From Faux Homeopathic Remedy to Absinthe

I saw an interesting TV commercial for a product called TagAway, which supposedly remove unsightly skin overgrowths (those icky lumps of skin that just seem to appear out of nowhere as we get older).  The ironic thing about this product is that is is being sold as a Homeopathic remedy, but apparently contains actual ingredients.  These include, "Thuja Occidentalis.  Other ingredients include Cedar Leaf Oil, Melaleuca Alternifolia Leaf Oil, Ricinus Communis Seed Oil" * What is ironic is that nowhere does it say anything about the X scale of the preparation. From what little I could find about TagAway, it would seem that it is a "real" product, not just water, like "real" homeopathic products (making it a fake homeopathic remedy (a redundant phrase if there ever was one!).   I can't verify much about TagAway's real effects, except that you shouldn't ingest it.  Buyer beware.

What does this have to do with absinthe, you wonder?  Both absinthe and TagAway contain Thujone.  Although modern absinthe contains Thujone in very, very small amounts (less than 10 ppm), it is thought that traditional absinthe contained more Thujone and that it was Thujone that was responsible for the supposed hallucinatory properties of absinthe.  It turns out that recent studies have shown that absinthe's psychotropic effects are no different than that of regular alcoholic spirits.  The other thing that TagAway and absinthe have in common is that they both contain ingredients from plants and herbs, although, as noted about, don't drink TagAway (the skin dissolving properties of absinthe aren't known, are far as I can tell).  

What is really interesting about absinthe, at least to me, is that many authors and artists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were regular drinkers of the stuff (there is a nice list of them here and here).  They sang it's praises and even wrote poems, stories, films, and painted paintings dedicated to it.  There is a mystique and romance surrounding absinthe, something almost magical, from a vibrant and creative period of art history.  If you are a writer or artist like myself, absinthe is very alluring and compelling.  

Unfortunately, I have yet to try absinthe.  After threading my way from fake homeopathy to absinthe across the silky web of the internet, I certainly intend to try it soon.

 

 

 

 

 

* https://www.trytagaway.com/FAQS

Selling Hope

I saw a commercial on TV today.  Some guy (I didn't get his name, and it's not really important) was selling a book that he claimed contained his secret to overcoming any addition.   You see things like this all the time.  Someone has a cure-all for whatever might ail you.

I'm not going to talk about the details of this guy's supposed cure.  I'm not going to analyze the efficacy of him claims.  I want to look at the idea of selling hope;  why it is a sign of selfishness and perhaps even sociopathic. 

There are plenty of reasons why dubious claims are harmful, just browse the what's the harm website for a plethora of details.   There are many examples there of people who have died because the chose to follow programs that promised a cure for a medical condition.  These stories are sad and unnecessarily so.

What what I can't help but wonder about guys like the one I've mentioned here is, if they truly have cure or treatment that is revolutionary and that does what they say it does, then why do they always insist on charging for it?  Sure, I know people have to make a living, but I can tell you that if I came up with a treatment that could cure and help a lot of people, I'd want to help as many as I could.  

To have a treatment, a real cure, for a disease like MS or cancer, or a treatment that will get people off their addiction and keep them off, would be an amazing thing.  The ethical, the moral, thing to do would be to share this with the medical community, to allow others to test it and perfect it, so that it can benefit everyone.

Sure, get compensated.  After all, you worked for it.  You discovered it.  Drug companies would pay millions for something like this.  But to horde it, to sell it only to those who could afford your asking price, it the ultimate in selfishness and immorality.

Atheism+. Why I Am More Resolved Than Before To Support It

Jen McCreight quit blogging yesterday.  This from Almost Diamonds who wrote a post explaining some of the reason why.

I'm angry that Jen has been pushed to the point where she has to stop blogging.  She's done so much, especially with the SSA, to help advance atheism.  The detractors say that those who support Atheism+ are trying to take over the atheist movement, that we are being hateful and divisive, that we are not thinking critically and are letting our emotions cloud our judgement.  

Of course it is emotional.  We are enraged and appalled at the misogyny that has become so apparent in the past year.  We aren't automatons, but human.  Using our anger at the misogynists and others like them in the atheists movement to try to build something better is good, as Greta Christian says in her book.  

Anger can motivate people to right wrongs and gain rights and recognition in society.  We want to be seen as atheists who do more than just attack religion.  We want to take this movement to the masses, as it were, beyond the atheist community, by working openly, and publicly on important social issues that, until now, religion or other organizations have owned.  At least, that's what I would like to see.  I think many who support Atheism+ feel this way too.

The people who drove Jen away want to attack anyone who doesn't agree with them.  It can't, and won't, stand.  But, I'm not going to attack those people, I'm going to ignore them.  They aren't worth my time.  Instead, I'm going to do something positive and try to make Atheism+ a thing that will unite all those atheists who want to focus on social issues instead of just bashing religion and slapping ourselves on the backs for how much more clever we are than theists.  

Cool Dinosaurs!

Megatherium by ~SameerPrehistorica on deviantART
Elasmotherium by ~SameerPrehistorica on deviantART
Deinotherium by ~SameerPrehistorica on deviantART
Exquisite by ~karkajou1993 on deviantART

Atheism+: Doing Good Without God.

It's been said that getting atheists to agree on something is like herding cats.  I'd say it's more like trying to herd cats into a tub of water.  Atheists tend to be an inquisitive bunch; an intellectually bunch.  We reject dogma and the authority that goes along with it, hence we are loathed to being told what to do and what to think.  You could say we are fiercely independent (at least I say that we are).  

Given all that, you can see why trying to get a consensus about where to go for breakfast might be hard enough, never mind were we should all stand on a particular social issue.  And that's the real issue in getting us all to band together for a common cause: we don't like to be told what we should think or feel.

Still, being openminded and skeptical (yes, they do go hand in hand) we are able to listen to each other and really consider what each one of us has to say.  This attitude tends to lead to civilized debates, respect for each other's rights to express ideas, and compromise, or at least it should.  I believe that it can and that it does.

The atheist/humanist/secular/(add your own label here) movements have much more in common than they do differences.   Most of us in these movements (and most of us identify with more than one) understand this and this has allowed us to begin to come together in the past few years in greater numbers and with great effect in support of issues that we all feel that we have a stake in.

Still, there is an ugly side to us as well.  Anti-feminism has shown its self to be much more prevalent that most of us imagined it was.  This is both bad and good.  It is bad, for the obvious reason that it shows that we all are not as enlightened as we'd like to be.  It is bad because it distracts us from working together to achieve our common goals.

It is good, however, that this is now out in the open.  You can't tackle a problem until you can first acknowledge it.  Also, it is an opportunity to clean house, as it were.  By exposing the misogynists in our midst ( actually they tend to expose themselves) we can shame them into recognizing  their misplace sense of privilege or shun them from our ranks.  It is vital that we do so because we have the fight of our lives with the religious and social conservitives on our hands.

This is where Atheism+ comes in.  The new movement is not an attempt to establish an atheist dogma, as some try to claim.  Atheism+ is an attempt to bring together atheists who believe that we have a responsibility to go beyond fighting against superstition or fighting for the separation of church and state.  We strongly believe that we have a responsibility as atheists to fight for social justice for everyone, theist and non-theist, the superstitious and the skeptical, the religious and the non-believers.  

Feminism, gay rights, separation of church and state are just a few of the issues that most of us feel are important and that we are doing a good job of brining to the forefront of the social and political forums.  

We have already begun to raise our profile in the general public’s minds.  Just this year we had the Reason Rally, which made the national news.  We also have many good organizations supporting critical thinking and humanist issues such as the Secular Student Alliance, CFI, FFRF, American Atheists, the JREF, and American Humanists.  

Except for American Atheists and the Secular Student Alliance, most of these, while they might have many atheists as members, are not atheistic groups.  What Atheism+ is, or can be, is a way for those of us who self-identify as atheists to get out and fight for social issues in public where we can meet "average" people and have them get to know us.  It will allow us to be seen as people who care for others, who do good things.  This is vitally important if atheists hope to ever become accepted by a society that currently sees us a amoral, selfish, heartless.

I urge those of you want to fight for social justice for everyone, who want to fight against misogyny, racism, bigotry, homophobia, poverty, and ignorance to consider joining the Atheist+ movement.  Talk about it with your friends and family (if they are still talking to you, that is), write about it, blog about it, tweet about it, set your Facebook profile picture to the Atheists+ symbol (see below), join the Atheist+ forum.

Let's show the world that we are not only good without God, but we do good without God.

 

Use me as your profile picture on Facebook, Google+, Twitter, or any other site of your choice.

The Horrors Of Salvation - Part 2

Yesterday I talked about the horror behind the story of Noah.   I had considered expanding on the concept horror embodied in the idea of sacrifice found in the Bible by also talking about the who Jesus story, but decided to just keep it simple and stick to Noah.  I saw a comment on the Noah post that made me wish I had talked about Jesus.

 

It’s sad to hear that this is what the message of Christianity is becoming about. Dead religion will tell you one of two things about God…(1) He’s schizophrenic (He loves you but He hates you) or (2) He’s mysterious (nobody can figure Him out). But here is Jesus, who arrives later on as the Messiah. It is in Christ where God’s nature is revealed, and He is a God of Love.

Things may still be unclear about the Bible and there seems to be a lot of contradictions on God’s nature. But, the Cross made a significance, a proof, to how much God loves us (John 3:16). Hope that helps! 

Comment by tacticianjenro | September 2, 2012 | Reply

 

His argument is one made by many Christians to negate the nastiness of the Old Testament: that God suddenly became a merciful and loving god once he sent Jesus (or became Jesus, the Bible is a bit confusing on that point) to save us all.

 

Even if you grant that this argument is valid, the whole idea of sacrificing someone, someone who is supposedly innocent, is just as horrible and depraved as anything in the Old Testament.  Sure, it’s just one guy, not every person on earth, but the number of those sacrificed isn’t the issue.  The issue is the need for a blood sacrifice at all.  

 

I was raised Catholic.  I could never understand why God required a sacrifice to free us from sin.  If he is all powerful, why not just forgive our sins and be done with it?  The priests explained to me about Original Sin.  That didn't make any sense to me either.  Why would God punish every human who ever lived just because the first two people sinned?  Why not just forgive Adam and Eve their sins?  Or if He couldn't find it in his all loving heart to do that, why not just strike them both dead and be done with it?  He's God.  He could just make more.

 

The idea that Jesus, the only son of God, the innocent lamb, had to die just because the rest of us were sinning bastards is insane.  That isn't love, it is sadistic and cruel.  Worse, it is pointless.  If God is all powerful, then either forgive each of us our sins or smote us, don't go killing your only son, especially when he doesn't deserve it.

The idea that the god of the New Testament is now a loving, merciful god as opposed to the angry, vengful god of the Old Testament; that he is somehow a new and improved god, is absurd.  The sacrifice of Jesus is no different than asking Abraham to kill his son, or the killing of all the first born of Egypt.  It is just as cruel, just as horrible and depraved.  

The fact is, God, both the old and new versions, is a dick, pure and simple.  

 

The Horror Of Salvation

I saw this drawing on DeviantArt today.  

by Flora Turcniovic

While it is outwardly whimsical, at second glance it is full of horror.

The Story of Noah's ark is often told as a story of salvation.  God has saved Noah, his family, and two of every creature from a world wide flood.  He sets them down in a new world with the sun shining and a rainbow in the sky.  It is given to us as a story hope and a lesson in God's unending love for us.  

In this story, God decided to destroy his creation.  It is claimed that he did the because humans had almost all become sinners, loving nothing but sin and debauchery.  So he decided to destroy them all, all except Noah and his family, who loved him and we good and decent people. 

What is overlooked in this story is the complete horror and incomprehensible death and destruction that was perpetrated by a vengeful, capricious god who thought nothing about wiping out almost every living thing on earth.   Even if you accept that everyone but Noah and his family were sinners, were they all so completely evil that they all deserved death?  Even if you accept this, what about the animals?   Were they all sinners as well? 

What this artwork shows is a glimpse of the horror of the wonton death and destruction that this "loving" God visited upon his creatures.  What about all of the people?  Can you imagine seeing millions of bodies floating in the ocean, stretching from horizon to horizon?  What this reveals is utter destruction and death on a scale unimaginable perpetrated by a vengful and evil god, one who's anger is far greater than his love, and who requires destruction and death in return for salvation.

This is the unacknowledged and overlooked horror of religion.  That message is that God will save us.  What is unspoken is that he is saving us from himself.

Another Church Experience

I went to my Son's church today to hear him sing in the choir.  They were really quite good.  The music was a mix of gospel and soul with some latin rhythms thrown in.  Of course, the lyrics were all "praise the Lord", and "Jesus" repeated ad nauseum.   

I could see that people were moved by the music; many singing and swaying to the beat.  It was inspiring.  Not inspiring in a spiritual way, but in a "isn't this great that we can all enjoy this together" kind of way.  I can understand why people would be moved to feel as if some kind of spirt was among them.  

I felt that too, but it wasn't a spirit of gods or angels or anything like that.  It was a spirit of belonging and sharing.  I've also felt the exact same feeling at rock and pop concerts.  When I saw Elton John, the crowd sang and swayed to the soulful lyrics of "Rocket Man" or "Candle in the Wind".  When I saw Simon and Garfunkel, it was "Bridge Over Troubled Water" and "59th Street Bridge Song (Feeling Groovey)".  When I saw  Paul Simon solo, it was "You Can Call Me Al"; Barry Manilow, "I Write the Songs"; Chicago, "Saturday in the Park".  

These musical experiences were all moving and inspiring because it allowed us, as an audience, as humans, to share common emotions of love, joy, tenderness, and excitement.  It is the spirit of togetherness and sharing of emotions that is at play here, not the spirit of the lord or any other supernatural entity.   Music unites us and allows us to share our humanness.  

The pastor (this was a Protestant service, in contrast to my last church experience) gave a sermon titles "The Dangerous People".  According to him, the people who are truly dangerous, "to themselves and others", are those who "think they know, but don't know" (his exact words, not mine). He said that we need to be willing to accept council and instruction from others.   He couched this in knowledge of the Bible, using Apollos and Paul from the New Testament as examples.  

He said that Apollos was a great preacher and very knowledgeble in the scriptures, but that he only knew of John the Baptist, and since he didn't know of Jesus, he was somehow dangerous to himself and to others.  How Apollos was dangerous he didn't say.  What he did say was that once he was told of the true way of Jesus, he learned from that and started preaching the gospel of Jesus.  That, somehow, was supposed to show us how we must listen to wise council and not assume that we know everything.  

He never said how we can differentiate good council from bad, truth from falsehood, only that we must be willing to admit that we don't know everything and to listen to those who know more.  He also didn't tell us who "those" are.  I found the message pretty muddled.  I suppose that you could take from this that we must be humble and open to new ideas, but I didn't get the feeling that this was what he really meant.  To me, he seemed to emphasize the idea of "dangerous people", but without ever letting us know how to tell "truth" from falsehood. 

One other thing that he said really struck me, because it was so self-contradicting.  He said that we have the liberty of praising and doing the will of God.  How can you do the will of an all powerful god and still have liberty?  This is subjugation disguised as liberty.   It is the same as saying that Americans value liberty, but then say that we are not real Americans if we don't say the Pledge of Allegiance, completely missing the fact that by pledging allegiance to anything, be it God or country, we are trading our liberty for servitude to some higher master.

I've been learning quite a bit from my forays to church.  I've learned that there are some wonderful ideas out there about how we can be better people, but they always get watered down by the trappings of religion.  Instead of using the example of how we should be humble and admit that we don't have all the answers in order to think for ourselves so that we can learn and grow, it comes down to just having faith.  Well, you can't have faith and truly think for yourself, because to really think for yourself means to question everything, which faith can not allow.  

I find it almost sad to see such potential for real understanding of the human condition and the world we live in lost in a morass of faith, platitudes, and servitude to a "higher power".   This makes us compliant and docile, just like the sheep that the shepherd figure of Jesus requires us to be.

Dehumanizing Atheists

This vile piece of hate came to my attention the other day:

TeaPartyTony ‏@TeaPartyTony

Atheists are not technically human beings (they have no soul) therefore they are not protected by our nations laws and bill of rights.

Now, based on his other tweets, TeaPartyTony is nothing but a hate spewing, racist, misogynistic jerk.  I try to avoid these types, but what made this stand out for me was the part about Atheists having no souls.  

Given some of Tony's other tweets, he expects to see atheists burn in hell, but here he says we have no souls, so I guess we can't go to hell.  I doubt Tony sees the conflict between his two statements, but then again, I'm guessing that he probably doesn't care.  In either case, he is putting atheists in a class of people who he considers to be subhuman.   

This tactic of declaring those who you dislike as less than human goes back into antiquity.  We like to think of ourselves as good people, or at least as adhering to some kind of moral code.  To hurt or kill another human goes against most peoples' moral code, so when they find themselves in conflict with others outside their group they have to find a way to rationalize the hate they feel.  They need to make their opponents less than human, less like them.  This allows them to resolve the cognitive dissidence that they have to grapple with by treating another person badly.

Religion has a very effective way to dehumanize people.  It can claim that the hated group either have no souls, or more commonly, have souls that will be tormented in hell forever.  In this way, they become not so much less human, but less worthy of being treated like humans.  Using religion to dehumanize someone is even more effective than the usual method of just calling someone inhuman.  By claiming that their god has decreed that the hated person(s) are damned, all responsibility for hating, persecuting, hurting, and killing another human begin falls on the god, not his/her/its followers.

It is a very insidious, and very effective, way to justify treating others as less that deserving of the same rights that you have.

TeaPartyTony ‏@TeaPartyTony

Atheists are not technically human beings (they have no soul) therefore they are not protected by our nations laws and bill of rights.

Adventures In Evolution

The story of Charles Darwin is an amazing one.  Here is a man who was endlessly fascinated with the world around him.  He went from medical student to training for the ministry to the preeminent scientist of his, or any other, age.  

What is lost among all of the retellings of this story is the pure adventure of his life.  Charles Darwin spent five years literally traveling around the world on the HMS Beagle.  He went to places that were, at the time, virtually untouched by humans, and many never seen by Europeans before.  He experienced long ocean voyages (for someone who suffered from sea sickness, not a fun time), earthquakes, storms, wild animals, and primitive (to him) peoples.  Upon his return to England, he went from an obscure naturalist to a well respected one and, after the publication of "On The Origin of Species", to the most famous scientist in the world.  

It is quite the adventure. It is one that I'm working on bringing to life in a project I'm currently working on.  No release date yet, but I'll keep you updated.

What I Learned In Church Today

I went to church today because my son was in the choir.  I haven't been to church for a long time, and not a Catholic one for even longer.

Having been raised Catholic, the service itself was familiar enough, even after all these years, that I could ignore it.  The sermon, on the other hand, I listened to intently.  When I used to go to church, even as a kid, I remember always listening to the sermon.  I listened and I thought about what the priest had to say.  Today was no different.

He talked about desire.  There was some very well thought out and interesting points that he made.  He explained how desire run amok can lead to greed and he used the international banking crisis as an example.  I couldn't agree more.  Here was a perfect example of greed and how it can affect millions.  Here was a very humanistic call for equality and a curb on selfishness and the policies that promote it.  He contrasted that to a desire to do what is right for everyone.

This would have been a perfect sermon, but then, of course, he pushed that aside and said that the real positive role of desire is to know and see God.  Damn!  

This is where myself, and humanists like me, see the great difference between our goals of those of religions.  We seek to promote the positive aspects of humanity, like channeling our desires to do good for, not just ourselves, but others as well.  While most religions do see this as an important task, it is secondary to a desire to please God.  As far as I can see, this is just as selfish as the desire for personal gain.  It is replacing the desire for money and possessions with the desire to gain wealth in an afterlife that may not exist, and which certainly does no one here on earth any good

Now, if desiring to gain points in a possible afterlife leads you to do good here on earth, great, but there is still a selfishness to this that I thin can, and does, lead easily to arrogance.  Many believers use this thought of reward in heaven to make themselves, in their eyes, better than those who either don't believe as they do or don't believe at all.  This can easily lead to the extreme of believing, and worse, telling those people that they will burn for eternity in hell.  This dehumanizes those who disagree and breeds hate.

Most humanists, on the other hand, believe in doing good for others simply because it is the right thing to do.  They expect no reward, no glory, just the satisfaction of doing what's right and helping others.  All without judgment, arrogance, or hate.

I Got Noticed!

I found a cool pic on FB and shared it there.  I also downloaded it so I could share it here.  I also sent it to PZ Myers because I thought that maybe he could use it for his Anti-Caterday post.  Before I could post it here, PZ actually used it for his Anti-Caterday post!  I know it's just a little thing, and it isn't the first time I've got a bit of extra traffic my way from a blogger (Skepchick)  who I greatly respect, but it is cool all the same.

 

 

Chick-Fil-A, Last Call

 

The Chick-Fil-A brouhaha had highlighted a real inequality in our society.  That inequality is that religious institutions in general, and Christians in particular, feel that they have some special rights that imbue their beliefs with some kind of untouchability. There is an arrogant sense of entitlement that permeates their thinking and ideology which is inherently unjustified and invidious. 

For those of you living in a hole for the past few weeks, gay rights groups called for a boycott of Chick-Fil-A because it's owner said that his company operates by Christian values and one of those values tradition marriage.  While he said that Chick-Fil-A does not discriminate against homosexuals in hiring or service to their customers, it believes that homosexuality is wrong and a sin.  He was well within his rights to express this view.  What he does not have a right to is to expect that others wouldn't be outraged by his expression of his beliefs.  

Unfortunately, other Christians didn't see it this way.  They were outraged that gay rights supporters called for a boycott of Chick-Fil-A.  They claimed that it's freedom of speech was being infringed upon and they called for those who supported Chick-Fil-A, and "traditional marriage" to go eat at Chick-Fil-A.

They seemed to feel that they were entitled to have their beliefs respected, but ignored or disrespected the beliefs of others.

Of course, they did not mention their calls for boycotts of businesses that support gay rights.

One Million Moms organized a Facebook campaign protest this week in response to JC Penney's decision to hire DeGeneres, who is openly gay.

One Million Moms' expressed their wrath agaist DC Comics because of their story line for their character, The Green Lantern, who was revealed to be gay.  It wasn't just One Million Moms, Alan Caruba, of Canada Free Press, called for a boycott as well.  The same with Marvel Comics for showing a gay wedding.  They also called for a boycott of Toys R Us for carrying the comic book.

Christians also called for a boycott of video game maker Electronic Arts, for adding characters in same-sex relationships to its games.

And how can we forget the rainbow Oreo?

Where was the outrage that these businesses were being targeted for boycotts for their stance on gay rights?  Where were the supporters of gay rights claiming that these business' right to freedom of speech was being threatened by the boycotts?  Where was the call for those who support gay rights to line up at Toy's R Us, or JC Penny to show their support for these businesses?  

They were nowhere because these business and their supporters know that anyone has a right to call for a boycott of their products if they don't agree with their stance on gay rights or any other issue.  They where nowhere because there isn't the sense of entitlement that exists within the Christian community that their beliefs should somehow be above reproach and ridicule.

Christians like to claim that there is a war on religion, that their beliefs are being infringed upon by actions like the call for a boycott of Chick-Fil-A.  They have the arrogance to believes that they are somehow a persecuted minority.  

The fact is that Christians make up something like 70% of the population of the U.S., hardly a minority.  Theiy have their prayers recited at public ceremonies across the country, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution; they have their beliefs ingrained in our culture.  

Religious establishments have a sense of entitlement in our society that is unwarranted and they get outraged when others insist that they be treated just like anyone else.

As John Stewart said:

"You have confused a war on religion with not always getting everything you want. It's called being part of a society – not everything goes your way," 

"You have confused a war on religion with not always getting everything you want. It's called being part of a society – not everything goes your way," Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/jon-stewart-ridicules-conservative-war-on-religion-stance-69556/#DscZgiMT0gc1bGwM.99

Don't You Get It? It's Not About Your Religion, It's About Your Hate.

Many people have been posting on FB and in the other social media showing their support for Chick-fil-a.  Good for them.  What they are also doing is insinuating that the reason that people are boycotting Chick-fil-a is because the owner is a Christian.  

Wrong.  It is because the owner is, very publicly and openly, a homophobe.  It has nothing to do with the owner being a Christian and has everything to do with hate and intolerance.  As you know, I'm an atheist.  Despite that, I still shop at Hobby Lobby and other well know Christian owned businesses, and I will continue to do so as long as they conduct their business in a, well, business like manner.  

Alienating your customers is not good business.  Publicly supporting intolerance against a specific segment of the population because their way of life goes against your religious beliefs is not just bad business, it's stupid business.  Why drive away customers who, up until now, probably didn't care one way or another what you thought of homosexuals?  But now that you have taken a stand, don't be surprised that people suddenly don't want to do business with you.  And sure as hell don't think that it's because you are Christian.  

I won't eat at Chick-fil-a.  Not because they are an openly Christian company, but because they are an openly bigoted one.  It's not about their religion, it's about their hate.  Pure and simple.

Cold, Heartless, Selfish, Greedy Bastards

I stumbled into an unintended and upsetting FB conversation last night.  It started with this:

 

So I commented that if you can't afford food, you do.

What follows is the conversation that ensued.  Much of the tone was expected, but some of it was a bit more… well, read on.  

(The identities of the other commenters have been masked out, mainly to protect myself from being banned from FB for calling them cold, heartless, selfish, greedy bastards)

Ok, fair enough.  Maybe she doesn't understand that some people just find themselves in an unfortunate situations beyond their control.  Although, I do abhor this whole "mooching off the taxpayers" crap.  Doesn't the U.S. Constitution say that one of the reasons that this government was created was to promote the general welfare?  I'd think feeding those who need it part of the general welfare.

So I decided to pull from my own experience and give an example of why programs like Food Stamps are important.

She doesn't seem to get the idea that I got laid off.  I didn't quite my job.  I didn't get fired for being a fuck up.  I got laid off.   That wasn't a good enough excuse for her though.

Now the greed and avarice become plainly apparent.  My comparison of paying taxes for food stamps to paying for fire departments didn't fly.  I guess if it doesn't immediately benefit her, it isn't a valid tax.  

So I give a, sadly, too common example of how someone can find themselves and their children in a situation for which they have no responsibility at all.  She never replied to my last point, but posted another pithy, pity-the-poor-tax-payer, image.  Someone else, however, did respond.  His response was as vile and repugnant as anything I've ever read.  

Yeah.  Read it again.  If you aren't angry enough to spit, then you better head off to Oz to ask the Great and Powerful Wizard for a heart.

I'm not going to go into why people feel like they can be such assholes when the have the anonymity of the internet to protect them, a recent article in Scientific America covers that topic pretty well.  What really disgusts and, honestly, frightens me, is that even though this bastard might feel emboldened to write this due to not having to actually look anyone who needs assistance in the eye while saying it, he surely believes it.

People like this talk about entitlement programs like they are a plague out to bring ruin to them.  They don't like "entitlement" programs, but in reality, they are just trying to protect their own sense of entitlement.  The feel that they are entitled to everything they have, which is fine, we all deserve to enjoy the fruits of our labor, but they also seem to think that they are entitled to tell others what they can and can not have.  

Yes, we all pay taxes and none of us like everything our taxes go to.  I don't like that my taxes went to bail out a bunch of greedy fucks on Wall Street, but I think that the bail out was needed to keep us out of a depression.  I didn't like my taxes going to a completely unnecessary war in Iraq.   We can't just have our taxes go to only the things we like.  Living in a democracy means that sometimes you have to accept things you don't like.  When one party controls the government by 51%, 49% of the people have to deal with a government that they didn't vote for.  This is the price of living in a free, democratic society.  

But this example I've given here speaks to more than just the reality of living in a democracy, it highlights the uncaring, selfishness and cupidity that seems to permeate our society.  The mood in our society is one of contumely and avarice.  There is no sense of charity or caring for anyone but ourselves and our families.  We have gone from a great society of Americans bound together by a shared vision of liberty and equality to a band of millions of small, insignificant familial tribes who care only for their own interests.  We have become a society of cold, heartless, selfish, greedy bastards. 

Why Are You Offended? Why We Don't Care.

The Omaha Coalition for Reason recently put up a billboard here in Omaha.  The billboard simply says, "Don't Believe in God?  Join the Club."  It doesn't say, or even imply, a dislike or disdain for religion in general or Christianity in particular.  It just says that it is ok to not believe in God.  The message isn't aimed at the faithful, but at non-theists who might feel alone because everyone around them are believers.

Still, some Christians take offense at the billboard.   KMTV News quoted Emlyn Forsuh as saying, "I was raised to believe in god and now someone says they don't believe in god so I don't like it."  As the writer of this article say in response to Emlyn, "Too Damn Bad!"  

I've written about all the billboards around Omaha with quotes from God that I am exposed to.  If you read what I wrote there you'll see that I am offended at these billboards.  But I also say that we shouldn't try to have these billboards removed (as some Christians have tried, and succeeded at getting atheist billboards removed or not put up at all).  

Everyone has the right to free speech and if they are willing to pay to have a billboard put up to express their views, more power to them.  What none of us have is the right to not be offended.  Everyone is offended by something at some point.  So what?  There are people who are offended that Jews or blacks exist or have the same rights as they do.  That doesn't mean we have to put jews back in concentration camps or enslave blacks again just because someone is offended.

If you are offended about something, go ahead and say so, but don't expect others not to be offended that you are offended.  And definitely don't expect everyone to give a crap that you are offended.  In fact, rather than saying "too damn bad", I just say, "so what?".  

I'm offended at those Christian billboards.  I'm also offended by the junk mail and spam I get trying to sell me stuff.   So what?  My offense isn't your problem, unless, of course, you try to impose your beliefs or will upon me.  Then it becomes an equal rights issue because you are trying to force something upon me which I don't want, while insisting that your beliefs be free from reproach.  

So, put up your billboards, write your letters to the editor, blog about whatever you like.  Just don't expect others not be offended.  Your rights to believe to what you believe does not extend to having those beliefs respected.  I will (and do) gladly respect your right to your beliefs, but I do not have to respect your beliefs.  All beliefs and ideas are open to criticism and ridicule, including my own.  

If you don't respect my beliefs, fine.  Want to talk about it? Great.  Discussing and debating ideas are how we learn about each other.  But don't expect me not be offended by what you say, because I sure expect you to be offended by what I have to say.  

Dinos & Darwin

Evolution rocks!

Sciurumimus albersdoerferi by ~MicrocosmicEcology on deviantART

Archaeopteryx litographica by ~Durbed on deviantART

A Scientific Man by *kimikimochi on deviantART

The Omaha Coalition of Reason Billboard

The Omaha Coalition of Reason  has put up this billboard on 72 St., one of the busiest in Omaha.  Surprisingly, I hadn't heard of the organization before.  The have a pretty good list of member groups, only one of which I was anyway involved in (I went to two meetings), Omaha Atheists.  

It's good to learn that there are other secular groups here in town.  My wife and I will have to go to some of the activities of these groups and support them in anyway we can.  Sure, it is great to blog about secular issues and discuss them on Facebook, Google+, and Twitter, but nothing beat good ol' fashioned face to face interaction.

You should check in your area and see what secular groups are there.  Get involved, even if it's just to donate a little of your time or money.  

"God is Just a Placeholder for Our Ignorance"

"God is just a placeholder for our ignorance."

I just thought this up.  It's not original really, at least not as a thought, but a search of google doesn't turn up that exact wording with the same context and meaning (although it does turn up this on Butterflies & Wheels, but that isn't exactly the same).  Yeah for me!  

I want to have buttons and bumper stickers made up with that on it.   Anyone know the best way (read cheapest) to do that?

A Born Again Atheist? It’s More Accurate Than The Christian Kind.

I saw a picture of this button on DeviantArt.  I liked it, but it got me thinking.

Born again Christians use the term "Born Again" to denote their belief that when they accept Jesus as their personal savior they are "born again" in spirit.  This phrase and concept is taken from  John 3:1-36,

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ...

To say, as the button above does, that an atheist is born again once they reject theism is not quite the same thing.  It is really more of a reversion.  

In Islam, converting to Islam is said to be actually reverting because of the Islamic believe that everyone is born a believer in the one true god, but later is lead astray.  Of course, this makes the erroneous (in my view) assumption that there is one true god.  

An atheist is someone who does not believe in any god/gods,  or any supernatural begins like angels, devils, demons, jinns, etc. So to say that you are a "born again" atheist is about as true statement as you can get since none of us are born with a belief in anything, never mind a god or gods.  These beliefs are usually learned or taught to us.  

That's not to say that, left to our own devices we wouldn't create a god or gods on our own to explain the world around us.  This is human psychology and is where religions come from in the first place.  We have evolved to see agency (a specific animated cause) in everything around us, perhaps from the survival need to see a predator instead of just a bunch of leaves or grass in the bushes.  Sure, we could assume that it is just a random pattern, but if it were a lion, we'd be lunchmeat.  Those of our ancestors who assumed that something living was there survived to reproduce and pass on this evolutionary trait.  

This need to see agency in the things around us also gave rise to giving agency to things unseen as well.  When trying to answer what is basically the meaning of life (which we all know is 42, of course), we naturally assigned agency to explain that as well.  A rain god must cause the rain.  A wind god must cause the wind.  Ditto for all of the other things in nature.  

Eventually, logic dictated that the gods must all be ruled by a god of superior power, just as we were ruled by a chieftain or king.  As time went on, logic again told us that our entire universe must have come from somewhere and that there had to be something even greater than the existing gods.  A creator god was born and eventually, this creator god not only ruled over the other gods, but completely did away for the need for them.  Everything could be explained as the actions of this one, all powerful god.

As time went by, our inquiry into the workings nature took on the form of ideas followed by testing.  This lead to the scientific method which then lead to amazingly accurate explanations and predictions of the workings of the universe.  The forces that controlled nature could now be explained without the need for god or gods.  This didn't preclude the actual existence of them, but eliminated the need for them to explain the things that they had always been needed for.

Once we saw that we could explain nature without having to resort to "god did it", many of use came to the belief that since there is no need for a god, there probably isn't a god at all.  

The need to explain the world we live in is universal.  The need to see agency is deeply ingrained in our brains.  This need has driven how we explain our world and has shaped the explanations that all the varied cultures have come up with, leading to all the different gods that have ever been postulated to exist.  But the agency we are wired to see doesn't actually exist.  It was evolved to protect us, not to explain anything.

While we are born with this need, we are not born with a belief of any kind.  Beliefs are shaped by those around us, by social settings.  Most of us accept those beliefs because they are reinforced by our inclination to see agency in non-animate things.  Even as children, we try to use reason and logic to make sense of the world around us, but reason is often trumped by socially enforced beliefs.  It is extremely difficult to shakes these beliefs, but when we let reason and logic guide us, we can finally let go of these beliefs and are "born again" into the state in which we were first born, a state of not knowing.  Then our minds are clear, pure, and ready to find the real answers to the meaning of life.

Dino-rama!

More awesome dinosaur images.  Enjoy!

The alarming tyrant by ~Durbed on deviantART

 

JuraPark 02 by *JWBeyond on deviantART

 

JuraPark 01 by *JWBeyond on deviantART

 

JuraPark 04 by *JWBeyond on deviantART

 

JuraPark 05 by *JWBeyond on deviantART

Deepak Chopra Wisdom - Just a Jumble of Words

Deepak Chopra is a promoter of new age spiritualism.  His books, CDs, and DVDs sell millions.  He is a sought after speaker.  The thing is, most of what he has to say is bullshit.  Its all a mish-mash of new--agey mumbo jumbo.  

A great example of how his pronouncements that sound so profound are really just a steaming pile of nonsense can be found on a website that uses random words culled from Deepak's Twitter feed to create phrases that sound like something Chopra would say, except that they are thrown together randomly.  

Of course, this doesn't prove that Deepak Chopra is full of shit, but it does show that it doesn't take much to sound deeply philosophical and spiritual like Chopra.

Go give it a try.  You know you want to.

It's Not About Abortion Anymore

The so called War on Women has been escalating for months now.  Republican controlled legislatures across the country have been proposing and passing laws that aim to restrict the legal procedure of abortion by basically bullying women and doctors with threats of unneeded exams, arrests, and anything else that they can think of.  

Until now, the issue of the morality of abortion has been up for debate.  Until now.  

State Reps. Lisa Brown, D-West Bloomfield, and Barb Byrum, D-Onondaga of the Michigan House of Representatives have been told that they may no longer speak on the House floor.   The reason is that they dared to propose an amendment to a that would put new restrictions on abortion provider which would restrict a man's access to a vasectomy.

Brown, who voted against the legislation, told supporters of the bill, “I’m flattered you’re all so interested in my vagina. But no means no.”

And Byrum was gaveled out of order after she protested when she wasn’t allowed to speak on her amendment to the bill that would have required proof of a medical emergency or that a man’s life was in danger before a doctor could perform a vasectomy. 1

This action by the leader of the Republican controlled house has turned this debate from one about abortion to one of the right to free speech.  Not only are the representatives being denied their right to speak about a bill that is up for consideration, they constituents are being denied their rights to representation.  

A democracy requires freedom of speech and a voice for everyone in the democratic process.  By denying these women their right to speak out against a proposed law that they disagree with, by denying the voters their right to effective representation, the Republican majority seeks to silence the minority. They seek to silence anyone who would dare challenge them.  This is not democracy; it is despotism.   

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of abortion, if you value what the U.S. stands for; freedom, democracy, liberty, then you must abhor an attempt to shut out and silence dissenting voices in the political process.

It is no longer about the morality of abortion.  It is about the morality of despotism.  It is about the rights of the minority being trampled by the majority.  

The American Revolution came about because Great Britain sought to control us against our will, without giving us the right of representation.  Now the political majority are attempting to do the same by denying dissenters the right to speak out, thereby denying them, and their voters, a voice in the political process.

We are slowly letting our liberties bleed away and those liberties, once gone, will be difficult to regain.    The freedom of speech is the most important right we have.  To attempt to take it away by political force should appall and frighten everyone of us.  

Don't let your rights be trampled on just because you agree with those who would take them away.  Tell your representatives at every level of government that you won't let this stand.  

As Michigan State Sen. Gretchen Whitmer said,

"Right now we are seeing our Republican colleagues in the House working to take away our rights to choose, our rights to health care, our rights to make decisions about our bodies. And just today, they're taking away our female colleagues rights in the House, they're right to speak on the floor." 2

 

1) http://www.freep.com/article/20120614/NEWS15/120614049

2) http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/15/michigan-lawmakers-barred-from-floor-after-vagina-vasectomy-remarks/?iref=allsearch

More and More Dinosaurs. You Know You Love Them!

Short-faced Bear and Saber-Toothed Cat by *deskridge on deviantART

 

Citipati osmolskae by ~vasix on deviantART

Atheist Images and Something That's Not

Understanding by ~AAtheist on deviantART

Einstein on God by ~AAtheist on deviantART

Robert Ingersoll on Bibilical morality by ~rationalhub on deviantART

Giant Mare's tail by ~Hyrotrioskjan on deviantART

Bambiraptor feinbergi by ~puntotu on deviantART

This is the different one:

DQD 01 by ~duongquocdinh on deviantART

The Major Difference Between Science And Faith

The biggest difference between science and faith is that science isn't afraid of the truth (truth meaning empirical evidence).  In other words, science isn't afraid to be wrong.  In fact, this is what makes science the amazing tool that it is for learning about the world we live in.   Faith, on the other hand, often insists on the absence of evidence, or at least empirical evidence that can be tested.  

This difference, the willingness to be wrong, is a fundamental and critical difference between science and religion.  Despite what some may say, because of this there is no compatibility between science and religion; there is no room for accommodation.  

A great example of this is this news story about the discovery of brown dwarfs in our local galactic neighborhood.   Scientists have discovered that there are far less brown dwarfs in a 26 light year radius around our sun than previous studies had predicted.  

Davy Kirkpatrick of the WISE science team at NASA's Infrared Processing and Analysis Center at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena had this to say about the study:

Those discoveries could bring the ratio of brown dwarfs to stars up a bit, to about 1:5 or 1:4, but not to the 1:1 level previously anticipated.

"This is how science progresses as we obtain better and better data," said Kirkpatrick. "With WISE, we were able to test our predictions and show they were wrong. We had made extrapolations based on discoveries from projects like the Two-Micron All-Sky Survey, but WISE is giving us our first look at the coldest brown dwarfs we're only now able to detect."

Here is a scientist not just admitting that his theory was wrong, but actually excited about the fact.  Why? Because this is how we learn things.  This is the way that we find out how the world around us really works.  Being wrong in science isn't a liability, it is a strength.   The history of science, going back to when humans first started making tools, is one of trial and error.  The more you can eliminate what doesn't work, the closer you get to what does work.  And that is what science is all about, finding what works.

Faith, in contrast, relies on gut feelings, mystical prophets preaching magical things, books that make claims that can't be tested. that are improbable and often contradictory.  Faith gives us unicorns, leprechauns, krakens, multiple gods, goddesses, angels, demons, and men rising from the dead.  Faith causes people to die when proven, life saving treatments are available, but shunned.  Faith no only shuns facts, but often demands that facts be ignored.  Martin Luther put it quite well when he said that, "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has." (Tischreden, 1568, #353)

The ability to falsify an idea or hypothesis is crucial to understanding if that idea or hypothesis is correct or not.   In learning about the world around us, the willingness to be wrong is a virtue.  If we accept that something is true without evidence or proof and leave it at that, we make an assumption about the world that very well could be wrong.  If we question and probe, making mistakes along the way, we learn something valuable and are much more likely to be right.

It's been somewhat callously and pithily said that, "Faith flies you into buildings.  Science flies you to the moon."   While this greatly oversimplifies the issue, there is certainly truth in it.  Science does fly us to the moon, the planets, and with the Voyager spacecraft, even to the stars.  Faith, while it might give us comfort, tells us nothing about our world.  It makes no testable predictions, it solves no technical, social, or practical problems.  It teaches us nothing about the world around is.  It is wishes, hopes and dreams, but without the means to achieve any of them.  Faith does not make dreams come true; science does.

Cool Dinosaur Art

Sunbathing raptor by ~novablue on deviantART

 

Sinocalliopteryx gigas by ~vasix on deviantART

More Science-y Images

Microraptor and Sinornis (recoloured) by *Gogosardina on deviantART
Tenontosaurus vs Deinonychus by ~dustdevil on deviantART
Binocular vision in troodontidae by ~MALvit on deviantART