Atheism - That's for ME!

10 reasons to not vote for Santorum

2012-02-09T18:03:00.004-05:00

I read today an article at CNN (why do I keep going to their site?) entitled: 10 Reasons Religious Conservatives Love Rick Santorum.

My comments are inserted in RED. (I used to grade a LOT of papers.)

Santorum’s a family man. “He’s got this big, vibrant family and he left the campaign trail last week to go back and be with his daughter in the hospital,” says Eli Bremer, chairman of Colorado's El Paso County Republican Party, centered around evangelical-heavy Colorado Springs. Santorum recently returned to Pennsylvania to respond to a health scare involving daughter Isabella – the youngest of his seven children – who suffers from a genetic disease. “I spent time with him last year, and he’s constantly thinking about his family,” Bremer says of Santorum. “It’s not just a political stunt.”

We've only had one president who was a bachelor - Franklin Pierce (the 15th . . . president, not the 15th Franklin Pierce). So, yeah, you're not going to get elected these days and not be a 'family man'. But what does that mean? Josh Powell was a family man. So were Robert Lynch, Bruce Sweazy, and Anthony Paul...they all killed their families. You elect a guy . . . not a family. Would it be possible for a single guy to be a good president? Of course so this item is a wash. There are good family guys and bad family guys and either way it's not a qualification for the presidency.

He’s not averse to getting politically incorrect when donning culture warrior chain mail. “So if the baby’s toe is in you can’t kill the baby – how about if the baby’s foot is in?” he famously asked U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, in a 1999 debate over a rare, later term abortion procedure that anti-abortion groups call a "partial birth" abortion.

I'll step back a little on this one. I'm actually for being politically incorrect (you BITCH!) but I will say that whether a stranger has an abortion (and I might be against abortion in philosophy) will affect my world not one whit. The president of the United States frankly cannot rule on abortion. It's the law of the land and will take 2/3 of the states to change that. The president of the United States should focus on what really affects the working people of this country and unborn (or partially unborn) children do not. That's just a cold hard fact. This is an emotional issue and one where you obviously take the stand that is required by the votes you are trying to get. I get that.

Santorum’s a homeschooling dad. His wife, Karen, is homeschooling or has homeschooled their seven children, making them a poster family for a movement populated largely by evangelical Christians and other serious believers. “It matters because it shows he’s a real part of our movement rather than simply someone who is politically sympathetic,” says Michael Farris, an evangelical conservative who leads the Home School Legal Defense Association.

Home schooling is a way to keep your kids ignorant. It's stupid. It's a way to hide them from scary things like evolution (150 years old), global warming (it's real), and negros. You're raising defective children who cannot work with anyone who thinks or looks different from them. Shame on you.

He’s a devout cradle Catholic. As a kid in Pennsylvania, Santorum the altar boy would spend Sunday mornings pushing hospital patients in wheelchairs to Mass. As a U.S. senator, Santorum attended Mass at St. Joseph’s on Capitol Hill each day before work. That piety gets respect with religious voters, regardless of affiliation. “Evangelicals have made him an honorary evangelical,” said Richard Land, public policy chief for the Southern Baptist Convention.

Well now. . . ok. He believes in invisible spirits. Luckily we live in a land where you're free as free can be to believe whatever. But we're talking about running the country. How does this belief in magical beings help one run the country?

Santorum’s not Mitt Romney. Millions of socially conservative voters still distrust the former Massachusetts governor on the hot button issues – abortion and same-sex marriage. Some, though not all, are put off by Romney’s Mormonism.

The US is mired in debt. We are still hated by a great number of countries. China is building EVERYTHING we invent. The planet is heating up. THESE are issues. How in the fuck is abortion and same-sex marriage a button at all let alone a hot one?

Santorum’s not Newt Gingrich. Many social conservatives, particularly those of the female persuasion, continue to be turned off by Gingrich’s two failed marriages and his admissions of past marital infidelity.

Adolf Hitler, Adam Sandler, and the Queen of England are also not Newt Gingrich. Next!

Santorum doesn’t just talk about opposing abortion, he’s legislated on it. As a senator, he was an architect of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He pushed the ban even in the1990s, when Bill Clinton was in the White House and the legislation stood nary a chance of a presidential signature. “He walked the walk,” Land says. “When no one else would carry our water in the Senate, he would.”

Just a quick reminder. . . does not affect your basic American o n e w h i t! This is posturing. This is taking a stand so that you can get votes from the mentally defective who pride themselves in liking babies. OK, who doesn't?! I like babies. I like puppies too! But it is not a day to day agenda item for the president of the United States. Get it?

Ditto on same-sex marriage. Santorum sponsored a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage at a time when many Republicans lawmakers didn’t want to touch such a hot potato.

Sigh. . . Let's say you're a conservative evangelical and you DO get the country to outlaw same-sex marriage. How will your life change? How will this be a better land? All you'll get is a way to add to that smugness you already carry around because you believe in invisible people. You'll wake up and get to say, SO THERE! Oh, and by the way, the president cannot make this happen for you.

Santorum’s big on compassionate conservatism. Though he gets the most ink for controversial stances on issues such as homosexuality, Santorum has also been a leading advocate for funding to fight AIDS in the Third World and has led conservative responses to poverty. “A lot of people have a hard time getting Rick Santorum because they’re used to a debate between liberalism and complete free-market approach and he’s not either of those things,” says Michael Gerson, a Washington Post columnist and former speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

I like pistachio nuts.

Santorum isn’t afraid to challenge science, questioning the theory of evolution and dismissing global warming as “a hoax.” The former senator “confirms (social conservatives’) view of science as being at odds with a Christian worldview,” tweets Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Grove City College, an evangelical Christian school in Pennsylvania.

Ok, here we go. This is either ignorance or pure posturing and I suspect the later. There is NO controversy in the biological sciences about evolution. There is only 'controversy' that is created by assholes who want schools to teach religion which is what creationism is. There is no university you could attend and major in intelligent design. It is transparent as hell and courts have seen intelligent design for that and ruled accordingly.

As for global warm the verdict is in. Here's a link to some quick references that show why it is real and that we caused it. The really scary part is that his counter argument to the scientific evidence that supports global warming is that, wait for it. . . .IT'S A HOAX! Oh sure. A few million scientists got together and decided to create this most giant of hoaxes since the landing on the moon. Yeah that is a LOT more believable than the data supporting global warming itself. Again, the only reason to say such a thing is that you are a complete unread idiot or that you are just posturing to an obvious group to get votes.

I think I'm leaning toward NOT supporting Rick Santorum for any office and especially the presidency.

Book Review: Mr g by Alan Lightman

2012-01-31T21:19:00.002-05:00

I should say first off that I’m a big fan of Alan Lightman. I read his clever little book, Einstein’s Dreams, years ago when I was teaching physics at Maine East High. I used to buy a copy for each of my AP seniors as a graduation present. That said I recently saw Mr g sitting on the featured table at the neighborhood bookstore (Borders is gone but the mom and pop shops live on!) and just bought it without another thought.

As you may have already guessed, Mr g is a all seeing, all knowing, immortal, omnipotent being that lives in the ‘void’. He is accompanied there by his aunt and uncle - a literary or philosophical gizmo that has escaped me so far. Mr. g, after waking up from a nap decides to create a universe. He goes through may prototypes experimenting with what the initial conditions need to be to have it not blow up in 2 seconds and so forth. With zillions of his prototypes zinging around the void he settles on a favorite and gives it a name that involves the 10,000th prime number.

Lightman being an MIT physicist and professor of humanities gently works in good physics about time, the big bang, and evolution. Mr g is tempted to cause the creation of sentient beings and is surprised to find that with matter, energy and his initial boundary conditions it happens spontaneously all over the billions of galaxies in his favorite universe.

By Mr. g’s inherent ‘goodness’ the creation of a universe caused to be created his opposite - Baalial. He goes by various names but he is the cynic to Mr. g’s optimism. They have many interesting discussions about goodness, free will and more.

A thought provoking book, a quick read, and Mr. g never reveals himself to the sentient beings of the universe he created. . . .or does he?

Link to the book below. . . I notice that the reader reviews on Amazon are all over the place. I'd be interested to know what my fellow atheists think of the book.

Mr g by Alan Lightman

Joe Pa

2012-01-22T11:54:00.002-05:00

Just read an obit of Joe Pa - the Penn State football coach. Nice guy, too bad the way it ended. But to the point of this blog here's a quote from the piece I read by Jack McCallum at SI.

But when the end came, it came with such breathtaking suddenness that even non-believers must pause for moment to wonder if it wasn't part of some cosmic script.

I guess this is just a writer trying to make a deadline or trying to a little more than a sports guy but what kind of a sentence is that? I'm a non-believer and I don't see any cosmic script here. Things happened as reported and all explainable by the vagaries of human behavior.

It's this kind of 'cosmic glasses' that a huge number of people enjoy looking through to help support their world view. This is not evil. This is just what people do. When there is a particularly beautiful sunrise some tend to think that some super being made is special just for them. Perhaps some cannot separate beauty from that beauty being connected to someone or some super-being creating it.

To me the oceans, the sky, a sailboat, a summer day . . . all of that is particularly beautiful. My thinking stops there and I just enjoy it as is.

Why I Care

2012-01-19T18:19:00.003-05:00

Uh oh. . .here comes a presidential election year. I'm of two minds. Part of me wants to chuck the TV out the window (nice splash from the 12th floor!), disconnect from the internet, go for runs and walks until November. I can't stand all the stupid sound bites, the back biting, non-answers to simple questions, the posturing, and so forth.

But then there's this Mitt guy and I think of Martin Luther King: "To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it". So let's see what fight do I want to fight. . .

As a scientist, I want to focus my attention on the candidates and their stand on science and rationalism. Mitt seems to be a guy who will say ANYTHING while understanding NOTHING in a run at the white house. Sadly this is probably a good strategy in the under-educated America in which we live.

So, what do I care what the president thinks? Well, I do because of his influence at the bully pulpit. I would like a leader who lets the conclusions of numerous experiments direct policy. That's not how it works however. What dictates policy is what can generate votes and sadly, stupid people's votes count just the same as intelligent people's.

For example, the Creationists want schools to teach the 'controversy' between evolution and creationism. . .BUT THEY CREATED THE PRETEND CONTROVERSY! There is NO controversy in the scientific community.

So then that's a conspiracy, right?

Sigh. . .

CRASH!

(That was the TV hitting the sidewalk.)

Sorry about the dog.

Seriously, I want a president who says something to the effect of, "Let the scientists teach science based on our current knowledge and their training as scientists and let the preacher teach his moral lessons." Nobody attending any university is being taught creationism. BECAUSE IT'S NOT SCIENCE!

Let's teach what we KNOW and preach what we BELIEVE.

No candidate is going to say that, right? Not Obama either who is pretty religious.

But, I taught at a catholic school (by the way the pope acknowledged evolution as the way the world works back in 1950) and I'm sure there was no up-ightness about what was being taught in the biology classroom. Why? Because they got their shot in the religion classroom! So, if you're uptight about evolution just take your kid to church (some protestant one I would think) and let them teach your kid too. Then, let the kid THINK for him or her self.

Scary?

HOLY CRAP! What if they pick 'wrong'.

I don't think Mitt has any clue about any real science. Real science says evolution is real and proveable and has for about a hundred years but he won't be able to cop to that. Hundreds of separate experiments and investigations show that the earth is warming up and that is our doing but he won't be able to cop to that either.

In this day and age it takes a big government to do big, important science for the sake of society as a whole. The days of a single scientist working late at night in his lab and inventing the light bulb are long past. Fundamental research requires huge labs and huge budgets. A guy who clearly doesn't understand it or chooses to ignore simple facts is a danger to society. Mitt is not the guy we need in the white house but I suspect 'the guy' doesn't exist and if he did he wouldn't be electable.

Guns make us safe

2012-01-03T20:58:00.003-05:00

Think of the things you cannot advertise on TV.

cigarettes (they kill people)
people actually drinking liquor or beer
outright prostitution (political speeches get an exemption).
heroine (etc)
baby seal clubbing
kitten torture
selling babies

I would even imagine a hefty dose of outrage if one even showed a kid riding a tiny 2 wheeler with training wheels WITHOUT a helmet (on the child not the wheels). We’re nothing if not extremely safety conscious in this country. Oh yeah. I bought a pair of binoculars recently (true story!) and one of the items on the 2 page SAFTEY information sheet was to not swing them around by the strap. See? We’re extra safe in this country.

But it turns out you can and we do advertise guns on TV. Not up north here so much but in places like Indianapolis (hillbilly capital), Kentucky, etc. they definitely do.

And while it’s true enough that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, I’m puzzled by, on one hand our crazy, over-zealous safety consciousness played against our affection for about the most dangerous item around, the hand gun.

I’ve never bought a hand gun so maybe they come with a super duper safety sheet:

1. Do not aim at your head
2. Do not aim at your brother’s head
3. Etc.
4. Only shoot some bitch ho who dissed you.
5. Try to use that as a defense.
6. Do not look down the barrel to see if it is clean.
7. Do not look down the barrel for a laugh in a bar.
8. 9. Do not put gun near fundamental particle detectors as the steel will alter the magnetic field
9. Do NOT run out of bullets.
10. Do not swing around by the holster.

Whoops! Atheist blog. . . uh, YEAH, there's no God.

Cheers

the Sabbath

2012-01-02T07:48:00.002-05:00

From a silly CNN article about 'faith-based predictions for 2012'.

Sabbath becomes trendy! Fourth Commandment makes a comeback! Sabbath named Time’s person of the year! A new movement sweeps the country. They call themselves 24/6. Worn out by being tethered to the grid 24/7, sick of being accessible all hours of the day, inundated by updates, upgrades, and breaking news, Americans finally rebel, demanding, “We need a day off.” People all over the country go offline for 24 hours every week. The simple break from the frenetic pace results in lowered cholesterol rates, fewer speeding tickets, and a reduction in marital strife. Peace, tranquility and contentment spread like wildfire.
–Jamie Korngold, rabbi and author of "The God Upgrade"

I gotta tell you, I'm FOR this. When we lived in the Caribbean just about everything is CLOSED on Sunday. Sure sometimes when you need a part or are out of rum this can be annoying but it does force you to take a day off. The towns are quiet. Fewer cars about and it makes for a nice break. I don't think there is any way to go back to a time when most businesses were closed on Sunday (or any day really) but it would make for a nice break.

Michelle Bachman is a Bad Person

2011-12-26T08:26:00.002-05:00

First in an ongoing, occasional series on the 2012 presidential election.

Michelle Bachman - My first foray into research on her just tells me she is truly a bad person. I usually think people are mostly good but deluded or good but under educated. Like that. This person, though, might truly be evil. Let's start with global warming. This from Wikipedia:

Bachmann has charged that global warming is a hoax[82] and has been a vocal skeptic of global warming.[83] She has asserted that since carbon dioxide is "a natural byproduct of nature", it is a beneficial gas required by plant life. She stated that because life requires carbon dioxide and it is part of the planet's life cycle, it cannot be harmful. In a statement she made on the House floor on Earth Day, April 22, 2009, Bachmann stated she was against the cap and trade climate legislation, stating: "Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural; it is not harmful.... We're being told we have to reduce this natural substance to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in the earth.

Wow. This is just gross ignorance or gross pandering to an ignorant segment of society, i.e. Republicans. Maybe Ms. Bachmann would like to breath a big bag of carbon dioxide for severall minutes? Of course Cabon Dioxide is needed for life but how much? UV light is necessary for some chemical reactions but how much? Plus, to say that global warming is a hoax would imply that someone has something to gain by promoting such a hoax. Who? The entire scientific community is in on some grand practical joke? (See a very nice, concise article on reasons to conclude that global warming is real from NASA.) A hoax from NASA? What do they have to gain by claiming that the earth is warming up? I think Bachman just says the word 'hoax' to gain attention and votes from the idiotic conspiracy crowd that have infected the Republican party.

I find several examples of Bachman being a champion of the new political methodology of 'my way or nothing'. Here's an example.

On August 31, 2009, Bachmann spoke at an event in Colorado, saying of Democratic health care overhaul proposals that: This cannot pass. What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn't pass.

Not much room for debate there is there?

Similarly -

Bachmann has characterized the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as "ObamaCare", and has continually called for its repeal.

No honest debate. No entering of actual bills. Just calling for a repeal.

Now how about evolution. From the Huffington Post:

Not only is Bachmann a fan of creationism and its anti-intellectual offshoot, intelligent design, she's made some outlandish claims about the pseudoscientific subject. For example, she's asserted, "there is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact ... hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel prizes, believe in intelligent design."

OK, there is no controversy among scientists. There is a "controversy" only because there is a large group of evangelicals who can't accept a simple scientific fact because it might mean that we are no more special than aardvarks. The best news about her claim is how it was shot down by a high school student, Zack Kopplin:

Zack has now challenged Bachmann on her claims. Using a poker analogy and the huge number of scientists who have endorsed evolution, in general, and his repeal effort, in particular, Zack has written, "Congresswoman Bachmann, I see your 'hundreds' of scientists, and raise you millions of scientists."

Given the strength of the hand he has, he doesn't stop there.

For the next hand, I raise you 43 Nobel Laureate scientists. That's right: 43 Nobel Laureate scientists have endorsed our effort to repeal Louisiana's creationism law. ... Congresswoman Bachmann, you claim that Nobel Laureates support creationism. Show me your hand. If you want to be taken seriously by voters while you run for President, back up your claims with facts. Can you match 43 Nobel Laureates, or do you fold?

No response ever from Bachman. But, this is her method. She makes outrageous claims with no supporting evidence, gets her name in the paper and her face on TV. . . and moves on.

How about gay and lesbians?

gay and lesbian people “live a very sad life” that is “part of Satan” with “sexual dysfunction and sexual identity disorders.”

"We need to have profound compassion for the people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life, and sexual identity disorders. This is a very real issue. It's not funny, it's sad. Any of you who have members of your family that are in the lifestyle-we have a member of our family that is. This is not funny. It's a very sad life. It's part of Satan, I think, to say this is gay. It's anything but gay."

Bachman's husband is some sort of counselor and runs a business where you can pray the gay away and get 'cured' of that particular affliction. Here's her response to a hidden camera foray into his counseling business:

HOST: What is your opinion on reparative therapy and is it something that’s conducted in that center?

BACHMANN: Well, I’m running for the Presidency of the United States and I’m here to talk about job creation and that we do have a business that deals with job creation. I’m very proud of the business that we created and I’m here today in Indianola, Iowa….

HOST: But of course the issue today is about this reparative therapy and about what this hidden camera caught and their opinions are going to be aired on tonight’s news. And you don’t want to comment on that and give your side?

BACHMANN: Well, I’m here to talk about the Presidency of the United States. As I said again, we’re very proud of our business and we’re proud of all job creators in the United States. That’s what people really care about.

OK I think we've seen enough. She's a bad person. I think she's so bad that she has no chance. No one can make this many undefendable, crazy statements and survive the scrutiny of a run for the presidency. That would be like if George Bush could get elected! Wait. . .

We need to keep her feet to the fire. When she claims things we HAVE to ask for the evidence. Show your cards. Don't let her just spout off and then get back on the plane to the next sound bite option. I hope she does many more interviews because anybody who has read anything can take her apart easily.

2012 Presidential Race

2011-12-22T12:54:00.000-05:00

Here we go again!

I’m disgusted with the current state of our government. It is a do nothing, CYA, pit of hollering at each other. It is impossible for anyone to simply have a good idea. If a Republican has an idea it is BAD as reported by the Democrats and visa-verse. By definition! No one can break ranks without being ostracized by his or her own party. There is no real debate and no real consideration of what is best for the country as a whole. All proposals are looked at ONLY in the light of ‘what does this do for me and my party’. The hell with ‘the people’.

In that light I’m tempted to just ignore the whole thing. The process upsets me. The bickering is annoying and really the whole thing just becomes depressingly boring. Tempted.

But here comes a new year ending in said election. So, I need to buck up, do a little reading and try to sort out what the candidates really say (should they actually say something) from all the hollering and posturing. I think I’ll start by just reading up on one candidate at a time and writing about them.

I’ll try to keep and open and reasonable mind as I read and write but from the outset I’m going to be leery of anyone who thinks he has an upper hand just because he is more pious than another. I don’t expect America to elect an atheist anytime soon but I’d at least like to find a candidate who, 1. Understands the essence of the separation of church and state and, 2. one who is not anti-science nor anti intellectual. I know that by saying those two things I’ll not find a candidate at all but I’d like to keep banging the drum for reason and for keeping myths out of government.

Now. . .who shall I start with. . .

Jesus Toast!

2011-12-14T16:27:00.002-05:00

Tired of waiting for the savior of mankind to appear on your morning toast? Who isn't. Well wait no more!

Jesus Toaster

Just goes to show you - you can sell some people anything! (I kind of want one though)

JESUS CRUST!

Anthropic Principle

2011-12-13T14:22:00.001-05:00

One time a theist friend challenged my atheism by asking me, “How do you explain goodness”? A flippant answer would be, “How do you explain badness”? but I think there’s a better answer.

Think of proto-humans. Short, slow, no claws or fangs. We had sizable brains but not early on. About the only remaining way for the humanoid branch to continue to grow was for packs of us to stick together. Evolution would select cooperation over eating our young or our neighbor’s young for example. This is not unlike the anthropic principle in cosmology. The physical constants and age of the universe are apparently just right for consciousness because we’re here to observe them. Because we’re here at all ‘proves’ that what we now call ‘goodness’ must have evolved naturally - was naturally selected. I put proves in quotes because I haven’t proven anything in a truly slam dunk logical way. On the other hand, which scenario seems more reasonable? That a magical entity whose existence cannot be demonstrated imbued humans with ‘goodness’ and that’s why we’re good and don’t kill each other, or drop bombs on each other, or lie to each other, or steal from each other OR that overall we are more good than bad (regardless of the evening news) because evolution would pick that otherwise I wouldn’t be here to make this clever argument!

What's Next?

2011-12-10T09:40:00.004-05:00

I'm reading an article on CNN about the controversy on what to call a 'Chirstmas tree'. It was a holiday tree in Wisconsin's capital and now it's a Christmas tree again. In Rhode Island it's no longer a Christmas tree but is now a holiday tree. Lots of loud talking from theists and atheists alike on what's proper.

This past year has seemed especially busy in the formation of free thinking student alliances on campuses around the country and by the multitude of atheist billboards going up. Of course each of these is accompanied by the usual loud talking and fist shaking by both sides.

And I tire of it.

I started this blog about 6 years ago. I've been reading other atheist blogs, I've read Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens. I read Friendly Atheist every day. Now, I can't help but wonder what is next? The writing, the arguments, the billboards all seem the same, same, same.

And I tire of the rhetoric.

I'm all for and excited about the modern atheist movement but it seems stuck in 'billboard' mode. While I think it's important for the message to continue to go out I yearn for something more. What would that be?

The only thing I can think of that would really stir the pot is if atheist numbers and organization could get to the point to support and promote a truly free thinking, free speaking, atheist political candidate at the senate or governor level. I think we're years away from that but I'd like to think that it is going to happen sometime.

How great would it be for a reporter to ask the candidate about his religious affiliation and have him look straight into the camera and say, 'Atheist'. Follow this by asking the reporter in what way belief, faith, adherence to myths, etc is connected to governing?

In the meantime I guess we just keep banging the drum and speaking our minds. Freely and reasonably.

Magic Sweatshirt

2011-12-01T15:49:00.003-05:00

I’ve been running better lately. A little farther. Maybe faster and just generally feeling better while running. Yesterday I had my first bad run in a while. Only went a quarter mile and turned around and came walking/jogging back.

But I had my longest run in a long, long time today (4 miles!) and felt pretty darn good too. What the hell happened yesterday? Hmmm….

I know! Of all those recent runs it was the only one where I didn’t wear my old Maine East High School sweatshirt. So what have we learned children?

THE SWEATSHIRT IS MAGIC.

The same logic works for prayer. When you pray for someone or something and it ‘works’ we’re happy to celebrate the magic while ignoring the millions of other explanations for the outcome. Our prayers were ‘answered’. One reinforcement of a magical hypothesis tends to make many of us ignore other possibilities and conclude that the hypothesis has been proven to be true. This is especially true if you WANT the hypothesis to be true because you’ve already made a philosophical and monetary commitment to magical happenings and their trappings.

So, besides lacking my magical sweatshirt what else could have been different about yesterday’s run? What did I eat the night before? How much sleep? What time of day did I run? Temperature for the run? Wind? There are hundreds of variables and thousands of combinations of those variables that work for or against us runners. We sort out some as we learn about our own running bodies. I cannot run before 7. I can’t and there is not enough magic in any shirt to change that. I can’t run 2 days in a row (very often). My body needs an easy day between runs. Things like that.

When someone is prayed for AND they recover from an illness some think they’re prayers have been answered. Well, they were ‘hoping’ for such and outcome (I can’t find a real difference between hoping and praying) and they got it. It certainly is tempting to conclude that one caused the other but there’s no logical reason to do that and a million other factors to consider. The drugs worked. The doctors diagnosis was correct. The body heals itself sometimes and so on.

Does praying for someone make the one doing the praying feel better? I think it does. I think it makes them feel like they're doing something in a time of maybe feeling helpless. That's fine and I'd never interfere. But ease up on schools and government involvment with church and prayer ok? And don't get on your high moral horse with me if you're praying for someone and I'm just hoping.

Well tomorrow is an off day for running but I'll be back on it come Saturday. I better remember to get that sweat shirt in the wash!

Virgin Mary's Belt

2011-11-28T14:42:00.005-05:00

I read a number of atheist blogs daily which can be uplifting. Some good news here and there with billboards and what not. And then, something like this comes along and I'm reminded of how screwed we are because of our unthinking adherence to magical thinking.

From the NY Times:

MOSCOW — From morning all through the night, tens of thousands of Russians have been lining up since Saturday in the cold with just one aim: to kiss a glass-covered reliquary that they believe holds the Virgin Mary’s belt.

(by the way, in a video on CNN I don't see anyone cleaning the plastic (you can't actually kiss the belt itself) between kisses. Just imagine. . .

All in all about a half million people stood in line in sub zero temperatures for over 26 hours to get a turn at kissing the belt. Why? Because it's supposed to cure of some minor ills but more importantly its supposed to increase fertility. Russia's population is declining so this might be a way to make more people. And of course it is just really, really extra 'holy'.

Where to start?

1. How the fuck could anyone prove that this is the belt of the virgin Mary when you can't even prove that the virgin Mary herself ever existed?

2. How would it work? Oh wait, I know. . . if we could explain it it wouldn't be a miracle and that would suck all the magic out of it. Plus, if you're actually kissing plexiglass several centimeters above the belt how does THAT work. What if you kiss air a foot above that? What if you just blow it a kiss. Tongue? What if I make a kissing sound here in Chicago but aim my kiss toward Moscow?

3. Maybe Russia's population is declining because IT IS A SHITTY PLACE TO LIVE WITH A SHITTY CORRUPT GOVERNMEMT! Maybe do some work on that side of the ledger instead of kissing a fucking belt and you might actually effect some change!

4. They had belts then?

5. Now virgin Mary's garter belt might be a different story!

6. Why do I even try. . .

Oh and that creepy priest with the beard and the hood. . . . can kiss my ass for promoting this kind of drivel.

Candidates and Christ

2011-11-20T08:24:00.002-05:00

Reading at CNN today about Cain's 'spiritual' path to presidential candidate. Shockingly, he felt that God was telling him to run. Of course there's also the usual bible belt, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, God helps those that help themselves philosophy. Cain is a minor big shot in his church and so forth. But here's the thing. . .

When someone says God told him to kill the neighbor they are quickly put in jail and given treatment. When someone says God told them to run for president (or invade Iraq) they are considered glowing examples of 'spiritual' goodness. How do you know that God the prankster did in fact deliver both messages? You can't know this. You can't know whether God is really speaking to someone or whether they are just having that thought that God is speaking to them.

And, why do we still put belief in un-proveable conjectures as a yardstick for goodness? Americans will put a guy's 'spiritualism' way ahead of his ideas, his track record, his writing. If he looks good in a conservative suit and can proselytize he's got a shot. Especially in Iowa!

John Kennedy was a war hero, a writer, a thinker of big ideas, and a Catholic. He would be un-electable today. Why? He never made religion or 'spirituality' a premise or connected it with governing.

Here's Kennedy's famous speech where he does confront his Catholocism and makes some other dynamic points. It's worth a read. It's really worth a read. Parts in bold are my emphasis.

December 5, 2007

On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy's Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy. The following is a transcript of Kennedy's speech:

Kennedy: Rev. Meza, Rev. Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact ,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom; and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey. But no one knows whether they were Catholic or not, for there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)— instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France, and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser — in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency — practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God.

Transcript courtesy of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum.

See what I mean? Completely un-electable!

A Child's Brain

2011-11-12T15:56:00.002-05:00

In my on-going research on science for young children I ran into this:

Children are naturally equipped to learn through observation and investigations. Every experience, every word, every toy deeply impacts her understanding of her world and the connections she makes. Every time a child learns something new, the brain rewires itself based on the child’s understanding. Every time the child repeats a task or a skill that particular neural pathway is reinforced and strengthened. “Learning changes the brain because it can rewire itself with each new stimulation, experience, and behavior” (Jensen, p. 13). (From Early Childhood News)

If you let a child continue to explore the natural world and help them along the way they would NEVER 'discover' god. There is no set of observations that would naturally lead one to conclude, "God did it". The only reason anyone has a belief in any god is because when they were very young a grown-up that they trusted told them about God. At a young age they are not equipped to challenge and moreover are wired to trust the adults.

God is only part of our cultural landscape because we keep re-telling the same old stories. God is NOT part of our natural discoverable world.

Pray for . . .

2011-11-11T18:13:00.002-05:00

In the wake of the Penn State disaster one cannot but help but read about how we should pray for the victims, pray for JoePa, pray for Penn state, so and so is 'in our prayers. It goes on and on.

Here's what I think about all that: It's self-serving.

It is soooooo easy to say, "I'll pray for you". It makes you sound (to some) like a 'good' person. But in FACT there is not one shred of evidence that doing so does anything for the person being prayed for. Fifteen seconds reflection/research should convince even the devout of this FACT. So, to say that you are praying for someone or that you are promoting others to join you in praying for someone is just your own ego trying to launch your own self into the 'good person' club. Please. . . get over yourself. A billion Chinese people could give a rat's ass if you pray or not.

Listen, here's the best way to be in the 'good person' club. Get off your ass and DO something. Help somebody. Volunteer. Show up. Give money. You can pray all you want. That's fine. But let's back it up with something real, OK?

Tebow Changes his Name to Kneel

2011-10-31T21:24:00.003-04:00

Ok, it's only football but the whole Tebow fiasco in Denver might just be a microcosm of what's wrong with religion. Maybe not wrong but better might be un-workable. So, the faithful, and by the faithful I mean white people in Denver, DEMANDED that the home team play Tebow. Why? Clearly and from every indication it was NOT because of his prowess as a NFL quarterback. Every scout and analyst agreed that he wasn't there yet and probably wasn't going to get there. He had the numbers to prove it!

In true 'screw the facts I believe what I believe' fashion fans actually bought billboards to the tune of thousands of dollars demanding that the Broncos start Tebow. They want him to start because they like him. They like him because he is a man of faith (he believes in invisible people). Somehow they are twisted enough to think that his faith would somehow make up for his lack of skill as a NFL quarter back.

It doesn't work that way.

Belief in invisible, pretend things will always run smack up against reality and lose every time.

Sorry Kneel!

2011-10-26T17:55:00.001-04:00

FBI investigating Amish beard-cutting attacks

By Chris Welch, CNN

Bergholz, Ohio (CNN) - Members of the Amish community in eastern Ohio are the subject of a federal investigation following a wave of Amish-on-Amish incidents, FBI spokeswoman Vicki Anderson confirmed to CNN Wednesday.

I don't know. . .I just thought I'd never read a sentence with 'Amish-on-Amish incidents'.

That's all!

Gotta love Iran!

2011-10-10T23:31:00.004-04:00

From CNN: I've excerpted the important parts of this news story. . .

Nadarkhani, the leader of a network of house churches in Iran, was first convicted of apostasy in November 2010, a charge he subsequently appealed all the way to the Iranian Supreme Court. In an appeals trial last month at a lower court in Gilan province, Nadarkhani refused to recant his beliefs.

After the trial, however, reports by the semi-official Fars News Agency on September 30 indicated that the charges against Nadarkhani have since changed and the pastor is now charged with rape and extortion. "This issue has nothing to do with his abandoning his religion," reported Fars.

"He is a Zionist and has committed security-related crimes," Gholomali Rezvanii said in the Fars News report. Renvanii is the deputy governor of Gilan province, where Nadarkhani was tried and convicted.

In a 2010 Iranian Supreme Court brief obtained by CNN, the charge of apostasy is the only charge listed.

Ok, I had to look up 'apostasy' but it seems this guy in Iran was basically convicted of being a Christian. I write about this to just show how ridiculous ALL religion is. It can even get THIS crazy in the 21st century. Iranian rulers don't even get that they will be exactly proving the point of this very ridiculousness if they actually hang this guy. I'm totally FOR freedom of religion and with that the total separation of church and state. That works for EVERYBODY.

I hope that world opinion comes to this guy's help. Not because he's a christian but because he's a human and should be allowed to believe what ever crazy shit he wants to believe.

And, by the way, does this whole story have an "Inquisition" feel to it? RECANT!

Cults?

2011-10-09T20:30:00.002-04:00

Interesting to note that the Republicans (that would be the religious, evangelical, right) are busy arguing about whether or not Mormonism is a cult or not.

Two points. . .

My take on this is that ALL religions are cults. A group of people drawn to a bizarre idea involving invisible people living in the sky. That's a cult. Just because your membership is huge and you play golf doesn't mean you are NOT in a cult.

Secondly, its good to know that all of America's problems have been solved so we can waste time and ink on assholes arguing about Mormonism. Let's drop all this ridiculous rhetoric and get back to the real business of America: How many angels really CAN dance on the head of a pin?

We're doomed.

Nobel Prize

2011-10-04T06:50:00.001-04:00

On Monday, the Nobel Prize for Medicine was give to Ralph Steinman, Bruce Beutler and Jules Hoffmann for their work increasing understanding of the immune system, which could lead to curing cancer and other diseases

Oh. . .once again no one in "Creation Science" won. Better luck next year!

Why Neutrinos are Important

2011-10-01T13:03:00.002-04:00

I recently got a note from a good friend that reads: What is a neutrino and what does it mean to us everyday people? This note is due to the recent media coverage of the result coming out of CERN that shows (perhaps) neutrinos going faster than light which is expressly (and sternly) forbidden by Einsteinian relativity. So in answer to the question. . .

Like any human endeavor the news and fine points of that endeavor are always of more interest to those who spend their lives doing such things. I’m sure there are HUGE happenings in the etymological world on the origins of silent letters (I blame the French) but I’ll not notice nor care. However faster than light neutrinos might be on a different scale.

The structure of our material world is based on the Standard Model of how very fundamental particles (quarks, electrons and neutrinos) behave. That now well established model requires the use of Einstein’s relativity and so faster than light neutrinos would throw quite a large monkey wrench into the works. (note that a professor at good old Indiana U. has worked out an alternative to the Standard Model where faster than light particles are allowed.) So, do neutrinos affect your world? Yes and no, right?

From a strictly physical standpoint neutrinos hardly affect anything! Billions and billions of these little guys are streaming to and through the earth each second from the sun. Almost all of them go right through the entire planet. That’s how weakly they interact with matter. The fact that these guys exist at all and that we CAN detect them by being very clever monkeys is in itself a fascinating thing. From a historical standpoint I’m sure there were people in the 1920’s who wondered what this crazy quantum mechanics stuff meant to them and then a few years later it is that very quantum mechanics that guides our invention of the myriad of silicon devices of which we’ve become so fond. So you never want to be the one to say, “What good is all this. Shouldn’t we spend our money more wisely”. You just never know where pure research leads so you do want to support it and give it free rein.

In keeping with the theme of this blog, I watched the talk that was streamed out of CERN where the lead investigator presented the findings of the faster than light neutrinos. It was so refreshing to see the enormous lengths they went to to eliminate sources of error. How careful they must tread to make any sort of claim. How reasonable everyone was about the presentation whether they agreed or not. In fact the guy NEVER actually claimed the neutrinos are going faster than light. He's saying that they have a result with faster than light neutrinos that they cannot explain. They're basically asking for help and they are about to get it as other labs (Fermilab for one) try to duplicate the findings or sort out their errors. In other words I enjoyed the reasonableness of it all and the complete absence of shrieking or claims of magic.

Finally, from a philosophical/sociological point of view I would just choose a society where the discussion of neutrinos, extra solar planets, relativity, (and silent letters!), etc are all valued and supported just like I prefer to live in a society that supports opera even though I’m probably never going to go (can’t stand the soprano!). I rail against people who say such things as, “Why do I have to pay for the library? I never use it”. You can still CHOOSE to live in a society where we have libraries. It is the big things like libraries, Fermi Lab, or national parks that we can choose to value via our government and our taxes.

So, finally, 'Yes Rebecca - there is a neutrino and it IS important!

I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks. . .

2011-09-24T06:41:00.004-04:00

From CNN we find a story about people being 'visited' by a dead loved one. There are lots of these stories and I find a link between them. The visited person is always the only one visited. That is to say, there is never any corroboration. Why isn't a family visited all at once or a collection of co-workers?

Also, consider this from the article:

Did you ever hear a story of a mother who somehow knows before anyone told her that something awful has happened to her child?

Yes I have heard of such stories. Have you ever heard of a story of a mother who somehow 'knows' before anyone told her that something awful has happened to her child. . . and then it turned out to not be true? THAT probably happens WAY more often but is not reported. Why would it be.

Anyway, I'll get on board with all of this as soon as Galileo visits me. . . and buys lunch!

This says it all. . .

2011-09-19T07:27:00.002-04:00

Click on panel to see the whole thing.

See more comics from Calamities of Nature

Ron Paul = Idiot

2011-09-18T10:45:00.003-04:00

Why do we have to keep writing the same thing? Why aren't people who don't understand the first thing about science or the real meaning of the word 'theory' silenced, ignored and poked with a stick the first time they say:

Evolution is only a theory.

I guess I'll just have to keep pounding this drum. I'll try to get right to the point.

Evolution is a well founded, workable, and tested theory by every measure of what makes a good scientific theory.

Theory in this sense does not mean 'theoretical'. It means a short list of testable assumptions (mutation & and natural selection) that then explain a myriad of heretofore unexplainable observations.

NO ONE working in the field of biology, paleontology, micro-biology, genetics, etc doubts the basic tenets of evolution for one second.

To assume a creator causes more un-explainable assumptions than it explains. That's not a workable or useful theory. It's not a scientific theory at all. It only reveals a desperate expression of faith and a fear of knowledge.

That having been said, why does a man with an education who is running for the presidency of the United States continue to say it and not be laughed out of the race? Why are Americans drawn to potential leaders who are just as ignorant as themselves (Sarah Palin) rather than shooting higher? Why are so many Americans suspicious of intelligent and educated potential leaders?

We HAVE to keep pounding this drum. We HAVE to keep asking people like Ron Paul what he means by only a theory?

Now here's the deal. It won't matter. There is no way in this United States for a Republican to win the nomination for the presidency and NOT say he doesn't believe in evolution.

Think about that.

Any Republican saying reasonable things about a well founded 135 year old scientific theory cannot not win the nomination. Such a person would be seen to somehow be siding with the crazy liberal press, professors and other intelligentsia. GASP! What the hell happened to the party of Abe Lincoln?

So, I suspect that the current batch of Republican candidates will all HAVE to declare their suspicion regarding evolution just to get a whack at the nomination. Who knows whether they all truly believe that or not which makes them all either ignorant or disingenuous. Unfortunately it doesn't make them un-electable! Far from it.

I wonder what would happen to a candidate who made it a point to say that Newton's gravity is only a theory and we should consider other theories as well? Perhaps the sticky-earth theory.

Want some help making arguments for evolution? Try these books:

Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin

Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne

The second one especially makes very clear and simple arguments with plenty of supporting evidence to show what a beautiful and true theory evolution is.

Got to keep on keeping on brother!

Sunday Thoughts

2011-09-11T14:34:00.002-04:00

Epilogue

Underway aboard Enee Marie under full sail. I’m stretched out on the leeward side so as to see the tell-tales as I steer with one hand. We’re on course, Enee is heeled over maybe 5 degrees and we’re making 6+ knots on the rolling ocean. Steve Earle is on the stereo. I turn to Sue and say, “This is it Sue. This right here, right now. This is just about as happy as I can get”.

Just about.

Yesterday I watched Lucy dance in front of the band at the street fair. Big smile on her face as she hopped about, head thrown back, jumping up, landing on her butt. I couldn’t tear my eyes away. I couldn’t stop smiling. Just about the happiest she OR I can be I guess. She’s so happy and so un-aware. She knows nothing of 9-11 or terrorists. No bad guys. Doesn’t know about Republicans, Sara Palin, or Tea Party. The economy? What’s that? She’s never been sick. Nobody’s ever died. Of course all of that will come.

Given all of that why would you lay something like “original sin” on a perfect child like this? Why would you scare them with stories of a vengeful big guy who lives in the sky and KNOWS WHAT YOU ARE THINKING! Doesn’t that seem just a little mean spirited? Is it because as we grow into our world the world tends to make us a little bitter and suspicious. We grow up with our regrets. We have war wounds. Is it all of this that makes us not be able to wait to get the children feeling guilty and miserable as well in the name of religion?

Maybe worse, is it fair to have them believe in fairytale goodness when in fact we’re really on our own and goodness is self generated? Do you want self-reliance or hopeful belief that ‘somehow’ things will work out.

In John Lennon’s Imagine he imagines no heaven, hell, nor countries. No possessions, greed, nor hunger. That is exactly the perfect state that Lucy is in right now. It will pass for sure but I don’t see any reason to rush things along by introducing the silliness of magical invisible beings, heaven, nor hell.

All I know is that watching Lucy dance in the street is in fact the happiest I can get*.

*Well, I was pretty damn happy when the Bears won the Super Bowl but I guess that’s different.

I'm BACK Jack!

2011-09-06T09:14:00.002-04:00

Thanks to my friend Rich for discovering that this blog had been hijacked so that you couldn't open it at all. You just got a weird page about some blogroll something or other. A little research found that a number of other atheist type blogs had been hacked in a similar manner.

Interesting.

The worst thing for religion is the free exchange of ideas and especially those that question doctrine. This is why children HAVE to be taken to Sunday school and indoctrinated into religious thought BEFORE they can start questioning for themselves.

This is why people from the religious right will deface, tear down, or disallow atheist billboards while atheists themselves find religious billboards (and there are many) rather sad but not threatening.

This is why the religious right wants to have creationism taught in science class in a desperate attempt to muddy the waters in an attempt to create controversy where there is none.

Sticking to Your Guns

2011-08-30T08:07:00.003-04:00

Interesting piece by Anderson Cooper (yeah there's going to be a commercial first) with a reporter trying to interview followers of Warren Jeff's church. Warren Jeffs who is now serving 45 year sentence for basically raping 12 and 15 year old girls that he called his 'spiritual wives'. Indeed!

If you watch the clip it is absolutely frightening to see the blank look on the faces of the followers as they refuse to even listen or talk to the reporter regarding the conviction of their prophet. Once guy says, "I know everything I need to know" reminiscent of Nixon's famous, "Don't confuse me with the facts". Another guy says he knows how the government can manufacture evidence.

That's a really interesting and telling comment since Jeffs never even denied having sex with the under age girls! There was nothing to manufacture. And, it shows how you can't convince a religious nut of ANYTHING using logic and when I say religious nut I mean anyone who has adopted a point of view based on faith instead of facts and research. Since the position was just selected because it makes the person feel good there is no way to 'backdoor' that with logic.

Rick Perry

2011-08-19T09:24:00.003-04:00

Rick Perry recently had a discussion with a young girl about evolution and creationism. He said something to the effect that evolution was 'just an idea'. He said, " . . . in Texas we teach both. . .isn't that fair?"

No. It's neither true nor fair.

First off Texas recently turned down all additions to their textbooks that dealt with creation 'science' and in fact bolstered the factual and logical deductions of evolution.

Secondly, no it's not fair on two counts.

1. Science is not in the business of presenting every crack-pot idea that comes along (nor is any other discipline come to think of it) but rather the proven theories of science, how they came about (evidence and experiment), and science as a process of gaining truth. We don't (we meaning those of us north of the Mason-Dixon line) don't teach creation 'science' in the same way we don't teach the earth is flat, that gravity is stickiness, or that the universe is steady state and non-changing. We don't because those theories are unworkable, dis-proven, or un-provable.

2. As was decided in Pennsylvania, creation 'science' is just a transparent attempt to sneak Christianity into the public schools. It's faith based plain and simple and therefore has no place in our public schools.

It's sad that now 150 years after Darwin we have to keep beating this drum but beat it we must. Rick Perry is either that deluded by his fundamentalist position or, as I suspect, simply knows that if he says anything to the effect that evolution is 'just an idea' that that turns into significant numbers of votes. Let's not have that work. If your faith (and you are welcome to it) is threatened by well-founded work by decades of honest working scientists then perhaps it is your faith that should be challenged or re-thought and not Darwin.

Everything is FINE!

2011-08-17T12:19:00.001-04:00

From today's Trib:

A teenager six months pregnant was shot and killed in the Marquette Park neighborhood on the South Side, but doctors were able to deliver her son, authorities said.

"The baby is pretty much fighting for his life," Debbie Jefferson said of her grandson. "He lost some oxygen and the doctors say there could be health issues. I believe in God, I believe everything is going to be OK."

Sure everything is going to be ok. . .EXCEPT YOUR DAUGHTER IS DEAD! What the hell?

I'm soooooo tired of this reasoning or lack thereof and it is pervasive.

Two Recent Ideas

2011-08-16T12:09:00.002-04:00

Walking down Belmont Ave. in Chicago the other day and saw a sign outside the big Catholic church there. It read

Lord, take pity on me.

That's it. I assume 'me' means all of the faithful and they should be pitied why? Original sin I guess. It sounds more like,

Please don whip me massa!

The Lord as straw boss on a chain gang or plantation I guess. Yeah that's the lord I want to pray to.
-------------------------------
One way the God idea works.

One way the God idea works is that you get it screwed into somebody's head (at an early age mind you) that there is a being (not unlike Santa) that not only knows what you are doing but also what you are THINKING. And you know you can think some pretty naughty stuff. So you pray for forgiveness, etc.

I don't have a god but I do have a running goddess. My daughter is my coach, my running inspiration, she picks me up when I have a bad run, she leads by example, ~~she maketh me to lie down by still waters~~ I told myself today, and only in my own head that I could run past my old mark and up north to Fullerton. After passing my old mark I could stop anywhere as that would be farther than my old mark. I didn't have to run to Fullerton. I only said that to me. BUT THE GODDESS WILL BE ANGERED even though I never mentioned to her. That's how religion works! In my head I don't want to disappoint even though I never mentioned it out loud.

Weird.

I ran to Fullerton.

Amen!

SETI is back

2011-08-11T08:54:00.002-04:00

Money for the SETI project was recently cut but now some donations (Jodi Foster for one) have raised $200,000 to get the array up and running again. I like that. Seems like we might as well be listening just in case someone is broadcasting.

Contact with alien species would be THE story since the beginning of time on earth. What will the religious say when intelligent aliens have never heard of God (any of them) or Jesus? On one hand it would be nice to think that they'd then drop the whole bad idea but then they could have thought that when they encountered the American Indians. The bend in your brain to convince you to believe in invisible people who have your best interests at heart does not have a back door for un-believing. No. You just figure the people in question (Indians or aliens) just haven't gotten the 'word' YET. Fire up the missionary rockets!

2011-07-24T18:59:00.002-04:00

Semi-interesting article by a guy who was a missionary and now thinks that evangelicals shouldn't evangelize. Big deal but then I find this quote:

Funny thing is, Jesus never said, “Go into the world and convert people to Christianity.” What he said was, “Go and make disciples of all nations.”

Even funnier than that, pal, is that no one really knows what Jesus said or didn't say. No one can even prove he existed. The new testament was written by unknown authors 300-400 years after the mythical figure we call 'Jesus' was allegedly around. This is what no one wants to talk about. Everyone wants to argue what the word of 'the Lord' really means or what he really said when and where but there is a HUGE uncertainty hooked on to all of that due to authorship and the effects of time on the written and passed on word.

But I just know people think the New Testament is a real time record of events in the life of ~~Ivan DeJesus~~ Jesus but it is nothing of the kind and biblical scholars are in agreement about this. Pretty easy to put words into the Lords mouth 400 years after he may have existed. And, if he is the son of the creator of the universe why not straighten out any misconceptions.

Ah, that wouldn't be mysterious!

Jesus on a Walmart Receipt

2011-07-19T07:52:00.004-04:00

Yes fans another breathless story from CNN and other sources about a South Carolina (hmm...that's in the 'south', right?) who spotted our savior and son of the creator of the universe on the back of a Walmart receipt.

Yep, that's how the omnipotent communicate with us.

You can clearly see that that is Jesus, right? Wait, or is that Charles Manson? Or my bowling buddy, Mel?

What the hell is wrong with people? The couple in question said the image was 'breathtaking'. Yeah, sure is. . .IF YOUR A STUPID CORN PONE LIVING IN SOUTH FUCKING CAROLINA! You can see puppies in clouds too. You can see the image of Isaac Newton in your coffee grounds. We are wired to look for faces so we find faces where there are in fact none.

I've been over this before.

1. Nobody knows what Jesus really looked like so if you saw the image of a round bald guy that MIGHT be the image of Christ. How would you know?

2. Why in the hell do the news idiots cover this shit? Why? And they do it every time.

Somtimes I wish the south had won the civil war.

God at work. . . sometimes

2011-07-19T06:17:00.001-04:00

From the Chicago Tribune;

Two Chicago police officers were shot and wounded late Monday in the West Garfield Park neighborhood, authorities said.

The 29-year-old patrolmen from the West Side Harrison police district were expected to recover from their injuries, according to police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, who spoke with reporters this morning outside the emergency room at Stroger Hospital.

"God was with us tonight," McCarthy said.

Where is he on the nights that officers are shot and killed? Imponderables. Who doesn't love 'em?

Illinois seeks scientists to help in Asian carp fight

2011-06-07T10:01:00.000-04:00

This headline struck me as funny because the implied message (perhaps) is, "After politicians once again find themselves powerless, clueless, and impotent. . .they turn to science. Wait could it be? Could LOGIC and reason save the day?

Again?

Catholics Take the Low Road Again

2011-06-04T14:45:00.002-04:00

Catholic Charities in Joliet, Peoria opt out of adoptions

This decision is in conjunction with the new civil unions law in Illinois. The Catholic church doesn't want to put children in homes with homos. That's it pretty much. Forget the quality of life those kids might enjoy and take advantage of. Forget thinking about the KIDS (except in a biblical way for some priests).

I wonder if they'd place kids in homes with a heterosexual atheist couple?

I'm so sick of people living in the ancient, dark, paranoid, past when the future is really so bright!

Time to Start Bashing Sarah Palin

2011-05-31T11:49:00.004-04:00

Here's a great link to the 9 most disturbing beliefs of Sarah Palin. Read it.

I'd like to just point out one example:

Until somebody digs up the remnants of a T. rex with an ill-fated caveman dangling from its jaws, the scientific community, along with most of the American public, will be at peace with the theory of evolution. But this isn't true of everyone. More than 80 years after the Scopes "Monkey" trial, there are people -- and politicians -- who do not believe in evolution and lobby for creationism to be taught in schools. Palin is one of those politicians.

I think this example and others are perhaps not so much an example of how stupid and un-educated Sarah Palin is but how she and a host of other conservative republicans will take ANY STAND if it means votes. I'm not sure which is scarier and perhaps she is both - uneducated and evil.

HEY! It's May 22!

2011-05-22T18:37:00.004-04:00

Well, what do you know. The world didn't end. That means the Cubs still have a chance. . . some day.

Surprise!

But to those who believed, their money sure as hell (get it? Sure as hell?) is gone! Interestingly, Family Radio has not been updated and is still predicting the end of times. . . yesterday!

I mean really. . . why would you donate to Family Radio instead of giving your money to family members if you really thought it was the end of times. What the hell is this nut-ball organization going to do with your money if they are really sure that on the 21st they were going to heaven? HEY! You really can't take it with you, right?

On one hand I shake my head at the stupidity of people who believe some nut case can do math based on something in the bible and get more than 3 people to go along with him. Sell their houses, join a caravan, whatever.

Understand that I and other rational people were not standing by to see if the world was going to end. It never entered my world of possible things. Now that it didn't happen I don't feel smug. I didn't go "Whew!" I don't feel like 'I won'. To do that would be to fall into the whole non-thing. A non-happening that attracted thousands. In the same way I could give a rat's ass what the pope says.

No, I only feel sadness. I'm saddened by our educational system that produces people who cannot distinguish between being the ability to go to the moon and numerology. Moreover I am unable to distinguish between the few thousands who gave up a chunk of their lives for a nut case and the millions of devout Christians who basically do the same thing day after day. They give up their reason. They give up some of their money. They miss the truly amazing things about being sentient and getting to observe this amazing universe by imagining a rather boring supernatural universe with pastel clouds and unicorns.

How different is it for a guy to claim he has calculated the end of times from the bible than for some ancient priests to claim the son of god somehow died for my sins (of which I have virtually none and I have the judges decision to prove it!) and rose up into heaven where I get to go too.

Somehow.

If it sounds ridiculous it probably is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The whole fucking thing is depressing. . .

Skeptics vs. Conspiracy Nuts

2011-05-04T11:30:00.004-04:00

Some are wanting the US to publish the photos of the dead Osama to quiet any critics who say it may be a hoax. I think this would be a mistake.

1. If he's not dead let's have a current picture of him or video holding the day's paper.
2. publish DNA evidence...that's not that hard to read.
3. Ask his wife who was there: "Is your husband dead?"

But none of this would work including the publishing the picture because a conspiracy nut takes his conspiracies as a true hobby. No matter WHAT you show them they just ratchet it up and claim that the conspiracy is that much bigger or more insidious. They are exactly like religious nuts in that they have already claimed their conclusion and facts and evidence be damned. It's a losing gambit to try to 'show' these people anything. You can't win and you just give them more air time.

As my uncle used to say: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. You only frustrate yourself and you annoy the pig"!

Let Osama prove that he is alive!

Finally, being skeptical is different than holding on to a conclusion in spite of the evidence. Being skeptical means that you withhold your conclusions until you've seen some evidence and you want a LOT of it from qualified sources. No cherry picking!

Bin Laden. . . . DEAD!

2011-05-02T12:25:00.003-04:00

Well, that's certainly good news and I did have a little, "In your face!" thought. I'm a little disturbed by Americans taking to the streets, waving flags, and chanting USA though. All of that seems so . . . so . . . ummmm....Middle Eastern!

I'm glad we never gave up and that this dirt bag was found and killed. Fair enough. But, I don't care for the public celebrations of death to an individual. Just seems a little tacky.

Surviving a Tornado

2011-04-30T08:31:00.001-04:00

From CNN:

The same tornado, Amin said, virtually destroyed the tiny town of Phil Campbell, which has a population of little more than 1,000.

Those who survived the disaster thanked God or simple luck.

Just a quick note about the obvious: How can you tell the difference between God's interference and blind luck? I'll sit back and wait for my answer.

Praying for Rain in Texas

2011-04-23T07:58:00.002-04:00

I'm for this. I'm for it raining so hard in Texas that the whole fucking state washes into the gulf of Mexico.

Seriously. . .

The Govenor of Texas, Rick (Jimmy Bobby) Perry, has proclaimed an official state wide 3 days of prayer for rain in Texas to put out the wild fires. Texas is a very big state as you know so with that kind of power behind a prayer it ought to work, right?

And yet. . .

There is not one shred of evidence that prayer works. This after numerous controlled experiments. I know, I know, I know. . . I just keep ruining the whole magical prayer thing with this fact. Notice how people actually LOVE controlled experiments when it makes for neater gizmos like air conditioning or iPhones but choose to NOT like controlled experiments when it gets in the way of believing in magic. Typical cherry picking

But let's assume that prayer does send a message to a super being. Why does more people praying help? Why three days? Why not 4 or 2? Why not pray for the wisdom to provide more money and fire equipment for your apparently outmatched fire department? To pray like this, to ask for rain from a perhaps benevolent creator is really weird to me. What then if it doesn't rain? What do you conclude? Prayers didn't get through? You and your whole stupid state are not worthy? God has a plan but you're not part of it?

I know of people praying for cures for the sick and dying. Those aren't answered either and still the praying goes on.

What a fucking waste of time. Maybe the great apes evolved from us instead of the other way round. You don't see them wasting their time like this. Oh wait, that would bring up the whole evolution thing and that's not allowed in Texas either.

From Plognark.com

Go there

Holy Oak Tree!

2011-02-20T12:14:00.004-05:00

Recently, a disgruntled Alabama football fan poisoned the cherished oak trees at Auburn University, their arch rivals. The trees were a rallying point for celebrating Auburn's success at football where the Auburn fans would 'decorate' the trees with hundreds of rolls of toilet paper.

Pause. . .

Well, that's sad for the trees to be sure. What this shows though is what can happen when you swear your allegiance to something that is not real. Football is real enough but to live and die with the idea of the team is a different story. Being a fan is truly a weird thing. The team is different every few years, the uniforms change, coaches come and go, new stadiums are built. So, what is the thing that keeps you being a fan of a particular team? The idea of it. WE are the good guys. Everyone else is evil. Starting to sound a little familiar?

Also, the poisoner in question (now a prisoner?) is 62. That's little old for rah, rah, sisss boom bah, don't you think? I suspect, like many die hard fans, he never attended Alabama. Also, I'm interested in the whole idea of the trees themselves becoming 'holy'. The trees got connected to the football team which people had somehow become intimately connected with. (Excellent marketing?) So by association the trees were 'holy'. I say 'holy' in the same way that a chunk of ground, or a rock, a wall, a tasteless wafer, or a building can become holy by association with deep feelings about things that aren't real. To attack the physical object then is to attack someones cherished beliefs.

If one were to spit on the wailing wall or take a leak inside a mosque think of how much worse the repercussions would be while in fact it would really be about the same level of defilement as the killing of the oak trees. In fact the oak tree incident may be worse because there was the actual death of the living trees. When it's YOUR team, or YOUR wailing wall, or YOUR mosque things take on an elevated sense of importance that is way beyond what the true effect or importance is.

Oh, and none of this applies to Cub fans. We truly are the chosen ones as everyone knows and Larussa is Satan!

The Chain of Questions

2011-02-12T19:26:00.003-05:00

Let's take Christianity. . .

Jesus was born to a virgin and rose from the dead. In between he made water into wine, fed a multitude on one box of Triscuits, brought Lazarus back from the dead (and left several more most certainly dead), walked on water, and cured the occasional cripple.

There is nothing actually written by Jesus himself or by any of his contemporaries. Despite the red type in the New Testament (I always thought that was extra special when I looked at the bible as a kid) Jesus has never really been quoted. His words were the words of the devout put down for him (for them?) several HUNDRED years later.

OK

For example, when someone says, "I believe in life after death", you get to say,
"That's pretty out there. Why do you believe that?"
"Well, it was said to be true and promised by Jesus himself. "
"Actually, we're not sure what he said, are we"?
"It's in the bible."
"Who wrote it down?"
"It was written by the hand of God".
"Yes but somebody had to actually write it down."
"His hand was guided by God."
"That's a pretty strong claim. How do you know that?
"It's in the bible."
"Do you see a circle here?"

My point is that there is no way a theist can allow a natural, logical stream of questions - A stream of questions no more complicated than those that you'd dive into if it were negotiating the purchase of a car or a home loan. Questions on theism and faith all end in circles and pure belief. Of course the "counter argument" is that skeptics don't know everything either.

This is like saying, Soriano is a bad left fielder for the Cubs and having the counter argument be, 'lots of people have dropped baseballs.' Well, sure but still . . .

Indeed. I'd be the first skeptic to admit that I don't know everything but several have beat me too it. In fact society's general lack of knowledge in several areas is the only thing I'm NOT skeptical about. Lack of knowledge while on the quest for answers, data, and trying to understand the universe, to fill in those gaps is quite different from denying that such knowledge is possible. That reason itself is impossible. When a scientist is just short of an answer to his question he does not revel in it. He does not make it the cornerstone around which he builds his world view. Around which he builds his church. No, that would be giving up. He marshals on. He strives for understanding. He* strives to pull back that shroud of darkness and really see.

Do you see the difference? The scary theist revels in his lack of understanding and uses that to invent gods. They use that to infect our school boards. They use it to build huge money making edifices called churches. They use it to build fences: We own marriage. We own only white people. They use it in a feedback loop to reinforce they're own lack of understanding. To make it "good". The 'good' people all misunderstand together.

This in the face of the skeptic striving, with a moderately functioning brain, for understanding in what is surely a reasonable universe. To actually use that small brain, to not be afraid, to keep following that chain of questioning, bravely, wherever it might lead.

The devout Christian (or other) will always take the moral high road based on their 'faith' but I see them as people who have given up. They've surrendered that which makes them truly human - their reason. It is the only thing that separates us from the other mammals.

*Sorry to keep saying "He". You get what I'm going for, right?

Pray. . . a LOT

2011-01-13T10:16:00.003-05:00

Recently, I've gotten tangential information about a sick child. My reading tells me that all of us need to pray for this little kid and pray a LOT. Get others to pray if you can.

Now, you can't go after someone who is trying to do good in this way and I never would. I can't help thinking of a couple of things to myself though (and gauging by comments, writing here is the SAME as thinking to myself :)). First off, if praying for a sick little kid could help it seems mean that you have to pray 'enough'. Are we to imagine a fatherly figure with the big white beard (was God ever young?) listening and counting and knowing of this little kid's suffering (God knows all) and then. . ."Nope, not enough prayers and several people didn't really pray hard enough. NO SOUP FOR YOU. NEXT!"

Is that the God people are praying to? I guess it is. Is there some sort of innate desire to be subservient to a guy with a big white beard (without being an elf) that makes us ok with just not praying enough or hard enough? That way it's our fault and not God's? This is some pretty twisted logic but of course it's not logic at all.

And of course there are the numerous tests that have shown that praying has no effect for the sick and may even have a negative effect if they know you're praying for them.

So. . . why do we keep behaving so strangely?

Miracle Mary. . .Ya Hey Der!

2010-12-15T18:28:00.002-05:00

This just in. . .well, actually from 1859...

It seems back in 1859 a half blind, Belgian farm girl named Adele Brise had some visions of the Virgin Mary (although the vision said her name was the Queen of Heaven. I imagine her saying that the way guys from Ohio State say THE Ohio State: "THE Queen of Heaven"! Like that). Anyway, Mary told her to teach kids about catholicism (eventhough it hadn't been invented in Mary's time) and that's what she did.

Fast forward to 2010 and the bishop says that these visions have been investigated and according to the bishop 'they are supernatural and "worthy of belief."' That puts this little area of Wisconsin (Cheese!) right up there with other such places where miracles never really occur like Lourdes or Wrigley Field.

From the article. . .

Ricken opened a formal investigation into Brise's visions in January 2009, appointing a committee of three Marian experts who followed guidelines issued by the Vatican in 1978 for judging apparitions and revelations. These committees typically consult experts in psychology, church law, Scripture, history, theology, and testimony from people familiar with the visionary.

In general, church investigators are more "History Detectives," than "Ghost Hunters," to use a television analogy. Supernatural events are almost impossible to prove, said the Rev. Johann Roten, who has served on committees assessing apparitions, so the church is more interested in the consequences of the vision

Oh my. . .where to start?

Let's look at who they are not consulting: scientists, Randi, skeptics in general. You're consulting an expert in psychology? How does that work? To see if it's possible for a non-crazy person to have a vision? Testimony? 1859!!! At this point it wouldn't even be 3rd person testimony it would be 5th generation testimony.

And, my favorite, Supernatural events are almost (but not quite?) impossible to prove. OF COURSE YOU CAN'T PROVE THEM. . . THEY'RE SUPERNATURAL WHICH MEANS OUTSIDE OF LOGIC.

Jeez some people are so thick.

This is a great example of wanting your cake and your virgin too. You want the world to be magical but you'd also like to prove the magic exists using logic but, hey, it's really a faith thing but, and, . . . The Bishop is for it!

I like this. . .

In general, the Catholic Church approaches stories of supernatural visions with a mixture of excitement and caution, scholars say.

Translation: excitement - "We could make a bundle with plastic statues". Caution - "What are the risk/reward numbers?

Once the visionary is dead and gone, if the pilgrimage site continues to have meaning and value for the church it becomes less risky," Britt said, "and even sometimes desirable for the church to offer its endorsement."

Of course it's less risky! You can prop up the half blind, crazy, milk maid as some kind of mother Theresa and no one can challenge that.

What a world. Internet, Mars missions, electric cars. . .and the Virgin Mary in Wisconsin.

Dead People Say Hi!

2010-10-19T08:19:00.003-04:00

I'll put my snarky comments in RED

This by David Kessler on Oprah.com

(OPRAH.com) -- Throughout my years of working with the dying and the bereaved, I have noticed commonly shared experiences that remain beyond our ability to explain (remember this phrase) and fully understand. The first are visions.

As the dying see less of this world, some people appear to begin looking into the world to come. It's not unusual for the dying to have visions, (read on. . .you'll find it's about 4%) often of someone who has already passed on. Your loved one may tell you that his deceased father visited him last night, or your loved one might speak to his mom as if she were there in the room at that time.

It was almost 15 years ago that I was sitting at the bedside of my teacher, Elisabeth Kübler Ross', when she turned to me and asked, "What do you think about the deceased visiting those on their deathbeds to greet them?"

I replied quickly, showing my knowledge back to her: "You're speaking of deathbed visions, most likely caused by a lack of oxygen to the brain or a side effect of morphine."What's wrong with this suggestion?

She looked at me and sighed, "It will come with maturity."

Oprah.com: 4 healthy ways to grieve

I thought to myself: "Maturity? What did maturity have to do with anything?" Now, years later, I look at the events we still can't explain that happen at the end of life and realize what Elisabeth was saying.

It would be arrogant to think we can explain everything, (Unless you can!) especially when it comes to dying. My mother died when I was still a preteen. My father remained an incredible optimist his whole life, even when he was dying. I was busy trying to make sure he was comfortable and pain-free, and at first didn't notice he had become very sad.

He told me how much he was going to miss me once he was gone. And then he mentioned how much he was saying goodbye to: his loved ones, his favorite foods, the sky, the outdoors and a million other things of this world. He was overcome by sadness I could not (and would not) take away from him.

My father was very down-hearted for the next few days. But then one morning he told me my mother, his wife, had come to him the night before.

"David, she was here for me," he said with an excitement I had not seen in him in years. "I was looking at all I was losing, and I'd forgotten that I was going to be with her again. I'm going to see her soon." He looked at me as he realized I would still remain here. Then he added, "We'll be there waiting for you."

And this can't be because of lack of oxygen, etc. to the brain because it was YOUR father?

Over the next two days, his demeanor changed dramatically. He had gone from a hopeless dying man with only death in front of him to a hopeful man who was going to be reunited with the love of his life. My father lived with hope and also died with it.

Oprah.com: Why birth is not a beginning and death is not an end

When I started compiling examples to include in my book, "Visions, Trips and Crowded Rooms: Who and What You See Before You Die," I was surprised by how similar they were. In fact, it was hard to pick which ones to use because they were all so much alike.

You know, we have 2 legs, 2 arms, spleens, hearts, etc. Why should it be surprising when humans have something in common?

Now I realize the very thing that makes them repetitious is also what makes them unique. As someone who has spent most of my life writing, teaching and working with the dying, I can't prove to you that my father's vision was real. I can only talk about my experience as a son and about countless other occurrences that take place every day.

I don't doubt the vision was real. I only doubt that real dead people were 'visiting'.

I used to believe the only thing we needed to alleviate was the suffering of the dying by providing good pain management and symptom control. I know now that we have more -- we have the "who" and "what" we see before we die, which is perhaps the greatest comfort to the dying.

Some interesting and unexplainable items about deathbed visions:

There's that word again. Unexplalinable? or Unexplained so far?

• Visions people experience at the end of life are remarkably similar.

already spoke to this.

• The dying are most often visited by their mothers. It shouldn't be too surprising that the person who is actually present as we cross the threshold of life and take our first breaths once again appears at the threshold as we take our last breaths.

Wow, how very scientific. First off, what's the sample size and how was the research done to allow for 'most often'. How about orphans? Who visits them? What about mothers who beat their kids. Do they still get to visit? And, what's with the flowery language there? Oh wait, this is from Oprah.com. Next!

• Hands passionately reaching upward to some unseen force is witnessed in many deathbed encounters.

That's data?

• Visions mostly occur toward a corner of the room.

• Those family members at a deathbed are not able to see the vision or participate in the conversation.

• Visions usually occur hours to weeks before death.

• Visions don't seem to appear in other frightening situations where death is not likely, such as stuck in an elevator, lost in a foreign city or lost hiking.

• Unlike traditional healthcare, the law treats a dying person's last words as the truth.

I don't get this sentence at all. Help me.

Oprah.com: Using technology to get through tough times

If you find the concept of a dead loved one greeting you on your deathbed impossible or ridiculous, consider what I finally realized as a parent: You protect your children from household dangers. You hold their hands when they cross the street on their first day of school. You take care of them when they have the flu, and you see them through as many milestones as you can.

Now fast-forward 70 years after you, yourself, have passed away. What if there really is an afterlife and you receive a message that your son or daughter will be dying soon? If you were allowed to go to your child, wouldn't you?

I would. Wait, is the Bear's game on?

While death may look like a loss to the living, the last hours of a dying person may very well be filled with fullness rather than emptiness. Or not! Sometimes all we can do is embrace the unknown and unexplainable and make our loved ones feel good about their experiences.

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Possible Responses and Tips

• There's really no point in telling your dying father you think he's hallucinating or that his mom has been dead for several years and can't possibly be there.

Of course not that would be mean but I'll tell you you're full of shit.

• Instead of disagreeing, try asking him, "What is your mom saying?"

• Say, "Tell me more about your vision." Perhaps Aunt Betty is telling your father that it's okay to die or maybe they're reminiscing about growing up together.

• Say, "It's great that Aunt Betty is here with you," or "I knew that Mother would come to meet you," or "I'm so glad that Mom is with you now."

• Denying their reality will only separate you from your loved one. So join and explore this profound time of life.

The saying goes, "We come into this world alone, and we leave alone." We've been brought up to believe that dying is a lonely, solitary event. But what if everything we know isn't true? What if the long road that you thought you'll eventually have to walk alone has unseen companions?

What if monkeys fly out of your ass? Jesus H. Christ! Anyone can write a bunch of drivel by saying 'what if' over and over again!

I would welcome those of you who have had an experience of your dying loved ones being comforted by those already deceased to share these stories here with others. In sharing our stories, we will see that the journey at the end of life is not a lonely path into eternity.

How about sharing stories of no visions. My mom slide into a coma after a long illness and died. Period.

Rather, it may be an incredible reunion with those we have loved and lost. It reminds us that God exists and birth is his miracle that carries us into life. A deathbed vision is his miracle that carries us though the transition of death into the next part of our eternity.

Now we get to it. The whole premise is based on the unprovable existence of (probably the Christian) God. Also, we never hear why the hypothesis of lack of oxygen to the brain is wrong. Nice piece Oprah. America is doomed.

------------

Here's another website with the same kind of "research" in other words they ONLY look at dying people who DO see visions but they don't look at how many dying people overall see visions. That's not research.

Here's someone doing actual research. This doctor interviewed cardiac arrest patients as they are very near dead at some point with no pulse, etc. He found

Out of the 63 cardiac arrest survivors that Parnia interviewed, 56 had no memories of any lucid experience. Seven, however, did. Parnia narrowed these down to four who clearly met all the criteria.

Also:

For me, the biggest question is why no more than a few percent have the experience, given that the circumstances seem to be the same.

And Finally:

It is unlikely that many sceptical scientists will be convinced. The science writer Susan Blackmore has researched the subject, having considered many case histories, but says, 'All things considered, I can see no reason to adopt the afterlife hypothesis ... The dying brain hypothesis, for all its shortcomings, does a better job of accounting for the experiences themselves'. Because we do dream and (sometimes) hallucinate, it might seem hasty to posit an afterlife on the basis of these experiences if there is a simpler explanation.

Notice that the writing of reasonable investigations of this phenomena is lacking in the flowery prose of the article in Oprah. We WANT to believe so the writing panders to that need.

Heaven is Intergrated!

2010-10-18T12:54:00.003-04:00

This just in from CNN.

Well, that's nice. Since heaven is integrated (according to the pastor) then churches should be too except there is no way to know what the pretend place called 'heaven' is like. We have a human need to think there is a better life after this one but not one shred of evidence on which to base such a way of thinking.

So good idea to integrate your church but maybe just do it because it's the right thing to do.

Heaven can wait!

Wiccan? Pagan?

2010-10-18T10:40:00.002-04:00

Article in the Trib this morning about a Wiccan minister. He says the religion is getting more acceptance in the mainstream and why not?

Their beliefs are no crazier than any other religion. From the Trib. . .

"We honor the ancestors by casting a magical circle of protection and invoking the divine powers in the form of a god and goddess," said Larson, a white-haired 63-year-old with a professorial air. "And there's chanting to create and build energy within the group, and sometimes a bonfire."

Is this crazier than thinking a guy somehow died for you sins? Is it crazier than thinking you are eating his body when you have a cracker? Is it crazier than thinking that someone rose up from the dead? And, who doesn't like a nice bonfire?

Also from the Trib.. .

"There's no formal book or scripture that's considered divinely revealed," Larson said. "Pagans don't have to reconcile a creation story written millennia ago with the findings of modern science. Consequently most pagans are quite comfortable with a scientific world view including such specific ideas as evolution."

Well, that's cool. You know, have any crazy ass religion you want but just don't think you then have some moral upper hand and for Darwin's sake. . .DON'T RUN FOR OFFICE. WE'RE BUSY!

Tony Danza?

2010-10-01T22:09:00.003-04:00

So, here I am minding my own business watching re-runs of Criminal Minds and what comes on but a 'reality show' with that BIG star Tony Danza apparently being a REAL teacher in Philly (I can only hope he got booed). I watched a little bit and then turned it off. Like all "reality" shows, it's as real as it gets. . . with a fucking videographer, sound, and light man following you around!

Actually, I've never watched any teacher shows. Room 222, Coach, ok maybe a little Mr. Cotter but that was totally for laughs. I think most of my fellow teachers are with me on this. No teacher show has ever come close. It's like turning a novel into a movie. Always comes up short. Every year, the job of teaching is another novel.

The good news about the Tony Danza opening episode was how scared he acted. Not was but acted and that's ok. The point is how completely terrifying teaching high school kids is. I don't mean at some 'tough' high school in Philly. I mean just teenagers in general. I taught at a very nice high school in a Chicago suburb and I'd have friends or associates who weren't in the teaching biz come visit sometimes and just walk through the halls with them at passing period and watch their faces. Oh my. That's a lot of teenage bizness right there in your face. You'd see the fear in their eyes. It's just too much for the un-initiated. I'd stop and tease the occasional kid. Acknowledge the occasional greeting from a student. Stop and stare at kids swapping spit. It's all good. But oh my. . . if you're not of this world. . . well, it's really something.

And if you're not shitting your pants before your first day of teaching EVERY fall then for fuck's sake go get your realtor license and get the hell out of Dodge. This IS scary. This IS important. A great teacher has to really believe that the works of Plato, Galileo, Sarte, Jefferson, Euclid, Hemingway, ARE important. The parents are depending on you. The KIDS are depending on you because in the face of having a long list of boring teachers under their belts they, like Cub fans, always hold out hope that this will be the year.

Do Not Disappoint

Now you may think that that means that you have to be Mr. friendly or Mr. fun or Mr. Funny. . . probably not. A good friend that I taught with was being eaten alive, EATEN ALIVE, by lower level kids who had pretty much given up on school. After a semester of that he went out and bought several suits of clothes and ties. He became the Hitler of science education. He had crazy rules and stuck to them: NO one goes to the bathroom . . . EVER! GO IN YOUR PANTS! No one can cross this line. . . EVER. Homework is due or I'm calling your parents...EVERY TIME. And so on. And you know what? They loved him. It was the direction they had been looking for for maybe 15 years.

15 years! Are you listening to this?

I quit teaching physics because I wanted to go sailing but that's only partly the reason. I quit teaching because I realized that I couldn't quite do it to the level I wanted to do it at any longer. For whatever reason. Burn out? I'll never know. Schools change. Administration changes. Kids change and it was all just too far for me to stretch. I quit for the good of education in general and for my own mental health. I never wanted to be THAT teacher and I felt I might be becoming him.

What is the commitment of nation's current teachers? That's probably too big a question with answers all over the place. The lure of teaching will always draw some and always draw some of the best but are those numbers diminishing? As long as we evaluate students, schools and, now, teachers via the standardized test I think we'll get fewer and fewer 'good teachers'. You know, a 'good teacher'. Hopefully, we've all had one or two and if you think back to them do you think they were driven by test scores or by their own love for Plato, Galileo, Sarte, Jefferson, Euclid, Hemingway, and the rest of the gang.

Senate Republicans

2010-09-30T07:35:00.002-04:00

This is an update on an earlier blog. I learn today from Phil Plait that EVERY republican senate hopeful is against taking any action on global warming. This is the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Why?

VOTES

American is broken. When you have evidence in front of you confirming an important topic like global warming but you sense that your team can get more votes by appealing to stupid people, well then the great experiment in democracy is broken.

When your support group is basically people who don't accept evolution, think God lives in the sky, deny global warming, and basically suspect anything that is supported by data. . . well, that's a nice little scary political party you have there.

I'm sad.

Baby Scientists

2010-09-23T07:57:00.003-04:00

My daughter revealed to me the other day that young children and scientists are exactly the same. The same in how they go about doing what they do. A young child, say 1 year old or less, is constantly testing, trying, eliminating that which doesn't work, expanding on what does work, generalizing, hypothesizing, and then re-testing again and again. This is what science does. I know we are all supposed to learn the 'scientific method' in school (purpose, procedure. . . ) but I'm not sure any working scientist gives a hoot about it when she is busy testing, exploring, hypothesizing, etc. It's much messier than that and yet every bit as rational and logical in its approach.

I'm going to invent a pretend child who grows up being supported in their explorations by an experience explorer (teacher). As this child grows up they would gain knowledge about how the world works via the myriads of tests they perform every day and they would also become better explorers. They will take fewer turns down blind alleys and maybe suspect earlier on that a particular journey is going to bear little fruit. I know well seasoned physicists who can smell a rat in a proof (they've seen similar) way earlier than an apprentice will. The point is that if you ask reasonable questions, test possible answers, test again and so on, nature will 'teach' you naturally. It can do this because the workings of nature are based on repeatable, testable mechanisms. While they might be complicated they are always there waiting to be unraveled.

If you could let all that exploration with a qualified leader just go on and on would there be any point where the explorers would come up with God as an explanation to any phenomena? Understand that this explorer is my pretend person who has never even been given any idea about existing religions or the God idea. Their explorations would ultimately come up with all the laws of physics, evolution, DNA, the Copernican system, Big Bang, etc, but what phenomena would you unearth and come up with God. In what context would that happen? What would they be puzzled about and then go, "Ah. . .must be an invisible being living in the sky that caused this."

God exists in society because we teach it to very small children when they are too young to think critically. Even worse is that very small children's brains are wired to accept ANYTHING that adults say. This was a very key evolutionary trick to keep the kids with the herd. Using this wiring to infect kids with the God idea is, to me, a little cruel. This is key. You could NOT teach about god successfully to someone who was already thinking critically and skeptically to fantastic claims. They would keep asking annoying questions like, "Where is heaven"? Does God have a dick? Really? A virgin? How did that work? How does Jesus getting nailed to a cross do anything for me? And so on. . .

Understand that when people thought that God or the gods actually were the cause of everything from the origins of the earth to lightning, floods, and weather it would make sense to teach this to the kids. If God was your only idea of what caused things to happen, well, then might as well pass it on. But now we KNOW differently! We do because we are not ignorant shepherds any longer and yet we persist in teaching the God idea. Why do we do that?

Now you might say that as one explores one would naturally read the books of explorers that came before. One doesn't really have to sail around the south seas, re-tracing Darwin's journey to understand Darwin's theory and more importantly, one can read and understand that what is being claimed is testable and if one so chooses they can test the claims for themselves. Many have so chosen and THOSE findings can be read as well. So, you say, why can't one read the bible for it's lessons and learn about God from those that came before? Isn't that really the same thing? No. You can but nothing you read is TESTABLE. That makes a huge difference! What started out as the re-telling of lore and folk tales finally got written down at some point and became THE bible. This is a completely different document than any other investigative bit of writing. By its very nature the bible is to be taken as the true word of God because God (through man) says so. . . somehow.

As long as parents, and in most cases in an unthinking effort to be 'good' parents, drag their kids to Sunday school religion and the God idea will live long and prosper. You can put up all the billboards you like but I fear that you are preaching to the choir!

Republicans Have All the Nuts and none of the Balls

2010-09-15T21:31:00.005-04:00

Is it just me or does it seem that all the nut-ball groups have gravitated (for those who believe in gravity) to the Grand Old Party? Why does is seem that the hysterical among us align themselves with conservative ideals, ergo, the Republicans. This must drive the reasonable among the Republicans (yeah, they have to be there!) crazy. In researching this post I find an exactly matching post with a better title...

Not all Republicans are science deniers but all science deniers are Repupblicans

Let's look at a few groups that tend to align themselves with the Republican party to illuminate my point

1. Evangelicals, like Terry Fox or the late Jerry Fallwell (do all their first names end in Y?) who preach the wickedness of abortion, evolution and homosexuality.

2. Global warming deniers. From that link. . .

Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict landed last February. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies. Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

And then there's this:

Every GOP NH Senate Candidate Is A Global Warming Denier

And from Phil Plait. . .

Every single Republican senate hopeful is against climate change action

Evolution: War on science: Alabama’s “True Republican” TV ad mocks evolution

Young Earth Believers - Yep Republicans again.

This is getting very depressing. It's one thing to just be uneducated. It's another to use that stupidity to get votes. A true denier has to deny actual scientific data a priori and WANT things to be different than they actually are. They have an ax to grind and by God they are going to fucking grind it! Individually they are harmless and equivalent to the flat earth society. But, to PLAY to the audience whether you are a denier or not in an attempt (which might be successful!) to get votes is bordering on evil. What is to be gained by your real or feigned denial except your own elevation to a post to which you are poorly trained and with which you cannot possibly do good.

And then there's the whore, Sarah Palin who truly doesn't know shit from shine-o-la and has demonstrated that on national TV. Depressingly her convincing act as a typical American stupid person has endeared her to. . .well, to the millions of stupid Americans who seem to all be in the Republican Party!

Here's the question: When did it get to be OK to have an OPINION about scientific data and results. You can have an opinion about abortion, say but you can't have an opinion about evolution. . . or fucking gravity. Do your own experiment. Publish in accepted journals. Everyone is free to do that but you can't just look at the evidence for the earth being 4.5 billion years old and say, "I just choose to not believe that". Actually you can. Who cares. Be stupid but don't make that your platform for running for fucking office! Sheesh.

Jesus H. Christ, is it so much to ask that we deal with national problems on a rational level and leave the religious and crazy rhetoric outside the meeting room?

I guess it is.

If you travel at all you'll find people chuckling at the things that America gets all stirred up about. They ain't perfect either but they mostly don't go around voting based on whether or not you BELIEVE in a well proven scientific theory.

Stoning in Iran

2010-09-07T09:56:00.002-04:00

This woman may or may not have already been given 99 lashes as the reports vary. I guess the lashes are to get her ready for the stoning which is a death penalty. Gee, with that it seems like they could skip the lashes but who wants to miss a good time like that.

She is being punished for not wearing a head covering (hence the lashes) and for committing adultry (death by stoning). Can you imagine any society based on reasoned thought and discussion coming to this conclusion? No. Only a backward society based on a distorted view of their own religion could make themselves think that a fellow human HAD to be stoned to death.

It's not that this particular religion is bad it's that forfeiting your reason in favor of ANY religion is bad. It takes you nowhere as a person and it holds society back in general.

There is no God. . . let's move on to problem solving PLEASE!

Lottery

2010-08-17T16:02:00.005-04:00

This post doesn't really fit here but I wanted to post it somewhere.

I was somewhat shocked and then not so much when I read this. . .

Players in Chicago's 60619 ZIP code played $26.6 million worth of lottery games for fiscal year 2008, and $21.7 million in lottery sales came from the 60628. This is the TOP lottery sales zip code in the state.

This zip code includes the Chicago neighborhoods of Chatham, Roseland, and Grand Crossing. The area is 90 percent African American and 50% of the men ages 16 and up are unemployed. A daily look at the newspaper will tell you what life is like in these south side neighborhoods.

I'm thinking that people from the neighborhood are buying the tickets and not tourists.

That's 48 million over two years IN ONE ZIP CODE. If all those people had put that money in a freaking bucket what might they have built for their neighborhood?

685 private security guards at $35,000/year
At 2% interest they could have MADE over $900,000 a year
How many abandoned buildings could have been bought and turned into parks?
How many tutors or teacher's aides could be hired
After school programs?
Music programs?
Art Programs?

Look, the lottery is a tax. You willingly go pay this tax but their is no promise that the proceeds are going to the area where you physically paid your tax. The lottery money you plunk down in Chatham could easily end up in a road project in Oak Park! If you're willing to tax yourself with NO guarantee of ANY return why not just form a citizens group, donate at the same rate of 24 million a year and get a guaranteed return for your neighborhood?

Besides, the lottery is a bad bet. People always say, "Well, someone has to win". Yeah, but it ain't going to be you! It's you against the FIELD! Hell, lots of time no one wins. The odds are that bad. If you laid a special square inch on the grass in the city block where the Petrillo band shell is, blindfold yourself, and whip a dart (no aiming!) into that square block field. You have to hit that special square inch to win lotto. Same odds.

Would it be possible to distribute Lottery proceeds in proportion to lottery sales? Of course this is possible. It's an easy math problem/programing problem. You think the politicians would allow this instead of their own pork barrel projects? The odds of this happening are the same as winning Lotto!

Sad Story from Lake Michigan

2010-08-06T12:33:00.002-04:00

In the Chicago Tribune this morning. . . Two women were rescued from the lake this morning. Thy had been treading water for several hours after their sailboat drifted away from them while going for a late night swim. One of the men aboard drowned and the other is missing.

As a sailor myself I can't imagine letting the boat get away! Swim with a tether or leave one person on board. Or maybe not go swimming at 1 in the morning.

The part that interests me is this quote from one of the fishermen who rescued the women:

"It was definitely surreal," said another fishermen, Chad Wasson, a doctor from Naperville. "It really was divine intervention."

Well there Chad I guess that makes you God! YOU'RE the one who saved her. Oh, and was it also divine intervention that had you go out late enough to NOT rescue the two guys? The world of religion is FULL of cherry picking like this where you pick the event(s) that supports a kind and beneficial deity and ignore the unfortunate events. You know that ones that confirm that the lord does work in mysterious ways. . .

Our own Blago

2010-07-28T14:14:00.002-04:00

The case against former governor Rod Blagojevich has gone to the jury. Here's what Rod had to say. . .

Blagojevich, with his wife Patti at his side during the brief news conference, said they have put their faith in the "judgment, common sense and decency" of the jury. "It's in God's hands."
-Chicago Tribune

WTF? It is clearly in the jury's hands. This is a good example of trying to sound pious. Makes you seem humble and spiritual and all that but it makes no sense. If it was in God's hands you wouldn't need the jury!

Sarah Palin?

2010-07-16T18:32:00.003-04:00

I'm currently reading A. Lincoln by Ronald C. White Jr. It's a wonderful view of a man that all Americans love but few know why they love him. I was certainly in that group. Part of Abe's popularity was his folksiness and ability to talk to anyone at any level. Behind that folksiness however there lived a voracious reader, thinker, and planner. He was completely self educated. What meager formal education he received growing up in Indiana (and formal in Indiana is with shoes on) is probably similar to what one receives in the Hoosier state today. Nothing.

Just kidding. . . go Notre Dame!

Lincoln could also be very theoretical and obtuse and he lost some audience when he was. The point is that as a lawyer and later as a successful politician (although he lost more elections than he won) it was his keen mind and intellect behind his folksy persona that made him the guy we love to name streets, delis, parks, and discount furniture stores after.

Now then. . . Americans ARE drawn to folksiness. We like people to sound like us if we're going to vote for them. Americans are VERY suspicious of intellectuals and are not fond of having smart people actually run the country. Americans just might pick someone who SOUNDS like them even though they don't have any clue what they are talking about (George W).

Or, Sarah Palin!

The only reason she is still in the news is because, A. Fox News keeps putting her there and B. She sounds folksy. I got news for you. . .sometimes folksy is a red flag for STUPID and not well read! Let's just use this as an example. . .

"Well, let's see. There's ― of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ―" --Sarah Palin, unable to name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe vs. Wade, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip)

I'd like you all to compare that to this and ask yourself which one is more suited to the White House?

Wait... what's this got to do with skepticism, atheism, rationalism?

Sarah Palin is a poo head. (God, ( I mean Newton) I'm mature!)

More Prayer for the Gulf

2010-07-16T13:58:00.002-04:00

Again from CNN. It seems the Foley Methodist Church near the gulf has always held services down at the beach.

“We’re down there praying every week," Moore told CNN's Belief Blog by phone on Thursday. "It’s important for us to pray every week, every Sunday since we’ve been out there since it has happened. Every day we’re down there, we’re praying for some relief.”

Lately they've been moved off the actual beach to make room for the relief workers. Of course you can pray from anywhere so they have continued to focus their prayers on the oil mess in the gulf. Since the cap is holding I'm going to say that this is a case where the prayers worked! Sure. They prayed. The cap held. What don't you understand about cause and effect?

So, to the Foley Methodist Church. . . thanks!

On the other hand, maybe you could have focused your efforts several weeks ago though so let's work on that. Or, here's an idea, why not get off of your holy asses and pitch in with the relief effort. Just an idea. . .

Congress and the Bible

2010-07-15T08:29:00.002-04:00

Is this weird? Story out of CNN about a congressman from Texas (shocking!) quoting the bible to try to come up with an appropriate position on illegal immigration.

But Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the Judiciary Committee's top Republican, repeatedly cited passages from the Bible in support of a stronger crackdown on illegal immigration.

"The Bible contains numerous passages that support the rule of law," he asserted. "The scriptures clearly indicate that God charges civil authorities
with preserving order, protecting citizens and punishing wrongdoers." [emphasis mine]

Smith cited, among other things, Romans 13: "Let every person be subject to governing authorities."

He also noted a passage from Leviticus: "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong." This, he contended, does not imply that "foreigners should disregard civil laws to enter (the country) or that we should overlook it when they do."

Addressing a passage from Matthew 25 about caring for "the least of these my brothers," Smith contended that it "advocates individual acts of kindness (but) does not mandate a public policy."

"Americans need not repent for wanting to uphold the rule of law and provide jobs for legal workers," he said. "A truly Christian moral approach would be not to acquiesce to illegal immigration, but to work to end it."

Amazing to me how people love to cherry pick from the bible to find passages that 'clearly' support whatever you want them to support. Also amazing is just the overall idea that if it were in the bible that that would make something "OK". We don't get our medical advice from a 5000 year old book. We don't engineer bridges based on 5000 year old technology. We don't use ideas from 5000 year old astronomy theories either. Somehow when it comes to how we should treat each other or behave as a society we think the answers lie is this particular 5000 year old book. Why? Plus, there is also some very bad advice in the bible. Such things as selling your daughters and the idea wives being property of men. (Exodus)

Moreover, why didn't some other congressman shout this guy down in the name of separation of church and state?

GOD! Stop the oil leak!

2010-06-08T12:54:00.003-04:00

Yes, this is the advice from some corners such as on Beliefnet. Of course it is. Here's the prayer they recommend. I've highlighted some parts and comment below (misspellings are theirs!)

God, step in and stop the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico! We ask this because we don't know what else to do! We acknowledge that humans caused this problem, that our actions and inactions are now corrupting this beautiful and bountiful part of your planet. Forgive us. And then step in to act where we cannot. Give BP engineers supernatural wisdom to make the right, rapid decisions to remedy the leak. Give them stamina and creativity that is beyond their own capacity. Bless their technology so that it works even better than it is designed. Give governmental leaders, local, state and federal, unity and focus to deploy all their energies in the right direction. And beyond all this, please reach out your hand to protect the parts of your creation that will be damaged by this disaster. We humbly come to you to ask you for your grace. May the consequences of our stupidity, greed, laziness, and ignorance in this case be less than they should be! We know we should reap what we have sown, but here, we ask for a stay in your hand of judgment. We do not deserve your pardon here, but we ask it anyway! In Jesus name, fix this problem that we so pitifully cannot!"

We don't know what to do. . . Well, yet! What is the exact time line on fixing this leak? Has this problem ever occurred before? NO! So, it might not be surprising that it is taking awhile to solve it. Better yet, when someone comes up with the final solution how will we know it was due to prayer and not just due to diligence? I know. . . it was prayer that GAVE the diligence! Cute. The point is there is no way to know.

Supernatural wisdom That would be nice. What does it look like? How smart is supernatural smart? Again, how would you tell it from just run of the mill smart?

Bless their technology - I'm at a loss. Does a blessed machine operated differently, more efficiently than an unblessed machine? I would say only bless technology if it is a sneezing machine.

As to the effectiveness of prayer in general we have this from the Washington Post. about how a well run, controlled test of prayer's effectiveness on 700 heart patients showed a null result. Here's a paragraph from that article (my emphasis)

While skeptics of prayer welcomed the results, other researchers questioned the findings, and proponents of prayer maintained that God's influence lies beyond the reach of scientific validation.

So, I guess they're saying that prayer works but you can't ever see it work. Isn't that like not working? People who believe in prayer are more than just proponents of it they are going to believe it works in the face of evidence to the contrary. That's why it's no use trying to convince them that they are misguided. Like my dad used to say, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. You frustrate yourself AND you annoy the pig".

Blog Roll

2010-06-07T11:30:00.002-04:00

Just a quick note. As you can see at the left I've added Atheist Blog Roll to this site. That's because they've added this blog to their list. Wow. . .look how many Atheist blogs there are to choose from and this is the SHORT list. If nothing else it gives some comfort to find you're not alone.

Spirtual but not Religious

2010-06-03T13:15:00.002-04:00

Article at CNN about this concept. Apparently there is a growing group of people who consider themselves 'spiritual' but not connected to any organized religion. My question is, on what do you base your spiritualism? What clues does nature send you that leads you to believe there is some sort of 'other plane' besides the 3 dimensions (4 if you include time) we can actually sense?

I've written on this before. I visited a waterfall in Oregon over the weekend. Second tallest in the US! Spectacular. I keep seeing more and more spectacular images from various space telescopes that just blow me away. I've lived and sailed on the ocean and felt a full dose of life at sea and the beauty of the ocean. Many among us could go on and on. . . How is this world not spectacular enough for you that you have to invent a magical, non-existent plane, inhabited by pretend beings?

Forget religion. Forget 'spiritualism'. Get outdoors and look around!

Iran Could Plug Oil Leak

2010-06-03T13:08:00.002-04:00

From Watching America:

A high-level manager at Iran’s national oil drilling company said that plugging the leak in the well is no big deal. Iran, he says, has already had considerable experience with that, especially in the wake of the 1980s war with Iraq, when its oil-drilling rigs were bombarded.

Hey, Iran. . . this leak is about a mile under the ocean which in case you didn't know, is NOTHING LIKE A FREAKING DESERT! So thanks but no thanks and you can just get back to lying about your nuclear program and abusing women.

Sports and Religion

2010-05-30T22:20:00.003-04:00

A common sight is it not? The player pointing to the sky (god lives there you know). The player who crosses himself before an at bat. The group prayer meeting before the game or after a touchdown. What is this?

Hubris.

An over abundance of pride or self importance. You see, the BEST way to draw attention to yourself is to praise god in front of thousands of people. This is a guaranteed way to get them to like you and to, perhaps, overlook your lack of skill.

See what I mean?

To think that the CREATOR OF THE FREAKING UNIVERSE is on YOUR side in a contest about a stupid leather ball is to insult religion which to me is almost un-insultable. So there you go!

Jesus Christ vs. Lou Gehrig

2010-05-19T16:24:00.006-04:00

As all baseball fans know, in 1925 the first baseman for the New York Yankees, Wally Pipp, complained of a headache and was replaced in the lineup by a young slugger named Lou Gehrig. Wally Pipp never played first for the Yankees again as Lou then played in 2130 consecutive games. It's a great story and a lesson for all who might let a minor headache keep them from work! Yes a great story indeed.

Except it's not true!

The streak actually started the day before when Gehrig had an at bat against the Senators. Also, three total players were benched that day as the manager was trying to shake things up for what was a pretty rotten year for the Yankees. At the time Pipp was hitting about .160 while everyone knew that Gehrig, while young, could hit the ball a mile. As to the headache, there is no mention of it in the writing at that time. The myth only grew later and who knows from where. Myths are like that. We like to embroider stories around our heroes. There's also the problem of the telling and re-telling of a story and everyone knows how this can twist a story in unpredictable ways. The story of Wally Pipp is only 85 years old. Imagine what kind of embroidery has been done on the life of (light hitting but good glove) Jesus H. Christ over the course of 200o years. You'd think that any story coming from so long ago with such grandiose claims would automatically be taken with a huge grain of salt or two. Instead, the stories are taken as beautiful things. Wonderful things. Miraculous things. An organized religion with all the trappings and ceremony has to declare the stories sacred and therefore untouchable. It has to be a sin to question the stories. The stories then move from mere stories to sacred fact. Unfortunately . . .

They're not true!

Pascal's Wager

2010-05-18T09:46:00.002-04:00

I see that the link I put on the sidebar is now defunct and I'll fix that. Later. For now I'll just offer this short version of Pascal's Wager and my take on it. Blaise Pascal (1600's) said that since you can't prove the existence of God you might as well believe in him. If your wrong and God truly doesn't exist you lose nothing but if he does exist you win all with eternal life.

There are many logical refutations on this line of reasoning so I won't go through the whole thing. Personally though I have a couple of ideas.

To accept Pascal's wager to me would seem to be a cowardly way of life. There is something very scary out there that we can't show you but it's really scary so you really should behave in this special way to cover yourself. I think I need a little more than that to truly commit to a particular philosophy. Is it so wrong to ask for a few particulars? You know, people ask way more incisive questions when it comes to buying a car than they do about buying into an entire world view.

My other thought is, ok, I accept the wager. There. I believe in God. Am I covered? Can I go on now with my life as it was before? Do I have to say it out loud? Can I just say it to myself? How many times do I have to say it? Do I have to mean it? How could anyone tell if I mean it or not? If I say but I don't really mean it have I sinned? What if I can say but I just can't make myself mean it? Am I then doomed? That seems mean.

Of course when people say they believe in God they usually mean that they believe AND they partake in the rituals, the giving, and the community of their church. So, is all of that required too or can one just believe?

If there were an all seeing, fire and brimstone type of God I don't think he would be impressed with Pascal's CYA version of belief so you'd be going to hell anyway. Since you're going to go to hell anyway, you might as well NOT believe. So, there's Pascal's Wager stood on its head!

Air Crash Survivor

2010-05-13T10:36:00.002-04:00

(CNN) -- Some will see it as divine intervention, others a simple quirk of fate, fortune or physics, but one boy's cheating of death in an air crash in Libya this week adds another name to a small roll call of aviation disaster sole survivors.

I just love this. 60 some people die horribly but one lucky guy lives and they call this divine intervention. What about the dead guys? I've been down this road before but what the hell?

If it was divine intervention. . . how does it work? Why this kid? If it was divine intervention why did he have to have multiple breaks in his legs? Why not just have him walk away. I know. . .the lord do work in mysterious ways.

I'm so sick of all of this.

Prediction

2010-05-10T18:56:00.002-04:00

Still reading, Why Evolution is True and I'll have a final summary post about the book. For now just this one brief thought.

One of the hallmarks of a robust and working theory is that allows for predictions that can be checked. Over and over again in the book the author asks what would you expect to see IF there was such a thing as evolution. Observations and experiments ensue that support evolution. Asking that same question with Intelligent Design doesn't even lead you to a possible answer. What would you predict if God had made everything? What experiment could you predict the results of and then check? ID is (as the judges ruled in Pennsylvania) a thinly veiled attempt to get religion into the public school. That is ALL it is. No serious working scientist works in the pretend field of Intelligent Design because THERE IS NOTHING TO DO! ID is nothing more than a fundamentalist's statement of faith. . . blind faith if you will in the old testament.

I'm obviously not a man of faith but I could imagine that if you were one how you would have to be willing to adjust that faith in the light of new knowledge. You'd somehow have to back off from the old testament and somehow think that what they really meant in Genesis was about the big bang or about evolution.

Well then. . .

IF IT'S THE WORD OF GOD WHY DIDN'T HE WRITE IT CORRECTLY IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Either your faith is wrongly placed or God decided to write in really obscure metaphor. Why would he do that? To enjoy the thousands of years of confusion that have ensued? Or you have to imagine that all the scientists working in all the countries of the world are part of a vast conspiracy to rid the planet of God. Yeah maybe that's it. That sounds workable.

Why Evolution is True - part 5

2010-05-03T20:15:00.003-04:00

There are two kinds of islands - Oceanic and Continental. Oceanic islands have always been islands. Hawaii is an example. It sticks up in the middle of the ocean and is volcanic in nature. Continental islands used to be connected to land but broke off during plate tectonics.

Now, lets look at the critters that live on oceanic islands. Better yet let's look at the critters that are NOT on oceanic islands. No fresh water fish, no mammals, no amphibians and no reptiles. On the other hand you do have such species on the continental islands.

What you do find on oceanic islands are species of birds and insects that are similar to their counterparts on the nearest continental land.

An idea from intelligent design is that creatures were designed exactly for their environment. So, you might think that somehow the oceanic islands are not appropriate for the critters that are not 'designed' for there. One might predict that when introduced into those environments the outsiders would perish. But the opposite is true. Goats and rats introduced to Hawaii thrived due to no natural predators. So. . .

Isn't it more reasonable that birds and insects were able to make the journey to an oceanic island and then proceed to evolve and broaden into a variety of species? Mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are too large to make the journey to a far off oceanic island. Birds can make it with favorable winds and carry insects with them. Seeds can float or be carried by the wind as well.

Why would a creator put animals on oceanic islands (but not all) and then have them look like counterparts on the continents unless he wanted us to think that evolution was happening?

Why Evolution is True Part 4

2010-05-01T13:34:00.002-04:00

I'm about half way through the book now and one recurring theme that I'm liking is that the author (Jerry Coyne) will ask, "What would we expect things to look like if life evolved from earlier forms?" When you ask this you often find that the answer is exactly as things are now! Some examples...

We'd expect to find that earlier, extinct forms of life to occur before later forms in the fossil record and we do.

We'd expect to see 'imperfections' in design or outright bad design as evolution has to deal with the current model as minor changes are made. Things that are not needed and other bad designs would continue to show up. This is exactly what we see with numerous examples.

We might not expect this one but how else to explain the fact that many embryos display the forms of their very early forms. Humans embryos go through a 'fish stage' with gills and all. And interestingly all mammals go through a fish stage but no fish go through a mammal stage. Why? Because we descended from fish, the first vertebrae, and not the other way around.

You can also ask what would you expect to see if everything were created at once and is as is and has not evolved.

You would expect to see wild varieties of creatures with few if any common features. But you don't.

You'd not expect to find extinct creatures that are clearly earlier forms of the current version Why would you? But you do.

You'd not expect to see examples of 'bad design' of which there are many but you do. (As Robin Williams put it - "Intelligent design? You've got a sewage treatment plant right next to an amusement park!")

The stages that the human fetus goes through is especially interesting. Two examples: At about 6 months along the fetus grows a complete coat of hair called lanugo giving evidence of our close kinship to the rest of the monkeys. This hair is shed about a month before birth. Chimpanzees grow hair at nearly the same stage but they keep it. Also, a brand new infant will strongly grasp your finger if you gently stroke its palm. This is a remnant of our past as infant monkeys have to be able to hang on to their mother's fur. Humans (with very few exceptions) have no need to grasp their mother's fur but the hard wired behavior remains.

Finally, for today, a recurring ID argument for all this 'bad design' stuff is that the creator created things that way for maybe artistic reasons or for reasons that we cannot fathom. But the only thing that makes any sense of these bad designs is if things evolved from earlier forms. This means that the creator must have had in mind to fool legions of biologists just for fun. Not to mention the fact that the "the lord works in mysterious ways" argument is getting a little tired I think.

Why Evolution is True part 3. . . 'theoretically'

2010-04-28T09:20:00.004-04:00

Creationists (including good old Ronald Reagan) are fond of saying that Evolution is "just a theory". This they feel gives them the opportunity and the right to put forward any other theory as if they were then on equal ground. They're not.

Part of the problem lies in the various uses of the word, theory. This from dictionary.reference

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.

The problem that people confuse numbers 1 and 6 or 7. The example they give, Einstein's theory of relativity, is a good one. There is NO question about this 'theory'. In this case theory means as it says in #1. It is coherent, it covers a wide variety of cases, it has been verified in the laboratory millions of times. For example, the GPS satellites are so accurate that they have to compensate for the slight fluctuations in time caused by general relativity. Relativity is not theoretical and we don't speak of it any longer as 'in theory'. It has moved to well established theory.

But language is funny and varied. We can also use the word thus: "In theory I could play in the NBA", or "Theoretically, I could get a date with a super model". Creationist like to cherry pick and use THIS form of the word theory when in fact it is not at all connected to Darwinism. The entire book, Why Evolution is True, goes on to give many concrete pieces of evidence that are the foundation, and proof of Evolution. It is a theory but it's not "just a theory".

Interesting that of all the well founded theories in science (gravity, DNA, the atom, etc.) creationist only have a problem with one of them - Evolution. I have a piece about that in an earlier post that may be of interest here.

Why Evolution is True - part 2

2010-04-26T11:17:00.005-04:00

Continuing my notes as I read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.

There are creationist and then there are the 10,000 Year-Old-Earth-Creationists. It's one thing to deny such a well established theory as Darwinian evolution it's really another level of denial- ism to deny radioactive dating.

To me to say that radioactive dating is somehow wrong would mean that we don't fully understand the nucleus. That would mean that machines based on our understanding wouldn't work. Things like hydrogen bombs, nuclear power plants, MRI, etc. But those machines DO work so what the hell?

10,000 year old earth creationist have a neat way out of this. The claim is that we are miss-lead in our calculating the age of things via Carbon 14 or U235 dating because we assume the half-life of these unstable isotopes is the same now as it was then. They claim that it was different 'then' and leads to scientists grossly over calculating the age of things.

Two comments: 1. Can you show some factors that affect the half-life of an isotope? Such things as temperature, pressure, humidity? Answer: No. There are no separate experiments that suggest that half-life of an isotope depends on anything. 2. From 1 then, this is backwards thinking like a lot of creationist logic. They are starting with the earth is 10,000 years old as fact and then adjusting the half-life accordingly instead of just asking, 'How old is the earth?'.

But this argument from the creationist keeps re-appearing. In "Why Evolution is True" we have a wonderful way to knock all of this down. What if there was an independent way to show the age of something separate from radioactivity that then agreed with what radioactivity predicted? That would not only nail down the age of that thing but also show that the half-life is a constant and did not have different values at an earlier time.

There is a type of coral that radioactive dating puts at 380 million years ago. However, this coral also keeps its own calendar independently of this. We know the earth spins around ever slower due to the friction of the tides. In other words are days are getting longer at the rate of about 2 seconds every 100,000 years. Doing the math you find that 380 million years ago the day would have been much shorter and that there would have been 396 days in a year since the earth goes around the sun at a constant rate making all the years the same length of time. Now, these corals leave a yearly ring just like trees do but they also leave a daily ring. All you have to do is look at these fossils closely and count how many daily rings there are between two yearly rings. What do you get? About 400 putting the age of the corals at around 380 million years just as the radioactive data predicted.

Slam dunk.

Why Evolution is True

2010-04-25T09:07:00.002-04:00

This is the title of the book I'm currently reading by Jerry A. Coyne. It is a wonderful book and rather than write a review after I'm done I think I'll jot down some of the more interesting things as I read them. Helps me to understand too.

First some depressing facts from the introduction:

"Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." To this statement only 40% of Americans said it was true. The only country to do worse was Turkey with 25%. Turkey is rife with fundamentalism as is America. Europe in general answers about 80% true as they do in Japan.

1 in 6 US teachers believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form with the last 10,000 years.

Classification and the watch fallacy.

The watch fallacy from the 18th century Englishman, William Paley, is an old argument that goes like this: Let's say you're walking along the beach and you come across a pocket watch. Upon inspection (you take the back off) you find that it is finely crafted and perfect in every way for what it does. Clearly this was designed by some intelligence - a master craftsman - and didn't just pop up from prehistoric ooze. The observation that many animals are perfectly crafted for their environment suggests a master craftsman designing them and us.

Long before Darwin, scientist were busy classifying the flowers, trees, and animals. Many different civilizations did this and yet they all came up with basically the same classifications. You have things with backbones and things without. Inside the back bone guys you have things with fur or things with scales. Etc and so on. In other words there is a natural logic to the classification that is obvious to anyone doing the classifying.

If each creature were designed to be perfect for their environment then why are there so many common features between dissimilar animals and dissimilar environments? If each thing were a design separate from the other then the animals would be like a collection of matchbooks (the author's example). You might be able to classify the matchbooks by color, or size, or from where they came but all of these classifications are equal to each other and suggest no real logic.

On the other hand if we ask the question: What would you expect the classification of animals to look like IF animals evolved from earlier forms of animals? - you would get something exactly as we find it! This is true with the animal kingdom as we find it and continues to be true and is further supported by the fossil record of earlier forms of a variety of animals.

Not to mention, not all of the 'designs' are so perfect. Evolution has to work with what came before. It might be helpful for a turtle to have 6 flippers instead of 4 but evolution is stuck with making improvements on the quadruped now and doesn't start all over with every mutation. Why do men have breasts? Why do we have appendixes? Men's testes start up in their abdomens and move down through a tube at the age of a few months. This trip weakens that area of the body and is exactly why men are prone to hernias. This is a compromise. Keeping the testes cooler outside the body makes for more sperm production at the expense of making us susceptible to hernias. What master craftsman would make such a design?

So What?

2010-04-19T12:09:00.002-04:00

This just in from CNN:

-- The two most senior leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq have been killed in a joint Iraqi-U.S. operation, officials announced Monday.

So what? Guess how much skill it takes to be a big shot in al Qaeda (hey, how about a 'u' in there?)? Guess how much education? All you need is to be zeolot for Muslim fundamentalism. This story is no big deal as the next knuckle head in line will take over and nothing will change.

No different than when a pope dies. Next guy takes over. No real skill involved (but probably a lot of back room politics in both cases).

4 shot in Chicago

2010-04-14T15:08:00.002-04:00

Four people including 2 kids shot to death this morning in Chicago. . .

The suspect had been arrested in Madison last fall for allegedly beating Thompson, according to records. Just last week, Thompson filed a paternity case against the suspect, records show.
And in recent days, Thompson said the suspect had been fighting because he wanted her to dress in Muslim garb, but she refused, according to Shirina Thompson, the older sister of Twanda Thompson.

The suspect had also been acting strangely, talking about "going to Allah," she said. A law enforcement source said the suspect believed Allah wanted him to bring his family to Allah.

There you go. There's crazy and then there's RELIGION crazy. Scary.

Evolution and the Afterlife

2010-04-06T10:55:00.002-04:00

I think I get it. I think I get why some religious people are such vehement evolution deniers. To accept the well founded theory of evolution you have to give up human's special place on the earth. To wit we have souls and animals don't. I got that right from my Lutheran minister's mouth when I asked if old Shep was going to heaven.

NO!

To accept evolution (which is like accepting gravity) is to then ask the question, at what point did we also evolve souls? If we are separate from the animal kingdom how do you explain all the similarities with the animals? For example our DNA is 95% similar to chimp DNA. If we always had souls does that mean that there are Australopithecans in heaven? Java man? Lemurs? Fish? Where does the evolved soul begin? Maybe there are levels of heaven for levels of evolution? If Cro-Magnon man had souls how sinful were they to be extincted!?

And another thing. .. .I am so sick of people decrying evolution because they don't like the idea of us evolving from monkeys. WE DIDN'T EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS! We evolved from earlier versions of US and so did monkeys evolve from earlier forms of monkeys. Us and monkeys have a similar common ancestor way back in the evolutionary tree but we did not come from monkeys so stop saying that!

This speaks to the larger idea of throwing out ideas and theories because you don't like them or they go against what you already thought. To find truth you have to first have a truly open mind. That can be hard to do but to just dig in and deny, deny, deny is, well, boring and leads you nowhere. It is also the kind of thinking that leads a civilization nowhere.

Hutaree

2010-03-30T13:25:00.002-04:00

News recently of the arrest of several members of a 'christian militia' called the Hutaree. What the hell? I went to their website and sure enough there's a bible quote at the top right above a picture of a bunch of dumb asses in military garb. So if you're inclined to believe fundamentalist crazy talk you might be susceptible to falling into an organization like this. If you're a person who doesn't care for facts. If you're a person who likes tough talk. If you're a person who is under-educated.

I'm thinking, what would it take to get me to join some para-military group and go after policemen as these guys were planning to do. . . . (thinking) . . . There's no WAY! Without some nut spouting crazy as stuff from the bible to the susceptible there's no way to get people to join up for this sort of thing. You simply couldn't put a group of skeptics together in any kind of group this way. Skeptics ask too many annoying questions!

Would the world be a saner, safer and more peaceful place without religion? HELL YEAH!

Uneducated

2010-03-21T06:59:00.005-04:00

One of the qualities of the uneducated is holding on to beliefs that have no basis in fact. Or, holding on to a belief even after it has been shown to be untrue. I run into this commonly when trying to teach Newton's laws of motion. Nature tends to give us false clues as to what is fundamentally going on.

For example, it seems pretty obvious that it takes a force to keep something moving. If you stop peddling your bike the bike stops moving. If you take your foot of the gas the car stops. And yet, when I take away all frictional forces (on an air table for example) and ask, "What force keeps the puck moving?", consternation ensues. Words and hypothesis are bandied about until it finally dawns (as it did for Galileo and Newton) that once put in motion things keep going UNLESS a force stops them. It's our experience to almost always have some friction around that causes us to 'believe' in a different law.

To believe that all things naturally come to rest is to be slightly uneducated in physics. No big harm there but still it is what it is. To hang on to such a law in the face of examples to the contrary is to be ridiculously stubborn.

People used to think that when it lightninged and thundered that the gods were mad at them - that they were being punished for being sinful. As the work of reasonable investigators (Franklin, et. al.) proceeded, people slowly learned that lightning was a natural phenomena and disconnected from any godly intent. Well, most did.

To ignore the bushels of data and experiments that put lightning in the larger context of electrical phenomena and hang on to a godly explanation would be silly and one would just be showing their ignorance or their stubbornness.

So, how is it different when one chooses to ignore the bushels of data and experiments that confirm the general paradigm of evolution? How is this not considered just being silly and uneducated? Well it is considered just that by about anyone who has read a book about such things WITH AN OPEN MIND. If you have a personal ax to grind from the get go, well then no, you cannot be educated to see a bigger idea. You will remain uneducated.

And forced to live in Texas.

Now the closed minded theist will say that my belief in the experiment is just another religion. I choose to believe in science and he chooses to believe in a higher power. We all believe in something, right? There is a fatal flaw in that kind of thinking. The theist has no way to prove any of his assertions. His are truly pure belief or if you prefer, faith. I can have an idea and test it and people completely disconnected from me could run the same test. A theist could do it with the same results. A computer could analyze the data. When the results keep coming up the same no matter who runs the test then I think we've got something that is real and independent of whether I believe in it or not.

Mixing the two has always produced failure for the theist. Controlled test of prayer. Miracles at Lourdes. Mind readers. I could go on. More importantly, it seems for most theists conducting a rational experiment with, let's say prayer, sort of 'ruins' it. They might have a feeling in the back of their minds that 'this ain't going to work'. They know that prayer is not 'of the laboratory' and yet they desperately want it to somehow work too! This is the slippery slope that all believers in magical things have to walk. On one hand you want your beliefs to be of a higher plane than this old regular, boring world. On the other hand you want your magic to actually intersect this world when it suits you. That seems unthinking to me at the best and disingenuous at the worst.

If you pray because it gets you through the night or helps you get through tough times, well ok. But please try to not take that next step where you start thinking that what works for you should work for everyone or that it should be taught in school!

Death Sentence for Sorcery

2010-03-20T21:02:00.003-04:00

Guess the country. . . CORRECT! Saudi Arabia. Our oil friends. Apparently some schmo used to have a TV show where he would predict the future for people. He got arrested by the 'religious police' for this act.

To get released the guy pictured above is going to have to cut him a break. That's King Abdullah. Does he look like he goes around passing out breaks?

From CNN: Ali Hussain Sibat, former host of a popular call-in show that aired on Sheherazade, a Beirut based satellite TV channel.

According to his lawyer, Sibat, who is 48 and has five children, would predict the future on his show and give out advice to his audience.

He gets death for this? Wow. As an appeal why not have him do a controlled test and see if he really can predict the future. If he can't (and I'm guessing he can't do any better than random chance) then his verdict should be reversed. You're not practicing sorcery if it doesn't work are you? Funny, you CAN be a practicing Christian even though praying as been proven to not work.

Well, I don't suppose anyone in the 'religious police' could ever stoop to testing things in a reasonable way. They'd be out of work!

The Devil Makes us Do It

2010-03-17T07:11:00.004-04:00

From CNN, Father Gabriele (Gabe) Amworth is the top exorcist in the holy roman church. Follow the link to the whole (short) article. Some excerpts follow with my sarcastic (but witty) comments.

"It's not my opinion: I'm saying that if you believe in the Gospels, you believe in the existence of the devil, in the devil's power to possess people," he said in an interview with CNN.

Hey, hold on, believing in the Gospels is in itself an opinion so belief in the devil is too. Nice try!

Amorth, the founder of the International Association of Exorcists, has performed more than 70,000 exorcisms in his career, he estimates.

Ok, first off I want to attend one of their conventions. What kind of wacky things do they do at the hotel after the meetings? They already have the crazy hats to wear. What booths are set up to sell things - Holy water squirt guns? Vomit proof vestments?

Now to the numbers. . .70,000? Really? This guy is 85. Let's say he's been doing this for 50 years. That's 1400 a year or 3.8/day EVERY DAY. Wow the devil is really keeping this guy busy! Hardly leaves time to buy candy for the choir boys.

"I have carried out exorcisms on some priests who had been molested by the devil," he said, without going into details.

Now there's a nice twist. The devil molesting priests. He didn't go into details but perhaps he shared the photos.

Well, there you have it. To the faithful, this guy is employed by the church and that means when you drop money in the plate some of that goes to him. Praise the Lord!

2010-03-08T06:35:00.001-05:00

See more comics from Calamities of Nature

World Without God

2010-02-04T18:35:00.002-05:00

I'd like to ask a reasonable theist this: You are darn sure that there is a God. A supreme being. You have faith that there is someone at the helm shall we say. OK, just for a moment try to imagine a world, a universe, that is devoid of such a creature and ask you what this world would then look like? How it would be different from this God filled world?

Now we're going to have to get around the problem of believing in a God that created the whole world. If you're going to hang on to that then there is no gedanken experiment because then you'll get to argue that to imagine no God is to imagine that the whole universe doesn't exist and then we're done.

So, is there a theist out there who believes in a God of people but understands that this may not be the God of creation and that God and the universe evolved somehow 'naturally'. If so, then I need this theist to just keep the universe evolving naturally but drop the idea about there also being a God of man. OK, let's say Bob is this theist I am imagining.

Bob, if that is your real name, since you believe in a universe with a God, can you imagine what this world would look like without him? Could it perhaps be a world where sometimes bad things happen to good people? Could it be that naturally occurring spectaculars like tornadoes or Oprah sometimes take the righteous as well as the sinful? Would it be a world were people die never to be heard from again? Where the sick are not healed miraculously. A world where greed coaxes people to do awful things and where decent people lend a helping hand without being asked? A world where most parents are good at it and some suck?

I obviously contend that this is already that world so why not just drop the whole God thing and let's get on to problem solving! Bob, where do you see God in this world? What God-thing is there that can't be explained by naturally occurring phenomena? Now, Bob, if you say, 'it's a faith thing', I just get to say, 'what do you get for that'? What actual phenomenon can you point to that is the product of your faith?

Now, if Bob gets peace of mind, a calming effect, a shot of energy or confidence via his faith and praying well I'm ok with that. We don't live all that long and if something gives us peace that's fine. But Bob really shouldn't step over the line and pretend that that good feeling is a 'real thing' and they everyone should be doing it. Bob shouldn't be voting based on his faith. Bob shouldn't raise his kids to somehow adopt what works for him necessarily and certainly he shouldn't present his faith/praying as a real thing to impressionable children. Bob nasn't think that he can be a shit in this life then ask for forgivness and get a reward in eternity. Bob shouldn't be tipped toe around nor should we mistakenly think that he is automatically a good guy for finding a way to calm himself. Faith like meditaion, sensory deprivation, and back rubs should stay in the area of personal, special time and not be moved into the general arena of public opinion, thought, or politics.

C'mon Bob, let me buy you a beer!

Saudi Arabia Haiti Aid

2010-01-23T08:09:00.004-05:00

As I suspected, Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world has sent NO aid to Haiti. Here's an article showing who has and who hasn't. OK, so there's no law that says you have to but I'm suspicious that the response might have been different if the earthquake had affected some Muslim country.

From the LA Times. . .

Saudi King Abdullah, meanwhile, has sent a message of condolence to Haitian President René Préval.

In an unrelated story we find that a 13 year old girl in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to 90 lashes for a confrontation (admittedly physical) with her head mistress.

Hey! Saudi Arabia - nice little country you got going there. I was most surprised to read that you were even allowing girls to GO to school. When did that happen?

I guess what really bothers me is how America has to suck up to shit can countries like this and China. Nobody treats their people worse than China (except maybe Mississippi) but we HAVE to play nice because China now builds EVERYTHING that we used to build. Saudi Arabia? We have to suck up to them and not say anything upsetting about their creepy government because we need their oil.

When you 'outsource' so much of our own workforce you weaken the whole country.

Legion - Movie Review

2010-01-22T20:04:00.004-05:00

YES I AM GOING TO SPOIL THE ENDING AS A SERVICE FOR ANYONE THINKING ABOUT PUTTING DOWN HARD EARNED CASH ON THIS DOG! READ ON. . .

I never walk out of movies. I would have walked out on this one but there were some large people between me and the aisle. Legion is easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Which is something!

The movie opens with an angel literally falling to earth (from heaven?). Although he seems to be a total bad ass we can tell right away that he's the good kind of bad ass. Apparently he has no super-powers as he begins his earthly visit by stealing about 100 rifles, bazookas, machine guns, and assorted hand guns. This is one pissed off angel!

Switch to a road house in the middle of freaking nowhere. I mean nowhere! This is a common Hollywood venue not unlike Petrified Forest or a loopy movie I really liked - Tremors! The lonely outpost where the good guys are going to have to make a stand against impossible odds. Camera shots show nothing in any direction for miles and miles. Makes you wonder how they get their electricity, phone, and gas. Well it does me. Of course they could run all of that on a generator and propane bottles but then the electricity 'goes out' at some point in the film and I guess that's due to the power company. Weird. Populating this diner is the owner (Dennis Quaid), his son, Jeep, (yeah, Jeep) who's main acting skill is to stare at people with his mouth hanging open, the 8 month pregnant waitress with a good heart who Jeep is in love with but who is not the father of the child but, still, he'd like to help.

Right.

And there's the good hearted cook with one hand. Why? Don't know.

Also, stuck in the diner is a mom, dad, and their angst filled daughter. Their car is broken and (ironically) Jeep is supposed to be fixing it but he seems a little preoccupied with having vapid conversations with the waitress and having his mouth hang open.

Finally there is another black guy who is lost and just wants to use the phone.

Enter a nice little old lady who suddenly snaps, says nasty things to the waitress that makes her cry, insults the family, and then bites the dad in the neck when he protests. A pretty good scene here as the other people run, shoot and battle the crazed old lady who can also crawl across the ceiling which is nice. She is finally dispatched by the young black guy (he's got two hands and, like all young black guys in the movies, a hand gun).

What the hell is going on? HA! This is soon answered by the arrival of the bad ass angle (Arch Angle Michael as it turn out). He unloads all his guns and convices the people that they are going to have to make a stand because, get ready, the waitress's baby is going to save the world so they will have to fight to the death to protect it.

"OK! I"ll take the roof! You board up the windows. . . " and so on. Wow, these people did NOT need a lot of convincing! 'Course I think they were still pretty unerved by the granny crawling across the ceiling.

Much gun fighting ensues as legions (get it) of zombie-like humans descend upon the diner. Luckily, as with most zombie movies, the zombies are really mean and ugly but they get around ok and can drive cars but they just can't seem to learn the trick about HAVING THEIR OWN FUCKING WEAPONS!

Well, shockingly the good people get picked off one at a time one way or another and these scenes are separated by really long and boring 'meaningful' dialog between father and Jeep, Jeep and waitress, waitress and Michael, mom and daughter, cook and black guy. Most of these actors were able make a tear come out during their little talks. Nice.

OK, well, I'm not too up on my bible but in this movie it seems that the main battle that the lowly humans find themselves caught up in to is between the angels Gabriel and Michael. Gabriel seems to be supporting God's decision to wipe out humanity because he's just sick of them. I mean let's face it, we can be tedius. Michael still has faith (more than God apparently) and is brave enough to oppose God and Gabiel and somehow knows that the baby is the key. Wow, what a magical, mythical battle this is sure to be. Of course the magical mythical creatures do kung fu type fighting. Michael uses all sorts of guns while Gabriel has this awesome bludgeon that spins like a giant dentist's tool. Wow!

Well, Gabriel kills Michael and that's sad while Jeep and the waitress and the baby (oh yeah she went into labor and spit out the baby in about 45 seconds!) escape in a car (its not a Jeep). Skip to the end where Gabriel is about to finish off baby and waitress and WHAT? You don't say! Michael is not really dead. He's back and with WINGS. He must have just gone to heaven, strapped on some wings and returned to earth to finish off Gabriel. But no, he shows mercy and both him and Gabriel fly up to heaven while the son, waitress, and baby are told to just "have faith".

Movie ends with the new little make-shift family driving down a long highway in a station wagon jammed full of guns.

Amen!

Asking the Big Question

2010-01-19T10:16:00.003-05:00

I'm going to use Haiti since it is current but you can think of any number of similar examples.

A woman gets saved (by other humans) after days of being trapped in a collapsed building. This woman then reports that she just prayed and prayed and thanks God that she was saved. If someone would point out to her that others who were praying just as hard (and maybe harder) perished and ask her how does she explain her own miracle I'm guessing she would say that she doesn't know about that (or care) but just 'knows' that HER prayers were answered.

A couple of things here. On one hand this sort of non-logic is just an example of our ego-centricity. "I prayed so I was saved and don't confuse me with any questions." We see the world in terms of me, me, me. This kind of thinking is along the lines of, "I jump up and down three times and it rained so jumping works".

I wish I could ask the following question of this person (but it would be rude): Tell me what you think the chaos of Haiti would look like or how it would look different if there was NO God instead of the one that saved you and ignored other's prayers? In a random world where events unfurl in a natural way can you imgine some people being found and others perishing? If so, how can you attibute your salvation to a god rather than luck?

Of course this all comes back to the neat loop that you CANNOT understand why some were saved and others not and this just PROVES the magic and incomprehesibility of God.

See?

Haiti and Education

2010-01-18T07:25:00.006-05:00

I offer this comic from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.

What does this have to do with Haiti? Some facts. . . First of all, a deal with the devil centuries ago did not cause the earth quake. Earth quakes are caused by very understandable actions between the tectonic plates that make up the earth. That's just that TV guy being funny, right? How many Haitians were taught about plate techtonics - standard fare in junior high science in the US and elsewhere?

More importantly, Haiti was a miserable place before the earth quake. Why? The history is interesting and what is shows is that Haiti has suffered through a number of 'governments' that were primarily interested in lining their own pockets rather than do anything for the people such as, libraries, streets and sanitation, and education. Education is the key.

Ignorant people can be controlled with violence and religion. Organized religion is a great way to keep the general population ignorant. If people are allowed and even encouraged to attend church and learn their catechisms ONLY then they won't know what they're missing in the form of real education, critical thinking, skepticism, and scientific inquiry. A totalitarian government goes hand in hand with keeping the people ignorant and religion can only help that government.

Would an educated and reasonable people build such fragile buildings? If the country had universities, scientists, and engineers and a government that supported free thought for the betterment of the people they would also have had some building codes. Would they also then have some structure to their civilization that included heavy equipment, fire departments, police, hospitals, and so forth. We've seen now that other countries have had to bring all of that to Haiti not just support what was already there.

Like most Americans (Rush Limbaugh being the exception) I feel real sorry for the Haitians. I feel sorry on a couple of levels. The obvious is just the huge hunk of suffering that is going on right now. Of course. On another level I'm saddened by the Haitians either thinking that God is punishing them or somehow saving them while killing their friends and neighbors. I was saddened by the woman on CNN who said that while she was entombed for 50 some hours she just prayed and prayed. I wondered how much more quickly she might have been found if she had hollered for help once in a while. I'm always amazed by the human ability to see their prayers as being answered while others are apparently not and them not wondering why that is or making the big leap that maybe prayers had nothing to do with any of it. You can't have that thought without being educated as to the reasonableness of the natural world. Effects have causes that are understandable but it takes an education to know that and it takes religion to NOT know that.

Money is going to be flowing into Haiti now for years to come. If they want to truly pick themselves up and join the 21st century they will funnel as much of that money as possible into real public education and not leave that to the Catholic church but if they have to, leave it to the Jesuits!

This just in from CNN. . .

Many observers have a simple explanation for what makes Haitians so devout.

"Because in all poor countries, you have to believe in something," said Agnes Pierre-Louis, the Haitian-born manager of her family-owned hotel. "If they don't have that, they don't have anything."

Added Diederich: "They leave everything in the hands of God. When you have so little, what else can you turn to?"

I think this makes my point very well. "You HAVE to believe in something" - sure when you are completely uneducated. It is completely understandable that people with nothing including no access to variety of thought, science, nor critical thinking will inevitably turn to religion as the answer to everything. Is this a good thing though? Is it taking them anywhere? Will it make Haiti a better place in the future?

I'm a little bothered by the portrayal of the spontaneous religious ceremonies and singing on CNN as if it were something cute or miraculous. Maybe in the case of Haiti it is a sad thing since they have nothing to balance their outright submission to religion and these demonstrations are really just another example of their abject ignorance and lack of education.

Haiti, God and CNN

2010-01-15T14:52:00.002-05:00

I never watch CNN or any other TV news but the reports and images from Haiti via CNN have been riveting. As an uncommon viewer of CNN I have some observations.

- CNN is about 1/3 reporting, 1/3 advertising, and 1/3 telling us how great they are with their "people on the ground". By this they mean people in Haiti who are not filled with helium apparently.

- A woman was rescued after being entombed for 50 some hours. At first she could hear people below her but then all went quiet and not for a good reason. After rescue she said she just kept praying and never stopped. I can't get on people for this kind of thing with my usual snarkiness. In a scary situation (living in Haiti WITHOUT an earth quake for example) whatever gets you through the night. And, if prayer and faith helps the survivors get through the next several YEARS as they rebuild so be it.

Two very cool technology things:

1. The guy who shows the before and after pictures using google earth on a huge touch screen. He's like a maestro!

2. You can give money by texting to various numbers. You text in a number and boom, $10 goes to help. This is a great! Millions of people lobbing in a lousy 10 bucks turns into, well, TENS of millions of dollars. How great is that. Praise be to Google/Gates/Intel/AT&T/etc.

Speakng of numbers. . .

China has donated 1 million dollars. There are more than 1 billion people in China but let's say it's a billion to make it easy. That meas that China donated 1/1000 of a dollar for each citizen. I think maybe America should do the same. there are about 250 million Americans at 1/1000 of a dollar per person... OK, America donates $250,000. Seems fair but, wait no, America has put up 100 million with no doubt more to come. hey China. . .BITE ME!

Who the hell are the crazy orange suited guys from, of all places, Iceland! They were there instantly and have rescued people out of the rubble. They're like super heroes. Iceland? Maybe they are just happy to be in a warm place!

I'm standing by waiting for similar rescue squads from Saudia Arabia, Iran, North Korea, etc. (See China for my opinion of these countries).

Next time you feel like complaining about building codes. Don't.

Government Models

2010-01-11T19:42:00.003-05:00

It occurred to me that with all the chest thumping and street screaming about how Allah is good and great and all that, and therefore so is Islam and we need death to the infidels (America) and so on and so forth. . .well, I thought, "What is the model you are striving to achieve"? Show me the Islamic country that is leading the world in . . . anything. If you're living in Bumblfuckistan and you have a particle of brain and two shekels to rub together do you want to send your kid (that would be your SON by the way) to the local university (terrorist camp) or get him a student visa and send him to a university in the infidel state known as the USA? Well, look at the state of foreign students getting advanced degrees in the US.

Interestingly and maybe not all that suprising most are from China (there are more than a billion Chinese) and as I look at the pie chart I cannot find any of the most popular (infamous) Muslim countries although I'm not sure what 'East Asia' means. What the hell? Does this mean no one is getting educated at all in the Muslim countries? Really?

Now I'm actually for free dissemination of knowledge and it probably is the best thing for all of us if foreign students do get their education here. That only makes for better relations and more understanding even if it does screw the curve in math class. But the fact that you simply cannot become an engineer, doctor, or physicist of any regard and go to school in your own shit hole, Muslim indoctrinated country should say something about your said shit hole!

So, here's a link to mainly Islamic countries and you tell me, where do you want to move to?

Ironically, it is right in the heart of Islam where I was taught was the "Cradle of Civilization". Right there at the junction of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Islam invented the number 0 and alphabetized the letters. This is big stuff! Now? Well, it's been a rare thing when anyone from any Muslim country has won a Nobel in a science. The only one I can find is Ahmed Zewail an Egyptian, in Chemistry in 1999. Oh but wait, here's his education. . .

Ahmad Zewail was born on February 26, 1946 in Damanhour and raised in Disuq. He received bachelor's degree and MS degree from the University of Alexandria before moving from Egypt University of Pennsylvania with advisor Dr. Robin Hochstrasser. He completed a post-doctoral fellowship at the University of California, Berkeley.

Click on his name and see that this guy is totally at Cal Tech and not a real product of any Saudi higher education.

Speaking of how great Islam has become as a model for civilization we now have the firebombing of churches (wait, are they empty?) in Malaysia because the Christian churches (their invisible guy is named Jesus) is using the word Allah (one of the names of the invisible guy's dad) and THAT WORD is reserved for Muslims only. Jeezus, who didn't know THAT? So anyone who thinks that religion doesn't make this a better world, just look to Malaysia and maybe not vacation there anytime soon. Like we know where that is anyway.

Now then, which end of the egg do you open?

Shot in Church?

2010-01-03T09:51:00.005-05:00

Of course this story comes from the south . . .

And it's very sad and of course ironic. For all the blathering on that people do about how God is their protector, savior, and font of all that is good here we have a kid getting shot in the head while in church. Makes you think. Well, it SHOULD make you think.

Tons of examples like this. When a tornado hits a small town there is usually someone to interview who will say that they only survived via the grace of God. Really? What about your poor dead neighbor? Or, better yet, how about not sending the tornado down on you in the first place?

I know, it's just a test. God likes to test your faith by knocking off a few of the faithful (in spectacular fashion) and then seeing if the rest will still pony up at collection time. Assume this previous sentence is true. What would an all powerful creator get out of doing such a thing?

Or. . .

Is this all not better explained by natural phenomena with nobody at the controls. Anybody can just be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Look at the dinosaurs. I guess the idea of nobody at the controls is scarier to most people than to have a murderous psychopath at the controls.

Catholics come home dot com

2010-01-02T18:40:00.002-05:00

I was innocently watching tv and was then surprised by a nice little commercial for catholicscomehome.com.

Really. And below is a little hunk from that site . . . with my snarky comments inserted. How could I resist?

Moral Issues

Making moral choices in our modern world can be confusing and difficult.

Actually it's not that hard if you have a freaking brain. Be nice to people. Share. Admit when you're wrong. Say, "Can I help you with that" a lot, Move on.

With so many temptations and influences pulling us in all directions, and the pressures of life driving us toward the seemingly "easy" path, it is comforting to know that Jesus Christ, through His Church, has blessed us with clear moral framework to guide us toward a happy, fulfilling life.

Where to start. . . Why do I have to accept the premise that I am necessarily being driven to an "easy' path. Really? Now, if you are comforted to know that a guy who lived 2000+ years ago "blessed" you and that then somehow figures it all out, well ok. God (!) knows it gets lonely and scary at night. On the other hand, if you read the bible I'm not sure you'll find the framework all that clear. Happy? Find me one happy person in the bible!

It makes perfect sense that our Creator,

Gee, do you think that anything has been assumed here?

who made us and designed us to work in a certain way,

Huh? I'm guessing that that 'certain way' doesn't include gay people.

would know what’s best for us.

Based on WHAT? Like volcano eruptions are best for us? How about the holocaust? Plane crashes? Abductions of children? Oh I could go on and on. . .

Fortunately, He gifted the Church with His advice on how to live our lives in such a way that we could be free and happy.

Sure, if you're white.

By giving us a roadmap, Christ gave us the ability to be freed from the negative effects of immorality and unhappiness, because true freedom allows us to live fully.

Hmmm...seems strange then that some very religious and Christian people get into some messy business! Plus, it's easy for them to free us from the negative effects of immoraltiy when you also get to define what it is to be immoral. Circular argument?

The Church never forces anyone to believe what she teaches.

She? Who let the freaking nun in here? Whasn't this Christ's church a few paragraphs ago?

Faith itself must be free (CCC 160). But to help guide us to choose what is best for ourselves, according to the way He made us, He gave us the Church and all her moral teachings.

Somehow I'm not feeling so good. I'm being guided to choose? Is this like 'Work makes you free??

In this section you will find many valuable resources explaining the Catholic Church's teachings on matters of ethics and morality. Please consider the reasonable and beautiful truth found in the Catholic teachings regarding these important issues in our culture:

If this was a book report in a freshman english class it would be a D and I'm an easy grader.

What if. . .

2010-01-02T17:30:00.007-05:00

I wonder. . .

Tim Tebow, by all accounts, seems to be a good guy. He's helped the poor, carried groceries for old ladies, visited at the children's hospital, fed the hungry, etc and so forth. But what if he had done exactly what he has done in his life but put this message on his eye black patches instead of the obscure (Ephesians? Really?) bible references?

I think it's safe to say that he would be considered to be a 'wise ass'. He would be pilloried for trying to make a political or philosophical point via his status as a ball player. Headlines would shriek. Editorials would be written for those 8 people in Florida who still read 'the paper'. The president would probably have to step in. It would be bigger than the Tiger Woods deal. Think about it. It really would.

But Tim can put his belief in invisible beings on his face (used to be on people's sleeves) and he is considered to be a 'good guy' by default. I have no problem with Tebow himself, although the whole public display of one's religious beliefs has become a little passe, but am troubled once again by the weird double standard of elevated status given to those public displays and the derision given displays of rationalism or common sense.

Bible Correction

2009-10-08T18:23:00.003-04:00

What if the Bible had happened to be written this way. . .

From Genesis

In the beginning God built a wondrous framework whereby more complicated creatures could naturally emerge from less complicated ones. Yea did he arrange it so that that which did not work so well did not make so many progeny and verily did the best of best go forth and multiply to the immense joy of God. It worked! What joy when after eons and eons his thoughtful and reasonable children emerged from the ooze and gave praise to him.

From Job
It also came to pass that Job asked God, "why Lord do I stick so mysteriously to thy earth"? And God said, "Lo, I say unto you, I have made the earth sticky whereby all the plants and animals may understand which way is up".

Now, a few thousand years after the bible first came out would it be heresy to teach Newton's law of gravitation? Or Einstein's expansion of that theory? Would the devout accept evolution because it was outlined in the bible AND verified by experiment and the preponderance of the evidence and decry evil gravity as the work of the devil even though it could stand the test of experimentation but defied the teachings of the Bible?

hmmm...I wonder? Of course the devote will miss my point entirely and just say, 'Well, it wasn't written that way so end of story'. But, since the Bible was written by people who didn't know shit from Shine-0-La it actually COULD have been written any way at all! Now we have idiots in Iowa and elsewhere who want 'creation science' (I just threw up in my mouth a little) ruining our educational system and pretty much making America the laughing stock of the rest of the educated world.

One more thing...How about a creation scientist asking the nobel committee if he has any chance of winning a nobel prize in Biology?

'Nuff said!

Hickabee?

2009-09-19T19:37:00.002-04:00

Hey looks like Hickabee (sorry) is getting press again. Less we forget, here's his answer to whether or not he 'believes' in evolution. Actually seems like an ok answer for a bit and then he goes off on ridiculing the idea that we descended from primates.

WE ARE PRIMATES YOU MORON! AND we didn't descend from 'monkeys'. We descended from earlier versions of us like all of the other billions of life forms have done over the eons.

Here's an idea...Read a damn science book for a change you dumb ass!

Big Foot?

2009-09-08T08:57:00.002-04:00

Here's a typical piece from the national news media (CNN).

Big foot? If this wasn't already an urban myth of sorts no one would even consider 'big foot' as a possible explanation of the grainy (isn't it alway?) photograph. A true skeptic looks at something like this but does not consider magic as possible explanation of what is being seen. Why? Because to date there have been zero provable, repeatable instances of 'magic' happening!

The guy seems reasonable and doubts a Big Foot but of course the reporters put that 'explanation' high on their list. Let's face it a garbage bag (my top explanation) blowing through and being caught in a frame is not news worthy. A Big Foot sighting of course is. . . even though THERE IS NO SUCH THING!

"virgin" Mary. . . MY ASS!

2009-08-31T11:55:00.002-04:00

The virgin birth of one, Jesus H. Christ, is a corner stone of the religion that bears his name. A little research shows that the word 'virgin' used to mean other things than it does today! Here's a good link that discusses this problem of semantics.

The short version. . . One ancient definition of the word 'alma or almah' is that of simply 'young girl'. Also remember that the whole bible is a translation subject to the whims and beliefs of the translator. By the time we get to the modern age the word 'virgin' has only one meaning. This coupled with the fact that the idea of virgin birth was quite common in Greek mythology and other places.

People need Jesus to be a god and one way to get there is to be conceived by God himself. The evidence that this actually happened though is tenuous at best and probably better understood in terms of etymology and the evolution of language. There is contention among biblical scholars about the proper translation of the word 'alma or almah' which may or may not connote 'virgin' as we think of it today. It may simply mean 'young woman'. I imagine like a lot of words it is the context that tells you what it means. Suffice it to say that the 'FACT' that the bible predicts (in Isaiah I think) the virgin birth of a son of God is NOT a slam dunk by any means.

2009-03-31T12:55:00.003-04:00

Cult Mom Pleads Guilty In Son's Starvation Death

This just in...Take a look at this story.

Yeah, She starved her 16 month old son because he refused to say amen and had a rebellious spirit. I hope I'm not the only one to see that without crazy ass religion this kind of crap does not happen. There is no reasonable person that would starve a 16 month old. The list of evil committed in the name of religion is WAY longer than any perceived good religion has done.

This just sickens me and I don't get why people keep turning to magic instead of trusting their own good reasoning skills.

Faith Based Programs

2009-02-05T09:56:00.002-05:00

White House panel will guide faith-based programs

Well this is an interesting twist. Apparently the government gives money (500 million) to faith based programs such as church groups that feed the hungry. While that may seem noble on the surface of it to me it smacks of a violation of separation of church and state. While feeding the hungry is noble, the government has its own programs for that so why not let the churches get their own damn money.

The twisted part is that to qualify for federal money you may not discriminate who gets to be in your club based on race nor religion! Get it? That means that Jewish groups MUST allow Muslim members. Catholics must allow Jews. And Baptists, well, they’ll take anyone (but NO IRISH!) Funny how these typically self-righteous groups may find themselves in violation of anti-discrimination laws.

This is why a reasonable government cannot get itself wrapped up in funding faith based programs. Reason and faith simply do not go together and a collision will happen somewhere along the way. Churches already get HUGE tax breaks. I’m for that because I don’t want them having a say on policy based on how much they’ve invested. Those tax breaks and tax breaks given to those who contribute to their faith will just have to be enough to sustain whatever programs they have going.

The Resurrection

2008-10-12T09:12:00.003-04:00

OK, let's face it. They key piece to the whole Christian ball of wax is the resurrection. Without that there is no church, no molested alter boys, no Notre Dame football! So I can rant all I want about the virgin appearing on a grilled cheese sandwich but really it all comes down to the resurrection. Without that Jesus was just a good public speaker and others would come after him and all would have been forgotten. But, the aledged resurrection makes the whole religion machine work.

Here's an interesting site that goes into great detail PROVING that the resurection really happend. It's well written in it's own way by Josh McDowell and I've not got enough biblical nor historical knowledge to challenge this document outright but would like to comment on one paragraph.

Christians believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected in time and space by the supernatural power of God. The difficulties of belief may be great, but the problems inherent in unbelief present even greater difficulties.

Supernatural power. To me here is the weak link. You have to believe that there is such a thing as the supernatural in the first place to accept this argument. If Jesus rose bodily into heaven, not ghostly Jesus but the flesh and blood guy, then where did he go? Moreover, how does supernatural power work? If it is a real thing and the author of the site is claiming it is a real thing, then it must have a mechanism by which it works. As usual the theist wants it both ways. He wants magic in the world but wants it to be real as well. You can't have it both ways.

Additionaly I found this site: Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection by Richard Carrier which point by point nicely refutes each of McDowell's claims. Be warned if you go to the two sites I've linked to, both these guys are VERY wordy! Good stuff though for a rainy afternoon.

And another thing. . . The story is that God sacrificed his only son so that he (the son) could die for our sins. But Jesus didn't die. He got up 3 days later so how much of a sacrifice is this? Again, everybody wants it both ways. Jesus died for us. . . but he didn't die! Can't have both!