Humanist Dad

A Church Even I Might Attend

2010-06-01T07:53:00.002-04:00

My previous blog post had a comment from a 'Bishop Winslow' who attempted to defend the idea of organized prayer with actual Biblical references (that didn't really make his point), implied references from the Old Testament (no chapter or verse) and an assertion that Great Revivals were preceded by "corporate and organized prayer." I didn't think he made a good case but I did get an understanding of what open prayers mean to fundamentalist Christians - they really believe they are legitimate ways of bringing people to Christ. Prayers are an advertising message that works! (or so they think)

If religions are good at something, it's getting things wrong.

Everybody dislikes advertising messages being imposed upon them, even if they are true. I'm sure even the most ardent fundamentalist would get weary of constant prayers being played from loudspeakers 24/7 over the city. This is what Orwell was trying to remind us of in 1984 (I was privileged to read that book in 1984).

While Bishop Winslow may lament the loss of god in America he's not even aware of what the real problem is. Although some people are losing gods most people are not. If anything, people are losing religion - specific interpretations of god. What people want today is the freedom to understand god their way, not the way of a religion. God-worshipers want to be free from religion to speak to gods in their own manner. Of course, this won't keep the utilities and mortgage paid at the local church. What are churches to do?

Maybe churches need to stop the one-way flow of god-worship. Instead of the leader speaking to the followers why not take a lesson from the American Constitution? Create a church of 'We The People'. Put the members in charge. Let the members speak about what god means to them instead of letting the minister monopolize the interpretation. Make all prayer time silent. No one leads the congregation in prayer. Everyone takes that one or two minutes to pray and say whatever they want to whatever god they choose. A church is no longer an institution to dictate but a place of worship where anyone, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists can gather to hear inspiring messages (members can take turns talking about things that interest them in science, philosophy, comedy or religion). Every gathering is a meeting not of people who are like-minded in religion but are interested in current events, new ideas and want a communal place to converse with god (or not!).

That's a church that maybe, just maybe, I'd go to.

Why Christians Should Oppose Organized Prayer

2010-05-29T10:29:00.002-04:00

I've found that trying to convince Christians that organized prayer in public is wrong, never works. They interpret it as, "you're trying to take away my right to pray!" In recognition of this, I've formulated a better argument against it which I hope even Christians will appreciate.

In the past, I would sometimes point out Matthew 6, verse 5-6:

6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Christians tend to ignore this passage or interpret it to say that an organized prayer in a church is fine since everyone there is praying en masse so the whole church or event is a 'closet' shared by like-minded people.

However, what Christians really are neglecting is how organized prayer is really interrupting their personal relationship with Jesus and their freedom to pray whenever and however they want.

If they truly want freedom and a personal relationship with Jesus they should be demanding that they be free to say whatever prayer they want, in any way they want, inside their own minds. When a person of authority leads a prayer out loud they are infringing on how a believer can speak in a personal way to Jesus.

This now has become my argument against prayers in schools, at public events or during Town Council meetings. If time for a prayer is going to be allowed, every praying person must be free to say whatever prayer they want. It is an infringement of a person's freedom to have a directed prayer or to be coerced into saying the prayer the leader chooses.

If I step into a church and an organized prayer is going to be said, that's fine since I have opted-in to be a part of how this church conducts its rituals. However, because public places are open to everyone, no one must give up their freedom of mind or conscious so that another person or group can impose their prayer on those around them. Even Christians should be offended that someone else is telling them which prayer to say during their personal conversation with Jesus.

I don't oppose a 'moment of silence' to open a public event since I am free (and are believers) to do whatever mental ritual I want (or not) without interference. A good example is the two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day. During these two minutes, I can remember the great wars (or not) in any way I want. I choose to think about my grandfather that fought in the First World War. I'd be angry if some person or group demanded I take part in their memories.

Everybody Draw Mohammad Day!

2010-05-20T09:29:00.002-04:00

My contribution:

The Foundation of Public Education and Why You Must Protect It

2009-09-05T08:01:00.002-04:00

A local public school decided to send all Grade 8 students on an outdoor educational experience at a local camp. The purpose of the trip was to enhance their learning of nature and to provide the opportunity for the students to bond with each other, their teachers and their school. It was reasonably priced and the organizing teacher had been to the facility before and was highly impressed with the staff and their dedication to the kids.

I very strongly opposed the trip, have sent a letter to the principal and have called my local Trustee to explain the gravity of my concerns. If you lived within the boundaries of my school board, I would hope you'd do the same.

You see, the camp is a Christian Camp. Here are the first two paragraphs from the Camp's Welcome page (I have omitted the camp name):

Camp 'M...' is a Christian Camp that is committed to introducing children and young people to the message of Jesus Christ from the Bible through a camping experience that incorporates practical spiritual teaching, skill development, physical activity, friendship and lots of fun.

We want each camper to feel welcome, safe and accepted for who they are. Our goal is to provide real experiences; character-building opportunities that will develop young people physically, emotionally, socially, and spiritually and allow them to stretch and flourish – to be the people God wants them to be.

The main purpose of this camp is not to provide outdoor education, it is to introduce, strengthen and indoctrinate children into the camp's specific view of Christianity. The camping experience is merely icing on a cake. I'm reminded of the story of Hansel and Gretel where they are attracted to the house by its candy covering but this is merely a ruse to get the children inside the house for an unrelated purpose.

My local trustee immediately recognized my concern. The two representatives at the school I have spoken to (a teacher and an administrator) did not. There is no requirement that they agree with me but it is disturbing that they do not even understand my objection. Instead of questioning whether the trip may violate Board policy or the Education Act they are trying to defend the trip. I understand that the trip may be a very important activity for the kids and I completely support its purpose. However, it may not happen at this camp!

Why am I so concerned? So what if a bunch of new teenagers hear a few prayers during a camping trip? Won't most of the kids simply ignore any of the religious messages? Why not just let the kids and the school have some fun?

The answers to these questions are complex but I believe it boils down to a simple, fundamental principle of public education; a grand pillar that must never be allowed to fall.

Education of children must take the form of giving them useful and substantiated skills and knowledge. The ultimate strength of the public education system is that it does not teach opinion, it teaches facts. We recognize that every human on the planet has a unique and complex combination of opinions on thousands of issues from aesthetics, politics, history to the supernatural and beyond. However because they are unique, it is impossible for there to be two or more humans holding opinions that are completely true. Either one person holds only true opinions, or no one does. If one person holds the truth, how do we find them? What tools do we use to determine that their opinions are, in fact, true?

The answer to this is the greatest strength of public education. 'Separate' or 'private' schools, by definition, tout that they are the ones with the answers. They wish to remain separate and private for the very reason that they believe they have the 'correct' opinion and they want to be able to enclose impressionable young children within a confined bubble where the only opinion they get to hear and are not allowed to question, is that of the school, its administrators and the benefactors.

The power of the public school system is not that it allows all opinions free reign in the school but that it allows only those opinions which have clear, substantiated and peer-reviewed evidence on their side. One plus one equals two is not taught because it is the opinion of some people that say it is true, it is taught because mountains of evidence demonstrate that it is. Public education teaches public knowledge that has passed the rigorous scientific method, the greatest tool that humans ever invented.

Teachers and administrators must recognize that their opinions may be flawed. They must also recognize that they are likely to not know which of their opinions are flawed. For this reason, teachers and administrators must agree to keep their opinions to themselves and never try to convince the children in their charge to adopt their specific ideas. They are bound by an understanding that it is their job to ensure that children are given only the knowledge which has been gathered by the most educated people in their field. As the saying goes, "only the facts."

But, teachers have one more important role. It's to teach kids how to think, not what to think. They need to teach children how to recognize the difference between opinion and fact. How to analyze opinions, how to distinguish between real evidence and anecdotes. Ultimately, it is not the teacher's job to make children think like they do, but to teach them how to find the flaws in the teacher's own opinions. Any teacher should feel proud when a student makes the teacher reconsider an opinion. They've done their job well.

I opposed the trip to the Christian camp because the camp will attempt to pass their opinion of their specific brand of religion onto the children under the guise of truth. They know that most children will not fall to their knees and believe during prayer before spaghetti but they are planting seeds. And, like every farmer and marketing person knows, the more seeds you plant, the greater the chance your crop will grow.

Stand up for public education! Contact your schools and convince yourself that your school is adhering to these high standards. Let's raise a generation of children that will not adopt our opinions but scrutinize and improve them.

Science Centre Promoting Pseudo-Science?

2009-06-22T22:13:00.003-04:00

I recently came back from a trip to Dynamic Earth in Sudbury, Ontario with my daughter's class. Great facility and a fun tour into a inactive mine!

However, while perusing the Gift Shop I came across some magnetic jewelry. However, under the display was a bunch of cards from the manufacturer of the jewelry that was extolling the virtues of magnets and how researchers are finding health benefits from them.

Wait.

Pseudo-scientific claims at a Science facility?!?

I've sent off a letter to them and will post their response. The letter is below:

On June 11th, I was a parent volunteer with a Grade 5 class visiting Dynamic Earth. The kids thoroughly enjoyed the facility and enjoyed learning about the science of mining, rocks and minerals.

As always, the gift shop is a fun place for the children to browse and find science-related gifts and memorabilia. However, I was shocked and deeply disappointed to see a small card on display near the magnetic jewelry that was promoting the 'health benefits' of wearing magnetic bracelets. Although I misplaced the card, I remember it saying something about 'researchers have found benefits of magnets for health'.

I am a teacher, skeptic and staunch defender of science. How could a 'science' facility actually promote pseudo-science about magnetic jewelry?

I've taken the liberty to give you a website that looks at the research done on 'magnetic healing' here:

http://skepdic.com/magnetic.html

However, I'm sure you have real scientists at your facility that could look up research into 'magnetic healing' and form their own opinions.

Please, for the good of science, remove any and all claims that magnets might heal people. A scientific facility has an obligation to promote real science and never, ever, promote pseudo-science that is permeating our culture and standing in the way of valuable research. If people want to buy jewelry that is magnetic, fine, but don't promote non-scientific nonsense.

Who Should Vote?

2009-05-31T11:13:00.003-04:00

Democracy is a great political innovation. Being able to voice your opinion and having a say in who and how a country is run is powerful and leading to far greater social reform and happiness.

However, a significant number of people freely choose not to vote. Further, many people vote along a party or historical line and attach their vote to a specific issue. In many cases, the reason for supporting (or opposing) an issue is not very clear as the voter has not spent much time understanding their view or the other.

Is it time to change the way we allow people to vote?
In Canada, once you reach 18, you are allowed to vote as long as you are a Canadian citizen. That's it. You magically become eligible to vote! Why are there no other requirements to be able to vote?

First, I don't like the 'regional representation' model of Canadian politics. Years ago, this made sense because travel and communication were limited. However, nowadays voters can easily vote on specific issues and don't necessarily need to be 'regionally' recognized. In fact, if political parties were assigned seats based on national support, minority parties would actually receive more seats since their support is usually thinly spread out and unable to gain power in any one region. Further, some voters may not vote for their preferred party recognizing that their vote will be useless if they are in a minority. Also, this would prevent 'defensive' voting (ie. voting Liberal just to make sure Conservatives don't get a lot of votes even though you support Green).

Professional Voters
I think voting on important issues requires an educated voter. The main problem with Democracy is that anyone can vote, even those who know little about the issue they are voting for! I'd like to see a system where people are required to learn about issues and then earn the right to vote on it. This class of people would become 'qualified' or even 'expert' voters.

The idea is to have a test that neutrally presents the sides of an issue. A potential voter must answer questions that show they understand the arguments being presented and then earn the privilege to vote. This does not mean that uninformed people cannot voice opinions, it simply means they don't vote.

Deciding Issues
Take the issue of Evolution in America. Should Americans 'vote' on whether it is taught in public schools? There are arguments for and against teaching evolution. However, due to the low levels of science education in America, does it make sense to have citizens, illiterate in evolution, to decide whether it's taught?

Imagine critics of evolution want to remove it from the curriculum. To gain support for their idea, they would need to educate those who agree with them not just on the anti-evolution arguments, but also the pro-evolution argument because they know the potential voter must pass a questionnaire to see if they really understand the issue. Only those who do will be allowed to vote on it!

My goal with this idea is to get public policy issues passed by those who are most qualified to decide them. This is very similar to the peer review process in science. In fact, it should ensure that future policies are decided by scientific methods and not on rhetorical arguments. Would you vote for that?

DPRJones is Back... but where's FrankReturns?

2009-05-22T12:51:00.002-04:00

Yes! Justice is served!

DPRJones was suspended (apparently, permanently) two days ago because he received the third inappropriate video-flagging in a short period of time. Anyone who has reviewed the subject videos is aware that they did not breach any YouTube guidelines and were 'false-flagged'. Many of us suspected FrankReturns was responsible for the false-flagging campaign.

And now, in a supreme act of pwnage... DPRJones' account is back and FrankReturns has been suspended... AWESOME!

Funny, I sent FrankReturns a message yesterday that simply said, "Goodbye, FrankReturns". My prediction was true! All hail ME, the new Messiah!

Then again, leave me alone, I'm busy buying lottery tickets...

Jesus is Everywhere!

2009-05-19T10:23:00.002-04:00

Special report to the HumanistDad Blog

The Glory of Jesus Appears In Man's Toilet

Carole Rose Andersen-Polata
Religion Writer

A man has refused to flush his toilet after seeing the image of Jesus in it. Paul Orland Oderkirk, 48, from Ontario has had a steady stream of onlookers coming by his house and asking to go into his bathroom. "It's all a bit overwhelming," says Oderkirk, a long-haul truck driver, "people keep knocking on the door and offering money to see it."

According to Oderkirk, the image appeared shortly after eating dinner. "I decided to eat some KFC after gettin' back from Idaho over the weekend with my load of corn and I suddenly had a real urge to use the bathroom. I almost didn't get my pants off!" Oderkirk says he sat down just in time and barely had a chance to grab a nearby copy of Playboy when he experienced an life-changing sense of relief. "I remember thinking, 'God that feels good' but, man, the smell started to burn my eyes! That fried chicken seems to come out greasier than it goes in."

Oderkirk said he felt a great shiver after the initial onslaught and is convinced the Holy Spirit entered him right then. "I leaned back against the tank breathed out a great gust of air and found myself wiping a handfull of 2-ply over my forehead 'cause the sweat was starting to run down my face." Feeling a bit dizzy, Oderkirk had to grab onto the towel bar to get himself off. It was when he turned to unroll some toilet paper that he saw the image in the bowl before his eyes, "It was a miracle!"

There, in the bowl, was the image of a praying Jesus. "It weren't no accident either, he even had some whole corn kernels for eyes!" Oderkirk rushed to tell his neighbour, a minister at the local Presbyterian church. "Next time," Oderkirk recalled, "I'll put me pants back on first. The Minister and his wife weren't none too pleased at first."

The Minister, who still goes by his old army name, Sgt. Harry I. Treadbottom says he refused to go with Oderkirk. "There was no way I was going to let some burly half-naked man drag me off to his bathroom to look at an unflushed toilet. I don't care what he says!"

After the police arrived, pictures were taken of the Holy feces and no charges will be brought down upon Oderkirk. However, word has spread of the Holy sighting and Oderkirk is not sure what the future will bring. "All's I can say is that I'm going to need another bathroom in me house since I can't use that one no more."

Oderkirk has not ruled out selling the Holy find on Ebay but he's not sure how to ship it.

Atheists on TV

2009-05-19T10:13:00.002-04:00

From the Australian TV show Compass, we have a documentary, "Atheism - An Australian Perspective".

They chose to talk with 'moderate' atheists and present a good, touchy-feely viewpoint. The atheists interviewed hint that religion is necessary for many people and we need to learn to all get along. I don't disagree with this view but I think it should have been said that people are free to have religion but they must recognize its place: keep it personal. The only truce I can see with religion is if the religious accept that they keep their religion applying only to themselves and not attempting to enforce it on others - which, of course, especially applies to the children of the religious!

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

The BEST Church of God

2009-05-14T08:01:00.002-04:00

This is a funny 'debate' between the congregants of 'The Best Church of God' and Sunsara Taylor. I've never heard of Sunsara Taylor but if she's been on The O'Reilly Factor and he didn't like her, it's probably someone worth checking out!

Best Church of God -- Debate with Sunsara Taylor

For an amateur skit, I thought they did an excellent job. I especially liked the introduction of the first man, "he owns a hardware store, a gun and a woman!"

Thanks to The Barefoot Bum for the link!

Venomfangx Gone?

2009-05-06T21:46:00.002-04:00

Venomfangx has just released a short video about death threats his family has received. His website has also gone down. He's blamed atheists for threats in the past so it's odd he's blaming Muslims this time. I don't remember him ever directly attacking Muslims in his videos:

As much as I'd like to see his videos and 'ministry' disappear (and maybe he get some mental help) I certainly couldn't support crazy death threats. But, it makes me wonder, why would Muslims pick on him? Is he trying to find someone to blame for his parents yanking the website? Always something weird going on with Venomfangx...

Carl Sagan on Charlie Rose

2009-05-01T07:35:00.002-04:00

I haven't blogged in awhile (arguing with theists a lot on Facebook!) but here's an interview I found of Carl Sagan, on Charlie Rose TV, before he died:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

How to "Know"

2009-04-24T08:35:00.002-04:00

Frequently I run into people who say that "science doesn't know everything" or "there are many ways of knowing". This drives me crazy! Here we are living in an age of science and technology that is gathering knowledge at an exponential rate and yet, people want to turn their back on it and declare it to be wrong.

Matt Dillahunty, host of The Atheist Experience TV show brought up an excellent point to remember when talking to people about this issue. Ask them:

"If you had a better way of acquiring knowledge and truth, how would you demonstrate it?"

Of course, the answer would be to use a scientific approach! In other words, we'd need to use science to prove a better method than science...

Matt also had another great example on the show. He told a caller to pick Heads or Tails. The caller said, "heads", Matt flipped the coin and it came up Heads. There is no way the caller could have known heads would come up but yet, they made a correct prediction - one could say the caller 'knew' it would be heads. However, what benefit is there to studying how the caller knew this? Did the caller 'know'? Did the caller have a currently unexplainable method of 'knowing' how the coin would land? Maybe, but in order to find out, we'd have to test his claims! In order for the caller's claims to knowledge to have any validity, the caller would have to demonstrate that they can predict the coin flip with a far higher frequency than chance on repeated trials. In other words, use the scientific method, to know.

Tidal and Wave Power

2009-04-15T10:54:00.002-04:00

Slightly different thoughts today. I was reading about tidal and wave power and it looks like it could be a viable technology that could provide a significant (15%?) amount of power, clean power. But then I got to thinking...

One person talked about how mother nature is providing tidal power for free and we are just wasting it by not using it. But, what did they mean by that? How is tidal power being 'wasted'? In other words, if we aren't using the energy, where is it going?

If a tidal power generation operation were to take 50% of the energy from the tide, that means that 50% of the energy the tide used to provide is not being used naturally. So, if we take tidal energy, what effect does that have on nature?

Lots of questions.

My first thought is heat. Eventually, all energy is lost as heat. Therefore, current tidal energy must be being converted into heat. Is that heat warming the water? Will the removal of the tidal energy result in lower water temperatures thereby affecting life in the water? Tides also cause mechanical erosion so a reduction in tidal energy will slow erosion - that's probably a good thing but I'm not sure if erosion provides benefits to sealife in the form of releasing minerals?

I think back to when people would have looked at an untouched forest of trees and marvel at all the wood they could cut down and then eventually cut the whole forest. Or when the nearly inexhaustible supply of cod on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland let to the virtual destruction of it. By siphoning tidal power on a large scale, what effect will we have?

Opinions and links to resources would be appreciated!

How To Follow The Commandments - Part 1

2009-04-08T08:08:00.004-04:00

Let's start with the most popular Commandment of all:

God: "Thou Shalt Not Kill!"

Christian: "God, the enemy is trying to kill me!"

God: "Kill them, kill their livestock, dash the little ones' heads upon the rocks but save all the women who have not known a man for yourselves."

Christian: "Umm, but I'm not supposed to kill..."

God: "kill, Kill, KILL!"

Christian: "But, the Commandment...!"

God: "KKKIIIIILLLLLLLLL!"

Christian: "But God, you are so great and powerful, why not just make them disappear?"

God:

Christian: "God?"

God:

Christian: "God? Are you there? If I kill them, I break a Commandment, why don't you just do it?"

God:

God:

God:

...

Christian (with sword through his stomach): "GODAMNIT!"

Christianity Made Simple

2009-04-05T12:10:00.001-04:00

AND it came to pass that God had a son, but not really, so He made Mary pregnant with His son, but had an angel do the deed instead.

AND His son came to be a man but was really a God.

BUT, there is only one God so the Son is God and God is the Son but yet the Son is a man who is on earth and God is the Father who is in Heaven but also on the earth as a Son.

IT came to pass that the Son was tortured for the sins of mankind as a sacrifice to God, who really is the Son on earth and the God in the sky. Thus God as the Son was tortured to please God, who is also the Son, to please God, the Son.

THE Son was then crucified and sacrificed to God, but God is the Son and the Son, God, so God sacrificed Himself, to Himself as penance for the sins of mankind.

THE death of the Son pleased God (who is now the dead Son) so God, who is now dead, resurrected the Son, but really resurrecting Himself even though He is really dead and couldn't have resurrected Himself if He is dead.

AND so, the Son died, but not really since the Son came back to life and now lives in Heaven with God, who is really the Son, so God and the Son now both live in Heaven even though there is only one God that is actually two Gods living in the same body as God and Son and mankind is saved.

AND if you don't believe this story you go STRAIGHT TO HELL!

Venomfangx Gets Fired

2009-04-04T23:35:00.002-04:00

Venomfangx is probably the most outrageous, delusional, immoral, Christian on YouTube. I'm sure most of you have heard of him but this video shows the extent of his stunning ignornance. Hear about how he lost his job because he'd rather preach the gospel to a stranger than to do the job he was hired to do (apparently, it's happened more than once)!

But he's come up with a great solution. He'll stop working and preach on the street full time as long as viewers send him money so that he doesn't have to actually work or do anything that has any usefulness, whatsoever. Heck, I'd consider paying him to stay at home, disconnect his internet and computer and never, ever, be heard from again:

Most Inhuman Statement Ever?

2009-04-02T15:21:00.003-04:00

I'm active in a Facebook forum that recently added the topic of Homosexuality. I edited it down to the relevant juicy bits. Here was the opening question:

A. Do you accept that it should be legal?
B. Do you accept it as moral?
C. Should gays be able to marry?
D. Should there be special hate laws for use against people beating up gays because they are gay?
E. Should political pressure be put on nations that outlaw homosexuality?

Here's one responder and my arguement with him:

He who shall not be named
A. NO
B. NO
C. NO
D. NO (people also beat up people because they are obese, etc)
E. NO

Gosh, that was easy!!

If you dont cut the tree at its roots and only trim the leaves and branches, the tree will still grow.

Why? Because homosexuals wish to pervert people with their perversion. Simple and to the point.

Me
This is evil. First, you assume homosexuals are evil and now you want to exterminate them - actually committing an act of greater evil. You are sick.

He who shall not be named
I NEVER stated that the HOMOSEXUALS are to be destroyed.

What I DID state is that the HOMOSEXUALITY should be cut right out, NOT the PEOPLE.

The HOMOSEXUAL ACT(S) IS/ARE the problem, NOT the people.

My apologies nevertheless for not clarifying my position.

Me
It's quite clear what you said. You eliminate homosexuality and jewishness* in the same way.

(*Edit: I should have said dark skin here but I left it in for authenticity)

He who shall not be named
My tree analogy was...eliminating homosexuality, NOT the people...and one major way is to educate them and their current lifestyle.

Me
Another is to educate you and your bigotry.

He who shall not be named
I would rather be a bigot, not only in your eyes, but in the entire world's eyes, than to be a bigot in God's eyes (emphasis mine) (pls note: not to be misunderstood by assuming that God is bigoted...im just making a point)

Plus, the whole world has seen the results of homosexuality.

Me
And if your god doesn't exist where does that leave you?

You just voted yourself off the island.

Goodbye.

Humanity will still be here if you ever wish to rejoin us.

I couldn't believe that this guy would take a stand against every person in the world, not for the good of humanity, but for god! How can you possibly deal with a person like this?

Excellent Video on Openmindedness

2009-04-02T08:12:00.002-04:00

QualiaSoup on YouTube has produced another great video:

I posted this on an Atheist vs. Theist Facebook forum for a reaction from theists. So far, we can only hear theistic crickets responding....

Genesis II

2009-04-01T16:11:00.002-04:00

In the beginning, we knew nothing so the answer was always, God.

Then, we began to ask questions. We prayed but God never replied. So, again we said, the answer is God.

It came to pass one day when a person had a question and, instead of asking God, they decided to conduct a test. The answer, strangely, was not God.

It came to pass that more people asked more questions and did not ask God for the answer. They created tests and experiments and found more answers that did not end with God.

Soon, God no longer made mountains or made babies. God did not cause the stars to shine or apples to fall. More questions and more experiments meant that God was no longer the only answer. It seemed that God was never the answer.

It is here where Science was born, and God, became god.

Pascal's Wager

2009-03-31T09:54:00.003-04:00

I remember coming up with Pascal's Wager when I was in my twenties, even though I'd never realized that Pascal thought it up first!

At the time, I couldn't think of an adequate response to it. Fortunately, I learned. Here's my favourite refutations of the Wager:

1. Bertrand Russell response - "But Sir, you didn't give us enough evidence!"

2. The "Which God?" response - Pascal was assuming Yahweh in his argument. But, if god is really, ummmm, Thor, then Pascal's bet fails no matter what you bet on. If you choose to believe in Yahweh, or not, you still lose and go to Thor's hell.

3. The "Worst God!" response - It's better to believe in the god with the worst Hell since the Hell of all other gods will be less severe. Paradoxically, this means believing in a god that is able to dream up the most Evil Hell - not a trait I would want in a 'loving' god.

4. The "Atheist Heaven" response - If I discover, after death, that god exists and it asks why I never believed, I would explain that my logic and reasoning abilities must have come from god and I must have been expected to use them. Using them to the full extent possible showed that god must be improbable. Wouldn't god make heaven available to those who used all the abilities that god gave us and decided god wasn't there? Heaven must be for atheists!

Anyone have any more? Anyone? Anyone?

Objectum Sexual

2009-03-25T14:12:00.002-04:00

Learn about the bizarre condition of 'Objectum Sexual' - people who have sexual attractions to objects. They don't just use an object for sex, they actually are sexually attracted to the object itself.

Part 1:

What I find even more strange is that people who have clearly unusual perspectives on the world are functional. They think, they act, they participate (sort of) in society and yet, .... and yet.

It's easy to say they're crazy, but it's their otherwise normal behaviour that really puzzles me. If crazy, I'd expect them to be completely irrational, running wild, screaming gibberish but they don't.

I guess as long as they keep their odd behaviour to themselves and don't harm anyone, there's nothing to be concerned about.

(picked up from Daniel Florian )

Left Wing vs.Right Wing: Are They The Same?

2009-03-25T10:19:00.002-04:00

I'm starting to think that all arguments from the Left and the Right boil down to a simple Argument from Authority. Maybe this is too simplistic but hear me out.

Conservatives point to traditional authority, God, Country, Leaders, Parents, etc, as a source for how we should behave. Last night I read an excellent point from Jared Diamond's book, "Collapse: How Societies Choose To Fail or Succeed":

The values to which people cling most stubbornly under inappropriate conditions are those values that were previously the source of their greatest triumphs over adversity.

Conservatives look to the past as evidence for behaviour today. Since a certain set of rules led to a favourable outcome, a return to these old ways will solve a current problem. This was a 'light bulb' moment for me regarding dogmatic theists. They really are using evidence for support of their positions and really do believe that their assumptions are true. Asking people to 'accept god' is really asking people to accept the wisdom of the past that will fix a problem today. They don't necessarily understand why the old ways will work, but they believe it will.

Liberals, on the other hand, also argue from authority but, at first glance, it's not clear who the authority is. I believe the answer is everyone. Liberals want to solve problems by asking everyone to find their own answers. This is what leads liberals to an extreme form of tolerance where we are expected to view everyone's ideas on equal ground. Don't hurt anybody's feelings by telling them they are wrong; accept that maybe they are right and that your idea is no better than anyone else's. Let everyone be the master of their domain. Liberals are pointing to the future to fix problems by expecting each person to eventually develop a problem-solving system that will work for them.

These approaches are incompatible. Conservatives want someone to be in charge and liberals want everyone to be in charge. Ironically, Conservatives are in the better position because they have evidence from history on their side. Liberals only have 'hope' that people will find their way.

I see only one solution here. Abandon all arguments from authority. But with no one in charge, how do we make decisions? Instead of following what we think, or what other people tell us, we must use the most important tool mankind has ever devised: The Scientific Method.

We need to stop trusting what people say or what our 'gut' tells us. We need to apply the scientific method to lead us to useful answers. Conservatives need to understand that past success is not a guarantee of future success. Conditions change and a method that worked yesterday, may not apply even if the situation looks similar. Liberals need to stop assuming everyone has equal ideas. Some are just plain wrong and we need to confront those ideas head on.

Instead, let's use the scientific method to evaluate our options and find the best possible solutions, no matter who does the experiment.

A Child's Experience With Death

2009-03-18T22:08:00.003-04:00

A girl drowned after falling through the ice in a lake at the beginning of the March Break. She was my son's age, in the same grade and went to the same school (but in a different class). When I told my son what happened, his response was something like, "that's the first time someone I've known has died."

We talked about it a bit but, for the most part, I left him alone to think about it. He didn't seem too upset, but he did keep thinking about it during the day. Yesterday, we drove past a different lake, still covered in ice and my son put down his Nintendo DS and sat there, looking out the window, thinking. He didn't feel like playing it anymore. We couldn't talk about it because there were 3 other kids in the car and I didn't want to embarrass or upset him, so I let him think.

Today, he was in good spirits but I needed to talk to him about it. I wasn't really sure what to say so we went for a short drive and passed by a river and I told him about a boy that I knew that drowned when I was about his age. The boy was playing on some ice, fell in, and died. So, we talked.

I wanted him to understand that when he gets back to school, he's going to hear many kids talking about how she's in heaven and she's actually OK. I told him that I didn't believe that and I felt that saying things like this actually belittles her short life. Instead of saying, "don't feel bad, she's fine!" I wanted him to know he needs to think that dying is a real tragedy. This girl will never again go to school, grow up, experience more life. The real lesson here is that life really is very, very precious and we need to learn that this life, our life now, is the only one we know we will get so we need to spend it wisely.

I didn't want him to be depressed and think that there was no purpose to life. Instead, I wanted him to treat life as being even more special and important. Don't feel bad that it will end. Don't feel comforted that maybe another life is coming. Instead, feel awe that you are here and you get the chance to live more days. So fill those days doing the things that inspire you. Learn! Enjoy! Don't feel bad about the days this girl won't have, feel wonderful about the experiences she did have! Her life was short, but at least she had one.

I'm not sure if he understood all that we talked about but he did feel better. I think he appreciates now that he needs to start thinking about the things he wants to do and work for them. Hopefully, he'll learn that now is the time to start to make some meaning and purpose to his life.

After all, isn't this the humanist perspective? Live your life to the fullest, don't interfere with another's life if you can help it. If you can, try to help others fulfill their dreams too. We're all on the same ride together. Some get off before they want to, but the rest of us can help make our turn as purposeful as we want it to be.

When it's my turn to leave the ride, don't look back. I'll have enjoyed my ride, now you go enjoy the rest of yours.

'God' told man to kill bus passenger

2009-03-04T06:15:00.002-05:00

From today's Toronto Star, an update on the Greyhound Bus beheading from last year. The full story with video can be found here . Once again, god (and not some crazy atheist) is involved:

Accused stabbed, beheaded and mutilated victim in an effort to 'protect himself,' court hears

Mar 04, 2009 04:30 AM
Chinta Puxley
THE CANADIAN PRESS

WINNIPEG – The man who beheaded a passenger on a Greyhound bus was a victim himself, tormented by the voice of God telling him to do it, a forensic psychiatrist told a second-degree murder trial yesterday.

The voice told Vince Li to use an assumed name and get on the bus travelling from Edmonton to Thunder Bay, Ont., last July, Dr. Stanley Yaren said on the first day of Li's trial.

Li chose to sit next to Tim McLean because McLean made a "friendly gesture" to him, Yaren said.

As the bus neared Portage la Prairie, Man., around 8:30 p.m., 40-year-old Li started hearing voices.

"A voice from God told him Mr. McLean was a force of evil and was about to execute him," Yaren told the judge hearing the case.

"He had to act fast to protect himself. In response to that, in a state of panic and fearful for his life, he carried out the acts that he did."

Killing McLean wasn't enough, Yaren said.

Li, whom Yaren diagnosed as schizophrenic, believed 22-year-old McLean was still capable of coming back to life, so he continued to mutilate the body and scattered the parts around the bus, the psychiatrist testified.

Although he admitted his guilt to officers that night, Li pleaded not guilty yesterday. His lawyers are arguing he is not criminally responsible because he is mentally ill.

Yaren concurred.

Li is still psychotic and believes it's just a matter of time before God kills him, Yaren said. He continues to have hallucinations and hear voices, but is on strong antipsychotic medication.

"Mr. Li did not understand he was killing an innocent bystander. He did not understand his actions were wrong," said Yaren.

"It would be in some sense easier if Mr. Li was an anti-social psychopath with a history of malicious behaviour, but he isn't that. He is, as I've come to know him, a decent person. He is as much a victim of this horrendous illness ... as Mr. McLean was a victim."

McLean's family, many of whom came face-to-face with the killer for the first time yesterday, found the suggestion repugnant.

"At some point, my son's biggest mistake was going, `How's it going?' And for that his head was cut off and his insides were splayed all over the inside of that bus," said Carol deDelley, McLean's mother. "I'm having a very difficult time having any sort of sympathy (for Li) ... I don't think Mr. Li is a victim here."

An agreed statement of facts read out in court said Li, blood smeared on his face, had to be Tasered twice when he first escaped from the bus.

After that, Li politely apologized to police and pleaded with officers to take his life. "I'm sorry," he told police. "I'm guilty. Please kill me."

The statement said Li attacked McLean "for no apparent reason" and ignored horrified passengers as he stabbed the young man.

Police said McLean's body parts were found throughout the bus in plastic bags, although part of his heart and both eyes were never found and were presumed eaten by Li. He has denied that, but "there is no other possible location for those items," Crown prosecutor Joyce Dalmyn said.

The victim's ear, nose and tongue were found in Li's pocket.

Thou Shalt Not Kill (or was that Commit Murder?)

2009-02-25T08:43:00.002-05:00

I found it interesting to learn that the Ten Commandments are not really ten at all. According to Wikipedia, there are 14 or 15 commandments (which would explain this clip).

It would seem that different denominations have decided to create their own version of the Ten Commandments which doesn't hold well to the idea that these Commandments are absolutes, as Christians try so hard to portray.

My favourite is the 'Thou Shall Not Kill" or "Thou Shall Not Murder". It turns out that Catholics prefer 'Kill' and Lutherans, 'Murder'. So, which is it?

Killing and murder are not the same thing. It's a matter of intention. Let's say I'm driving my car and I swerve to avoid a deer. As a result, I go into the opposing lane, crash into an oncoming car, and kill the driver. I have now killed and go to Catholic Hell, or do I go to Lutheran Heaven? It's all so confusing.

Virtue, Wisdom and Janitors

2009-02-24T14:20:00.001-05:00

Wonderful talk on TED by Barry Schwartz:

Dealing With Death

2009-02-24T10:14:00.000-05:00

Not everything atheist/humanist need be serious:

Hitchens vs. Tharoor

2009-02-22T09:22:00.002-05:00

The recent actions on YouTube with Thunderf00t makes this video even more relevant. Here, I've dug up a debate by Christopher Hitchens and Shashi Tharoor (a British-born Hindu member of the UN)

Part 1:

The other parts can be linked from YouTube. I especially liked how Hitchens handled the issue of people yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre to defend how ALL speech should be free.

Help with my Atheist Prayer

2009-02-21T10:42:00.002-05:00

Not having written a poem for, oh, 30 years maybe I felt compelled to write an Atheist Prayer. I'd appreciate some help in fine-tuning it a bit:

My Atheist Prayer

God, save us from those who believe in you.

May I learn how little I know
May I use science to always discover truth

May I not stand in the way of another's dreams
May they not stand in the way of mine

May I know, when I die, I did my best
May I leave the world, a better place

To where I go I do not know
But I trust

Heaven, is for atheists.

Purposely, it does not rhyme to thumb my nose at the teacher in 8th grade who told me that all poems had to!

Franchises: The Religion of Business

2009-02-17T07:40:00.002-05:00

(This blog entry is not purporting to give legal advice and is solely the opinion of the author. It is not meant to refer to any specific franchise or franchisors.)

I used to own a franchise. My parents originally owned it and then I bought them out and ran it for a few years. At the time, my only real complaint had to do with paying the royalties that didn't seem to have any value associated to them. It wasn't until I sold the franchise that I began to see the parallels with a franchise and a religion. Below are just some parallels, but I might add more if the mood strikes.

Dogma
A franchise has a Franchise Agreement and an Operations Manual. These two documents are similar to religious dogma in that they clearly spell out what you, the franchisee, are required to do, or not do (an astute reader of the Agreement will usually discover that there is very little said about what the Franchisor is expected to do!). They are not scientific documents with extensive references to show that they are valid ways of conducting business. They are declaring the 'truth' on how to run your business based on a formula that other centres may have used to be successful. However, this method of business does not necessarily work in all markets.

If you are considering a franchise, do not assume the franchisor is in business to make you successful. If you are given a Franchise Agreement to review there are two very important things you must do:

1. Do not sign it until you,
2. Consult professional help through a lawyer that specializes in franchise agreements and visit franchisee.org's web page that list some of the worst problems a franchisee may face.

Remember, you will be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the franchisor over the life of the contract so don't be afraid to spend a couple thousand to get top-notch advice to protect you.

Tithing
Churches tend to advise their followers to give 10% of their income to the church. Franchisors usually want a percentage of your total sales as a royalty. What is this money giving you? The church gives you a community (at a price) and an offer that you can't realize until after you die. Franchisors may offer even less.

Usually the royalty you pay does not come with any direct benefit from the franchisor. The royalty is what you pay to use the franchisor's name in the market because their name, product or service is what will attract customers. However, as I've heard it said, the franchise usually only gets you the customer the first time, but it's up to you to make them want to return. In many ways, the royalty should be paid only on new customers, not ones that return because they like how you treat them. Beware that royalties come off the sales, not profits, so you can end up paying more in royalties than the gross profit you'll make. Imagine that royalty payment as an overpaid employee who once taught you the business but now sits in the corner playing video games all day, refuses to work but has the power to kick you out if the money stops coming. Try to keep that royalty as low as possible.

Many franchises will form a Franchisee Association (FA). However, many franchisors will attempt to thwart its creation in the way many companies will fight unions. I heard of a case years ago where the head of the FA (an owner of three stores) was forced out of the franchise by the franchisor! Look for a franchise that actively supports the formation (and even provides some funds) of an FA.

Prosyletizing
Ever gone into a washroom at a restaurant and seen a small card above the toilet offering to tell you the story of Jesus? I have, really! Churches want more members and franchisors want more stores and they both will do some crazy things to do it.

The franchisor will usually require that you spend a certain percentage of your sales in advertising. The up side of this is that independent businesses usually underspend on advertising so a franchise can often gain more customers. However, there is a hidden tactic here. Franchisors want to see their name everywhere. It not only helps sales in the stores but it helps the sale of more franchised stores. Franchisors like to brag about their market share because it has a psychological effect on consumers to make them think their product must be good because they see it everywhere.

Franchisors will sometimes feel that they are not getting a large enough share and, if the FA is not worded in your favour, will open up another store in your market. This can cause some of your customers to migrate to the other store thanks to the good name you've developed. Don't let the franchisor open up a competitive church down the street!

Giving
A church will work hard to get an honourable mention in your will. Some won't wait until you die to get ahold of your possessions (Jim Jones, CO$ and pretty much any faith healer). Even Jesus said, "go and sell that thou hast" (Matthew 19:21). Be wary of the franchisor that wants to control your personal assets, too.

Many franchisors want franchisees to sign a Security Agreement. Basically, this can freeze your assets because they get to take them in case you end up owing them money. Want to sell your car? You may need the franchisors permission. In my research, I was told a story of how a franchisee can see their business go bankrupt and then the franchisor sues the franchisee for 'lost future income'. The franchisor then takes the personal assets of the franchisee as compensation!

Apostasy
There is a strong penalty to leaving a church. In some religions and cultures, they might kill you! Franchisors can't do this (yet) but they do want to control your life after you leave.

Most franchisors don't like the idea that you learn how the business works and then use that knowledge to open another business that happens to compete with the franchisor even if you run the business with a different philosophy and methodology. Why are they afraid that you might be more successful than their system? If their system is superior, they shouldn't be worried that you intend to open a similar business near their markets.

Also, beware of any 'leaving' fees. You may be required to pay all sorts of costs associated with closing or selling your store that, again, seem to have no real purpose (other than to shake you upside down hoping for a little more change). A successful franchised store will require almost no work for the franchisor resulting in pure profits in royalties. Don't let them take even more money because they have to do something when you try to leave.

When considering a franchise, it may help to think of it on religious terms. Is the franchisor working for you, or off of you? Are they helping you succeed or themselves? Are their principles 'secular', 'humanistic' and 'democratic' in nature or are they dogmatic and strictly controlling what you do? Look for a franchise that openly and actively supports the franchisees and welcomes criticism. But remember that a franchisor no longer has the secrets of a successful business. Internet forums and even prospective suppliers will provide you with virtually all the information you'll need to get into any type of business.

Conjoined Twins

2009-02-13T09:06:00.002-05:00

YouTube recommended a video on conjoined twins (for some reason) so I watched it. I was stunned! I'd never heard of this pair of twins and I was absolutely astounded at how they seem to be getting on with their lives.

But, I couldn't help but wonder if these twins present a problem for theists or not. They share a body from the waist down as well as a shared circulatory system. Two hearts, stomachs and spines and heads but they each control one arm (I think they each control one leg, too).

Are they two separate souls? Will they be together or separate in heaven? Did god or satan make them this way? This must be a puzzle for theists....

Theo Warner

2009-02-11T10:32:00.003-05:00

I must admit that I find the videos surrounding Venomgfangx fascinating. First, I'm trying to understand the fundamentalist mind that seems immune to reason and closed to new ideas. On the other hand, I partly see myself, or, more accurately, my past self in his mind. Many YouTubers have described him as emotionally immature and I remember myself passing through a similar stage through high school and young adulthood. Hopefully I've moved beyond.

Youtube user, Theo Warner, has an interesting perspective on Venomfangx, as well as some other fundamentalist Youtube video-makers. His channel is also filled with wonderful insight and poetry. Give his site a lookover. Here's the start of his 4-part Venomfangx series:

"Evil Balls!"

2009-02-04T12:11:00.002-05:00

It's great to see our Ontario Ministry of Health has an awesome sense of humour. Here's their ad promoting the mumps vaccine:

Hahahahaha, now THAT's funny!

(hmm, am I up-to-date on my mumps vaccine?)

Why I Refuse To Sing Our National Anthem

2009-02-04T08:01:00.002-05:00

I work as an Occasional Teacher (apparently 'supply' is too demeaning, just like the floor cleaners are custodians, not 'janitors') and find myself in classrooms that play the National Anthem every day. Up to about Grade 3, kids are eager to sing it. The Junior Grades (4-6) are a mixed bag where girls tend to sing and the boys look around uncomfortably. By the Intermediate Grades, singing is rare and if done, it's usually because of a dare or an attempt to goof off (or because some girls are feeling particularly silly or patriotic that day). Of course, I don't sing and I don't usually try to encourage anyone either.

For this, could I be arrested?

Apparently, the singing of the National Anthem is mandated in schools. Kids don't have to just listen, they are supposed to sing it! In and of itself this seems ridiculous. Do I smell 'indoctrination'?

However, I don't oppose singing the anthem because 'Big Brother' demands it. I oppose it because the lyrics are simply wrong. Here's my objections:

O' Canada
Our home and native land

Sure, Canada is my home but I'm not native to it. The original settlers were the Inuit, Iroquios, Algonquin, Huron, etc. You know, Native Canadians. Since we are required to teach the children Canadian history, I'm pretty sure the books don't say the 'natives' gave us this land willingly.

True patriot love

Ugh. Be patriotic and love your country. Sorry, you can't force me to love my country. I certainly enjoy it but I refuse to stop improving it. I don't think my country is the best in the world but, even if it were, I'd still think there is more to gain by improving it than blindly loving it as it is.

In all thy sons command

See my previous blog entry on patriarchy. Half the Canadian population should be offended that the 'sons' are commanding. Our government and military are filling up with women so a nod to them in the anthem would be appreciated.

With glowing hearts
We see thee rise
The True North strong and free

Who/what is rising? And are we really the 'True North'? Is there another country out there claiming they are the true north? I'm confused.

From far and wide
O' Canada
We stand on guard for thee

Militarism. All us Canadians are prepared to stand guard and take up (thankfully) a defensive position. I guess the anthem could have said 'We conquer all for thee' so maybe this is a good line. Except, why is it repeated two more times later on? Why does the French version of our anthem say (translated to English) 'Will protect our homes and rights' which, I think, is a far more positive message? Is this to encourage the children to join the army?

God keep our land
Glorious and free

Oh dear. You can guess where I'm going with this so I'll be brief. Whether one believes in god(s) or not, I think we can agree that it is not up to invisible beings to protect our land, it's up to us. WE keep the land glorious and free. 'Nuff said.

O' Canada
We stand on guard for thee
O' Canada
We stand on guard for thee

Fight for your country! Don't negotiate with terrorists! You're either with us or against us! Grow up ready to fight, kill and maim for the state!

Yep, this anthem has got to go. When I presented these arguments to a classroom recently the kids seemed, well, shocked. First, they couldn't believe a teacher was actually arguing against the anthem (a lesson in critical thinking, children) and then, they didn't realize what the message was they were singing about. A group of girls wanted to spend class time rewritting the lyrics (although they privately thought that rewriting the lyrics was disrespectful!). I might take a teeny bit of flack over this but nothing is more rewarding to a teacher than seeing a class full of kids suddenly go, "Well, I'll be..... ."

HumanistDad Spreads

2009-02-04T07:33:00.003-05:00

Oop, that title should be "HumanistDad Spreads His Words" (although I do need to exercise more...).

HumanistDad joins Planet Humanism
It seems only appropriate that I join the 'Planet Humanism' blog aggregator so I've added the pretty link to my blog. I've sent an email to nullifidian telling him that there is a problem copying and pasting the code for the link but maybe it's just my computer or Blogger.

It's great to see a lot of names on the aggregator but I'm concerned that most are members of Planet Atheism, too. This could mean that the two aggregators may become mirrors of each other, which would be unfortunate.

Two solutions come to mind.

1. Filter the members to those who are actually humanists (what? no Humanism ID? Sorry...)

2. Some sort of technology that allows the bloggers to self-identify each blog post as atheism- or humanism-related so that it gets to the appropriate aggregator. Maybe a simple check-box gadget-thingy?

All the best to the new Planet Humanism!

HumanistDad to be published
Recently I've been following David Smalley's blog who is the Design Editor for American Atheist magazine. I guess they were desperate for content after some big-name atheists were unable to send in their commentary (apparently some sort of wardrobe-malfunction) so he asked me to send in one of my posts. It's been approved and is scheduled for the March edition. I trust it will appear in a classy section of the magazine but I wouldn't feel too bad even if it turned out in the 'Alternative News' or 'Comics' section!

What Would Yahweh Do?

2009-01-30T07:57:00.003-05:00

I just came across this video from a link on Thunderf00t's latest. Here we see a reenactment of god (Yahweh) pre-Jesus as he answers the prayers of his followers:

Alan Dershowitz on Religion

2009-01-29T17:46:00.002-05:00

I've been studying atheist blogs and videos for over a year and I don't remember coming across Alan Deshowitz. I think these two videos were made in 2000 and I hear him making arguments that Dawkins would make years later:

Part 1

Part 2

Do You Have Afluenza?

2009-01-26T09:56:00.002-05:00

Excellent PBS Documentary on the overabundance of Consumerism (Warning! The Documentary interviews James Dobson and Ted Haggard but does get back on track later...):

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

Where Money Comes From

2009-01-20T15:56:00.003-05:00

I've been looking for a good explanation of money supply. I did take a first-year economics course years ago but, of course, I forgot most of it. Here, Sal Kahn, presents an 18-part series on money supply using a unique type of animation:

It might not answer all your conspiracy theories about money but it does give a great introduction about money.

Here's another good series on the bailout:

Finally, check out his YouTube channel for hundreds of videos on math, SATs, GMATs, finance, oh my!

http://www.youtube.com/user/khanacademy

Jewish Parents Go Berserk

2009-01-20T15:03:00.002-05:00

Here's a prank that was played by a radio station on a girl's highly religious, Jewish parents:

Jewish Parents Upset by Daughter's Choice of Boyfriend:

funny prank - Watch more Free Videos

I'd like to think of this as a hoax but I fear that it may not be. There's just no love like religious love.

The Evolution of Flying Squirrels

2009-01-16T16:31:00.003-05:00

Here is how flying squirrels evolved and proof to those silly creationists that we are still evolving into superman (err, superwoman? superpeople? Oh, wait we're brights and they are the supers... brightspeople? oh, I give up, just watch the video) :

http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1778399&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1

(for some reason, I'm having no luck embedding videos...)

Atheist vs. Christians

2009-01-16T12:04:00.002-05:00

I just discovered Theramintrees on YouTube. He has a series of videos responding to Christians and their arguments. Here's a good one to start with:

Couple Cool Videos

2009-01-15T11:15:00.002-05:00

No particular reason to post these videos other than because they're just cool:

Sea Plant or Worm doesn't like to be disturbed:

Santa Loop (trust me, just watch it, you'll understand):

More On Happiness

2009-01-14T10:07:00.002-05:00

I am very interested in the concept of happiness. Although I am generally satisfied my happiness level is far too low and I find myself brooding far too often. Thus, I've been interested in understanding happiness. Oddly, learning about religion, atheism and psychology has been extremely satisfying and brings a feeling of happiness.

I find the learning process especially exciting. It's like solving an immense puzzle (or playing a game with many levels) where each piece represents another truth to some ultimate understanding. Or, maybe it's like a movie or book that is so engaging you find yourself wishing it won't end. Religion offers empty answers but science and skepticism offers real, verifiable truth with astonishing miracles beyond what any superstitious mind could conjure.

For you other happiness-seekers, here is an enjoyable video by Raj Persaud, psychiatrist on happiness:

http://fora.tv/2008/11/17/Raj_Persaud_How_to_be_Happy

(for some reason, Fora TV is giving me the wrong ID code when I try to embed the video. Anyone know why? This is definitely NOT making me happy....)

Atheist Posters

2009-01-14T07:19:00.003-05:00

Here's a couple of inspiring posters to put up wherever you work, live or just want to create a stir:

Here We Go Again

2009-01-13T07:06:00.002-05:00

A teenager shoots both his parents, killing his mother and flees the grisly scene carrying a copy of Halo 3. Again I wonder if religion possibly played a part and:

A judge yesterday rejected the defence that a teenage boy opened fire on his family because he was addicted to video games, convicting him of wounding his clergyman father and killing his mother after they fought over a game.

Full story here. Is it possible that newspapers throw in a religious reference to demonize the teenager further ("How could he shoot his parents considering they are such good, church-going people??") or is it a statement of further correlation between religion and immoral acts?

Maybe Christopher Hitchens is wrong. Religion doesn't poison everything. Religion is poison!

Spaghettification by Black Hole

2009-01-12T17:06:00.002-05:00

Neil DeGrasse Tyson talks about his book, "Death By Black Hole" and warns us of a very real asteroid collision scheduled in 20 years. It's not a certainty but, as he says, it would be awfully embarrassing to let it hit us!

The embedding link doesn't work properly so I can only give the address:

http://fora.tv/2007/02/09/Death_By_Black_Hole

What If God Smoked Cannabis?

2009-01-12T13:45:00.001-05:00

The Official, Secret Doctrine of Atheists!

2008-12-30T20:58:00.000-05:00

The Skinny on Naturopathy

2008-12-29T22:20:00.003-05:00

I saw an ad on TV today for CAND, the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors. It invited the viewer to go to their website, so I did (www.cand.ca).

The ad specifically said it had "science-based" medicine. After going to the website, I found their section on Research. Here is the research that CAND provides, in its entirety (emphasis mine):

The burgeoning interest in natural medicine has initiated an important trend of increasing collaboration between naturopathic medicine and conventional medical schools and research institutions. This cooperative relationship is still in its infancy, but steady progress is being made. Naturopathic doctors have been invited to sit on various committees organized under Health Canada. NDs also work as individual researchers in institutions and in their private practice.

The naturopathic profession in Canada recognizes the value of research and seeks to make appropriate use of science to further the understanding and advancement of naturopathic medicine. As professional health care providers, it is part of our responsibility to our patients that we are critical thinkers regarding the known limitations of conventional medical research. The challenge is to find research methodologies that understand and are equipped to evaluate multi-factorial and individualized naturopathic treatments.

That's it.

So, the collaboration between naturopaths and real doctors is in its infancy and naturopaths do their own research - that's reassuring!

As well, the 'profession' values research and science but is looking for an 'appropriate use' of it and needs to 'find research methodologies'. In other words, real science doesn't work with naturopathic therapies because it keeps coming up with -FAIL-.

If the tests come up wrong, it's not the treatment that's broken, it's the science. Reminds me of the people who think that if science contradicts the bible, it's the science that must be wrong (ya, YOU Ken Ham).

Because I'm feeling like a prick today, I've emailed the people at CAND asking for 'independent, scientific research from a leading university in the U.S. or Canada' that will back up their ad's claim of 'science-based medicine'.

This might be fun.

-sigh-

2008-12-27T09:18:00.002-05:00

From the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/558529):

COVINA, Calif.– A man who killed nine people in a Christmas Eve massacre dressed as Santa apparently intended to flee to Canada, but his plans were dashed when the inferno he created melted his red costume onto his body, police said yesterday.
...
Pardo, 45, fired a shot into the face of an 8-year-old girl who answered the door...

Police said Pardo had no criminal record or history of violence, and
neighbours and others knew him as a friendly man who was a volunteer usher at his parish church.
...
The 8-year-old girl was released from hospital yesterday, officials said.

Why did I suspect this guy was a church-goer as I scanned the article? No Virginia, being religious doesn't automatically mean you are moral.

No Muhammed?

2008-12-23T13:17:00.002-05:00

In today's Toronto Star, Tom Harpur (yes, the author of 'The Pagan Christ'!) is reporting that a Muslim scholar has decided that Muhammed probably didn't exist:

Questioning of Prophet's existence stirs outcry
Muslim academic says research leads him to believe Muhammad is a mythical figure

Dec 23, 2008 04:30 AM

Tom Harpur
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

A noted Muslim scholar has provoked a huge controversy in Europe by openly questioning the existence of the Prophet Muhammad.

The Islamist at the centre of the storm in Germany over whether Muhammad ever existed as an historical figure says he is simply following the conclusions of many years of rigorous research.

Muhammad Sven Kalisch, 42, the chair of Islamic Studies at the University of Muenster and whose duties include training teachers for the rising number of Muslim students in German high schools, has created a furor by stating that in all probability Muhammad was a mythical creation.

He told the Star in a recent phone interview that his research leads him to believe that the three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have mythical origins.

German police worried about a possible violent backlash have told the professor to move his offices to more secure premises. But Kalisch says there have been no specific threats and he is far from being "in hiding" as some bloggers and other rumour-mongers have claimed.

However, the Central Council of Muslims in Germany to which the four largest organizations of the country's 3 million-strong Muslim community belong, has stopped its co-operation with the university's Centre for Religious Studies over the professor's stand.

A spokesperson for the council, Ali Kizilkaya, has said if the Prophet Muhammad didn't exist then the Qur'an doesn't exist.

"This would mean that we would have to abolish the religion altogether," Kizilkaya said. "We are convinced the Prophet did indeed exist and that the Qur'an is the word of God."

Michael Marx, a Qur'an specialist at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, has warned his colleagues that Kalisch's views will "make it difficult" for German scholars to work in Muslim lands.

The traditional view of Muhammad is that he was born in Mecca in Arabia, about AD 570 and died in Medina around AD 632. The Qur'an, Islam's holy book, is composed of revelations believed to have been given to him by God through the archangel Gabriel. There are about one billion Muslims in the world today.

"My position with regard to the historical existence of Muhammad is that I believe neither his existence nor his non-existence can be proven," Kalisch said in a statement. "I, however, lean toward the non-existence."

He told the Star he holds the same position regarding Abraham, Moses and the other Jewish patriarchs, as well as Jesus Christ.

There have been threats, campaigns for his dismissal from his post, and dozens of media interviews, commentaries and editorials. According to Der Spiegel magazine, a group of more than 30 German academics have signed a petition supporting Kalisch's right to scholarly freedom of expression.

Kalisch studied and practised law before returning to college to take a Ph.D. in religious studies. He speaks fluent English, Turkish and Arabic as well as German.

He was born in Hamburg of a German father and a mother of Mongolian descent. They were nominal Protestants and when he began early in his teens to follow up on the Asian line of his heritage he decided to learn Turkish.

That led directly to an exposure to Islamic teaching and at 15 he decided to convert. "I was attracted by the emphasis on one God instead of a trinity," he says. "It seemed in many ways a very rational religion."

But, he differed from typical religious converts to a new faith in that he never stopped questioning. "Religion should never contradict reason," he says. "I could never accept any doctrine or belief that goes against my rational mind."

Kalisch said he realized early in 2001 that when the same scientific methods are applied to investigate Muslim claims of historicity as are used on Jewish and Christian origins, similar problems arise at once. He found that traditional theological positions soon collapse once hard evidence is sought. He discovered there is as much "myth-making" in Islam as in Judaism and Christianity. And so his current process of "rethinking Islam" was begun.

Asked whether he thought his public airings of his findings will destroy peoples' faith, he said: "It will destroy a literalist faith, a faith no longer reliable because of reason. But, the God I believe in is not a god of literalists. He is the Ultimate One. God doesn't write books. All the various sacred books are the product of human minds and experiences. They can be helpful but they must be interpreted for today."

Kalisch maintains non-Muslim scholars who agree with his hypothesis but keep silent out of "respect" for Muslims are in fact treating them as though they can't handle the truth.

"That's not respect, it's putting Muslims on the same level as small children who can't think and decide for themselves and whose illusions of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny one doesn't want to destroy."

Once again, the default position on any belief needs to be, "I don't believe until you provide evidence to back up your claims."

It doesn't really matter whether Muhammed, Jesus, Socrates or Einstein ever existed. We only need evaluate what they said or did. It seems that religious people only connect historical figures to a god to justify the absurdity of what they want to believe.

The Obsessions of Adam Savage

2008-12-19T08:37:00.001-05:00

Here's a fun video by Adam Savage of MythBusters as he explains his obsessions with Dodos and the Maltese Falcon:

Growing Earth Conspiracy

2008-12-17T10:40:00.002-05:00

I don't get it.

Neal Adams, a comic book artist, created an animation to promote the idea of a 'growing earth'. This idea proposes that all the continents were once all together and then pushed apart - not by plate tectonics, but by an expanding earth! Of course, he blames a scientific conspiracy for suppressing the truth which automatically sets off my 'bullshit detector'.

What I don't understand is, why get so worked up about it? I was looking for clues that this idea has some connection to religion but I didn't find any. The earth is still billions of years old in this idea and the proposed mechanism for an expansion sounds like science. Global warming conspiratists likely want to continue living the way they want without worrying about future consequences but I don't see how believing in 'plate tectonics' is a social threat. So, why is Adams and geologist Dr. James Maxlow so keen to present their ideas?

Is it a simple case of hard feelings because 'the establishment' has refuted them?

Here's the Adams video:

I also found a speech by Dr. James Maxlow at the 'Nexus Conference' which appears to be supported by Nexus Magazine. According to its website, Nexus Magazine is,

a bi-monthly alternative news magazine covering health breakthroughs, future science and technology, suppressed news, free energy, religious revisionism, conspiracy, the environment, history and ancient mysteries, the mind, UFOs, paranormal and the unexplained.

Oh. Kay.

Here's part 1 of Maxlow's speech (I couldn't be bothered to watch the other 13!):

Anyone have any ideas on why they're trying to promote this idea?

"What Is The Purpose Of Life?"

2008-12-16T22:24:00.002-05:00

Again I hear a theist ask the question about life and purposes. But they just don't get it. The problem is that their question is wrong.

What is the purpose of life?

The question itself presupposes that there IS a purpose but that needs to be established first. Therefore the first question to ask is:

Is there a purpose to life?

When we look at the evidence it becomes apparent that there isn't a purpose to life. It just is.

Although most of us create a purpose for our lives, I can't say what is the best purpose to have. It's safe to say the starting point for a purpose is to keep living!

Jesus: The Real Stories

2008-12-15T08:05:00.002-05:00

First, Jesus gets protection from The Terminator:

Explaining Jesus in ways so simple, even a baby could understand it:

Finally, who could resist one more look at Jesus, The Musical:

Eddie Izzard Explains Christianity

2008-12-11T11:00:00.001-05:00

Ahh, Roy Zimmerman is at it again!

2008-12-10T13:54:00.000-05:00

What Does 'Offensive' Mean?

2008-12-09T11:43:00.002-05:00

(Warning! Today's post may be offensive ;) )

Pedro Timoteo wants to know which of the following two signs are offensive:

Sign A: There is a God.

Sign B: There is no God.

I replied to his post stating that both are offensive. They are both false statements and I believe false statements are offensive.

However, many other statements are true but can be offensive to many people. Consider this sign:

Fuck, I don't like paying my taxes.

Here is a statement that is not false, but yet offensive. I'm uncomfortable with my children reading statements like this but I have difficulty explaining why. For most people, swearing is considered to have a time and place. In general, we don't swear in public places (at least, we're not supposed to). We don't swear at work, in school, around children or the elderly or in church. I threw in church because I think that we unconciously consider some places (or people) 'sacred'.

Jonathon Haidt discusses this in 'The Happiness Hypothesis'. Even 'liberals' who claim that the sacred is a myth find certain places near and dear to them. Consider your loved ones, where you got engaged, that first car, or that place in nature that you once stood and contemplated the universe - now imagine someone is urinating on them. Perhaps this is offensive to you.

Haidt writes that it's part of our psychology to be offended by things that disgust us. All swear words refer to things that we find disgusting - bodily fluids and waste materials, corpses, sexual impulses, etc. We also swear to attack the sacred to elicit an emotion of disgust. The French say "Tabernacle!", we might yell, "Motherfucker!" both of which are meant to bring up negative images of traditional sacred objects.

I agree with Haidt when he says, "...conservatives have a better understanding of moral development." (Pg. 178, The Happiness Hypothesis) We don't want children growing up in a world that allows the humiliation of our sacred objects in the public sphere. It's important that children learn that there are things worth holding as sacred (parents, teddy bears, home, etc). We want them to respect people and places that hold significance and not destroy those things that others hold sacred. To do this, children need to know what sacred things 'are' and have a chance to build their own. Swearing in public is offensive because it elicits the same emotions as watching someone humiliate a loved one (albeit, not as severe). And, in public or in our homes, we deserve the right to not have our sacred objects attacked.

Thus, I think I can safely propose two comments about offensive behaviour:

1. We will not allow the promotion of untruths as this is offensive.

2. When we feel we want to be offensive (swear, sell Baby Jesus Butt Plugs, criticize religions, etc.) we'll be careful to keep it out of public places.

The Offense Defence

2008-12-08T11:41:00.002-05:00

"No, no, no! You mustn't criticize my religion, it's offensive!"

Critics of the FFRF sign are complaining that it was too offensive to religious people. Well, too. damn. bad! Theists don't get defend their faith by claiming it is offensive to do so.

If I criticize your faith and then you go out and riot - it's your fault! It reminds me of people who blame the rape victim. "You shouldn't have been outside alone," "You shouldn't have been wearing a skirt," "This wouldn't have happened if you had on a burqa."

Bullshit.

Religious people have the right to fill their houses and churches with all kinds of religious nonsense but they don't get to advertise it free in the public square. And if they do, I sincerely hope the FFRF (and the rest of us too!) fight this injustice with protests. Until religion retreats to the domain it belongs, may the secular side continue to offend.

FFRF Sign: Hate Speech?

2008-12-08T10:06:00.002-05:00

Bill Donohue and Bill O'Reilly (is there a correlation between Right-Wing blowhards and the name 'Bill'? Just kidding, sorry Mr. Maher) have both called the FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) sign 'Hate Speech'!

Hate speech. I though hate speech had to be against a person, not an idea. Can you have hate speech against an idea? Bill O'Reilly compared the sign to the KKK putting up an anti-black sign beside a monument to Martin Luther King. But the FFRF sign criticized religion, not religious people. The foundation of Freedom of Speech demands that ideas be criticized and discussed.

But, Bill Donohue inadvertently let the cat out of the bag! While O'Reilly was making non-sequitors, Donohue told us exactly what the problem was with the sign in the eyes of the religious: "...this is designed to neuter our message." Gotcha Donohue! The purpose of your nativity display is to promote the message of Christianity using a public forum. Strictly forbidden by your constitution! Put the display on the lawn of a church or believer's property but not in a secular, public arena. Microsoft and Coke can't do it and neither can you!

It just doesn't matter if the religious really, really beleive their message is so important. It applies only to the religious and not on public display. Secular messages are likely more important and apply to everyone.

The good news is that controveries like this can only benefit secularists and atheists. Ignorant people likely already side with the religious but the educated, informed and enlightened religious people will understand what is going on and begin to support 'our' side. This can only swell our ranks and truly allow our secular societies to emerge.

Donohue with Dan Barker:

Bill O'Reilly spouting emotional nonsense to keep the money coming in:

Theism vs. Deism

2008-12-07T18:42:00.002-05:00

Maybe I'm wrong. I've always thought of Deism being a separate category from Theism but after an IRC with a couple people on http://www.ustream.tv/channel/the-atheist-experience I'm starting to wonder if my understanding is wrong.

I've never considered Deism as a subset of Theism (or the inverse) but as both being a separate branch of god-belief in general. Deism, as I understood it, is a belief in a god (or gods) that created the world and no longer interferes with it. Theism is a belief in a god (or gods) that created the world but also actively fiddles with it and interferes with people's lives (a 'personal' god). Under these definitions it is possible to be an atheist and a deist. However, if Deism is a subset of Theism then an atheist cannot be a deist.

Atheism is simply the non-belief (or non-acceptance) of Theism. So, is it possible to be an Atheist and a Deist?

Jack Black as Jesus Christ - Awesome!

2008-12-03T15:19:00.002-05:00

Prop 8, The Musical:

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Shellfish is an "Obama-nation"! LOL

Michael Shermer discusses god

2008-12-03T12:34:00.002-05:00

Shermer and Phillips talk about god. This isn't a formal debate; more like a armchair discussion:

Part 1

The other parts are here at Alecs DeLarge on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=AlecsDeLarge&view=videos

The Catholic Empire

2008-12-03T10:50:00.002-05:00

Via Pharyngula, (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/im_sure_it_was_a_very_solemn_c.php)

Darth Vader joins the Catholics:

That one reminded me of this parody on the New Pope:

- insert religion here -

2008-12-02T13:08:00.002-05:00

Ironically, this video is a speech on 'Peace TV'. The message is that we have two choices: be a Muslim that obeys Allah whether you like it or not (since Allah dictates what is good) or choose to go to hell and be tortured in unspeakable ways for all eternity. This is a 'peaceful' choice?

Even though the speaker is a Muslim it doesn't really matter. Whenever he speaks of Islam try substituting 'Christianity' and see how the message stays the same. No Christian can denounce the immoral lunacy this man preaches without pointing their finger back on themselves. As an atheist though, I get to point at all of them!

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Responding to his idiotic points:

1. His description of Hell - How can he know any of this? Which is more probable: Hell is as he says or he is spouting out a giddy, pornographic view of torturing people that he hates?

2. Moral Selectivism - He claims one person's idea of good is another's idea of bad. However, he enjoys using attacks against Islam as an example of what 'others' think is good but doesn't apply the same logic to Muslims who think they are doing 'good' to others through terrorism, decaptitations, genital mutilation, riots over cartoons, etc. Oh, I forgot, god is on their side so they know what is good. Silly me, why can't I just understand this simple concept?

3. Should you fire an employee that you pay, who is secretly working for someone else? Allah, of course, is paying us by providing food and clothing and we're either worshipping something else, or even worse, no one! Ok god, I'm still waiting for my check...

4. A new manager informs employees of new rules but some prefer to follow the old ones - Oh, so Muhammed was god's new 'Dick Cheney', I get it. So, either follow the new rules or go straight to a tortuous hell for all eternity. You're not allowed to quit the company or have any say in the changes - just follow with a smile or have your skin ripped off your body over and over again. Have a nice day!

5. Secular Humanists think they are the centre of the universe - Ok, so if I do something that makes other people happy and I feel good then I'm a SELFISH BASTARD that must be SENT TO HELL TO DRINK PUSS THAT HAS LEAKED FROM OTHER PEOPLE'S WOUNDS! But, if I do something because I think the Easter Bunny approves of it, I get to be multi-orgasmic in heaven. I realize I could be wrong about that last sentence.

6. Do what god says whether you like it or not - Yikes! How can I be sure god said it and I'm not being tricked? I really need to know because something is telling me to poison the water supply and I certainly don't want to go to hell, so, umm, ..... ?

7. Pay some of your wages back to the company's pension plan - You can refuse (smile!) but then you don't get the benefits from the company and we have to send you to hell to have your brain boiled, drink boiling water that burns your insides and wear fiery sandals (I like sandals, wouldn't hell make you wear fiery uncomfortable shoes like the ones children wear to church?). But what if the company takes the pension money, buys luxurious jets and makes large deposits into offshore bank accounts then runs away? Nah, that could never happen...

Death of Debate

2008-11-29T07:53:00.003-05:00

More and more I'm coming to realize that debating is less and less relevant in today's world. The idea of a debate is simple enough: two (or more) debaters have different opinions on a course of action or truth claim and they each present compelling arguments to convince the audience to their point of view. However, the problem is that most debates use arguments, not evidence, to state their case. Arguments, however, are not always based on scientific evidence and instead are based on emotions.

When listening to someone present an emotionally-charged argument I'm beginning to realize that as the emotion increases, the evidence decreases. In other words, when you have little evidence (or in the face of contradictory evidence) appeal to the listener's emotions. This works because our emotions are far more developed than our logic and we are more likely to react to, and remember, our emotions. The 'truth' of the argument now rests with how it made us feel not the logic behind it.

Churches and pseudoscience purveyors have known this, either consciously or unconsciously. Blaming atheists, homosexuals or Jews for the ills of society is easy to do. Simply show that they displease god and when god is upset, god causes bad things to happen. Why? Because the Bible says so. Bad things bring out negative emotions therefore believers now connect these people to their emotions.

Now, try to use logic to show that atheists are not the cause of the problem. It takes a long stream of logic and there will always be questions requiring answers. But the listener must work to follow the logic and may forget the reasons whereas the emotional response is almost instantaneous and easily recalled.

It seems that believers in religion and pseudoscience have stalled in their evolution of thinking. Arguments that rely on emotion are no longer relevant now that we have the scientific method of acquiring evidence and actually testing ideas. We know this works because science has allowed an exponential increase in human knowledge and technology.

As Jonathan Haidt outlines in his book, 'The Happiness Hypothesis', our mind consists of an elephant and a rider. The elephant represents autonomic brain functions and our emotions. The elephant, for the most part, does what it wants. The rider is our logic and reason but it is not in control of the elephant. Instead it is a slave or advisor to the elephant. It is given control only when the elephant wants to be controlled. It's important to recognize that in this model, the elephant came first and has been very successful through its evolution. The rider evolved to assist the elephant and add variety to the elephant's choices. This, too, was successful in evolution.

To move forward we must work hard to train our elephant to give more control to the rider. Debating through emotions can no longer be accepted, we must teach through science and reason. Maybe our next leap in evolution will be to give our rider a whip.

Here's a talk by Jonathan Haidt that inspired me to read his book:

More Fun!

2008-11-27T13:51:00.001-05:00

Bob Marley acting as his own legal counsel:

Expelled on YouTube

2008-11-27T09:42:00.002-05:00

Expelled is on Youtube here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/virtualprophecy

It probably won't be up for too long as I'm sure there is some sort of copyright infringement. I'm just glad I could see it without giving a dime to the producers!

Everything that needs to be said about the movie likely has. My only purpose in watching it was to try and understand the point of view of the IDers. I think the three big points that IDers will rally around are:

1. ID is a competitive theory to Evolution - this is nonsense. ID is an idea, it hasn't made it to hypothesis let alone theory. Sorry, but schools don't have time to teach ideas in science.

2. Evolution leads to atheism - maybe, but so what? What if it lead to Hinduism, or Jainism? Just because an established theory based on mountains of fact and evidence changes a person's worldview doesn't mean the theory is wrong. It is the dogmatic preservation of worldviews that leads to conflict, not the ability to change.

3. Evolution is a dangerous idea that leads to mass murder - this is an emotional conspiracy theory that, I think, honestly strikes fear in theists. They really do think that Hitler's godlessness is what made him evil (no one knows for sure if Hitler was godless). No matter how much we try to counter the idea they will still cover their ears and hum loudly. But again, even if we could prove that the Holocast was completely due to evolution that still doesn't make the theory wrong.

So, if you're home ill or doing a mundane chore, watch Expelled if you want to make it worse.

How Many Gods?

2008-11-26T08:44:00.003-05:00

I keep hearing theists argue that there is a god because of design, or morality, or how it 'feels right'. From there, of course, they're happy to say how this god is a Christian, or Muslim, Jewish, etc (ya, ya, they're the same, I know).

However, I can't understand how ANY theist argument proves the existance of ONE god. Every one of their arguments could just as easily describe many gods (a sun-making god, a planet-making god, black hole god, etc.).

From now on, I think I'll start challenging theists with this:

Without using a holy book, give evidence that it's impossible for 2 or more gods to exist.

For The Budding Chemist

2008-11-26T08:12:00.003-05:00

Want to get your kids interested in chemistry? Why not show them how to destroy a gummy bear:

Just Because

2008-11-25T15:17:00.001-05:00

Now this is funny!

Climate Change

2008-11-25T07:56:00.003-05:00

Potholer54 on Youtube has an excellent series of videos, including the 'Made Easy' series. He's a former Science Journalist who is now making free science videos based on his past and recent research. The videos below are Part 1 and 2 of his Climate Change series (at least one more Part is on the way):

Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

Climate Change - The Objections

He carefully looks at the science of Climate Change and gives a balanced view of the proponents and skeptics - using science to determine who is most likely correct, imagine that! Enjoy.

Life At 40

2008-11-24T14:07:00.002-05:00

I turned 40 yesterday and, remarkably, today feels the same as yesterday. Maybe it hasn't hit me yet but I certainly don't feel 40. No mental crisis, no failing ability, no longing for the past or fearing of the future. I am.

Honestly, I think it's atheism that has protected me through this transition. I've spent an embarrassing amount of time reading atheist books, watching atheist videos and thinking atheistic thoughts and have found... contentment. It's amazing to have a mind that can freely contemplate and look with wonder at the universe. The understanding that science is the best tool we've ever created to make sense of the world and provide technologies to make life more enjoyable.

When I look back at human history I recognize that I live, in almost every way, a far better life than virtually every other human who ever lived. Shelter, food, love, knowledge; I could go on. The Pharoahs who deified themselves, collected immense wealth and made slaves of their people didn't have a toilet, air conditioning or basic medicine - but I do!

If Life, as they say, begins at 40, I'm ready.

The God Puzzle

2008-11-23T09:38:00.002-05:00

I'm a subscriber to DonExodus2's channel on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2). He's a Christian that has made some excellent science videos. He's not a creationist but he did make a two-part video on why he believes in god. He seems to be intelligent, highly educated and yet, he believes. I have always been fascinated by people like this. I suppose the only real answer is that they want to believe.

In trying to think of an analogy for why this is, so I came up with a 'god puzzle'. Imagine we believe that god gives us a great puzzle to solve and all the abilities we'd require to solve it. We go out into the world and begin finding pieces of the puzzle (the beauty of butterflies, DNA is the building block of life, gravity is warping of space/time, etc.). We eagerly put these pieces together knowing that the final picture will be the definition of what god is. However, when we have only a few pieces left we look at the puzzle and are horrified! Instead of a description of god, we can plainly see it says, "God does not exist."

As a freethinker, we can overcome our shock and become enlightened. We've done it, we've solved the puzzle! For a believer, the truth paralyzes them. Their options are to let go of their preconceived ideas or to deny what they see (maybe demons are tricking them). They may smash the puzzle and attempt to hide the pieces forever. Or, in the case of educated believers, they simply refuse to finish it. They'll continue to collect puzzle pieces but will stop putting them together. They'd rather spend time finding pieces than solving puzzles.

I always thought that this would make a good plot for a story. God exists, however, god decides to create a puzzle that proves god's non-existence. This god gives people the ability discover this truth. Upon their death, god gives the greatest reward to those who use their abilities properly and stand firm in their belief that there is no god. Heaven, it turns out, is reserved for honest atheists!

Here's one of DonExodus2's evolution videos:

Sarah Pukin'

2008-11-21T12:10:00.001-05:00

This video is no longer relevant but I'm disappointed that I didn't see it during the American election:

Oodles of Science Videos

2008-11-21T10:46:00.002-05:00

Have a thirst for Physics, Evolution, Cosmology, etc? Check out Zuke696's playlist:

http://www.youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=Zuke696

No shortage of videos here!

What Do We Tell The Children?

2008-11-21T09:39:00.002-05:00

Atheists, it is said, don't want to indoctrinate their children into atheism. Like all blanket generalizations, this likely isn't true. Just as there are parents pounding the fear of god into their kids, there are likely many parents giving the opposite message: you'd better not start believing in god(s) or else....!

The goal isn't to make kids atheists, or a-conservatives or a-liberals or a-discoists. No parent should be teaching kids what not to believe! Instead, a rational goal will be to teach kids how to believe. In other words, arm them with tools that help them to determine what is worthwhile believing in and what is not.

Kids need to learn skepticism. They need to learn to question what they are being told. To be highly suspicious if someone tells you to believe something "because I say so!" To distinguish between theory and idea, fact and speculation, truth and a lie.

Skepticism, though, is very difficult. We need to understand truths about reality to interact with it. If I go near the edge will I really fall off? Is there a lion behind that bush? Always assuming the worst (I will fall off; there is a lion) leads to mental paralysis and paranoia. We have to build some trust that we have some answers.

Religions, I believe, evolved partly from this. Through experimentation (scientific!) people began to learn about the hazards of a cliff (edges can crumble; it's windy up there) and decisions are made that cliff edges are, indeed, dangerous. Instead of constantly testing the cliff (ok Bob, it's your turn to stand on the edge) those in charge declare it dangerous and tell children not to question the wisdom passed down from our ancestors lest they be killed. We are commanded to respect what the authorities say.

Side note: It's easy to see how heroes can be created by challenging rules. Only the bravest, strongest members can take on the lion and survive leading to heroic tales of how Bob killed the lion (Paul, John, Xavier, Mordecai, Wilma and Betty didn't, so are forgotten by history).

Today's society is challenging the authorities themselves. However, the pendulum is swinging too far to the left. Challenging authority seems to mean 'disregard authority'. Examples of this are running rampant in public schools. Children seem to have little sense of authority and openly defy their parents and teachers, "You're not the boss of me!"

We need to teach children that authorities are required. Someone has to be in charge, someone has to create rules and someone must enforce them. Civilization is defined by rules that allow large groups of people to interact peacefully. We must stop on red. However, the true goal of our enlightenment is to discover that the chickens, not the farmer, rule the henhouse*. God doesn't make the rules, we do. Most importantly, we can question the rules and we can change them.

Science is the greatest tool we have for discovering truths. And from this discovery we can establish better rules. Law allows us a method for creating, enforcing and changing them. A free and just society is one that has this ability.

So, teach your children to ask questions about the rules but please teach them to abide by them. Show them that there is a proper way to challenge a rule. Don't let them learn that the way to change a maximum highway speed is to constantly exceed it. Being asked to be quiet is not infringing on your freedom of speech since others get a chance to talk. As Matt Delahunty, President of the Atheist Community of Austin says, "My rights end, where yours begin." A great message for kids to learn.

* Unless, of course, the farmer built the henhouse but for this analogy, let's assume a tornado made it from a junkyard ;)

CEO Salaries

2008-11-20T08:36:00.002-05:00

Reading the Toronto Star yesterday and there was a picture of the CEO's from the 'Big 3' automakers during their plea for a $25 billion bailout. The article made sure the reader knew about their multi-multi million-dollar benefits (did the guy from Chrysler really get a $250 Million retirement package from his last job???)

Now, it's normal for people to complain that these CEOs should start significantly cutting their pay before any bailout but this misses the larger picture. Their pay is but a small part of all the expenses of these large corporations. Ridiculously high, but small overall. The larger problem is ego.

Not only do these CEOs really believe they deserve outrageous pay, so does everyone else. Every stockholder is endorsing their pay. Every car buyer is funding it. The real problem is, why do they deserve it?

The fallacy is that we all think the top dogs at corporations are really smart and talented. Somehow, they're all geniuses. But geniuses at what? Is the CEO the cause of past success or simply a correlation to the success? It's starting to look like people are finally waking up to the fact that upper managers don't really know how to run businesses as much as they think they do. They don't have magical predictive powers and the fact that the 'Big 3' are all on the verge of failing at the same time shows that they've merely been copying each other all along. If something appears to increase sales at Ford, well, GM and Chrysler are pressured to implement the same policy. Need money? Just borrow more! They're too big to fail and besides, they can let the next CEO figure out how to pay it off.

That's it, isn't it? Whether it's dumping poisons into the environment, running huge debts and deficits or drilling more and more oil our political and business leaders simply aren't solving the problems they are getting rich and powerful creating. It's always a case of leaving it to the next generation. After all, if you're ridiculously rich now, you're ensuring that your offspring will be able to buy their way out of any horrific future. Isn't it the way of evolution? The rich get to survive? Somewhere, Darwin weeps.

Mental Gymnastics of Science

2008-11-19T09:20:00.002-05:00

Back in high school I used to write a yearly physics test that was a contest put out by the University of Waterloo. I never scored anything impressive but it was fun to challenge my understanding of the material. The person who organized the test (I forget the name) once made a comment that has stuck with me all these years. Of course, I don't remember the exact words but essentially, this is what he said:

I credit my past professor for finally convincing me that objects travelling in a circle, accelerate toward the centre of the circle.

I learned this concept in physics but I couldn't understand it. I've ridden on rides where you are strapped to the outside of a circle and the ride spins. I certainly don't feel like flying toward the centre; I felt like flying off! Here, physics is attempting to defy common sense.

Now, today I know why physics is right. It's not just the math or one of Newton's laws, it really does make sense - but it took hard mental work. However, not everyone is prepared to do the work to understand concepts like this. It is this mental inability (or laziness) that leads people to follow conspiracy theories and religions because the answers they provide are easy to understand. Reminds me of Ken Ham's retarded statement, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"

Science demands that we deny what seems obvious. No, the sun does not orbit the earth even though it's perfectly obvious that it goes around us. Solid rocks really are mostly empty space. Mass increases and length decreases the faster we go. It takes mental gymnastics to understand this but eventually it opens up our minds to new ideas and greater understanding.

Religions and pseudoscience, on the other hand, also use mental gymnastics but they require a schizophrenic mind - one that has to flip between reality and the absurd. However, there's no clear distinction between which is which. Instead of abandoning the old, one must reconcile through complex rationalizing or simply take the easy way of 'god only knows'.

The final question then is, if both methods require mental gymnastics how do we know if either is right? Typically people will assume its a coin-flip - 50/50 chance. However, science actually has evidence - repeatable and predictable. This doesn't establish science as absolute but it does show it to be almost completely true and the other almost completely false. If only kids could learn this - science isn't true, but it has enough evidence that it is almost certainly true. It's rational to trust science because, well, it works!

3 Questions Before I Die

2008-11-18T12:34:00.004-05:00

First let me say that as far as I can tell, my death is not imminent. However, I do wish to know the answers to these 3 questions in whatever time I have left:

1. Where DID the universe come from? What little I understand of the 'Big Bang Theory' seems to answer what happens after the bang, but not before. Maybe the Universe expands, contracts, bangs, expands, etc., like a bouncing ball but this would assume the total energy would go down - so where did the original energy come from? The idea that it came 'from nothing' is intriguing. However, the theist argument that 'god did it' only really postulates that god was the catalyst for converting nothing to everything; it doesn't say how god did it (or, how many gods it would take to do it!). I like the idea that 'nothing' is really positive and negative forces (like, -1 and +1) which, overall, give you nothing but, when separated, you have something and 'anti-something'. However, is the universe the positive or negative? Where did the other side go?

2. What is the smallest thing there is? This is basically a question about quantum mechanics. Vibrating strings? What are THEY made of? Why do they vibrate (the 'voice of god' so say our theist friends)? Then there is the 8-dimensional object proposed by Garrett Lisi on TED.com which is REALLY intriguing. Will this be answered sooner rather than later?

3. Why do people WANT things?* This is really about consciousness. We can build robots and digitial computer people and program them to respond to their environment but we've been unsuccessful to get these things to 'want'. If I kill the Boss on Level 3 of a video game, the computer doesn't care. It doesn't mourn. The Boss doesn't 'want' to live - it's just programmed to put up a fight. I, however, WANT to win and stay in the game. Why? If I am made up of molecules, how can molecules WANT something? Again, our theist friends throw god in there - god gives us souls, etc. But, as usual, their answer is no answer. How does god do this? What buttons does the soul push to make us want to win, buy a specific car or eat a cheeseburger?

The good news is that research is ongoing in each of these areas. The answers are important because they'll be able to lead to tremendous advances in science and health. We'll know the limits of the physical world and understand the secrets of life itself. And to think, we all live at a time where the answers are within our grasp.

* I have two crazy ideas on this. First, molecules can 'want' through magnetism. Two opposite charges 'want' to come together but they don't know why. When combined with a living brain, is this the root of our wants? Second, everything seems to be made of vibrations - even our sense of smell may work by vibrations (see The Science of Scent on TED.com). If we assign each unique vibration a musical note we can postulate that some vibrations and combinations of vibrations are 'musical' and pleasing. Others are not. This can be determined through evolution. Thoughts, therefore, may be the 'music' of our brain. Maybe our brain does not work on logic algorithms but pleasing musical notes and chords.

The Ultimate Logic

2008-11-13T17:00:00.002-05:00

A comment from jwil2570 on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/user/jwil2570) during a discussion about god:

In this Universe, for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction.

Therefore, because the big bang happened, than the big bang also didn't happen.

If god exist, than he also doesn't.

And even if I'm wrong about this..........I'm also right.

And because there is an equal and opposite reaction to everything.............

There must also NOT be an equal and opposite reaction to everything.

Any thoughts? Even if there are, than there isn't.

Now, that's funny!

Funny Video

2008-11-13T11:20:00.002-05:00

Ok, I couldn't resist clicking on one more YouTube video and it's a gem. This lady thanks god for her purpose in life because she discovers she still has Health Insurance! Oh, the stupid, it brains my hurt!

I stopped laughing when I realized she teaches preschoolers and said, "these little children are going to be getting their praise on 24/7, that's what's up."

What about the children, won't anyone think about the children?

Where Morality Comes From

2008-11-13T10:55:00.003-05:00

I spent lots of time this morning watching 'philos71' on YouTube. His videos are well produced, calm and composed. No ranting or harping here. However, he specifically asks questions of atheists which I carefully replied too. My favourite was his, "where do morals come from" question. I gave him an answer which I reproduce below:

I get my morals from philosophy, history and rational discussion. I start from the basic premise that I won't consciously, negatively impact your life if you'll do the same for me. Cooperation makes life easier than competition. I'll let you sleep while I stand guard against lions, then we switch. Morals start from there.

Imagine a society where ALL things are permitted, including senseless murder. I don't want to be murdered, neither do you. We could join forces to protect each other and define one moral - don't murder each other. Over time, we'd gain more members and eventually develop more morals (don't steal, don't hurt, etc.). We don't need an 'authority' to tell us morals, we can, over time, figure them out.

philos71 responded to my answer with this:

You can't say this with authority. Every time an authority is taken out of the picture chaos takes over. The problem with atheism (and SPECIALLY atheistic humanism) is that you think man is basically and intrinsically good. Man is indeed CAPABLE of doing good things, but left alone is fueled by his innate nature to sin. I'm sorry if I sounded arrogant, your replies have been very cultured and refined.

See, he is actually quite pleasant! I responded to this with:

Yes, chaos might ensue but it takes time for complete anarchy. In the meantime, the process will restart - people will begin to gather in common groups, then groups combine. Religion served the purpose of codifying the laws. However, when religions collide we have two (or more) unalterable doctrines trying to coexist. Eons of strife led to the idea of secularism - global rules that protect basic rights and allow religious groups to apply laws to themselves only (membership must be voluntary).

I mention voluntary membership because I agree with Dawkins that it is wrong to indoctrinate children into specific religious rules before they have a chance to decide for themselves. Remember, my hypothetical world allows people to choose to be in the society (and a religion) or not (if not, they generally go to prison - too bad we can't just send them to Australia like the good ole days! - I jest).

He also wants to know how morality could evolve. I think he's thinking in terms of non-thinking organisms. Here's how I reponded to this one:

We start with a simple moral and add more. Those who agree, stay in our group, those who don't, leave. We pass our morals on to our children. They make further changes eventually creating laws (and, sigh, lawyers). Even simple cells can do this. They create a large sphere colony. The outer ones try to work their way inside but many are killed by predators. The protected ones inside reproduce causing the sphere to grow larger. 'Outer cells sacrificed for inner ones' morality.

Posts on YouTube have character limits so I couldn't go further. However, the idea is that simple cells create a 'morality' that helps them survive. Is sacrificing cells a 'good' moral? Defining 'good' is very hard but if we assume 'goodness' is that which enhances survival, then the cell morality is, indeed, good! Over time, a collection of cells can become a multicellular organism. Over more time, this organism can defend itself without sacrifice. Morality evolves...

Ring My Bell

2008-11-11T16:48:00.003-05:00

Ha ha! For some reason, the song 'Ring My Bell' jumped into my head today and it just occurred to me what she means by 'Ring My Bell'! I really hope these neuroscientists figure out our consciousness soon, man, I must be going crazy...

Atheism is NOT a Choice

2008-11-11T12:11:00.002-05:00

As a society, we fight to end racism. Why? We decided that it is unfair to discriminate against people simply because of their race. Further, it is unfair to discriminate against something that people did not choose to be. Dark-skinned people were born with dark skin, they didn't 'choose' to have dark skin.

For this reason we cannot discriminate against women (they didn't choose their sex) and, as we have finally learned, homosexuals (evidence shows they don't 'choose' their orientation). The defeat of Proposition 8 in California, I think, has a silver lining. It is bringing 'gay marriage' to the top of peoples' minds and I think the fight to allow gay marriage will intensify and sweep the US just as mixed marriages (both mixed by religion and race) are now commonplace. A declaration by the Supreme Court won't be far away (in the meantime, homosexuals are welcome to come to Canada to get married and its a nice vacation spot too!).

However, discrimination of atheists remain rampant in the US. I think this is because most people believe athiests 'choose' to be. This is simply false. Atheism is the default position. We are all born atheists! I didn't choose to be an atheist - I was born one!

However, the idea of gods entered my mind at an early age. Although I was not indoctrinated, everyone around me seemed to be. For me, this was confusing. Why wasn't I being indoctrinated? What religion was I supposed to be? My parents thought they were helping me by not talking about it (they were likely as confused as I was) but it really troubled me for many years. I kept searching for a 'religion' without understanding that no religion is actually OK - there were others. I was probably 28 before I actually heard about 'humanists' from a TV show (produced by NOVA, I believe). I still remember, for the first time in my life, discovering that good, honest atheists actually existed (before then, I bought into the idea that atheists were 'bad' people). Finding life on Mars probably would be only slightly more astonishing. For me, it was a life-changing moment. Finally, I knew 'what' I was.

As atheists we need to recognize that we truly are being discriminated against unfairly. We cannot let the theists bully and attack us simply because of how we were born. Stand up atheists! Get angry! Speak out againt atheist discrimination!

Jews: "We're Still Here"

2008-11-11T10:50:00.002-05:00

I just finished watching 'God on Trial' (available here: http://www.youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=godontrail). A commentor below the video repeated the line that, I'm sure, many Jews say when they reflect on god:

We're still here.

This angers me just as it should anger Jews. The ancestors of the Jews had to endure multiple humiliations, tortures, rapes, dehumanizations and murders just so that today's Jews could proudly say, "We're still here"? This is appalling!

How dare they stand on the victims of their past and declare themselves 'special' and 'favoured'? How dare they suggest what their ancestors went through was a sacrifice for them now? These innocents did not choose their fate.

No. This is a great 'evil'. Their religion has poisoned their minds and blinded them. The proper response is to abandon their god and fight to prevent the injustices of the past. To join forces with the rest of us who want to cast away and banish the Abrahamic god from our lives - forever.

The Lucifer Effect

2008-10-31T08:48:00.002-04:00

Reading Philip Zimbardo's book 'The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil'. Awesome!

Only on page 24 of this 470+ page book (small type) so it's going to take awhile. Already he's summarized the Abu Gharib prison, the Inquisition and Witch trials and psychological reasons for using rape as a weapon during the Hutu's machete massacre of the Tutsis in Rwanda. My favourite quote so far comes from the 'Notes' from Chapter 1:

The psychologist Robert Jay Lifton, author of The Nazi Doctors, argues that rape is often a deliberate tool of war to set into motion continuous suffering and extreme humiliation that will affect not just the individual victim but also everyone around her. "A woman is seen as a symbol of purity. The family revolves around that symbol. Then there is the brutal attack on that, stigmatizing them all. All this perpetuates the humiliation, reverberating among survivors and their whole families. In this way, rape is worse than death."

My other favourite quote, so far, concerns the Witch Trials:

The terrible paradox of the Inquisition is that the ardent and often sincere desire to combat evil generated evil on a grander scale than the world had ever seen before.

Zimbardo was responsible for the famous (or infamous?) Stanford Prison Experiment that randomly assigned college students to be either a guard or prisoner. The guards became capable of inflicting extreme humiliation on the prisoners so quickly that the experiment was halted prematurely. Zimbardo discovered just how easily evil can oversome us. I'm just starting the chapters which details this experiment.

Here's the link to his presentation at TED that prompted me to read his book:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html

Warning: Offensive to Conservatives!

2008-10-19T11:56:00.004-04:00

I was listening to a talk by Jonathan Haidt, author of 'The Happiness Hypothesis' on Google Video (specific video is below) when I burst out laughing. He was explaining how the 'liberal-minded' person has an 'anything goes' attitude. Liberals tend to think that people can do whatever they want to themselves as long as they don't bring harm to others (like taking drugs, tattoos or surgically cutting your tongue to look like a snake's tongue).

His final example was this image:

Now, look closely. What is it? A baby? Yes, it's the baby Jesus! What a cute sculpture or statue. Except, it isn't a statue or sculpture. It's.... it's... YES!

The Baby Jesus Butt Plug!

Here's the link to the video:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3896569197654224883&hl=en

Beyond Belief: Candles in the Dark

2008-10-19T09:52:00.002-04:00

Awesome! I came across the Beyond Belief: Candles in the Dark videos filmed October 3 - 6, 2008 via http://atheistmovies.blogspot.com/.

The videos are available at The Science Network:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark

Lots of speakers including Sam Harris, Jonathon Haidt, etc.

Canadian Election Disappoints

2008-10-15T08:40:00.002-04:00

The Conservatives have won another minority government which is probably the only good news. I don't support the Conservatives but a minority government effectively neuters their power. I can only explain the Conserative win as a combination of a couple factors:

1. Vote-splitting - The 'left' have three parties representing it (Liberal, Green and NDP)

2. Fear - a collapsing economy and looming environmental destruction is making people look for stability. Ironically, it's the same-old, same-old mentally that has created the mess in the first place!

3. Poor Liberal leadership - The Liberals are fumbling around for a strong leader and acted like they weren't really ready for an election this time around.

I've supported the Green Party mostly on consciencious grounds. I trust the science that shows our environment is heading for disaster. In another case of irony, the same people who deny the meteorological science of global warming will be begging for science to save them as the weather gets increasingly more violent (more powerful hurricanes, alteration of ocean currents and prolonged droughts).

Here are my biggest disappointments of the latest election results:

1. More Conservative seats - people actually gave the Conservatives more seats?

2. No Green seats - The Greens have failed to elect a single MP, again!

3. Lower Green support? - Overall Green support was 7% nationwide. I believe it was 9% last election. How could there be less support for 'green' initiatives as the data becomes more ominous?

4. Maxime Bernier re-elected - This guy was turfed out of office for leaving classified documents with his ex-biker-chick girlfriend creating an international embarassment for Canada. What the hell, let's vote him back!

5. Lowest voter turnout in history - 59% of people voted. The world's coming to an end (ok, I'm exaggerating) and 41% don't care who's in charge!

New Disney Movie Based on the Story of Sarah Palin

2008-10-01T07:17:00.005-04:00

Ok, so it's a spoof:

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

Fart Charge (or a 'charged fart'?)

2008-09-24T23:48:00.003-04:00

Okay, this is one article that's good for a laugh:

Man Charged With Battery After Passing Gas

ASSOCIATED PRESS

SOUTH CHARLESTON, W.Va.–A West Virginia man who police said passed gas and fanned it toward a patrolman has been charged with battery on a police officer.

Jose A. Cruz, 34, of Clarksburg, was pulled over early Tuesday for driving without headlights, police said. According to the criminal complaint, Cruz smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech and failed three field sobriety tests before he was handcuffed and taken to a police station for a breathalyzer test.

As Patrolman T.E. Parsons prepared the machine, Cruz scooted his chair toward Parsons, lifted his leg and "passed gas loudly," the complaint said.

Cruz, according to complaint, then fanned the gas toward the officer.

"The gas was very odorous and created contact of an insulting or provoking nature with Patrolman Parsons," the complaint alleged.

He was also charged with driving under the influence, driving without headlights and two counts of obstruction.

Cruz acknowledged passing gas, but said he didn't move his chair toward the officer nor aim gas at the patrolman. He said he had an upset stomach at the time, but police denied his request to go to the bathroom when he first arrived at the station.

"I couldn't hold it no more," he said.

He also denied being drunk and uncooperative as the police complaint alleged. He added he was upset at being prepared for a breathalyzer test while having an asthma attack. The police statement said he later resisted being secured for a trip to a hospital that he requested for asthma treatment.

Cruz said the officers thought the gas incident was funny when it happened and laughed about it with him.

"This is ridiculous," he said. "I could be facing time."

Ahh, that article has put me in a mood to watch some Farting Preacher videos on YouTube:

Oops! Forgot to reference the original story: http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/505698

Christopher Hitchens Interview

2008-09-23T17:03:00.002-04:00

I'm a huge Hitchens fan and I was thrilled to come across this interview on the WashingtonPost.com website.

Here is the URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/01/08/VI2008010802087.html

I tried to embed the clips but IE went bonkers.

Sam Harris and The View From The End Of The World

2008-09-18T15:18:00.003-04:00

This is an old talk by Sam Harris. I'm sure much of it has been said before but I still found it interesting (I love listening to these things while I do some mundane chore like washing that backlog of dishes that can't go in the diswasher!).

Sam Harris on Fora.TV

Does Faith Trump Doctors' Actions?

2008-09-18T07:40:00.003-04:00

The Toronto Star is reporting that the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons is considering changing a policy that gives "doctors' limited right to refuse to provide medical treatment to patients on the basis of their personal religious beliefs." In other words, doctors can refuse to prescribe contraception, offer artificial insemination or refuse to refer a patient to a doctor that performs abortions. It could also include a refusal to treat gay couples.

But why stop there? Could a doctor refuse to provide blood transfusions or organ transplant? Maybe they should be allowed to prescribe homeopathy over standard drugs? Why not laying on of hands or prayer to remove that pesky cancer tumour?

Let's also not forget that euthanasia laws are being blocked mainly by the religious. I am a member of 'Dying with Dignity' because I believe that if I find life unbearable due to a fatal disease or injury I want the option to end my life in a peaceful, dignified manner. Will a doctor refuse to grant my wish because of their religious belief?

If the policy change will refuse to let doctors apply their personal religious beliefs in their practice then I support these changes. A doctor has an obligation to their patient; including respecting the wishes of a religious patient (ie. an adult wants to refuse a transfusion or would rather see a faith healer than taking chemotherapy). But a patient should never be refused the benefits of real medical treatments by a doctor's irrational faith.

Full story: http://www.thestar.com/living/article/500852

New Idea On Gravity?

2008-09-17T08:36:00.002-04:00

I don't have a physics degree so I don't know if this is old news or not but in this video, Cruz deWilde proposes that gravity is not the warping of spacetime but a result of the expansion of mass:

I don't follow all his ideas but it was interesting. Visit his website for some interesting animations including some stereoscopic 3D:

http://www.avantgravity.com/3d_animation.html

Centre For Inquiry Ad

2008-09-16T21:20:00.002-04:00

I recently watched the promo on YouTube for the Centre For Inquiry. The video is below:

I couldn't help but get the feeling while watching of, why do reason and logic need to be promoted? Is it possible that within my lifetime we'll look at an ad for an organization that promotes reason, science and logic as ridiculous?

"Were people really so stupid back then that they needed to be convinced on the benefits?", my grandchildren will hopefully ask...

Religion and Starving Babies

2008-09-15T19:14:00.002-04:00

A mother grabbed her baby and ran away from the Hospital for Sick Children fearing that they would take her baby from her. The baby showed signs of severe malnutrition weighing only 11 pounds (normal weight is about 20 pounds for a 9-month-old).

Yes, she's a poor mother but don't worry, her church has everything under control,

the 22-year-old woman... belong(s) to an obscure type of religious sect that prefers homeopathy to traditional medicine. "It's not like (she) neglected the baby for nine months," said Kudjo Adwo Sut Tekh El, the grand sheik of the Moorish Science Temple of America.

Why use 'traditional' medicine when sugar water obviously works better? This obscure church of 30 members says they have a "way of life" and not religious beliefs. Bullshit! Any group that would believe in homeopathy and create a 'way of life' that would cause a baby to become severely malnutritioned needs to be jailed. Oh, but wait, we must respect religions, right?

"They're making it seem like she's some negligent baby mother running away from her duties and that's not the case," said the grand sheik. "But we have a way of dealing with our people, so please respect that"

Fuck that! Your 'religion' doesn't deserve any respect.

Here's a link to the story:
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/499632