Merovingian is correct, purpose is merely a label ascribed to the relationship between cause and effect, which means that the "purpose" of which people speak is merely a deterministic outcome linearly based on caual factors.
Or, he and I, as well as the overly pretentious Architect, are full of shit :P
In all seriousness (sorry, just re-watched the Matrix Trilogy), I'm of the opinion that there is no purpose inherent in life.
From an evlutionary persspective, our main drive is to procreate, and, psychologically, we have a heirarchy of needs (Maslow, was it?)....but purpose?
Not the way I see it. There is no purpose. It just is, and it is up to us to define one for ourselves, if we choose to do so. Does this depress me?
No, but suppose I can understand why religion is so attractive ;)
The Atheist Experience: Global Warming Denial and God Belief
The Atheist Experience: Global Warming Denial and God Belief
The Atheist Experience blog has been updated with a post regarding Rush Limbaugh, who, after identifying himself as a creationist, stated, "I simply cannot accept the fact that we would be created to do things that would destroy our environment..." (apparently he has never heard of pollution, industrialization, holes in the ozone layer, forced extinctions, and the (egregiously!) fallacious nature of arguments from incredulity)
Don, who posted the blog, went on to postulate why it is he feels that the religious are the most vocal when it comes to global warming denial. For me, the issue is not one of motivating factors in the denial (one of which religion may be) but rather, the denial itself, and how it comes to pass. The unfortunate thing here, is, religious or non, most people seem to come to decisions regarding these sorts of issues based not on the actual science, but what they hear in the media and read on the internet/hear from friends.
A few convincing soundbytes and it's over, which is really sad, and must be inordinately frustrating for those hard at work on these issues.
Sadly, I was one of these people for a while there....so I can understand how it easy it to fall into the trap. The important thing to remember is that the science should speak for the science. Analyze the data yourself, be critical of the methodology and the concluisons but go to the data itself, not an intermediary.
Go the the source, folks, go to the source.
The Atheist Experience blog has been updated with a post regarding Rush Limbaugh, who, after identifying himself as a creationist, stated, "I simply cannot accept the fact that we would be created to do things that would destroy our environment..." (apparently he has never heard of pollution, industrialization, holes in the ozone layer, forced extinctions, and the (egregiously!) fallacious nature of arguments from incredulity)
Don, who posted the blog, went on to postulate why it is he feels that the religious are the most vocal when it comes to global warming denial. For me, the issue is not one of motivating factors in the denial (one of which religion may be) but rather, the denial itself, and how it comes to pass. The unfortunate thing here, is, religious or non, most people seem to come to decisions regarding these sorts of issues based not on the actual science, but what they hear in the media and read on the internet/hear from friends.
A few convincing soundbytes and it's over, which is really sad, and must be inordinately frustrating for those hard at work on these issues.
Sadly, I was one of these people for a while there....so I can understand how it easy it to fall into the trap. The important thing to remember is that the science should speak for the science. Analyze the data yourself, be critical of the methodology and the concluisons but go to the data itself, not an intermediary.
Go the the source, folks, go to the source.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Atheists Kill Children!! UPDATED!!
I had a particularly distasteful exchange with a youtube user by the name of MaIcoImZieI, who left the following message on another theists' channel.
First, he said this on mysticalforest's Channel:
"It's sad to see that so many people believe Charles Darwin, Evolution, 'Scienfitic Facts' and don't try themselves to find out what is truly behind this magical life."
LOL! Misguided and sad as it was, I at least derived a bit of a laugh from it.
But then, he said this:
"Yesterday an Atheist man killed his two children in my city. Shows you what people are capable of once they have turned their back to God. Stay strong!"
Well, I HAD to respond to that nonsense. So I sent him this:
" I really would like to know if you are actually positing the ''turning of one's back to god" as the cause for murder?
I'm not here to bash you or argue with you. I have no issue with you being theist, at all. But I do have an issue with this partciular statement, and honestly, you should as well. I mean, the flaws in this are incredibly self evident, so for you to say it means you either remain willfully ignorant of them, or honestly haven't thought this out.
Honestly, do you see the major flaws in such a statement? I will gladly inform you of them if you ask, but I truly want to know if you can figure it out for yourself.
And if I am coming across as condescending, that is not my intent. It's just that this is a fundamentally and obviously flawed statement.
And it's also not fair. You guys are demonizing an entire group of people, and that's not right."
And he comes back with this:
"You know very well that when people do not understand the value of life, they will do anything they want. Are you saying that if this man would have known God, if he would have known the value of life, if he would have had any understand of morality, he would still have killed his children? NEVER!"
So, I respond back, and demolish his line of thinking:
"You avoided my question. And you also made the same fundamental errors. I guess I have to fill you in on what they are:
1) Generalizations. This should be obvious. You cannot extrapolate from one incident and apply it to a whole group. That's like me saying that all Chrstians who follow the god of th ebible are against abortion, or gay marriage. You and I both know that is not correct, but if I were like you I could point to the Westboro Baptists and say ''Well, this is what happens when you believe in that god."
Hitler was a professed Christian. Do I assume that Chrstianity leads to genocide?
I hope you can see how that's faulty logic.
2) What exaclty is that claim based upon? Do you know for sure that was the reason he killed his children? What about mental illness? Or any number of other extraneous and concomittant factors? From where do you draw this conclusion?
3) You say god as though everyone believes in the same god as you. Presumably, you are a christian. What if this man believed in a god, just not the same one as you? Would you be saying that he did this because he did not believe in the right god, or is it only the total lack of a belief in any god that leads to child murder?
4) Why aren't all atheists murdering their children?
5) What about religious people of all faiths who have murdered their children? What do you have to say for that?
6) "Understanding of morality." Are you saying that one needs god belief to understand morality?
Use the brain you believe your god gave you. Just think about what a horribly nasty, vile thing it was you said, and see how your dogmatic and erroneous belief has stopped you from seeing the incredibly obvious flaws in such a disgusting assertion."
I haven't heard from him since, but he's been on the site. I half expected him to trun tail and run when faced with coheren thoughts, and it looks like that's what he's going to do.....so typical.
The question is, do I bother with it? I'll update this with any and all new developments. For now, I'll leave it, but maybe in a day or two if I haven't heard back I'll say something....I dunno.
This is a really sad state of affirs here people. Science denial and misconstrual, and beliefs such as ''atheism leads to killing children" existing in 2010 saddens me to no end.
(And yes, I know the whole Hitler being a christian thing is contested. The fact is, he was. Whether or not he believed it or was utilizing it as a means to an end is up for debate, but it's not like I couldn't have pointed to any number of other murdering religious people to elucidate my point to him.)
UPDATE: He got back to me, check out this amazing response:
"People like you will never learn. But he... that makes sense... you believe we came out of a magical Big Bang explosion (before which there was nothing?) and POP! here we are! Of course you wouldn't understand. Do you really think I am going to argue with you if you believe that bullshit? Start thinking for yourself instead of reading books written by others."
What the fuck.
I sent him this:
"You can't be serious. You just can't. If you are serious, wow, you're absolutely stupid. And you're also a coward, because you completely failed to address the point. The last sentence really nails the conundrum. You're either screwing around, or monumentally stupid, and ignorant of the massive amount of irony contained in that one pathetic sentence.
Either way, you're a waste of time."
I was going to try and continue discussing this with him, but come on, it's impossible either way, so fuck it, I decided to be blunt. Enough is enough.
First, he said this on mysticalforest's Channel:
"It's sad to see that so many people believe Charles Darwin, Evolution, 'Scienfitic Facts' and don't try themselves to find out what is truly behind this magical life."
LOL! Misguided and sad as it was, I at least derived a bit of a laugh from it.
But then, he said this:
"Yesterday an Atheist man killed his two children in my city. Shows you what people are capable of once they have turned their back to God. Stay strong!"
Well, I HAD to respond to that nonsense. So I sent him this:
" I really would like to know if you are actually positing the ''turning of one's back to god" as the cause for murder?
I'm not here to bash you or argue with you. I have no issue with you being theist, at all. But I do have an issue with this partciular statement, and honestly, you should as well. I mean, the flaws in this are incredibly self evident, so for you to say it means you either remain willfully ignorant of them, or honestly haven't thought this out.
Honestly, do you see the major flaws in such a statement? I will gladly inform you of them if you ask, but I truly want to know if you can figure it out for yourself.
And if I am coming across as condescending, that is not my intent. It's just that this is a fundamentally and obviously flawed statement.
And it's also not fair. You guys are demonizing an entire group of people, and that's not right."
And he comes back with this:
"You know very well that when people do not understand the value of life, they will do anything they want. Are you saying that if this man would have known God, if he would have known the value of life, if he would have had any understand of morality, he would still have killed his children? NEVER!"
So, I respond back, and demolish his line of thinking:
"You avoided my question. And you also made the same fundamental errors. I guess I have to fill you in on what they are:
1) Generalizations. This should be obvious. You cannot extrapolate from one incident and apply it to a whole group. That's like me saying that all Chrstians who follow the god of th ebible are against abortion, or gay marriage. You and I both know that is not correct, but if I were like you I could point to the Westboro Baptists and say ''Well, this is what happens when you believe in that god."
Hitler was a professed Christian. Do I assume that Chrstianity leads to genocide?
I hope you can see how that's faulty logic.
2) What exaclty is that claim based upon? Do you know for sure that was the reason he killed his children? What about mental illness? Or any number of other extraneous and concomittant factors? From where do you draw this conclusion?
3) You say god as though everyone believes in the same god as you. Presumably, you are a christian. What if this man believed in a god, just not the same one as you? Would you be saying that he did this because he did not believe in the right god, or is it only the total lack of a belief in any god that leads to child murder?
4) Why aren't all atheists murdering their children?
5) What about religious people of all faiths who have murdered their children? What do you have to say for that?
6) "Understanding of morality." Are you saying that one needs god belief to understand morality?
Use the brain you believe your god gave you. Just think about what a horribly nasty, vile thing it was you said, and see how your dogmatic and erroneous belief has stopped you from seeing the incredibly obvious flaws in such a disgusting assertion."
I haven't heard from him since, but he's been on the site. I half expected him to trun tail and run when faced with coheren thoughts, and it looks like that's what he's going to do.....so typical.
The question is, do I bother with it? I'll update this with any and all new developments. For now, I'll leave it, but maybe in a day or two if I haven't heard back I'll say something....I dunno.
This is a really sad state of affirs here people. Science denial and misconstrual, and beliefs such as ''atheism leads to killing children" existing in 2010 saddens me to no end.
(And yes, I know the whole Hitler being a christian thing is contested. The fact is, he was. Whether or not he believed it or was utilizing it as a means to an end is up for debate, but it's not like I couldn't have pointed to any number of other murdering religious people to elucidate my point to him.)
UPDATE: He got back to me, check out this amazing response:
"People like you will never learn. But he... that makes sense... you believe we came out of a magical Big Bang explosion (before which there was nothing?) and POP! here we are! Of course you wouldn't understand. Do you really think I am going to argue with you if you believe that bullshit? Start thinking for yourself instead of reading books written by others."
What the fuck.
I sent him this:
"You can't be serious. You just can't. If you are serious, wow, you're absolutely stupid. And you're also a coward, because you completely failed to address the point. The last sentence really nails the conundrum. You're either screwing around, or monumentally stupid, and ignorant of the massive amount of irony contained in that one pathetic sentence.
Either way, you're a waste of time."
I was going to try and continue discussing this with him, but come on, it's impossible either way, so fuck it, I decided to be blunt. Enough is enough.
Christianity is Wrong, Disgusting, and Morally Reprehensible
Just think about this for a moment.
God creates us. He creates laws. We break those laws. God sets the penalty for such disobedience. That penalty is death.
He ends up killing nearly everyone.
So, this god character needs to come up with a new plan.
"AHA!," he says, ''I've got it! I'll forgive them!''
...."But first I need a blood sacrifice."
And so he sacrifices himself to himself in order to atone for us breaking the laws he himself created. Now we're all forgiven.....sort of.
Wait just a minute....he sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself?
Let's let that sink in.
And now we are supposed to view it this as mercy? Why couldn't he just forgive? Or change his rules? Or, you know, see all this coming, since he is supposedly omniscient?
But nope. None of that. There had to be death.
Why?
Just because.
Now go tell your young children that they have blood on their hands. Or should I say on their 'soul'? Someone they did not know was brutally murdered to atone for the sins of their ancestors, for which they somehow carry the burden.
That's fucking disgusting.
EDIT: See HERE to get some more perspective as to why the entire story of christianity is reprehensible- and ridiculous. If, after reading both this and that, you still do not agree, please proceed to click HERE, as clearly that would be the perfect description for you.
God creates us. He creates laws. We break those laws. God sets the penalty for such disobedience. That penalty is death.
He ends up killing nearly everyone.
So, this god character needs to come up with a new plan.
"AHA!," he says, ''I've got it! I'll forgive them!''
...."But first I need a blood sacrifice."
And so he sacrifices himself to himself in order to atone for us breaking the laws he himself created. Now we're all forgiven.....sort of.
Wait just a minute....he sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself?
Let's let that sink in.
And now we are supposed to view it this as mercy? Why couldn't he just forgive? Or change his rules? Or, you know, see all this coming, since he is supposedly omniscient?
But nope. None of that. There had to be death.
Why?
Just because.
Now go tell your young children that they have blood on their hands. Or should I say on their 'soul'? Someone they did not know was brutally murdered to atone for the sins of their ancestors, for which they somehow carry the burden.
That's fucking disgusting.
EDIT: See HERE to get some more perspective as to why the entire story of christianity is reprehensible- and ridiculous. If, after reading both this and that, you still do not agree, please proceed to click HERE, as clearly that would be the perfect description for you.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Satirical Video: What If God Disappeared?
Predictable, but clever little video depicting a world without 'god.' I got a laugh out of the puppy line.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
When Nonsense Kils
Pseudoscientific nonsense such as Dowsing (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing) has been around for ages. It's something that I detest, but never more do I abhor such nonsense as when it actually results in death and bodily harm.
Jim McCormick, based at offices in rural Somerset, UK., has sold $85 million (yes, million) worth of completely fake ''bomb detectors'' to various governments for profit under the guise of offering protection. These ''devices'' are nothing more than glorified dowsing rods, and the ''chips'' inside them were discovered to be useless RFID chips, such as those found on price tags. There were warnings about this fraudster over a decade ago when he was selling these from within the US, mainly coming from the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) but these went ignored.....
Now that people have been killed by bombs not being detected by this stick with fake technology in it, the UK government has finally stepped in.
The large question here is why are governments buying untested technology from a single person making wild, unsubstantiated claims? This has to stop. Police using ''psyhics'' is bad enough, and now this. When our very governing bodies buy into pseudoscientifc bugaboo with nary a discerning glance, we're either dealing with rampant stupididty and gullibility, amazing greed, or both. Either way, we need to WAKE UP.
Read the story and watch the embedded video to get all of the details.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8471187.stm
Jim McCormick, based at offices in rural Somerset, UK., has sold $85 million (yes, million) worth of completely fake ''bomb detectors'' to various governments for profit under the guise of offering protection. These ''devices'' are nothing more than glorified dowsing rods, and the ''chips'' inside them were discovered to be useless RFID chips, such as those found on price tags. There were warnings about this fraudster over a decade ago when he was selling these from within the US, mainly coming from the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) but these went ignored.....
Now that people have been killed by bombs not being detected by this stick with fake technology in it, the UK government has finally stepped in.
The large question here is why are governments buying untested technology from a single person making wild, unsubstantiated claims? This has to stop. Police using ''psyhics'' is bad enough, and now this. When our very governing bodies buy into pseudoscientifc bugaboo with nary a discerning glance, we're either dealing with rampant stupididty and gullibility, amazing greed, or both. Either way, we need to WAKE UP.
Read the story and watch the embedded video to get all of the details.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8471187.stm
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Evolution isn't True?
If you have an issue with Evolutionary Theory, read the text on the following picture (click to zoom in), and answer the question at the bottom of it:
(And by the way, to head off any possible ''it's just a theory!!'' responses, the meaning of the word 'theory' in science is much different than the colloquial usage of the term:
In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.)
(And by the way, to head off any possible ''it's just a theory!!'' responses, the meaning of the word 'theory' in science is much different than the colloquial usage of the term:
In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
So, which one is it? As it says, if you have a problem with Evolution, you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen points. Which will it be?
Friday, January 22, 2010
Atheism is a Religion? and The Burden of Proof UPDATED
This blog will address 2 claims I see made with respect to atheism:
1) Atheism is (or has become) a religion.
2) It takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does a theist (ie, to not believe in a god requires evidence) aka The burden of proof argument, or the ''You can't prove god doesn't exist'' argument.
These of course aren't posited by all (probably not even most) believers, but they do come up often enough in online (and other) discourse.
However, before I get to the two main points, I would just like to operationally define atheism. It's actually quite simple, as atheism is not a worldvidew; it has no edicts, dogma, or tenets. It is literally and simply the lack of a belief in god(s).
Theism=belief in god(s) (deities)
Add the prefix 'a', which denotes lacking, or being without, to it, and you get:
A-theism, or atheism, the lack of a belief in god(s) (deities)
And that's it.
We can talk about agnosticism (which is not a 3rd option, but that's for another day), antitheism, secular humanism, stron atheism (aka there is no god) aka gnostic atheism, etc etc but do not let these ideas become red herrings in discussion. No matter what the Ray Comforts or the Pat Robertsons of the world tell you, that right there is atheism, and any and all beliefs in addition to this are extraneous (not that they cannot be built upon/from it, they can be, and are). All I have in common with other atheists is my atheism. After that, our ideologies will differ as will anybody else's. I might meet an atheist tomorrow who is socially conservative and thinks religion is a positive influence (aka my total opposite), etc.
Anyways, now that we have that under wraps, let's get to the two claims, shall we?
Claim #1: Atheism is a Religion
Point me to:
1) our church
2) our tenets
3) any atheist pageantry
4) where I pay my tithes
Claim #2: ''You can't prove god doesn't exist'' argument
The burden of proof is on the claimant. Not believing claims is not a claim. The burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist. The ONLY atheists who must shoulder that burden are the gnostic (aka I know there is no god) atheists. The 99% of us that are rational don't claim knowledge. We lack the belief.
Saying I believe no gods exist is a statement that follows from my examination, and subsequent rejection of, the ''evidence'' for the existence of a god(s). I am not making a positive claim; I do NOT have the burden of proof. How would an atheist prove such a negative?
Russell's Teapot exemplifies this nicely:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. -Bertrand Russell, 1952 (unpublished article for Illustrated magazine)Another way of looking at it is to ask yourself if you believe in the Loch Ness monster, and then ask yourself if it's up to you to prove it doesn't exist, or up to the people claiming it does to prove it. Remember, the lack of evidence is evidence. Not proof, mind you, not definitive, but certainly evidence.
Theists and atheists are not on equal ground. Saying ''I believe god exists'' is NOT equal to saying ''I believe no gods exist'' in terms of the burden of proof. I believe no gods exist because I have not been convinced otherwise. If no one had proposed a god, you would never say I have to prove this position. Now, because gods have been proposed, we're on equal ground?
No way. As soon as these gods were proposed, the burden of proof was on the ones making said propositions. If they fail to prove this claim is true, the person who continues to disbelieve is not suddenly required to provide evidence to show that this unbelief is justified.
This is why, in court, the crown has to prove the defendant is guilty. The defendant is NOT required to prove their innocence, and neither is the jury. The burden is on those making the claim. Until the person was brought up on charges, they were presumed innocent. As soon as the gulty claim was made, the burden of proof was created, and it rests on those making the claim. If this burden is not met (aka reasonable doubt) the propsoal is rejected aka disbelieved, without any further burden on the disbelievers.
This is allegorical to the atheists. Until a god is posited, I'm an atheist. Once a theist comes by and makes their case, the burden is on them. If, at the end of their presentation, I say ''I find the evidence lacking, I do not believe you,'' they don't get to say ''but you didn't PROVE that he doesn't exist!'' That job is theirs.
This is why, in court, the crown has to prove the defendant is guilty. The defendant is NOT required to prove their innocence, and neither is the jury. The burden is on those making the claim. Until the person was brought up on charges, they were presumed innocent. As soon as the gulty claim was made, the burden of proof was created, and it rests on those making the claim. If this burden is not met (aka reasonable doubt) the propsoal is rejected aka disbelieved, without any further burden on the disbelievers.
This is allegorical to the atheists. Until a god is posited, I'm an atheist. Once a theist comes by and makes their case, the burden is on them. If, at the end of their presentation, I say ''I find the evidence lacking, I do not believe you,'' they don't get to say ''but you didn't PROVE that he doesn't exist!'' That job is theirs.
Theirs and theirs alone.
Unless of course I retort with "I know there is no god!" In that case, I say, good luck, pal ;)
Unless of course I retort with "I know there is no god!" In that case, I say, good luck, pal ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)