Infuriated, and surprisingly (maybe not) inebriated...
Current mood: aroused
Category: Religion and Philosophy

Well - I have currently been drinking (hey I'm 26!) so to preface this blog please excuse any spelling mistakes as I am in a drunken state! (wish I could use this excuse all the time!).

I just finished watching the Colbert report. Mike Huckabee was a guest. I had yet to follow up on him since he raised his hand in response to the question of whether or not he "believed" in evolution.

BUT WAIT

The premise of this blog is not about Mike Huckabee (spelling? prob. wrong). Rather, its the comments left under the youtube video of Wolf Blitzer questioning his answer to the original question.

Usually I think these blogs out and formulate my ideas prior to posting. Consider this a rant. WTF! I know I hear the quote enough, fifty percent or so of Americans are creationists, but again WTF.

Don't worry, no digression will be started. I simply state, evolution happened and is happening people. If you don't understand this, you would fail basic biology. Questions? I can answer or point to the indisputable evidence supporting evolution.

Almost (and its a small almost) every of the responses were in support of huckabee's pathetic answer to the question. Ignorance is not a attractive or desirable trait! If you don't understand something, look it up! For f**ks sake! JUST DO SOME BASIC RESEARCH. You really sound like a uneducated POS (Drunkeness talking) when you say "evolution is JUST a theory" you don't know what theory means! "theres no proof" You haven't looked, shit I could make the case off the top of my head "evolution is not falsifiable" ... ahh, talkorigins.org. = your retarded.

It really does not matter what you WANT to think. Truth does not stop on behalf of your deepest wishes. Nor do I. This conversation is pathetic in its simplicity. If you do not understand why 93 percent of the smartest and brightest (academy of sciences) do not believe in a personal god, or why 100 percent of the selected accept evolution, consider yourself ignorant. (In that field of course, ROCK ON PZ MYERS!) This is basic shit people and for a presidential candidate not to understand basic science is inexcusable. (you should see me trying to sound out these words :) Pathetic is a more apt term to use. Word of the wise, don't take cover in the majority, the majority is no more right than a BENEFICIAL flip of the coin. Evidence is what matters, and guess what! It favors, undeniably on the side of EVOLUTION.


SUCK IT UP!

(not bad for drunk I do say!)


BTW, Check out PZ Myers tear apart his latest victims at Richarddawkins.net.

Currently reading : Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions By James Randi Release date: June, 1982

10:14 PM - 5 Comments - 5 Kudos - Add Comment

Free Will - A Working Definition
Current mood: adventurous

Free Will - The ability for an organism to select between two or more competing drives or motivations.



"Lost is the individual who attempts to understand the inner workings of the universe through faith, yet rejects evolution, an evidence based theory at its face"

Currently reading : God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist By Victor J. Stenger Release date: 25 January, 2007

7:14 AM - 1 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

A great loss to the skeptical world
Current mood: sad

Today, the skeptical world has lost one of its great teachers. I take this moment to reflect upon just how much I have learned, how important the people I've surrounded myself with are to me, and most importantly, just how influential the few at the front of this movement are. We, the listeners, should be honored to have such great minds and fearless speakers as we do today.

Perry, I'll miss your voice, your thoughts, your words. Thank you for being you. Your message will live on through your fellow skeptics at the skeptics guide to the universe. Your voice will be played again and again by thousands of listeners who sit by their computers every night. You will live on and continue to change the world.

We have lost a great friend, ally, and teacher today.

Perry DeAngelis ~ Will be remembered

10:08 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

The Truth on Skepticism
Current mood: accomplished
Category: Religion and Philosophy

In refuting claims proposed by 'magical thinkers', I've happened upon a very interesting, albeit frustrating, presupposition. When claiming myself as a skeptic, a stance heavily grounded in critical thinking and rationalism, I receive overwhelming connection to 'deniers'. Offensive only to one who has given ample thought to just how off base the similarities between the two camps actually are. In a brief essay I would hope to lay out the more common quotes an individual would hear in response to challenging a specific set of beliefs, including beliefs grounded in skepticism. I hope to amplify the connection between belief based on faith and what I see is its exact parallel, a denial based on faith. In prelude, these beliefs are both based on some sort of misplaced reasoning and lack of empirical evidence. The context in which this essay is set, is whether the evidence is supporting your claims or not. Not if the evidence is incorrect or incomplete.

Skeptic - "Prove It"

Believer - "There is no evidence you could show which would change my faith"

Denier - "There is no evidence you could show which would change my faith"

Skeptic - "There is overwhelming evidence, or insufficient evidence to believe such proposition"

Believer - "I have faith with the lack of empirical evidence"

Denier - "I have disbelief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary"

Believer - " I have belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary"

Skeptic - "I hold only the beliefs which are supported by empirical evidence, reproduced by peers, and are plausible without changing the fundamental principles of physics, chemistry, and physiology, so far known.


The thinking involved in both belief and disbelief, when based in faith opposed to reason or evidence, are similar. Much more similar in fact than those of skeptics, critical thinkers, or rationalists, with either group. I would state that to be a denier would be equal to that of a believer, with the difference simply being on which side of the evidence you stand. While I concede to a varying degree of which one could stake a stance, I propose that while it might be common to see a straight line with skepticism in the middle, and belief/disbelief on their respective sides, it is in fact a misguided notion. Skepticism has little to do with either a belief or disbelief in a specific subject, and more to do with the information or lack of information one chooses to use to acquire an understanding in a specific subject. Both belief or disbelief, when not supported by evidence, are then based in faith. This faith has little to do with any sort of natural knowledge, and in my opinion, deserves a healthy dose of skepticism from everyone.

Currently reading : Einstein: His Life and Universe By Walter Isaacson Release date: 10 April, 2007

8:46 AM - 2 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism
Current mood: accomplished
Category: Religion and Philosophy

By Sam Harris

SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term "atheism" has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president.

Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.

Even John Locke, one of the great patriarchs of the Enlightenment, believed that atheism was "not at all to be tolerated" because, he said, "promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist."

That was more than 300 years ago. But in the United States today, little seems to have changed. A remarkable 87% of the population claims "never to doubt" the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating.

Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.

The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection" by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.

5) Atheism has no connection to science.

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

6) Atheists are arrogant.

When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.

There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.

Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature's laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.

From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn't have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.

9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.

Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and "self-deception." There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.

In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.

LA Times Article

Currently reading : How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God (second edition) By Michael Shermer Release date: 01 October, 2003

8:46 AM - 5 Comments - 8 Kudos - Add Comment

How to Identify Quackery and Homeopathic Horrors
Current mood: complacent
Category: Religion and Philosophy

This is an attempt by myself to introduce anyone reading this blog to some of the podcasts that I hold very valuable. I have yet to find a way to post the actual podcast on myspace (nor the legality of doing so), so I have decided to copy the written podcast to the blog in what I would consider an introduction to the selected podcasts. If you find these enlightening please follow the links below and support the individual.

Ok, so first up is Quack Cast - "a skeptical and sarcastic evaluation of quacks, frauds, and charlatans. Oops I mean, alternative and complementary medicine." Enjoy!

"Deconstructing Airborne: How to recognize medical nonsense.
Mark Crislip for Pusware LLC

Medicine is complicated. It is estimated that it takes a decade of training before anyone can truly be expert in a field. You probably do not have 10 years to spend getting to know the ins and outs of medicine. How, then, to recognize that a medical therapy is legitimate, questionable, or total garbage?

There are some rules of thumb (1) that are reliable indicators that the medical intervention you are being asked to spend your hard earned money on is worthless. Airborne is a popular 'cold remedy' that by some accounts sells 100 million dollars a year of product. Using Airborne as an example, lets go through these rules of thumb .

Rule 1. The therapy pitches the claim directly to the media.

Given the glut of direct to consumer advertising by "legitimate" pharmaceutical companies, this may be a wee bit more difficult to use as a criteria. I will also mention in passing that I am one of those zealot's who think big pharma reps and their advertising represent the biggest impediment to good medical practice currently going and the medical literature is replete with good evidence of the pernicious evil that occurs when physicians interact with drug reps. Good doctors practice good medicine, but to have good doctors practice bad medicine requires an expensive dinner at a steak house with a cute rep. I have not taken so much as a pen in 20 years, so my opinions are pure as Oregon rain.

With prescription pharmaceuticals, you can quickly discover if the indication is backed by legitimate scientific studies: look it up in the Physicians Drug Reference (The PDR). Every drug indication in the PDR has been studied and approved by the FDA.

Not so with the directly marketed products. Thanks to the Congress, herbal supplements and vitamins are under NO requirement to have proven safety and efficacy against any disease or condition. None. As long as they have the disclaimer to the effect that "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." These words are taken from the Airborne box where they are in teeny tiny letters that I can't see unless I take off my bifocals and squint.

Read the box and the advertising. If they have the above words or something similar, its garbage. By law they can say anything they want as long as they include this disclaimer. Its no different from a shaving commercial where the use of the particular razor will get you a partially clad super model. You know that is not true. I mean, you do, don't you? These products are no different. If it looks too good to be true, then it probably is.

Real, effective, medications are backed by randomized, placebo controlled clinical studies published in peer reviewed medical journals and the results are in the PDR.

Rule 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

While the makers of Airborne do not make this claim, at the monthly secret meeting of the Medicine Subcommittee of the Tri Lateral commission, we work hard to suppress the information that the ingredients in Airborne are effective. Just do a google search on the ingredients of Airborne. It is safe to say we are failing miserably.

It is often said that big pharma suppresses data on the effectiveness of herbal preparations and will not do the studies because when clinical trials prove the efficacy of these supplements, people will use the cheap supplements instead of expensive pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately, many of these supplement companies are owned by big pharma, so they win either way, and, at $7 for 8 tablets, I am not so certain that Airborne is all that inexpensive

Rule 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.

Evidence to support Airborne? I quote from the website: "Each ingredient in the Airborne formula has been repeatedly documented in published studies to contribute to a strong, healthy immune system."
This is true in the same way I am related to the Queen of England. I am. But it will take a whole lot of death before the crown devolves on to my head.

Only by the worlds largest stretch of the imagination can it be said the ingredients in Airborne have been repeatedly documented in published studies to contribute to a strong, healthy immune system. Try it yourself. Enter the ingredients of Airborne into Pubmed and search the medical literature. Be impressed with what you do not find.

"Additionally, we conducted a study in 2003 that showed Airborne had a marked effect on reducing the duration of symptoms. Our Medical Advisory Board members are currently formulating a study that in addition to the studies in the literature, will further support Airborne's immune boosting properties." I assume the last sentence was not meant for humorous effect, but I laugh out loud every time I read it. Which is it? Does it boost immune function? Or does it reduce duration of symptoms. Ain't the same thing.

The key words are " contribute to a strong, healthy immune system". What does that mean? Zip. Zilch. Nil. Nada. Nothing. That is a meaningless assertion. Immune boosting. Healthy immune system

This whole concept of boosting the immune system baffles me. The immune system not a biceps that you can build up by lifting weights or taking steroids. Its an amazingly complex series interacting proteins and cells. There is no meaningful way to measure the immune system in a normal person, much less boost it.

Normal people have normal immune systems, and as long as you have reasonable diet and exercise, there is no way to measure any alleged weakness in your immune system.

But it is so vague and sounds so good and beneficial, it doesn't matter that it cannot be disproved. It could be argued that many severe vitamin deficiencies lead to poor immune function, so, yes, the vitamin and minerals in Airborne are good for the immune system, in the very basic and generic way taking a multivitamin is good for the immune system. But they are not saying that the Vitamin C is being used to treat scurvy or they are treating other deficiency states.

Its like oxygen. Breathing strengthens the immune system. Don't breathe for 10 minutes and your immune system will weaken. I am surprised they don't put the oxygen in the bottle as part of the immune boosting ingredients. Given them time

You can not find the study the company touts that specifically proves Airborne is effective. According to ABC news "GNG (the people who did the study to prove Airborne's efficacy) is actually a two-man operation started up just to do the Airborne study. There was no clinic, no scientists and no doctors. The man who ran things said he had lots of clinical trial experience. He added that he had a degree from Indiana University, but the school says he never graduated. (2)"

What's in Airborne?

Vitamins, herbal extracts, and amino acids that do not do anything to prevent or treat a cold. Echinacea and Vitamin C, the most commonly touted cold remedies, when tested in carefull clinical studies, do not work. Sorry. The data is in and Vitamin C and Echinacea do not do diddly.

Looking at the list on the package, the only Zinc, as a lozenge sucked every two hours, but not as an effervescent tablet, has been effective in decreasing cold symptoms. Zinc is their gateway drug. As long as these products contain zinc, they can say something to the effect that the active ingredient has been proven in clinical trials to decrease cold symptoms and not be called a liar. Most of these cold remedies have zinc in one form or another. At best, it is like taking a very expensive and not very complete multivitamin.

Rule 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.

I hear it all the time. I thought I had a cold coming on, I took 'fill in the blank', and I did not get a cold. Or the flu. I am just glad people don't use this reasoning in choosing contraception. Or, given the population of the planet, maybe they do.

People love anecdotes, especially if they come from someone like, oh, I don't know, Oprah. Remember. The pleural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data. Memory is faulty and biased. Just remember the argument in the car you had with your spouse over their behavior at the last party you attended. Who had the correct memory? We remember hits not misses, we remember events that confirm our bias and ignore the contradictory, and we grossly under estimate the role of chance. Combine these with the emphasis we put on the stories of others and you can see why anecdotes are worthless for judging efficacy of medical interventions.

I always tell the residents that the three most dangerous words in medicine, especially when applied to treatments, are 'in my experience'. The problem with anecdotes in medicine is they suggest a causality where none exists.

Causality is a difficult thing to prove, although I will confess I have a pair of special shoes. I take care of infections all day. Ever since I bought the pair of shoes I wear to work each day I do not remember getting an infection. In fact, when I was getting ready for work this morning I thought I was getting a cold, but after I put on my Rockports, my symptoms faded. You would probably dismiss my claim that my shoes prevent infection. Apply that skepticism to all forms of medical claims. My shoes are no different from any other form of questionable medicine: beware of faulty causality

Humans love anecdotes. A single story for most people is far more impressive that the best clinical trial ever published. Even though "40,000 customers contact (Airborne) every year" (2) , that is meaningless to support that Airborne works. What separates humans from other animals is self delusion. 40,000 times zero is zero.

Rule 5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.

This is especially true of traditional Chinese medicine. They used it for thousands of years, it must be effective. Never mind that the life expectancy for the Chinese was less than 40 years until, in part, the use of Western medicine at the beginning of the 20th century.

Airborne contains a hodgepodge of Chinese herbs used for the most part for a variety of infectious disease. Most have never been tested rigorously or, in the case of echinacea, definitively shown not to work.

There is little from 2000 years ago, or 200 years ago, or even 20 years ago that I would use today. I would not wear 2000 year old clothes, travel in 2000 year old vehicles, use 2000 year old heating, grow food with 2000 year old farming techniques. Why use 2000 year old medical therapies? Unless, of course, I want to get sick and die. Our ancestors were invariably wrong in large part as they did not use the scientific method to understand the world. And they died young as a result.

But I feel good in know that the herb Chinese Videx in Airborne has been used for 2500 years for PMS. That's a cold alright. Just like PMS.

Rule 6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.

Many forms of quackery were invented out of whole cloth by one goofball (I know, an ad hominum attack. If the shoe fits......) examples include Hanneman and homeopathy or DD Palmer and chiropractic. And their system, like the word of God, is never questioned or altered, despite data that may or may not modify or contradict it.

In the case of Airborne, it was "created by a second grade teacher." A teacher, and a second grade teacher at that. While we don't necessarily support them financially, teachers have a certain cachet in this country, and those that take care of our young children are thought of are especially highly. If it had been created by a community college creative writing professor, would you have been as impressed?

Americans do love the idea the lone inventor, toiling away in the basement before becoming rich with the pet rock or MS-DOS.

Certainly, when I think of cutting edge health care research I think do not think of the NIH or big pharma; I think second grade teacher. Especially since US students are ranked 17th (3) and falling in science when compared to the rest of the world . I suppose that those who have the most exposure to snotty noses are those most expert in avoiding and treating them. By the same reasoning I should own a brewery: experience in an area does not mean expertise.

Rule 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

This is common to all of quackery: they all violate what is known about chemistry, physiology, anatomy, and physics. Either 500 years of scientific progress is right OR alternative medicines represents insights into the nature of the universe that surpass all we have learned to date. The alt med proponents either self deluded buffoons or future nobel prize winners. Guess what I think.

Besides boosting the immune system, here are some words to watch for that guarantee that speaker is a quack: any reference to energy of any kind: blockage, flowing, vibrating, harmonic, holistic. They all sound good. They all mean squat. Energy is not this vague, shimmery cloud that can be tapped into. Energy is a defined attribute of physical systems: the ability to do work.

Beware of any therapy that maps the entire body on to one area: the iris, the foot, bumps on the head. I saw an ad in the Gadget universe catalog where all the acupuncture sites are actually located in the hand. Makes it easier to apply therapy I suppose, but I get worried now when ever I clap my hands.

Natural: Infections are natural. Death is natural. Natural is neither good nor bad. But like organic, it sounds good.

Above all, beware of anyone who suggests the therapeutic effects are due to quantum mechanics, especially if they mention quantum entanglement to explain their nonsense : they are blowing smoke up your Heisenberg. Quantum mechanics is a surefire way to intimidate and overwhelm and is never an answer for systems bigger than an electron. I was a physics major in college and have spent my time with the concepts of quantum mechanics. It doesn't apply to the world you and I see and hear.

So those are the seven ways, with some examples, to recognize quackery and worthless medications. The rules are widely applicable to all kinds of hocum. Apply as needed."

For more infromation from this scientist, try www.quackcast.com
For detailed information on quackery of all kinds, try www.quackwatch.org.

(1) Modified from The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science By ROBERT L. PARK
(2) http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=1664514&page=1
(3) http://nces.ed.gov/timss/

Currently reading : Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries By Neil deGrasse Tyson Release date: 22 January, 2007

10:29 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Questions that often lead to Atheism
Current mood: anxious
Category: Religion and Philosophy

This was posted by Engle at http://www.myspace.com/preachreality. Check It Out!


"Let's review some facts and then compare competing answers to some practical questions. Please read this whole blog, as there are very simple and very important ideas from beginning to end.



1. Cosmologists, astronomers, biologists and geologists have all independently arrived at the same conclusion: the world is billions of years old. These scientists in different fields all arrived at their conclusions via completely different means, with no dependence on each other's data.

The cosmological argument is simple: we can see stars that are billions of light years away from us. This means that the light from those stars has been travelling for billions of years to reach our eyes here on Earth.

The biological argument is that the complex and varied species of Earth have evolved from earlier species to replace those species via a process of natural selection – survival of the fittest – which has taken billions of years to get this far.

The geological argument is that samples of the earth rock and meteorites are billions of years old, as determined by several forms of isometric and Pb/Pb isochron dating.

Let's examine two possible explanations for these convergent findings:

A – All these scientists are wrong. They all independently came to the same incorrect conclusion. They are all either bad scientists, or they are deceitful or they are easily fooled. Genesis was inspired by the creator of the universe and is 100% accurate.

B – The universe is billions of years old, as the data implies. Genesis is fiction.

2. In the Torah/Old Testament, Jehovah commanded the Israelites to slaughter all opposing tribes, with the following stipulations:

Citizens of tribes that the Israelites encountered outside the holy land could be kept by the Israelites as slaves – citizens of tribes inside the holy land were to be massacred – every man, woman and child had to be slaughtered. [Deut 20:10-17]

More Jehovah: (I chose The Living Bible for ease of comprehension.)

God/Jehovah: "I will surely destroy them and deliver them to slaughter. Their dead will be left unburied, and the stench of rotting bodies will fill the land, and the mountains will flow with their blood…The sword of the Lord is sated with blood; it is gorged with flesh…The land will be soaked with blood." [Isaiah 34:2-3, 6-7]

God/Jehovah: "Show no mercy and make no treaties." [Deut 7:2]

God/Jehovah: "Blessed is the man who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" [Psalm 137:9]

(There is much more love in Numbers and Joshua, etc.)

Let's examine two possible explanations for this attitude:

A – God created everyone and loved them all. He commanded his chosen people to massacre and/or enslave the majority of his other beloved creations. Being omniscient, he created these other tribes knowing that he would ultimately order their slaughter. He commanded that babies he had created THAT DAY be dashed on the rocks. He really was a hateful, vengeful, jealous, capricious god, as The Bible would indicate.

B – The Torah/Old Testament stories were myths written by the Israelites who were tired of being conquered and slaughtered by their enemies. They wanted a god that inspired confidence, fury and reverence in their own people while instilling fear in – and justifying enslavement of – their enemies.



3. The nature of God in the form of Jehovah in the Torah/Old Testament is completely different than the nature of God in the form of Jesus in the New Testament.

God/Jesus: "But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also…."

Let's examine two possible explanations for the two completely different attitudes:

A – God changed. He decided to stop commanding slaughter of his chosen people's enemies and instead to begin treating them with kindness. He decided to stop demanding sacrifice from his chosen people as payment for the sin of his original creations. He further decided to impregnate a virgin, to go to Earth as his own son, to sacrifice himself to himself, and thereby appease himself for the sins committed by his own original beloved creations.

B – The people who originally created the Jesus story had no desire or expectation to connect with Judaism or the Jehovah story whatsoever.



4. The Jesus character and his story bear a remarkable resemblance to many much older pagan god-man stories that were popular in the day. (http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/) Many of these older son-of-god myths feature virgin births on December 25, miracles, healings, turning water into wine, preaching hope and peace, execution and resurrection in the Spring.

Two competing explanations:

A – This is a coincidence. Jesus really was born on the same day, led a very similar life, performed very similar miracles, and was crucified and resurrected during the same time of year as the many fictional pagan god-men. All the older pagan god-man stories are myth, while Jesus is real.

B – The Jesus story arose as a fairly typical myth in the Roman/pagan environment. The story was never meant to be taken seriously as history; Jesus was a mythical god-man like all the rest.



5. There is absolutely zero contemporary (years 4 BC to 40 AD) historical record of Jesus' life on Earth.

Two competing explanations:

A – Jesus claimed to be the son of God and had many followers. He performed miracles, healed the sick, walked on water, was executed by official order of the Roman emperor, rose from the grave, flew off into Heaven, and not one single person – apostles, followers or enemies – wrote a single thing about any of it during his entire lifetime or for decades after his death.

B – Jesus' life story in the New Testament gospels, which were written decades after the events they describe, is fiction.



6. The Bible reveals no knowledge of the cosmos beyond a typical BCE understanding. It doesn't even show any knowledge of the existence of the Western Hemisphere! By today's advanced standards, The Bible demonstrates bad history, bad mathematics, bad geology, bad astronomy, bad geography, bad physics, bad medicine and bad cosmology.

And two possible explanations are:

A – God inspired The Bible and did indeed design and create the universe, but chose to withhold 99.x% of his scientific and geographic knowledge so that said knowledge could be discovered millennia later by heretics.


B - The Bible doesn't demonstrate any scientific knowledge of the universe because the Israelites had no scientific knowledge of the universe. The Bible doesn't demonstrate knowledge of the Western Hemisphere because the Israelites did not know there WAS a Western Hemisphere. The Bible was not inspired by a god.



7. The world is full of natural disasters and disease.

Two competing explanations:

A – God created the earthquakes, plagues, HIV, etc.

B – The world is wholly natural. Disease and natural disasters are an unfortunate byproduct of a heartless, mindless planet.



8. The universe stretches billions of light years across, but the physical laws of the universe restrict humans from ever reaching more than about .0000000000000000627% of it. No human can survive in about 99.9999999999999999% of the universe. There are approximately 24,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in our known universe, about 1000 of which can be seen by the naked human eye from Earth. For every human, there are literally trillions of black holes.

Two possible explanations:

A – God made the whole thing for us Earthly humans. He made the stars, .00000000000000000000000000417% of which we can actually see, to light our earthly nights, as it says in Genesis. He created all that radiation-filled space, all those black holes, all those stars (and who knows how many planets?) for us.

B – The vast universe is wholly natural, not intended for any use, not designed, not created. It doesn't care. Life in a tiny pocket…within a tiny pocket…within a tiny pocket of the incredible universe is a natural – possibly inevitable – by-product of the natural tendency of energy to progressively flow toward stability. God was made in man's image – not the other way around."

Currently reading : The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design By Richard Dawkins Release date: 19 September, 1996

7:30 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Similarities between religion and baseball
Current mood: accomplished
Category: Religion and Philosophy

Baseball. Americas favorite past time. Many a day can I remember sitting under the sun, eating cotton candy and a hot dog, watching the game. Rooting for the home team. I would learn as many players names as I could, so when they came up to bat I could hoop and holler and scream support. I would learn the stats and learn the rules. It was a great time. I was just like everybody else, cheering for the home team, booing the visitors. But why just one team? Further, why the home team? Doesn't the home team change every couple of years anyway? The players get traded, the coaches get fired or retire, the owners sell the team. These questions inevitably made me turn back and change the very premise of the question. Why do people like baseball? Is it for the highly talented players. I don't think so. You see it all the time, players get traded, they come back to the old stadium and get treated like every other visitor. For that matter, statistically alone you would have to concede there are highly talented players on opposing teams, in greater numbers than on your own. Yet again and again I witness hostility, outright dislike, for what seemingly is simply the players geographic position. A geographic position which is not even from where the player originates.
I challenge the very notion that a fan picks their baseball team based on talent, players, coaches or owners. Now this might seem to be a mute point. Everyone knows that you pick the home team because thats where you live and you want to support that team. Without that support, tickets would be lacking, profits would drop, and the team would move. Right?
Wrong. I contend, there would be very little difference if not positive, in support, tickets, or profits, with a different view on baseball. The multitude of reasons for supporting a team are very numerous. To ignore all those reasons and simply coward to public opinion may stem from similar origins as other common irrational beliefs. Now you may stop and say. What's the point? Its just a game. And I agree, thats all this is. But its a game which demands attention because of the passion which fans commit to it. Now the most apparent parallel would be to that of religions. Where the mere chance that you were born in say, Baltimore MD, is supposed to forever lock you into supporting that team, so the surrounding religion. The geographical position has more decisional power than any of the concepts of that religion. The complete lack of education of fellow religions could be tied nicely to the lack of interest in other baseball teams.
I would also contend, if these decisions would be based on talent, baseball would look very different. Support for teams would be overshadowed by support for players of said team. Imagine watching a game where talented players from both teams got an equal amount of cheers. Where the respect for talent far outreached the location of the team. Fans enjoyed the game for what it was. Two great teams competing for a win.
This is not a wishy washy fairy tale. I push the notion that without being tied to geo locations, one could greatly improve the love of the game. Fans would not be a fan of just the team for which they are closest, but of a wide variety of teams. These fans would change support based on talent of the team from year to year. The reasons for supporting a team would have to improve from location, to talent.
But mabey its simply these reasoning skills people lack. If they did not have their religion or baseball team picked for them, for which would they choose? Mabey the reason religion flourishes is that it takes very little thought at all. The same amount of choice one has on the location that they are raised applies pari passu to the religion they are raised within and choose. If there was any choice involved one would expect to see similar results in religion as in baseball. Not just one religion would be chosen, but bits and pieces would be extracted out from a variety of religions. The best of each religions teachings would be taken and made work for the individual. Almost a sort of deism would be expected. Without ties to a specified dogma, but rather more like a collection of morals. Once in this state one could study these beliefs and improve upon them.
In conclusion, do people choose their religion with anymore validity than that of their favorite sports team. While there are exeptions to most things, the majority do not. The same process of thiking is apparent within both situations. You hoot and holler, cheering for your home team. Why? Because thats what you do. You follow suit.

Currently reading : What Evolution Is By Ernst Mayr Release date: 15 October, 2002

3:56 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Studies you should know about
Current mood: satisfied

Special thanks to Baltazar for format.

(1) Faith & Intelligence

Intelligence & Religion ~ http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

Religiousness, Spirituality, and IQ: Are They Linked? ~ http://undergraduatestudies.ucdavis.edu/explorations/2004/clark.pdf

Plus: Scientists & Belief

Leading scientists still reject God ~ http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline ~ http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html


(2) Faith & Violence

Does biblical violence
cause aggressive readers? ~ http://www.religioustolerance.org/violtext.htm

When God sanctions killing, the people listen ~ http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/afps-wgs022307.php

(3) Faith & Morality

Divorce: Born Again Christians Just As Likely to Divorce As Are Non-Christians ~ http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=170

Prison: The results of the Christians vs atheists
in prison investigation. ~ http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Secular Nations:

The following is taken from Sam Harris' An Atheist Manifesto (a).

Countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) (b) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Other analyses paint the same picture: The United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious literalism and opposition to evolutionary theory; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection and infant mortality (c). The same comparison holds true within the United States itself : Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious superstition and hostility to evolutionary theory, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms (d). Countries with high levels of atheism also are the most charitable in terms of giving foreign aid to the developing world (e). The dubious link between Christian literalism and Christian values is also belied by other indices of charity (f). Consider the ratio in salaries between top-tier CEOs and their average employee: in Britain it is 24 to 1; France 15 to 1; Sweden 13 to 1; in the United States, where 83% of the population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead, it is 475 to 1(g).

(a) An Atheist Manifesto

(b) Human Development Report 2005

(c) Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiously and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies

(d) Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

(e) US and Foreign Aid Assistance

(f) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

(g) Europe vs. America


(4) Faith (Prayer) & Healing

Prayer does not heal the sick, study finds

Currently reading : The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author By Richard Dawkins Release date: 23 March, 2006

4:37 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

How To Choose A God In 5 Easy Steps
Current mood: amused
Category: Religion and Philosophy

Choosing a god is a very important and difficult task as there are so many to choose from. Picking the wrong god could result in eternal damnation and fire. Can you take that chance? I thought not... Let's get started...

1. Assemble a complete list of all the gods ever worshipped. Many of these are well documented, so the task shouldn't be too difficult. Google GOD. I'd estimate somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 gods, not counting all those minor ones. This should be easily achieved in a few days or weeks. If any of those pesky JW's knock on the door, just ignore them. Ask the boss for some time off , if necessary, and tell him what you're doing. I'm sure he/she will understand.

2: List all the attributes associated with these gods. Some are maniacal punishing thugs, gods of hate, fire and all manor of brutality and damnation, eliminate these types, we'll just stick with loving and rewarding gods. This may be somewhat more difficult than step one, but remember, the reward will be worth it. Don't be influenced by the god your parents chose, they could be wrong, too. Lets keep it fair and honest. It may be necessary to hire a few unemployed scribes to help for a few months, but what the hell, er heck.

3. Having once assembled all the good gods, the list may still be unmanageably long, so eliminate those whose names you cannot pronounce or spellings that seem weird and unreasonable. A real god should be easy to pronounce. I'm suspicious of gods whose heads and bodies are from differing species too, but who knows? This should bring the list to a few hundred or perhaps a thousand.

4. To be fair, put the list in alphabetical order.(This will put Athena towards the top, she's my favorite, anyway).

5. Pray to the first god for 10 minutes, If he/she's listening this should be enough time and then wait for 24 hours. If nothing good happens, move on to the next god and repeat the process. In a year or two, you should have narrowed the field to a mere handful at which time you again repeat the process keeping only those deities who seemed to show promise. The real god should show repeatability. Scratch all the others. By now you should have determined which god to keep and which to eliminate. I'm confident the real god will appreciate all your effort and determination, at least, he should. Having successfully determined the real god, ask him for the winning lotto numbers just to make life a little easier.

If none of this seems to work, you can give up and become a heathen atheist, at least forgoing all that guilt and fear and with the 10% tithing money you save, you can buy a good book or one of those new electronic gadgets. I assume all the gods have the same 10% service charge..?

By the way, if you think this seems silly, perhaps you'd do well to step back and review your god. Can any god look less silly than any other god? I think not.

Originally posted by BOB A.

Currently reading : God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything By Christopher Hitchens Release date: 01 May, 2007

4:13 PM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment