Was Jesus gay?

Republican Gays are Such Troopers!

A homosexual Republican governor gave an interview to this weekend’s New York Times Magazine.  No, not the one from Florida! Texas Governor Rick Perry, whose wife ALLEGEDLY caught him several years ago with the staff of a stiff staffer, jumped with alacrity to point out that the profits from his new book “On My Knees” – no wait, I think the book is actually called something like either “On My Back” or, somewhat less plausibly, “Oh My Honor” — are going to help the Boy Scouts of America wage legal fights against those pernicious homos.  (As you will recall, the homersexualists are absolutely mad about those beauty-pageant-like sashes that hold merit badges for useful things such as tying knots. Trust me: only a former Boy Scout should be trusted with an Hermes silk tie!) 
Honestly, is there a more hospitable climate for homo-hating than the Republican closet? Furthermore, what’s with all these sodomite governors? I do hope it isn’t turning into yet one more profession we Republican ladies have to turn a surreptitious wink or blind eye to. After all, I don’t approve of homosexuals at all, but you’re a braver woman than I if you walk out of your Christian home with a straight man’s skirt, handbag, shoes or hair!

 Betty Bowers

Middle East earthquakes: It’s the gays what did it

SIX earthquakes have struck Israel and neighbouring Lebanon and Jordan in recent months, with two coming last week alone – and what is to blame? Homosexuality.

That’s the view of imbecile Shlomo Benizri, MP, of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish Shas party, who, according to the Telegraph, believes that the tremors could be stopped by repealing various liberalising laws on homosexuality that have been passed by the Israeli parliament, or Knesset, in recent years.

Since decriminalising homosexuality in 1988, Israel has passed several laws favouring gay Israelis , including decisions to recognise same-sex marriages carried out abroad, and granting inheritance rights and other benefits held by married couples to gay partnerships.

Last Sunday, to the outrage of the religious Right, the country’s attorney general, Meni Mazuz, ruled that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children.

In what Mr Benizri clearly believes is no coincidence, the first of last week’s quakes hit the country just two days later.

Why do earthquakes happen? One of the reasons is the things to which the Knesset gives legitimacy, to sodomy. God says that if you shake your genitals where you are not supposed to he will shake the world in order to wake you up.

In 1999 this crazy god-botherer caused controversy by saying homosexuals were mentally ill. Quoted in the Israeli newspaper Maariv, he said he was “ready to fund the creation of special closed sections for them in psychiatric hospitals.”

Repost

An essay on free will - Section 3

Some people would like to believe that god simply set things in motion, and lets each human fend for themselves, with a little bit of help from above, now and then. They seem to think that he can simply step back, wash his hands from our bad choices, as if he has nothing to do with them. The problem is, his name is still stamped on everything in creation. He can’t escape it. It would be like creating a computer program to fail, and when it fails, you get pissed at that program and say, “hey, I just made that thing and left it to do what it wants.” Or it’s like setting a marble at the top of a hill and letting it roll down, while you understand how the gravity you created, and the changing surface of the hill you created will affect how the marble you created gets down the hill, and then getting angry at it for it ending up in a puddle. You simply can’t create something, knowing exactly how it will act or react to every stimulus, and say you don’t determine it’s direction in life.

Now, I’ve been speaking with the assumption that god is omnipotent/omniscient, but this is similar to why free will fails even in a world with a less powerful/knowledgeable god, or no god at all. I even have trouble convincing atheists and agnostics that free will doesn’t exist even when there’s no god pulling the strings. If biology and environment are responsible for your behavior, you’re still stuck with what developed into the universe, and eventually, into you. No one chooses their biology, and no one has complete control over their environment. Technically, you don’t have any control over your environment either, since your biology affects what you choose for your environment (when you have a “choice”). Even if there was a third factor that determined your behavior, you did not create that piece of yourself. So whether it’s an omniscient/omnipotent god, a god less powerful/knowledgeable, or no god at all, it all comes back to that moment of creation, which you had absolutely no choice in

Now, does this mean that no one should get in trouble for anything, and we should all run out and do all sorts of naughty things? Hell yeah! Ok, not really. We all have limitations, but those of us who are “morally upstanding” do so because it’s who we are. I can’t help that I want to live by the golden rule, and neither can others. Some are slaves to bad behavior, and others, are slaves to good behavior.

Now, I want to cover all bases, so let’s briefly talk about those people who say that there are random quatum variations, and therefore, no behavior can be predicted 100%, when we look at it from the perspective of psychology. Well, that’s fine, seeing as how no one can consciously control those quantum fluctations, so really, it’s just a weak argument, meant to sound complex. Quantum fluctuations or not, it’s obvious they don’t have that strong of an effect on the outcome of people’s personalities, since psychology is rather accurate. All you have to do is look at statistics to see that most people in certain circumstances are affected in rather predicitable ways. And as previously stated, no one can control those random quantum fluctuations. That’s why they’re called “random.”

It’s been said by some serious deniers that satan affects those parts of the brain that determine our decisions, and that’s why we can see changes in the brain. Well, that’s pretty inventive, but let’s briefly examine that idea. If it’s satan doing this, why is it that certain disorders only happen when the fetus is exposed to a particular substance? Or why is it that people with a family history of a disorder or disease are more likely to have it? On the other end, how come medication, brain surgery, and therapy can lessen or reverse some of these problems? There is absolute no room for an evil spirit in this scenario.

Some people are fairly grounded in reality, but they still think that somewhere inside, you have the the power to make the choice to overcome any obsticle. They say, “oh, you can choose to get help for your Bipolar disorder, or your ADD, or your Skizophrenia.” Well, no, you can’t. First off, you have to recognize that you have a disorder or illness in the first place. There are millions of people around the world who go undiagnosed, sometimes, for their entire life.

Second, you would still have to assume that there’s a magic “free will” center in your brain that is unaffected. This doesn’t make sense. Either you have free will or you don’t. How would you have the ability to choose to get help, but not the ability to be unaffected in the first place? It’s an idea that is inconsistant, impossible to calculate, and completely lacking in evidence.

Even if you could choose to get help, it’s not as simple as walking into the office of a psychologist, having them toss you a bottle of pills, and heading off to Disney Land. People can be on medication and they can get therapy for years and it’s still not going to fix everything. Some things simply can’t be fixed by current medical science. I mean, you can’t make an underdeveloped right hemisphere grow larger, or permanently and completely heal all parts of a disfunctional brain.

You simply can’t cure mental illnesses, you can only lessen the severity. You also have to deal with the fact that some people will stop taking their meds. You can call this a choice, but it’s simply part of the disease. Furthermore, does this mean that people in third world nations, or people who existed before modern medicine did not have free will, because they could not seek help? If it’s not something you can fix yourself with the power of your mind, then it is not up to free will; it is up to physical forces, that you may or may not have access to.

Even if we get to the point where we can cure all mental diseases that affect our personality, that would mean that everyone up to that point did not have free will. Even then, we would still not have free will, because mental illness is not the only thing that affects our choices; it’s simply an example of the extreme to show how our environment and biology affect our personalty. Disorder or no disorder, it all ties into the same thing.

Romans 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory.

So, according to Christianity, everyone’s purpose is set in stone. Some of us are predestined to be destroyed so god can show off, while others are designed to go to heaven. Christians, your own bible destroys the idea of free will.

Whether you’re a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, an Atheist, or anything else, we’re really all in the same boat. There has never been any logical explanation for how we can have free will in any type of scenario. Creator or no creator, none of us create ourselves. None of us choose our parents, or our parents parents. None of us choose what environment we will be born into or how that will affect us. Any decisions you make or any changes you make to yourself are dependent on what you were given to work with in the first place. A person who dies because of a bad addiction is no different than a person who turns their life around, despite enormous challenges. A person who becomes a republican, or a democrat, or a serial killer, or a Buddhist monk only becomes what their specific biology and environment allow them to become. Free will is an illusion, however difficult it is to fathom. I know, the red pill is so much harder to swallow.

Reposted with permission by AKR 

An essay on free will - Section 2

By nature, some people are more inclined to enjoy certain activities. I’m sure we can all think of an instance, where you or someone you know just has that natural drive to do something. I have been a thrill seeker for as far back as I can remember. As a child, I would jump off of buildings into snow; I’d build jumps for sleds; I’d ride snowmobiles as fast as they’d go; I was into gymnastics and all sorts of physical things. No one pushed me to do these things. I simple had an innate (in born), strong desire for such things.

On another level, I was always searching for answers, and getting into arguments until something made sense to me. My mother joked that I would grow up to be a lawyer, because I would argue people into corners, and tear apart their reasoning until there was nothing left. My siblings were not like this. We grew up with the same basic environment, but I ended up being the only agnostic-atheist out of a long line of christian fundimentalists on both sides of the family. On my mothers side, their history goes back to the Mennonites (similar to the Amish). My mother’s family helped found one of the largest churches in my area. On my father’s side, we have missionaries. So, here I am, the little black sheep. I take no credit for my release from religion. I was simply lead to it by my strong drive to face reality.

Now, I can’t prove for certain what exactly caused me to be the way I am, but we can look at some obvious, more extreme cases which are scientifically proven to be founded in biology. Look at certain mental disorders, such as Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. These are caused by pre-natal exposure to alcohol.

I once knew a guy who had serious behavioral problems. My girlfriend and I had him pegged for a FAS Disorder. One day, we were sitting in our sociology class in college, and the professor started talking about FAE (a term that is being phased out in place of FASD). Our “friend” (I use quotes because, by then, he had shown quite a bit of bad behavior) fit into the category so well, that it was ridiculous. His brother had some sort of retardation, so it stood to reason that his mother was drinking during our friend’s development as well. He had serious issues with compulsive behavior. He was a compulsive liar, and would act without thinking. He did not understand consequences and felt little or no sympathy for other people. On one hand, he could be a lot of fun, because he was just balls-to-the-wall crazy when we’d go out. On the other hand, he could be incredibly obnoxious, and could take things to far. When your “friend” starts talking about blowing up vending machines with grenade powder, making up stories about you and other friends, or breaking into various businesses, it’s time to call it quits. You might say some of this is normal post-high-school male behavior, but when you look at all of the other behavior involved, it’s right in line with FASD.

The point of all this is, from birth, he was inclined to this activity. He never chose to be subjected to alcohol in the womb, and have his mind warped. His exposure to prenatal forces is mild compaired to that of many others. Look at the brain of some people with an FASD. Besides FASD babies, we have crack babies, meth babies (it’s all the rave these days), heroine babies, and so on.

Substance abuse is not the only cause of biological problems. Some mental disorders are passed down through genes. Bipolar Disorder runs in my family. My great uncle had Bipolar Disorder; my brother and sister have also been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, so I’ve witnessed first hand what that can do to a family.

People that claim all of these disorders are made up, just to make excuses for people’s behaviors obviously have not actually studied them one bit. Why is it that everyone who has a degree in psychology or sociology accepts these things as valid disorders? Could it be because they study them thoroughly and have enormous amounts of scientific data to back it up? You don’t even have to be a scientist to observe many of these differences in humans with these diseases and disorders-you just have to spend time around them. Since we do have people that study these things, you can look at some of their findings. A picture is worth a thousand words:

FASD (Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders)
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0127302/ThinkFASpage4.htm

ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder)
http://www.adhd.org.nz/neuro1.html

Clinical Depression
http://www.scienceclarified.com/images/uesc_09_img0510.jpg

OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder)
http://www.brainphysics.com/graphics/petscan.gif

Schnizophrenia
http://www.scienceclarified.com/images/uesc_09_img0510.jpg

Clearly, there is something wrong with these brains. I’m going to extremes with all of this to prove a point, but what you should be gathering from this is that your biology and environment define you.
Whether you have a disorder or not, these two elements shape and control your personality, and we have no reason to believe there’s anything else to it. It simply wouldn’t make any sense. If biology and environment can account for all of these aspects of personality, it’s obvious you have no magical “free will” spot somewhere inside of you.. The fact that you can severely change a personality through the physical manipulation of the brain proves that there is nothing overriding all of this. It might be a little scary, but you are a slave to these factors.

You can’t simply will yourself out of clinical depression; you can’t will yourself out of Bipolar disorder; you can’t will yourself out of FASD, or ADHD, or Borderline Personality Disorder, and so on. It’s not like people chose to have these disorders in the first place. These things ruin lives. That’s why they’re called disorders, because they’re horrible things that no one wants.

Now, for the sake of covering all bases, let’s pretend that there is some sort of “free will” center that hangs out inside of you somewhere, and that biology and environment don’t determine your personality and the choices you make. What would account for the difference in choices between two people if biology/environment were not factors? What makes the free will of one person stronger than that of another? If we are not all given a level playing field by having equal free will centers, then that must mean god is creating people with these differences.

Even if you believe that god can help you to not sin, why is it that all people sin? Is it because people don’t really want god’s help? If so, then can you be blamed for having a faulty design? People do not choose to not want god’s help anymore than many children choose to not like broccoli. Whenever you make a supposed choice, there is something in your head driving that preference, and it’s not under your control.

If I were to give you a choice between getting shot in the face or getting a massage, you would choose the massage, unless you really, really, really don’t like being touched. Either way, your mind is already made up. You’re only going with what you have a preference for. Now, let’s take a situation where it’s a really hard choice, and part of you doesn’t want what the other part does. Many people use this as proof of free will, because there is an inner struggle. Let’s say that it’s a choice to either steal a wallet full of 100 dollar bills, or to return it to the owner. Part of you really wants that money, but part of you thinks you should return the money to it’s rightful owner. Some would say that this is a struggle between good and evil; that satan is tempting you, and it’s up to you to be strong, and use your free will to choose the right thing. So when you choose to return the money or keep it for yourself, you might say that you exercised your free will, because it was a hard choice and you had an interal struggle. Really, your brain is just struggling to decide the best course of action, and neither desire for either choice is outside of your physical brain. One just happens to be stronger than the other.

Now, let’s take something that isn’t a matter of good or evil (unless you consider certain deserts evil). If you are given the option between only eating ice cream or only eating cake for desert for the rest of your life, it will be a difficult choice if you like both of those almost equally. Does this mean that your brain is choosing one while your free will chooses another? Not at all. It’s perfectly logical and reasonable to have a hard time making a choice when more than one option is tempting. You most likely enjoy having money, but you also enjoy doing “the right thing.” Also, you most likely enjoy at least two different deserts. Now, when you look at your final decision, what was responsible for that decision? Did you choose to like one over the other, or was your choice based on what you simply desired the most? I think we all know the answer to that question

When we’re speaking of issues of right and wrong, it would make a little more sense to think that satan is tempting you to make the other choice, but when we’re talking about desert, I don’t think satan has a preference for one over the other…unless it’s devil’s food cake, but let’s not get into that. With this in mind, if you can have an inner struggle that is not over good and evil, does it not make
sense that all of these struggles are merely between different parts of your own self? Why anyone
thinks that having an inner struggle proves free will, I will never know, but hopefully, after reading this, certain people will never use it again.

Some of you might think I’m beating a dead horse with 10 different sticks, but when people don’t accept that it’s dead, you have to utterly destroy it…and then, send them a memo.

Now, whatever the reason you give for what determines our choices, it all comes back to god. In christianity and some other religions, god is the creator of all. In most religions, he is omnipotent and omniscient. If, at the moment god creates the first element of the universe (whatever that might be), he knows how everything will interact and play out, based on his creation, so our fate is set in stone. If god knows no boundary of time, and can see or be any where in history, present, or future, it’s as if he’s dictating every single event in time.

Reposted with permission of AKR

An essay on free will - Section 1

I thought I would tackle the topic of free will. Some of my argument will relate to any religion involving a god or gods (or no god at all), but when I use scriptural references, they will be biblical, as that is the religion I am most familiar with, and it is the religion of most people I argue with. I made this essay fairly detailed, because I have addressed this topic again and again with people, and I always end up banging my head against the wall. I feel this tends to be because most people do not understand psychology, and if you don’t understand what forms your personality in the first place, then you really aren’t in a position to debate the topic. It’s like debating the big bang when all you think you know was that it was a literal explosion, or debating car engines when you’ve never even looked under the hood of one.

First, let’s lay down the basics of what a personality is and where it comes from. According to Columbia Encyclopedia, “personality, in psychology, [is] the patterns of behavior, thought, and emotion unique to an individual, and the ways they interact to help or hinder the adjustment of a person to other people and situations.” I’m sure you’re all saying “duh,” but I want to be clear.

So, how do personalities develop? Today, the majority of psychologists agree that it is a combination of nature and nuture, that is, there are both biological and environmental factors that help shape and change a personality.

Let’s look at the environmental aspect. Sociology is the scientific field of study that focuses on how a person’s environment affects them mentally. In sociology, “environment” isn’t just talking about trees, grass, bears, rainbows, and other hippy stuff-it’s talking about any stimulus that is perceived by the brain. So, our interaction with other people, animals, smells, tastes, sounds, etc-these are all stimuli which make up our environment. These help shape who we are.

Look at a culture on the other side of the planet. Why are they that way? Has their biology driven them to have a culture different than yours? No, because you can take a baby from any culture around the world, bring it up in your culture, and it will speak your language and for the most part, follow your ways.Children are not pre-programmed for their culture. Now, there is always the exception, in which you will have someone go outside of the norm, but these are never cases of someone having the instinctual drive to behave according to the culture you took them from.

Is it a coincidence that most religious people believe in the same religion as their parents, regardless of whether or not they are adopted? Is it a coincidence that children who are abused are more likely to grow up and abuse others? Is it a coincidence that most children grow up to have the similar political views as their parents? Is it a coincidence that children of overweight parents often grow up to be overweight as well? Is it a coincidence that children with parents who have addiction problems tend to grow up to have similar issues?

Anyone who spends time around children knows what sponges they are. You can shape them to a large extent. There is a well known story of a girl called Genie, which every North American psychology or sociology student learns about at some point. It’s a sad story of a thirteen-year-old girl who was found locked in a closet. She had been locked in there for ten years. She spent her days tied to a potty chair, and her nights tied in a sleeping bag. She was never let out for social interaction. (http://www.feralchildren.com/en/showchild.php?ch=genie)

She was studied by many scientists, and ended up being fostered by the head of the scientific group that studied her. She behaved like an animal at first, and after about six months, she was more like an 18-20-month-old child. Throughout the years, she showed great improvement, learning complex ideas and non-verbal communication, but she never learned to form normal sentences. The scientists determined that she was not retarded, but that the lack of stimulus during crucial development stages had caused her left brain to become virtually inactive. As far as we know, she never aquired the skills of sentence construction.

When you look at the story of this girl, you realize just how much your environment (socialization) determines who you become. Without a “normal environment, you do not develop a “normal” personality. There are countless cases of abused children growing up to become abusers themselves, or be attracted to one. They are also more prone to substance abuse and criminal activity.

Now, some of you are probably thinking “oh, he’s just making up excuses for them.” You might even have your own personal experience, where you went through a tough childhood, or know someone who did, and you think things “turned out just fine.” Well, that’s great for you or them, but that only shows that you or others are biologically more resilient than most. Do you think it’s just a coincidence that adults with certain problems are more likely to have had a terrible childhood? Do you think those children chose to grow up and have terrible lives? Who really wants a drug problem? Or anger issues? Who wants to ruin their life and everyone elses life by being an alcoholic? Who wants any number of personality disorders caused by a tragic child hood? Anyone?…..Anyone at all?

On a superficial level, you may think we have choices, and we all choose who we are, but can anyone really deny that everyone struggles with certain problems? According to the bible (and many other religions), everyone sins (Romans 3:23). I’m sure you have your own “vices.” There are “sins” or bad behavior that you wish you had no desire for, but you do, and sometimes, you partake in that activity. People end up with addictions. Would you deny that a person with a clinical addiction to alcohol has a harder time staying away from a drink? Or that a person addicted to pain pills, or other drugs has a harder time staying clean? Or that someone who’s smoked a pack a day has a harder time staying away from cigarettes? These addictions are actually caused by physical activity in the brain. It’s not due to some magical entity, like a demon, or some other spirit. Scientists can observe this activity in the brain.

People who believe in free will within their religion tend to think that, ultimately, the choices are up to us, and we can either seek help from god, or give in to the devil, who’s making it difficult. But when you can observe the physical causes and effects that define our actions, there’s no room for “spiritual warfare” in these cases. We can observe the cause and affect in the lab, and that’s all there is to it.

The tobacco industry doesn’t put satan in their products-they put in nicotine. Pharmaceutical companies don’t put demons into their products-they put in elements that cause a chemical change in the brain, which can cause addiction. There are physical explanations for these behaviors.

Now, let’s talk a little about the biological factors. Biology is hard to separate from the environment, because, technically, the enviroment affects our biology. Our senses pick up information from the environment, and cause a physical reaction to our biology. But in this instance, I mean biology as it relates to your genetic makeup, and how that affects who you are.

Reposted with the permission of the author AKR

Banned From Church

Reviving an ancient practice, churches are exposing sinners and shunning those who won’t repent.

On a quiet Sunday morning in June, as worshippers settled into the pews at Allen Baptist Church in southwestern Michigan, Pastor Jason Burrick grabbed his cellphone and dialed 911. When a dispatcher answered, the preacher said a former congregant was in the sanctuary. “And we need to, um, have her out A.S.A.P.”

Half an hour later, 71-year-old Karolyn Caskey, a church member for nearly 50 years who had taught Sunday school and regularly donated 10% of her pension, was led out by a state trooper and a county sheriff’s officer. One held her purse and Bible. The other put her in handcuffs. (Listen to the 911 call)

The charge was trespassing, but Mrs. Caskey’s real offense, in her pastor’s view, was spiritual. Several months earlier, when she had questioned his authority, he’d charged her with spreading “a spirit of cancer and discord” and expelled her from the congregation. “I’ve been shunned,” she says.

Her story reflects a growing movement among some conservative Protestant pastors to bring back church discipline, an ancient practice in which suspected sinners are privately confronted and then publicly castigated and excommunicated if they refuse to repent. While many Christians find such practices outdated, pastors in large and small churches across the country are expelling members for offenses ranging from adultery and theft to gossiping, skipping service and criticizing church leaders.

The revival is part of a broader movement to restore churches to their traditional role as moral enforcers, Christian leaders say. Some say that contemporary churches have grown soft on sinners, citing the rise of suburban megachurches where pastors preach self-affirming messages rather than focusing on sin and redemption. Others point to a passage in the gospel of Matthew that says unrepentant sinners must be shunned.

Causing Disharmony

Watermark Community Church, a nondenominational church in Dallas that draws 4,000 people to services, requires members to sign a form stating they will submit to the “care and correction” of church elders. Last week, the pastor of a 6,000-member megachurch in Nashville, Tenn., threatened to expel 74 members for gossiping and causing disharmony unless they repented. The congregants had sued the pastor for access to the church’s financial records.

First Baptist Church of Muscle Shoals, Ala., a 1,000-member congregation, expels five to seven members a year for “blatant, undeniable patterns of willful sin,” which have included adultery, drunkenness and refusal to honor church elders. About 400 people have left the church over the years for what they view as an overly harsh persecution of sinners, Pastor Jeff Noblit says.

Read the full article here.

What is a Skeptic?

Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:19 pm    Post subject: What is a Skeptic?
It can be hard being a skeptic sometimes. It seems like everywhere you turn there is more and more nonsense. Television shows like “Psychic Detective” pass off anecdotal stories as fact. Even so called informative channels, such as the History Channel and Discovery Channel have more than their fair share of nonsense. Shows about UFOs, bigfoot, and the supernatural seem to overshadow the good programing. These kinds of shows on such legitimate channels give an air of respectability to these claims that are often backed up by poor evidence. And the public’s knowledge about science, history, geography, and just about every subject seems to be getting worse. A Gallop Poll from 1991 shows the level of belief in nonsense in the US, and it isn’t pretty. Even though it is a somewhat old poll, I suspect that the numbers haven’t changed much. 52% Astrology 33% Atlantis 41% think dinosaurs and humans lived simultaneously 65% Noah’s flood 35% Ghosts None of these have any solid evidence to back them. I think Michael Shermer put it best when he asked “What is a Skeptic?” “What does it mean to be a skeptic? Some people believe that skepticism is rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas—no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. Skeptics are from Missouri—the “show me” state. When we hear a fantastic claim we say, “that’s nice, prove it.” Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you are skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.” Skeptics should not be too closed minded, but instead base our knowledge on evidence. As Carl Sagan said “Extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary evidence.” Skeptics should use the scientific method of observation, description, prediction, control, and falsifiability to evaluate claims. Sagan also came up with the Baloney Detection Kit, which skeptics should utilize. http://www.skepticreport.com/skepticism/baloneydetectionkit.htm Skeptics should also be able to tell a bad scientific argument from a good one. http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/arguments.html In Shermer’s book Why People Believe Weird Things he lists some tactics of pseudoscience. Even though he is talking about the holocaust denial movement, he describes the tactics as “eerily similar” to other groups. 1. They concentrate on their opponents weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position. 2. They exploit errors made by scholars and imply since some of their conclusions may have been wrong, they all are. 3. They make use out of context quotes. One example is the Darwin and the eye quote often used by anti evolutionists. 4. The mistake honest debate over the details in a particular field as a sign of weakness of the entire field. 5. They focus on the unknown and ignore what is known. I also recently read about some research into Chiropractors who reject germ theory and vaccinations. The tactics are similar to what Shermer noted, but they deserve mention. 1. They doubt the science. Basically they claim the science to support what goes against their personal beliefs isn’t good enough, no matter what the amount of evidence is. 2. Question the motives and integrity of scientists. This is common in pseudoscience as many people believe there is a huge conspiracy among scientists to further some secret goal. For instance, the claim that climatologists who study global warming are in it for the money and are trying to bring socialism to the US is a serious claim, backed up by poor evidence, usually quotes. 3. Magnify disagreements and cite gadflies as authorities. This is similar to Shermer’s number four tactic. The citing of Gadflies is where someone ignores 99% of all scientists in one field but accept the one that supports their personal beliefs. 4. Exaggerate potential harm. This is like when creationists claim that teaching evolution in schools will lead to violence, which once again, is not supported by any good evidence. 5. Appeal to personal freedom. To use creationists as an example again, this is similar to when they want the schools to teach religion in science class and “let the students decide.” Of course they usually only want their religion taught and no others. 6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy. This is when someone refuses to accept something, no matter how much evidence there is, because it will destroy their personal beliefs. For instance, germ theory deniers will not accept the fact that disease is caused by germs because it goes against their belief that disease is caused by other factors. The amount of evidence is irrelevant to these people. They are True Believers. Posted with permission from the author Gerald (Riptor) an author of http://www.atheisttoolbox.com/forum/index.php http://www.atheisttoolbox.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4881

Why are Americans so religious?

Is the separation of state and church is our downfal?

The separation of church and state allows religious freedom, whereas religious freedom was not allowed in any large country anywhere else in the world. It allowed religions to diversify and adapt and evolve and compete for adherents. The most persuasive ideologies like Catholicism, evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist Christianity won, and the other competitors were the losers.

Go to a large church in the United States, and the services are like rock concerts with thousands singing and clapping and dancing.

Keeping religious symbols also feeds the monster, as well as the commercialism of Christmas and Easter which perpetuates Christianity.

We are a nation of religious hypocrites, alongside very vocal fundamentalist extremists. The majority seem to be cultural Christians who like the warm, fuzzy notions that come along with a god belief meanwhile ignoring whatever they don’t like. Sure, they’ll profess to be Christians because it’s traditional and more socially acceptable, and then rarely set foot inside a church, read a Bible, engage in whatever extramarital sex they prefer, and go to the bar to get loaded. But still, they are good “Christians” who consider themselves to be believers.

Then, of course, we see the guilt of this hypocrisy when this majority of cultural Christians enable the radical fundamentalists, who seem to thrive in our government, through notions like removing evolution/teaching creationism in schools or a gay marriage ban. It achieves a false sense of piety when they get to persecute minorities via what they claim is a religious morality that they themselves often disregard. And they seem to keep getting nuttier and nuttier; it’s depressing, especially in the face of the next election and Huckabee so likable and popular.

Rational Responders

[Editor's Note: We have since discovered that the Rational Response Squad sufferd a major server crash. The events in this article were a simple misunderstanding.]

Yesterday I created an account at Rational Responders, and posted my story about my son’s pending deportation there in the hope to get some support.

Today the post is deleted, and my account de-activated.

To say I am disappointed, is the least. Is this how fellow atheists support each other in need?

Luci

Next Page »