Still Here!

Okay, by now it's the 22nd over most of the world, and nothing special happened.  This should come as no surprise to most people, but there were a few idiots and knuckleheads that did buy into it.  We all pretty much just laughed at them.

However, what makes your apocalyptic story any different?  (I use "your" in a collective sense of humanity, not any one person in particular that may be reading this.)  As I mentioned a couple years ago:

My issue is not really religion but irrational thought and belief without evidence. Religion is just the most evident, and for some reason respected, irrational belief system on the planet. If you really analyze religion, it's all about accepting the unprovable and non-existent as a matter of course.  You would readily scoff at someone who worshiped a giant flying space pickle, so why is your particularly strange deity immune from that rational examination? Have you examined homeopathy, power balance bracelets, new age, alchemy, astrology, tarot card reading, ghosts, UFOs, paranormal, mind-reading, tea leaf reading, remote viewing, spirit guides, bigfoot, etc. and made conclusions about those things? Why not examine the rest of things you "know" in the same way?

So let's check out apocalypse.  No matter what christians may proclaim, their religion is a death cult.  Just read the drug induced last chapter of their holy book.  It's bat-shit insane doomsday prophesies.  And for some reason, we're supposed to take that crap seriously?  Even considering the fact that they have been harping on about their doomsday for centuries, and have been wrong on every single one of their predictions.  Seriously, they should be embarrassed at this point, yet they still cling to their very own apocalypse.  Which is what I find so fascinating about it.  So many christians scoffed at the 2012 nuttery.  They even scoff at the flavours of christianity that don't match up with their interpretation (or what their clergy tells them is their flavour).  Yet, they still think there is some truth in their book of fables, even though it contains one of the most disturbing and downright silly apocalypse predictions ever.

Is it any wonder that I really can't respect the intellectual integrity of someone who is religious.  Sure, they are compartmentalizing, and all those other lame excuses people put forth when you see someone who would normally be considered intelligent embrace a philosophy based on bronze aged myths, and believes in a totally unsupportable and indefensible position.  Why do we cut them so much slack?

Brainwashing or Stockholm Syndrome?

One thing that I have always failed to understand is how people who are maltreated by the very holy texts they hold to manage to stay part of that religion...  If this god character was really omniscient, omnipotent, and in particular omni-benevolent, wouldn't his morality be better than our own?  And haven't we struggled with our own morality for all of recorded history to make sure that humans are indeed treated with respect, fairness, and basic dignity regardless of the colour of their skin or the shape of their genitalia?

So in the West, the christian bible is revered for some reason, yet it has horrible moral lessons in terms of slavery and sexism.  So I have always wondered if women and African-Americans who are deeply religious are brainwashed to not pay attention to the horrible sexism and instructions on slavery, or do they suffer some sort of Stockholm syndrome?  I have mentioned this before, but I want to drive this particular point home with both sections covered here.

Let's take a look at sexism.

Look for places in the bible where god is an absurd, unmitigated jerk instead of the "all-knowing", "all-loving", "fully-enlightened" being that he is supposed to be.  There are many parts of the bible that display these tendencies. However, if you are a woman, the place where god's absurdity becomes completely clear is when you look at god's sexism.

The dictionary defines a misogynist as "One who hates women." [ref] It defines the word "sexist" as:

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender

Is god a sexist? Let's look at the evidence. We find this in 1 Corinthians chapter 14:

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

This seems like a straightforward passage. And god is the one who inspired the bible. In Isaiah 40:8 god says that the word of the lord will last forever, and he says the same thing again in 1 Peter 1:24-25. So here we have god, in his eternal and everlasting word, saying that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

This quote from 1 Corinthians 11 is important:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

You may find it hard to believe that something that confusing is in the bible, yet if you look it up you will find it is there.

Then there is this section from 1 Timothy chapter 2:

Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

It is hard to miss god's meaning when he says something as direct as, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."

If you think about it, you will realize that god started this type of sexism at the very beginning of the bible. In Genesis chapter 17 God says:

This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.

God makes no mention of forming any sort of covenant with women.

There are many other examples that we can find in the Bible:

• In Matthew 25:1 Jesus says: "At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom."
• In John 20:17 Jesus says to Mary: "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father," as though the touch of a woman is somehow improper, but a few verses later, is happy to have Thomas touch him.
• In Genesis chapter 3, God punishes Eve, and all women for thousands of years, with greatly increased pain during childbirth. No such pain is inflicted on Adam.
• In Ephesians 5:22-24 we find this: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
• In 1 Peter 3:7 we find: "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."
• In 1 John 2:13, John says, "I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father." No mention is made of women.
• And so on. There are many, many examples like these throughout the old and new testaments.

There are other, broader examples of misogyny that are readily apparent in the Bible as well:

• Are any of Jesus' disciples women? No.
• Are any of the elders in the book of Revelation women? No.
• Are any of the books of the Bible written by women? No.
• Etc...

God, it would seem, wants nothing to do with women.

Keep in mind that the bible's misogyny has affected society for centuries. The United States constitution, for example, was originally drafted to specifically deny rights to women. Women could not even vote in the United States until 1920, and only then after decades of battle in the women's suffrage movement.

If you think about it, you will realize that there is something quite odd about this situation. In spite of the fact that the bible is supposed to be god's eternal Word, modern human beings totally reject god's sexism. Modern human beings completely ignore god:

• We make women the CEOs of major corporations.
• We elect women to high government offices.
• We appoint women as presidents of universities.
• We fill our schools with female teachers.
• We allow women to speak freely in church.

The contradiction should be as obvious as a lighthouse here. There is no ambiguity. We do all of this in direct defiance of god's Law in the bible because we know god and his "eternal word" are completely wrong. We know that god is imaginary.

If god is going to take the time to write and publish "the Word of God," why does the book contain so many problems?

• Why isn't each page of the Bible astonishing us with its brilliance and insight, and filling us with wonder?
• Why, instead, does the Bible contain so much nonsense or, in this case, bigotry?
• Why are christians constantly having to justify, rationalize, excuse and explain the bible? In this case, we find modern christians trying to defend a god who obviously hates women on many different levels.

To any unbiased observer, the reason for sexism in the bible is very easy to understand: The bible was not written by a "all-knowing", "all-loving", "fully-enlightened" "god". It was written by primitive men who were flagrant sexists. Just look at how men in primitive countries like Afghanistan treat women today. Those are the kind of men who wrote the Bible.
 
And we all know it -- christians and non-christians alike. The reason why modern societies totally reject sexism is because we all know that the bible's sexism is completely contradictory and completely wrong. It is exactly the same situation we see when christians face slavery in the bible. Christians and non-christians alike reject the bible's teachings in these areas because the bible is obviously wrong. The part that is profoundly strange is that, while completely rejecting these parts of the bible, christians will claim that other parts of the bible are god's word. They are blind to the obvious contradiction because of their utter delusion.

Okay, what about slavery?

Here are ten passages from the Bible that clearly demonstrate God's position on slavery:

Genesis chapter 17, verse 12:

And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised.

In this passage god understands that people buy other people and, quite obviously, is comfortable with the concept. God wants slaves circumcised in the same way as non-slaves.

Exodus chapter 12 verse 43:

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it.

God again shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery and singles out slaves for special treatment.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1:

Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

Here god describes how to become a slave for life, and shows that it is completely acceptable to separate slaves from their families. God also shows that he completely endorses the branding of slaves through mutilation.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Not only does god condone slavery, but he is also completely comfortable with the concept of beating your slaves, as long as you don't kill them.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 32:

If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.

Not only does god condone slavery, but here god places a value on slaves -- 30 shekels of silver. Note that god is not sophisticated enough to understand the concept of inflation. It is now 3,000 years later, and a gored slave is still worth 30 shekels of silver according to god's word.

Leviticus Chapter 22, verse 10:

No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.

Here god shows that the children of slaves are slaves themselves, and that he is completely happy with that concept.

Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44:

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Here god states where you may purchase your slaves, and clearly specifies that slaves are property to be bought, sold and handed down.

Luke, Chapter 7, verse 2:

Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue." And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.

Here jesus shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery. Jesus heals the slave without any thought of freeing the slave or admonishing the slave's owner.

Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22:

Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...

Here god shows that he is in complete acceptance of a slave's position, and encourages slaves to work hard. This sentiment is repeated in Titus, chapter 2 verse 9:

Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.

Once again god shows that he is quite enamored of slavery.

God loves slavery
 
If the bible is written by god, and these are the words of the lord, then you can come to only one possible conclusion: God is an impressive advocate of slavery and is fully supportive of the concept.
As you can see, these slavery passages present us with an immense contradiction:

• On the one hand, we all know that slavery is an outrage and a moral abomination. As a result, slavery is now completely illegal throughout the developed world.
• On the other hand, most christians claim that the bible came from god. In god's word, the "creator of the universe" states that slavery is perfectly acceptable. Beating your slaves is fine. Enslaving children is fine. Separating slave families is fine. According to the bible, we should all be practicing slavery today.

The intensity of this contradiction is remarkable. It shows us quite clearly that god is imaginary.
If god were to exist, and if he were playing any role whatsoever on our planet, he would eliminate this connection between himself and slavery. There is no way that a loving god would allow himself to be perceived as condoning and encouraging slavery like this.

Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: You, as a rational human being, know that slavery is wrong. You know it. That is why every single developed nation in the world has made slavery completely illegal. Human beings make slavery illegal, in direct defiance of god's word, because we all know with complete certainty that slavery is an abomination.

What does your common sense now tell you about a bible that supports slavery in both the Old and the New Testaments?

Understanding the Rationalizations

Many believers will argue that god had to talk this way in the Old Testament in order to "fit in" with the dominant culture. This, of course, is silly. In christian mythology, god is the one who created humans and human culture. In addition, a god that condones the beating of slaves and the enslavement of children at any time is an abomination.

A believer might say, "Well, all of those verses are from the Old Testament and no longer apply because of jesus." This line of rationalization prompts several obvious questions. Why would the Old Testament still be printed in the bible if jesus overturned it? Why would God EVER tell us to beat slaves?

The most important thing that this line of rationalization misses is that jesus specifically states that the laws of the Old Testament still stand. In Matthew 5:18 Jesus says:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

Then he goes on to say:

Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

According to jesus, the Old Testament is alive and well. According to Isaiah 40:8, "the word of our god stands forever." The notion that these old testament verses no longer apply is completely untrue according to the bible. Christians imagine that they "no longer apply" as a way of rationalizing their religion.

Other believers rationalize that god did not write these slavery passages in the bible. The bible was somehow corrupted by slave-loving men. In that case, the obvious question to ask yourself is this: If the bible has been corrupted, how can we possibly know which parts of the bible came from god and which parts were inserted by primitive men? You have absolutely no way to know.

It is when you start thinking about the bible in this way that you understand something very important about the bible. Either the entire bible really is god's word, or the entire bible was written by primitive men with absolutely no input from god. Here is the reason for this very strong dividing line:

If part of the  bible came from god and part came from primitive men, you do not know which is which. You do not know if jesus really is resurrected, or if that's just a make-believe story inserted by primitive men. How do you know if god wrote the Ten Commandments or not? If any part of the bible has been polluted by primitive men, you have to reject the whole thing. There is no way to know who wrote what, so the entire book is invalid.

There really is no middle ground and the bible has to be an all-or-nothing book. Either the entire bible came from god, or none of it did. With this all-or-nothing reality about the bible now understood, you can see that there are only two possible explanations for the slavery passages in the bible:

• The bible is right, and god loves slavery. The entire bible is god's word, so these slavery passages must be god's word too. The laws in the United States and other modern nations that make slavery illegal defy god's word. Justice Scalia should be promoting slavery in exactly the same way that he promotes the Ten Commandments.
• The bible condones slavery because the bible was written by slave-owning men, not by god. God is imaginary.

Chances are that you have a problem with the first explanation. God would not champion the abomination that is slavery. We all know that. Therefore, what you are left with is the second explanation. 

So what is your vote on this issue? Brainwashing or Stockholm Syndrome?

Minor Critique of Abrahamistic Religions

Just a minor critique that I saw that I wanted to pass along.

The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are essentially the same : schizophrenic.
We bring love and peace ... by telling you everyone else is an enemy to be avoided, hated and even killed when ordered.
We bring hope ... by telling you the world is hopeless and doomed.
We bring truth ... by telling you the most twisted lies you've ever heard.
We bring knowledge ... by telling you 'God' is the answer to every question you shouldn't ask.

I have often said they are all the same, because on the surface they really are.  I am sure there are many other things these major religious spout off that they then act in total opposition to.  Which is why Christopher Hitchens felt the need to actually confront these groups.

The wisdom of Homer (Simpson)

A long time back, I made a post talking about an atheist wager that should take the place of the ill conceived Pascal's wager that theists like to trot out so much.  What it says is:

Instead, my wager is that if there is a god, and it is a just god, then living a just and moral life will be acknowledged regardless of ones beliefs. If there exists an unjust or immoral god, then I could never satisfy both my conscience and such a god. My wager is that if the christians are right (or any of the other millions of religions mankind has thought of) about god being just and all-knowing and all-loving, I will be rewarded if I act in morally sound, justified ways.

I don’t have any evidence that there is a god (and neither does anyone else). To me, the idea of a god, or even of an afterlife pales in importance to what we experience everyday. Life. Life is the only thing that I “know” I have and when that is gone, I doubt I’ll be around to care, however, others will. I must live my life as I please, and since I believe I will only ever get one chance at it, I want to live it in the best manner that I can and help others do the same.

So I was somewhat amused when I saw an article in The Guardian that delved into this idea a bit more.  Especially considering my recent post about the huge number of variations even within each religion.  Everything that I am seeing from at least the US evangelicals really drives to the second sentence of my wager.  The god fellow they are so concerned about seems like a total douche (omnidouche?).  I cannot support such a petty, cruel, vindictive, incompetent, and downright stupid creature even if it were to exist.  Given these characteristics, and the 38,000 versions of christinaity, I am betting that even if Pascal's wager had any merit, the chances of picking the right one even amongst christians is a long shot, let alone the myriad of gods mankind has come up with outside that particular death cult.  Or as Homer Simpson said: "What if we've picked the wrong religion? Every week we're just making God madder and madder?"

I urge you to read the whole article, but here is an excerpt from it that seems to sum up the whole idea behind Homer's Wager:

So let's call it Homer's Wager, for reasons that will soon become clear.

Here's how it works. Let's start with the very generous assumption that we think it more likely than not that God exists. To put a number on such things is ridiculous of course, but for the sake of argument, we'll use the figure of 67% which was the one a risk assessor came up with a few years ago. You might think that, if this is true, you should believe in God. But here's the problem: does it matter which God you believe in?

Maybe it doesn't matter, but it does matter if it matters. If it doesn't matter which God you believe in, it's because there are no important rewards or penalties for believing in the right or wrong God. But if that's the case, then it would not seem to matter if you didn't believe at all. A God who didn't care if you got belief right would hardly come down hard on those who didn't believe at all. I think we can safely conclude that the probability of a liberal God fascist – one who doesn't mind which version of him you believe in, but if you don't believe in him at all, he'll let you rot in hell – is negligible. As Homer Simpson put it when arguing that he shouldn't go to church: "Don't you think the almighty has better things to worry about than where one little guy spends one measly hour of his week?"

So if it doesn't matter whether you believe in such a vague God or not, you have no compelling reason to bother. The atheist bus slogan could just as easily be "There's probably a God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life".

If, on the other hand, it matters which God you believe in, it's because there are certain important rewards of belief that you will not receive if you don't believe in the right one, or punishments for failing to believe correctly. But even Homer Simpson can see the problem with this: "What if we've picked the wrong religion? Every week we're just making God madder and madder?" Choosing the wrong God might be worse than believing in none at all.

So to continue with the mad maths, even if you think it more than 50% likely that a God exists who will treat you differently – not just over the next few short years of your life but for all eternity – whether you believe in him or not, you still have no reason to believe in such a God, because you simply can't know which one to go for and life is too short to try them all out. In case you think that's overstating it, you only need to go into one church to find that there are almost as many Gods worshipped there as there are worshippers.

Of the Variations

Did you know that there are over 38,000 different recognized versions of christianity?  There are five main movements in judaism (with each movement also having differing movements within them totaling over 50 different recognized movements, and probably more fringe movements).  Amongst the believers of islam, I was only able to find listings for about 100 different denominations.  Now, my first thought would be that the christians seem to have seriously fucked up their system.  They are the "middle" in terms of age, and seem to splinter at the slightest disagreement on scripture.  The jews seem to have their shit together for the most part since they are the oldest, and have on several orders of magnitude fewer variations.  The muslims, being a younger group, even though quite volatile, don't seem to have splintered as much as the christians, but decidedly more than the jews.  Sort of reminds me of a quote:

If every trace of any single religion died out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again. - Pen Jilette

One would thing that the word of god wouldn't be left open to so much interpretation?  Doesn't speak well of the supposed inerrancy of any particular text.  I wonder why that is?

The problem with religious thought is that it starts off on a bad foot.  It says that the holy books proclaim truth, and that truth can't be questioned.  Whereas science gives a conditional acceptance of a finding.  Should new evidence come to light (through better measurements, new tools, etc.) science will indeed change.  That's one of the fundamental strengths of science.  However, when religion encounters a conflict with reality, it attempts to remain unbending according to its holy books.  It has the entire observation chain backwards.  That's why I think that Pen Jilette hit the nail on the head!

Through These Godless Eyes.

Okay, so I posted a video by philhellenes, and discovered that this guy has a whole series of videos.  I won't post all 169 videos that he has (at least try not to!), but I did want to post this one.

I also wanted to post a couple quotes that I found along with this video:

"You take your holy book, I'll take a parachute, and I'll see you at the bottom of the cliff." - philhellenes

"We're a species of mammalian bacteria evolved to be temporarily resistant to the earth's penicillin." - mindhacker

Open-mindedness

I have been accused of not having an open mind in terms of theism.  Actually, my position should truly be described as agnostic atheist on the issue of deism (See this chart for an explanation) - I don't believe in any god(s) and live my life as if they didn't exist, and I don't think that the question can be reasonably answered (yet?). Although, I do claim gnostic (or strong) atheism on gods that are defined to actually DO things in this universe, since those actions have failed all evidentiary inquiries

The thing that would change my mind?  Evidence.  Of course, that supposes that people actually understand what the word evidence means.  Admitting "I don't know" is not the same as saying "I don't know, therefore [insert my favorite idea]".  "I don't know" is simply that, and only that.  Nothing more.  It's perfectly okay to leave the jury out on a question if we don't haver the answer.  Unlike many theists, my mind is indeed open for evidence (not assertions).  What is really more open minded?  Actually admitting ignorance on a point and reserving judgment, or proclaiming that a totally UN-evidenced mechanism is the One True Answer^(TM)?

So I think this is an appropriate QualiaSoup video to present:

Irreducible complexity cut down to size

And here is QualiaSoup's second video on irreducible complexity.  It really does dismay me that made-up terms like this get so much attention because of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy... It's all a Manufactroversy. That is, a manufactured controversy that is motivated by profit or extreme ideology to intentionally create public confusion about an issue that is not in dispute.  And anyone who denies our understanding of evolution is indeed adherent to an extreme ideology...  Just imagine how you would react to someone who was a proponent of "intelligent falling" as opposed to gravity.  You'd label them as daft, right?  (Yes, I know that it's an Onion Parody, but it applies.  Just like a flat earther, or geocentric follower is equally daft.)

Putting faith in its place

This is another QuiliaSoup video, on faith.  Not necessarily the faith of religion, but the dictionary faith of accepting something just because someone says so.  You know, that NON-critical thinking thing. Again, understand the differentiation of what he's addressing, yet also see how it applies to many things you may hold dear.  It's not an attack on those things, but rather an invitation for you to examine those things.  I'm sure you have at one time or another in your life been told something is one way, only to discover upon further contemplation and examination, that it's actually not that way at all.  Santa Claus, tooth fairies, easter bunnies, and the like spring to mind?  Maybe you also initially accepted that homeopathy worked, only later to figure out that it's full of shit (literally if water does have memory, right?).

Lack of belief in gods

As I mentioned in my New Year's Resolution post, I was going to attempt to delve into all the reasons I don't believe in any gods.  However, QualiaSoup has another great video that is worthy of your time before I attempt to delve into the subject myself.

Why Live?

This question from theists sincerely confuses me.  Apparently they are so invested in their religion, they just can't conceive of a life without it.  I personally like Carl Sagan's quote as a partial answer to that:

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. 

Again, QualiaSoup (along with his brother TheraminTrees) has a beautiful video response:

Morality 3: Of objectivity and oughtness

And finally part 3:

Morality Part 2: The not-so-good books

Yesterday was part 1 of the morality videos.  Here is part 2:

It COULD be Coincidence!

One of the most incredible things that people experience on a daily basis is "the incredible coincidence".  An event that seems so monumental and unlikely that it must have been magic of some sort.  Humans don't understand how math actually rules their lives, and are notoriously bad at applying that math.  It has been written about extensively (a good introductory book is The Drunkards Walk by Leonard Mlodinow).  So, in continuing with my QualiaSoup videos, feast your eyes on this video:

Coincidence?

And the sub-caption?

Well, fucking DUH! Of course it’s a coincidence!

Facts are not beholden to opinions

The season of "I'll say anything to get a job" is now in full swing.  Others call it election season, but hey, we all know what it is.  The sad part about this though is that some of the things that these critters are saying is just outright false.  You have such crazy doozies as Michelle Bachman totally leaving the reservation of reality (but then that's to be expected).  Rick Parry is equally as loony, and Donald Prothero at Skepticblog tackles some of that.  I figured that I'd pass some of that info along.  I suppose it must be especially bad if Fox News is actually calling you out on it (the emphasis is mine)!

It happens so often that we are inured and desensitized to it. Creationists spout lies and distortions about science and reality, and no one disputes them (except an occasional high school student who challenged Michele Bachmann’s assertion that Nobelists denied evolution). Politicians like Rick Perry and Bachmann get up and brag about their doubts about the reality of global climate change and evolution, and they become the darlings of the GOP. Partisan media like Fox News and their parent company NewsCorp admit that they are receiving money from GOP candidates, or funneling it to them, and no one seems to care. News Corp and Rupert Murdoch get away with all sorts of outrages in their tabloids, yet they are so powerful that British politicians and cops dare not cross them—until their actions are so extreme that all of the UK is disgusted with them. But every once in a while, the cat is let out of the bag, and someone says something that reveals how these people are either abysmally ignorant of reality because of deluded ideology, or they are smart enough to recognize it but play along in a cynical grab for power over those who are ignorant or ill informed.

The latest incident occurred when two pundits on Fox News were discussing the GOP candidates. They point to Jon Huntsman as the sole candidate who would admit that global warming is real (Romney, Gingrich, and others who also once admitted it are now backtracking to kowtow to the extremists who vote in GOP primaries and caucuses). They comment that he’s losing ground to Rick Perry, who made false claims not only about global warming but also about how scientists were allegedly committing fraud. One of the Fox anchors, Clayton Morris, says it it in no uncertain terms:

Certainly, if you dive into the weeds a little bit on this global warming thing, you see that it seems the facts are certainly on Huntsman’s side on all of this and fact checkers have come out, and we’re actually having our own brain room look at this right now, that any of Perry’s comments don’t seem to hold a lot of water. But it doesn’t matter, because what’s resonating right now in South Carolina is helping Governor Perry tremendously. He fired back at Huntsman on global warming and gaining traction, facts or not.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE WHOLE BLOG ENTRY!  Please do, he says some really pertinent things.  There is also a series of quotes at the start of his blog article that are all worthwhile reading.  As a matter of fact, these quotes lead directly to a post made by Phil Plait over at Bad Astronomy that is right in line with this. He has a post he calls GOP senior officials quietly trying to restore science to their agenda which I think is worth reading:

If you’ve read this blog for more than a few nanoseconds, you know how incensed I am over the blatantly antiscience trend in the Republican leadership. As I have pointed out before, supporting the reality of global warming or evolution is akin to political suicide if you are a candidate for office in the GOP. The attacks on science by the far right are not new, but the openness and outspoken nature of it are fairly recent. Even Newt Gingrich, who used to a be a strong supporter of science, is making Michele Bachmann-level misstatements about it.

So I was very glad to read an article at the National Journal saying that older leaders of the Republican party are trying to re-establish the role of science in the GOP:

But quietly, many acknowledge a deepening GOP schism over the issue, as many moderates grow increasingly disturbed by their party’s denial of proven science. A number of influential Republicans who have left the battlefield of electoral politics are now taking action in an effort to change the GOP’s stance.

And we’re not talking about lightweights, either. People like former (under Bush I) Secretary of State George Shultz, who said this:

"My own opinion is that this [climate change] problem is very real," Shultz told National Journal. "I recognize there’s a lot of people pooh-poohing it. Whether they like the science or not, there’s a huge problem coming at us. There’s a huge melt coming in the Arctic regions. There’s melting taking place." Of Republicans like [Presidential candidate Rick] Perry who deny climate science, he said, "They’re entitled to their opinion, but they’re not entitled to the facts."

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE BLOG ENTRY.  Even though Secretary Schultz messed up the Senator Moynihan quote a bit, I was glad to see this.  As I lamented a while back, it's sad that adhereing to reality is a career killer for a GOP candidate...

All theist arguments boiled down to four lines

When "discussing" reality with theists, I have noticed a terrible redundancy in their arguments.  Once you get them to at least a marginally honest position, it ends up devolving into this argument:

• I don't know
• You don't know
• No one knows
• Therefore I know

It's that last one that always bugs me to no end...  How can that even be taken seriously?  And what makes their particular flavour more real than any other flavour?  Why not just accept that "I don't know" is a perfectly good and acceptable answer?  And they accuse atheists of arrogance?  *sigh*

Science! It works, bitches! (Again. And gain, and again, and again...)

Today at Skepticblog, Donald Prothero had a great write up about science.  As a matter of fact, it's so great that I really have very little to add to it.  Although I think he missed an opportunity to show off that XKCD Comic that I am so fond of.  But he does treat you to another comic, so it's all good.  He calls his entry "Reality Check" which I encourage you to read.  And I love the very first quote he starts the blog off with.

The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.

—Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, on “Real Time With Bill Maher”, Feb. 4, 2011

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.

—Philip K. Dick, author

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

—Carl Sagan

In recent years, both philosophers and science deniers (such as creationists) have repeatedly attacked the objectivity of science and scientists. Creationists claim that scientists are big frauds, deceived by a mass delusion about evolution. They argue that the stratigraphic sequence of fossils in the rock record is faked by evolutionists who shuffle the fossils and the strata in the order they need to prove evolution, then allegedly point to the same sequence as proof of evolution. (Never mind the fact that the objective, empirical sequence of fossils through geologic time was worked out by devoutly religious naturalists like William Smith and Georges Cuvier before 1800, at least 50 years before evolution was published by Charles Darwin). The Creation “Museum” in Kentucky is built upon the basic premise that “evolution scientists” and “creation scientists” start with the same data, but view them with different assumptions about the world–the fossils cannot speak for themselves, nor can the evidence falsify one position or the other.

On the other hand, philosophers and cultural critics have attacked science as well. Some philosophers have argued that outside reality is an illusion, and we can only know what we personally experience. If we do not perceive it, reality does not exist. More recently, the fad for deconstructionism in the non-scientific realms of academia argues that all our ideas are so culturally based and biased by our human prejudices that we cannot decide what is “real” or “objective.” This argumentation has gone in circles within philosophy for centuries. Philosophers of science, in particular, are fond of telling scientists what they should do, often without finding out what scientists actually do.


For the most part, scientists themselves have largely ignored these debates swirling around their activities. Rather than agonize over what method they should be using, or whether they are being truly objective, most scientists just get to work and produce results. Although some working scientists are familiar with the debates among philosophers of science, most are not, and it doesn’t seem to reduce their scientific productivity a bit. This raises a larger question: How do we know what scientists do, and what science tells us, is real or not? Is it all an illusion? Is it just the product of cultural expectations? There are many good arguments against the idealist/solipsist position or the deconstructionist ideas as well, but the simplest ones are these:

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE POST!

Fermi's Paradox and (somewhat) Recent Kepler Results

Back at the start of February, Kepler released 1200 candidates for planets around other stars.  This is a fantastic bit of data, and I am looking forward to getting more concrete results from this.  Of course, with the generally scientifically illiterate public, this undoubtedly has caused a lot of confusion amongst the masses.  While discussing this with some folks at work, someone brought up the Fermi's Paradox canard.  While this may seem to make sense at a visceral level, it's pure bunk.  There are just so many reasons as to why we haven't been able to look a lot of places, or why anyone else hasn't checked us out yet.

Let me try to list a few of them here for your benefit:

• Space is frikkin huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

  "Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space," - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

  Any scale you can think of is dwarfed by the distances involved.  This should be the first and only step required to dismiss the Fermi's Paradox canard.  Yet, for some reason, people refuse to understand just how amazingly big the universe is, so they discount this.  So maybe I need to talk about some additional reasons why it's a canard.
  
• The inverse square law!  One of the problems with omni-directional signals is that they decrease with the inverse square law (well, all signals do, but a focused beam has much more "oomph" to start with, so it will be detectable further).  This web page describes it best I think: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-12.html  There is a table about two thirds down the page that captures this:
  
  

  -------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
  Source       | Frequency    | Bandwidth | Tsys   | EIRP   | Detection |
               | Range        |    (Br)   |(Kelvin)|        | Range (R) |
  -------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
  AM Radio     | 530-1605 kHz |  10   kHz | 68E6   | 100 KW |  0.007 AU |
  -------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
  FM Radio     |  88-108  MHz | 150   kHz |  430   |   5 MW |    5.4 AU |
  -------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
  UHF TV       | 470-806  MHz |   6   MHz |  50  ? |   5 MW |    2.5 AU |
  Picture      |              |           |        |        |           |
  -------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
  UHF TV       | 470-806  MHz |   0.1  Hz |  50  ? |   5 MW |    0.3 LY |
  Carrier      |              |           |        |        |           |
  -------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
  WSR-88D      |   2.8    GHz |  0.63 MHz |  40    |  32 GW |   0.01 LY |
  Weather Radar|              |           |        |        |           |
  -------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
  Arecibo      |   2.380  GHz |  0.1   Hz |  40    |  22 TW |    720 LY |
  S-Band (CW)  |              |           |        |        |           |
  -------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
  Arecibo      |   2.380  GHz |  0.1   Hz |  40    |   1 TW |    150 LY |
  S-Band (CW)  |              |           |        |        |           |
  -------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
  Arecibo      |   2.380  GHz |  0.1   Hz |  40    |   1 GW |      5 LY |
  S-Band (CW)  |              |           |        |        |           |
  -------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
  Pioneer 10   |   2.295  GHz |  1.0   Hz |  40    | 1.6 kW |    120 AU |
  Carrier      |              |           |        |        |           |
  -------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+

  The main thing to take away from this table is that our own civilization is barely detectable outside the orbit of Neptune!  That said, I still run SETI@Home on the off chance that we find something.  I am ever the optimist.
• Why do people always assume that a totally alien species will be motivated by the same things we would be?  Even if they are intelligent,who is to say that we would even recognize it.  Heck, we aren't so sure about intelligence of other species on this planet.
• We have hardly looked anywhere.  Generally, we have only looked seriously for anything in a 300 light year bubble around our planet.  See point 1, space is huge.  Our galaxy is 100,000 light years across, and just looking in a tiny section one would expect some results?
• Our technology is primitive!  Yeah, we may be the most technically advanced species on the planet, but we have barely left low earth orbit.  Sure, we've sent some probes around, but as a species, we've not ventured very far at all.
• A lot of people get all on about the "rare earth" hypothesis.  First of all, this is total bunk.  The only reason we needed all the conditions for this earth to evolve here is because we evolved here, and not elsewhere.  It's like saying that a puddle is made for the hole in which it sits...
• Confirmation bias:  The majority of planets (not withstanding the tentative Kepler results) we have found are gas giants that orbit close to their stars.  This may have more to do with the fact that those were the only ones we were CAPABLE of finding...  That point is all too often lost on people.
• Exactly how many detectable signals have WE sent out?  As I mentioned before, a lot of people think that aliens will have the same motivations and way of doing things that we do, yet they don't understand why we haven't received any radio signals of note.  Well, if they send out signals like we do, then that's going to be a low probability find!  As a species that has had radio technology for several decades, we have only sent out 19 messages.  That's hardly anything! 
• Basic Physics:  Did I mention that space is huge?  To travel, send signals, or even probes over those immense distances requires much better than what we are doing or realistically can do right now.

So, if someone asks, "Where are they?" tell them that they are probably stuck on their planet, just like we are.  We have only scooped one cup of water out of the pacific without finding any fish, so it is much too early to declare that the entire ocean is devoid of all fish.

Militant?

How is it a theist needs to blow something up or shoot someone to be considered "militant", whereas an atheist need only have an argument with a believer to be awarded the sobriquet?  I contend it is because of the "I'm right, you're wrong and going to hell, so shut up" mentality that these types of people have. Dogmatism if you will.  Ironically, that "conform or die" mentality appears to have become endemic to all Abrahamic religions, despite endless protestations by adherents that their doctrines purportedly preach tolerance and humility, whilst exhibiting none of the tolerance and humility purportedly to be found within those doctrines. I also note, with yet more irony how, having launched the entire Abrahamic strain of supernaturalism, the Jews have suffered abominably as a result of the "conform or die" mentality becoming particularly virulent in the descendant religions, yet this has only made many of them cling to their own religion all the more.

This, of course, is the real reason why Christianity and Islam have achieved the level of hegemony over millions that they have - ruthless enforcement of conformity to doctrine, ruthless suppression of dissent, and a willingness on the part of those enforcing conformity to doctrine to engage in large scale murder. The two big Abrahamic faiths, for much of their history, were nothing more than primitive superstitions that simply had the good fortune to acquire political power and military muscle. What truly distinguished them from the assorted animist superstitions of assorted indigenous peoples around the planet, was that they had access to better weapons, and were spread by people who were willing to use those weapons. This was one lesson that was learned quickly by adherents of doctrines not involving supernaturalist assertions, of course, which is why political ideologies in the 20th century had such a devastating effect - adherents thereof learned the lesson well from Christianity and Islam, that if they wanted their ideologies to enjoy some longevity, they had better be even more ruthless about deploying the weapons.