Jesus is just alright with me

2007-12-20T19:04:00.000-08:00

City of Green Bay: "Please sue us."

The city of Green Bay decided to allow all religions to set up any religious display they wanted on some public property. Some Christians vandalized a Wiccan symbol so the mayor decided to only allow a Christian symbol. The mayor of Green Bay is obviously a retard. Illusory tenant has been providing some good commentary as the situation has developed. See:

Here

Here

Here

and

Here

2007-12-18T10:58:00.000-08:00

Heh.

2007-12-14T06:39:00.000-08:00

Worst Posts of the Week

Last week I found the worst blog post of the week in the Wisconsin blogosphere. I think I'm going to continue to do this, but I will rank the three worst posts each week. There's just so much nonsense out there. These bad bloggers deserve to have their work measured against the work of other bad bloggers. I will be grading these posts in the same three categories: hypocrisy, inanity and faux outrage. If you see a blog post that you think is particularly hypocritical, inane or full of faux outrage, I'd love to hear about it. Now for the worst blog posts of this week:

(3) The Third Worst Blog Post of the Week is written by The Marquette Warrior. It's titled "Secular Liberal Anti-Mormon Bigotry." It's sort of a "well duh" post where he comments on a "rant" of Larry O'Donnell about Mit Romney and Mormons. His words in italics:

It’s well known that a fair number of conservative Christians think that the Mormon religion is a “cult,” and won’t vote for Mitt Romney.

But a fair number of liberals and leftists have rather extreme anti-Mormon biases too.

For starters, it's a little odd that he simply begins by noting that some groups of conservative Christians think that another group of conservative Christians is a little culty. But isn't it obvious that non-religious people think a group of really religious people are culty? And if you're a member of one of those really culty religions, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or Catholicism, that's really into displaying anti-secular bias, like Mit Romney or The Marquette Warrior are, isn't it a tad hypocritical to pretend to give a crap about anti-cult bias?

And all Larry O'Donnell said is that the Mormon religion has racist roots. And it DOES. Why shouldn't that enter your calculus when picking a candidate? Isn't it very good evidence that a candidate is unhinged if he believes that a known con artist found some magical golden tablets in the woods and read them with magic glasses and that black people were turned black by god for rejecting him? Isn't it good evidence that a candidate is unhinged if he believes that a magical Jewish zombie will save us from eternal damnation if we ceremoniously drink his blood?

Do people like O’Donnell pose a problem for Romney? Not where votes are concerned, since they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon anyway.

Why not? All candidates at least pretend to be religious.

Where media coverage is concerned, maybe. Mainstream media types are heavily secular and -- if not actually hostile to religion -- think religious belief is rather odd. And they think that Mormon religious belief is even odder. This is likely to affect the tone of the coverage.

What's great about the Romney candidacy is that it puts all religion under the microscope. He notes the media's hostility to religion as if that were a bad thing. But the media here is an opinion show, and O'Donnell is not saying anything more or less bigoted that when the Marquette Warrior says on his blog.

This was a pretty lame post, but The Marquette Warrior will have to do much worse if he wants to win the Worst Blog Post of the Week.

Hypocrisy: 7/10

Inanity: 7/10

Faux Outrage: 6/10

Total: 20/30

(2) The Second Worst Blog Post of the Week comes to us from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Eugene Kane. Mr. Kane is a completely and blatantly racist person and a terrible writer. He see the world in terms of race and his blog post from yesterday is no exception. It's titled "Does Berry Bonds get an apology now?" His words are in italics.

It's a dark day for baseball fans, if there are any left.

Major League Baseball has issued its steroids report and it's a blockbuster.

Big names like Roger Clemens, Miguel Tejada and Andy Pettitte and others have been implicated. Basically the report says they cheated.

Just like Barry Bonds, who is facing a trial for lying to the FBI about his steroid use.

It will be very interesting to see how baseball fans who demonized Bonds react to this list of other big-time stars accused of the very same thing.

I'd first like to note how annoying Mr. Kane's writing style is. Does every sentence need to be its own paragraph? The second thing I'd like to note is that, in a lot of cases, the report basically says that some of these guys didn't technically cheat (like if they took HGH or Andro in 2004). But whatever, I'll role with the theme that many of the guys in listed in the report did cheat.

Kane's main point is that Berry Bonds has been unfairly criticized, cause... like... everyone was doing it man. It must be because Berry Bonds is black. It's not because he was very high profile, it's not that he lied to a federal grand jury and it's not because he's a huge fucking asshole. It's because he's black.

Many fans said criticism of Bonds was justified because he was one of baseball's biggest names due to his challenge of Hank Aaron's home run record. I submit Clemens, winner of seven Cy Young awards, has the same lofty stature in the game as Bonds.

Now this bit is just hilarious. Does Eugene Kane actually think that Roger Clemens is some sort of media darling? Who doesn't hate Roger Clemens? He's like the second most hated guy in baseball.

Will the Cy Young awards get an asterisk now?

Probably.

Frankly, now it looks like Bonds was just another player doing what everybody else was doing to stay on the top of his game. Lying to the government might get him jail time but taking steroids clearly wasn't a big crime for baseball players.

Yes, that is what it looks like. That's what it always looked like. Nobody thought Bonds was the only guy doing roids. You heard his name more because he broke a career record of a legendary player that everyone loves (who was black). If it had been McGuire or a Giambi, we'd boo just as much.

This will be a good score for Eugene. The post pretty much sums up his bad blogging. The hypocrisy is huge. He's accusing everyone of being racist when he's clearly a very racist man. The inanity is also huge. Of all of the issues that the Mitchel report brings up, Mr. Kane decided to approach it from a racism angle. That's an issue that just isn't there. His faux outrage isn't too high. To be sure, he's pretending to be upset without reason, but he doesn't express his outrage in the fire and brimstone manner of a lot of bloggers. He'll lose points there. If I awarded bonus points for bad writing and racism, Kane's post would be one for the ages. Still, it's a good score:

Hypocrisy: 9/10

Inanity: 8/10

Faux Outrage: 6/10

Total: 23/10

(1) The Worst Blog Post of the Week comes from Peter the Hypocrite. I expect Peter the Hypocrite to be a major player in the Worst Blog Post of the Year race. He's what you would call a three-tool athlete in the sport of bad blogging. He's a hypocrite that becomes outraged at basically everything. And the inanity. Oh the inanity. Peter the Hypocrite's worst post this week (and there were plenty of bad ones) is called "More From the Hate Left." Even the title is brimming with hypocrisy, inanity and faux outrage!

Sometimes it’s best to ignore the smears and personal attacks that resemble a middle school lunchroom that flow with regularity from the liberal side of the blogosphere. They have their own little circle jerk and laugh at each other like the adolescents trapped in adult bodies that they are.

Peter the Hypocrite calls Hillary Clinton "the Hildabeast" whenever he refers to her. He refers to public schools as "gummint run schoolz." Peter is so middle school lunchroom that his voice cracks. Huge hypocrisy points. He get's more with the "circle jerk" comment. Peter the Hypocrite bans commenters that disagree with him. His blog is all about laughing at dumb puns with his mouth-breather friends.

Then there are times which various items need to be addressed. These are the people who are demanding we be civil and show proper respect to liberal icons like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Jim Doyle, etc.

They howl in protest with each reference to The Hildabeast, Or Shrillary. Or The Swimmer. Or Osama bin … Osama Obama … Obamamama (actual words used by Ted Kennedy). Or The Breck Girl. Or Don Doyleone. Or … well, you get the drift.

How dare you launch these personal attacks and fail to show proper respect? Well, for starters, these are what are known as public figures. Public figures have always been fair game for ridicule. Ever hear of Jay Leno? David Letterman? Jon Stewart? Stephen Colbert?

I've never heard anyone demand that Peter the Hypocrite stop using his kindergarten humor. People often read it and remark, "wow, Peter the Hypocrite sure is a douchebag" or whatever. Some people even asked a columnist at the Journal Sentinel to remove his link to Peter's blog. But that's hardly demanding that he halt his douchebaggery. And even if it is, nobody is forcing him to listen. And the obvious difference between the comics he listed and himself, is that they're funny.

He goes on for a few paragraphs about someone making fun of some other blogger. More middle school crap. More hypocrisy. Then there's this:

It’s the frightening attitude of several commenters who implied that it is fair game to go after conservative bloggers and investigate their backgrounds and publish it. Two of those were cowards hiding behind the cloak of anonymity and a third was a liberal blogger from Racine. All seemed to imply that anyone writing a blog is fair game for the leftwing smear machine.

Actually, no. They are not fair game. Someone writing a blog, be it on the Left or the Right, is a private citizen. None of us are public figures, running for office or part of the media. Citizen bloggers have much more protection in the areas of libel and slander than do political or media figures.

Yeah, they do. But truth is still and (almost) absolute defense. And publishing someone's address doesn't exactly fall into the category of defamation. And opinion statements are rarely found to be defamatory. So I'm totally free to make the statement, "Peter the Hypocrite is a douchebag" because we have a First Amendment in this country.

Citizen bloggers should be off limits from the type of personal attacks displayed on a regular basis by the Left, as well as other smears, parodies, etc

To suggest that only "the Left" engage in personal attacks is just astounding. He's basically attacking a "private citizen" blogger in this post by referring to some dude's blog as "stalker blog." How's that not defamation under Peter the Hypocrite's definition? Read the whole thing. It's really quite jaw-dropping. Peter stands out in all three categories.

Hypocrisy: 10/10

Inanity: 10/10

Faux Outrage: 10/10

Total: 30/30

2007-12-12T08:31:00.000-08:00

Ah, irony.

2007-12-06T07:46:00.000-08:00

Worst Wisconsin Blog Post of the week.
I'm going to do a weekly post in which I outline the worst blog post that I come across in the Wisconsin blogosphere. I will be grading these posts in three categories: hypocrisy, inanity and faux outrage. If you see a blog post that you think is particularly hypocritical, inane or full of faux outrage, I'd love to hear about it. Now for the worst blog posts of this week:

The worst worst blog post of this week comes to us from Brian at GOP3. GOP3 is a blog that is written primarily by three Republican Marquette University students named Brian, Daniel and Brandon. Daniel is a smart guy. Although I disagree with him on all sorts of things and I bet he's boring at parties, his posts usually make some sort of sense, given his religious upbringing, and have real data supporting them. Brandon is pretty harmless. He makes some descent points once in a while, but usually he's pretty "eh." Brian is the real star over there. Brian is very very very angry. About everything. If you comment on one of his posts, he will snap at you unless you are agreeing 100%. He never says anything that I would describe as "interesting," but whatever the topic, Brian is pissed off about it. Even when the topic is sports. The title of Brian's winning post is "UW-M fan base beneath dignity of MU program." Beneath the dignity? Really?

"There is a rumor being perpetuated on UW-M message boards about something Tom Crean is alleged to have said immediately after the game to some UW-M officials. Somehow, a rumor so dramatically nasty managed not to make it to public fora until a full 72 hours following the UW-M game."

"An absolutely implausible rumor in and of itself would not be worth my blogging about, but UW-M fans took it to the next level yesterday when they decided to launch a discussion of it on local sports radio stations. The rumor is so beneath the dignity of anyone associated with Marquette that I will not justify it by linking to the UW-M boards."

Brian is fast out of the gates in the faux outrage department. Brian won't repeat the rumor because it's so "dramatically nasty." But I will. The rumor is that, Marquette's coach said to a group of UWM fans, “now I am fucking done with you guys and you can fucking go home.” He also allegedly went up to one of the assistant coach’s wives and said to her “you can fucking go home too”. Maybe that's a bit inappropriate, but so "dramatically nasty" that he's not willing to tell us what the rumor was? He also thinks it's "implausible." Personally, I'd find it hard to believe that a basketball coach didn't drop a few f-bombs. Tom Crean's no Bobby Knight, but he's no pussycat either.

And Brian is pissed off that people are talking about it on message boards. MESSAGE BOARDS. It's not like UWM put it on a billboard. It's just people talking. Ready for some more faux outrage?

"If nothing else, the earnest perpetuation of this vicious lie about HC Tom Crean — a basketball coach I’ve never felt apprehensive about criticizing — demonstrates that UW-M and its fan base is beneath the dignity of Marquette University and warrants dismissal of the rest of the series. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from it."

Did you get that? Marquette should no longer play UWM in basketball because one fan wrote something on a message board. I love how Brian wants to judge the dignity of an entire university and it's basketball team's fans based on what one person wrote on a message board. On that note, I'll think of Marquette, a Catholic school, next time one priest fucks a little kid. Huge hypocrisy points there Brian. He continues on with the same stuff for a few more paragraphs. It's really worth reading the whole thing. The comments are pretty funny too. I asked him this:

"How do you know he didn’t say it? Has he denied it? I’m not trying to pick a fight, I’m just curious..."

Brian's response:

"When the accusations come from people who claim their uncle’s wife’s kid through a previous marriage’s biology teacher’s next door neighbor heard it, and it takes a full 72 hours to “hear” about it while the UW-M fans didn’t wait a second to go stark raving mad over the score of the game, its plausibility is reduced to basically zero."

Brian believes that "coach says swear word" is such breaking news that to delay discussion of it for a few days makes it IMPOSSIBLE that it happened. Also, a few people on the message board said they heard it first hand. It's still hearsay, but it isn't exactly 9th party as Brian suggests. I asked a few more questions. I never said I though the rumor was true, or even implied it. I certainly never indicated in any way that I had any connection to UWM or Marquette (and I don't). But my favorite comment was from a douchebottle named Fran:

"It’s hard to take you seriously when A) you don’t have your facts or opinions correct; B) are willing to believe any old internet rumor without any serious consideration that it might be a bunch of crap; C) you have a 4th tier UWM Education (4th tier as recognized by US News and World Report rating of Universities and Colleges)."

I responded by noting that I didn't state any facts and opinions can't be incorrect, that I didn't believe the rumor and never implied that I did, and that I didn't go to UWM but, if fran is really concerned about US News ranking, the school I did go to is ranked higher than Marquette. Not that I'd ever use that to discredit someone. If I were a student at a third-tier school (or maybe it's second-tier, I know it's right on the line for law school)I don't think I'd use it as a way to insult people that go to alleged fourth-tier schools. But whatever.

This was a pretty bad blog post overall. It will lose points in the hypocrisy category to some of the big guns in this competition since it's only hypocrisy is that Brian is so outraged that a college student spread a rumor, when college students at his school certainly are capable of the same thing. He also attributes the actions of one (or a few) students to the entire University. Brian has become outraged in the past when others judge all of one group (Christians or Republicans for example) by the actions of one member of that group. He scores well in the inanity department since, really, who gives a shit? And his faux outrage is obviously outstanding.

Hypocrisy: 6/10

Inanity: 8/10

Faux outrage: 10/10

Total: 24/30

2007-12-04T07:08:00.000-08:00

"My Name is Chuck Norris, and I disapprove of this movie."

That's what karate fighting douchebag Chuck Norris has to say about The Golden Compass. Thanks Chuck, I loved your work in Sidekicks. Norris wrote this movie review in World Nut Daily, but unlike most movie reviewers, Chuck Norris reviews movies he hasn't even seen.

The problems with the movie lies not in imagination or ingenuity, but in authorship and analogy.
I strongly urge everyone to read the Focus on the Family review of "The Golden Compass." Suffice it for me to highlight these few points from it. Though Philip Pullman looks with disdain upon the works of C.S. Lewis saying, "I hate the 'Narnia' books, and I hate them with a deep and bitter passion":

There [is]no shortage of parallels between "His Dark Materials" and C.S. Lewis' "Chronicles of Narnia" series. Lyra instead of Lucy. A wardrobe. Alternate worlds. Talking animals. Cosmic consequences linked to a final battle. Oh, and witches – this time on the side of so-called good rather than evil.
As to whether or not a real Creator is responsible for everything, however, another character says simply, "There may have been a creator, or there may not: We don't know."

"The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all," says an influential character named Mary Malone, who then goes on to relate her own "testimony" of why she abandoned her calling as a nun.

Other messages woven into this story exalt witchcraft, evolution, divination, homosexuality and premarital sex. Accompanying them are smoking, drinking, occasional mild profanity and moments of visceral violence.

[In the end] …"God" gets overthrown and the "fall" becomes the source of humankind's redemption, not failure.

I read the Golden Compass several years ago and I thought it was pretty awesome. To say that your kids should read The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe but not The Golden Compass is no different then saying your kids should only read the Koran. The Golden Compass is a great book for kids. It exposes them to some knew ideas like love, courage, independent thinking and self sufficiency. How can you be against that?

2007-11-30T10:13:00.000-08:00

More on the War on Christmas

The annual battle over what to call the big evergreen tree in the Wisconsin Capital Building is under way. A few decades ago, a group of atheists convinced state officials to start calling it a "Holiday Tree." This year, State Representative Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, asked the state legislature to support his plan to rename the holiday tree the "Wisconsin State Christmas Tree." The Freedom From Religion Foundation opposes this measure.

They shouldn't.

As my one or two readers are aware, I think religion is stupid and dangerous. But if you want to get religion out of the public mindset, you shouldn't fight against Christmas, you should try to make Christmas your own. The fact that the origin of the word "Christmas" is based on Christian mythology is not a good reason to try to change the name. Similarly, the fact that the date of December 25th was chosen because of Mythra is no reason not to celebrate on that day. Just because I referred to yesterday as Thursday doesn't mean I believe in Thor either.

I love Christmas. I absolutely love it. But to me it's not about Santa or Jesus. It's about real things, like family and commercialism. A lot of people think I'm joking when I say that. But if you look around you, you'll see that, when it comes to Christmas, most people are more concerned about family, friends, parties, shopping and fun then they are with magical Jewish zombies. And that's GOOD! So instead of fighting against Christmas and the terminology that goes with it, freethinkers should change the meaning of that terminology. Some day, Christmas may truly synonymous with good times and presents. And that will be a better day.

2007-11-21T08:19:00.001-08:00

More on "COEXISTing" - Thanksgiving edition

Charlie Sykes is still talking about this "COEXIST" bumper sticker thing I mentioned a few days ago. It's Thanksgiving, which gives us a perfect example of why the "COEXIST" mantra just doesn't work. Some Christian Europeans come to the Americas. The Indians that were already here tried to coexist with them. The Indians didn't slaughter the 38 very strange and different settlers at Berkeley. The Christians were different to the Indians, but the Indians more or less tried coexisting. Over the next 200 years or so, these Christians slaughtered the Indians they couldn't convert or displace.

Again, coexistence is a nice Idea, but as Charlie Sykes is saying, if just one group, like Nazis or Christians, decides that they don't want to coexist, people get slaughtered.

2007-11-19T11:38:00.000-08:00

It seems like the war on Christmas starts earlier and earlier each year.

Mat Staver, dean of a recently accredited fourth tier law school founded by douchebag Jerry Falwell, recently published a list of "naughty and nice companies." Basically, if a company puts out a "Christmas Catalogue," it's nice. If it puts out a "Holiday Catalogue," it's naughty.

Staver says shoppers should let stores know that they will not shop there until the establishment does recognize the roots of Christmas and the word itself. He stresses the importance of that move in stopping the erosion of the holiday and the liberty to celebrate a religious origin for cultural customs.

I see. So stores should be certain that we know the roots of Christmas so that they can stay on the nice list. December 25th is of course the birthday of a very important deity in the Zoroastrian religion named Mithra. Mithra "saved us" by spilling blood (from a bull, not from himself). Worship of Mithra involved eating bread and drinking wine, baptism and confirmation. Obviously, Mithra shares his birthday with another important deity, Ishtar.

Of course, the celebration of Mithra's birth was by no means the only reason to celebrate during the winter. Many cultures celebrated around the time of the Winter solstice. It was a time when there was less agricultural work to do, and it was also a time to celebrate the fact that nights would begin to get shorter, and days longer.

The "War on the Winter Solstice" began when a bunch of Christians tried to take the meaning out of the festivals the pagan Romans celebrated. They began calling the day "Christmas" and attempting to convert the Roman pagans, while allowing them to continue to celebrate their Winter festivals. Although they changed the name, the Christians adopted much of the pagan mythology. The Christmas tree and holly wreath are pagan symbols, and the tradition of giving gifts comes from Pagan yule festivals. "When in Rome" the Christians thought. But they refused to say to passersby, "Happy Solstice" and instead opted for the PC "Merry Christmas." A few centuries later, Christmas had become the most popular title for these Winter festivals.

Today, Christians have largely forgotten that they stole their Holiday from a different religion. They scoff when non-Christians celebrate in the Winter. The hypocrisy is actually pretty amusing. I personally don't need any of the mythology to enjoy the winter holiday season. To me, it's about real things, like family and commercialism.

2007-11-16T12:38:00.000-08:00

Coexisting

Today, the right side of the blogosphere is very excited about a bumper sticker created by a guy named Tom McMahon.

The bumper sticker is a mock up of the "COEXIST" bumper stickers you see on the road where the word is spelled out in various symbols, including some religious symbols. Mr. McMahon's version replaces the "E" and "X" with a hammer and sickle and a swastika respectively. (In the original version, a male/female symbol and a star of Davis are used). I think Mr. McMahon's point is to say that coexisting is a nice idea, but some groups are so vile that coexisting with them is damn near impossible. I more or less agree that the idea of all of these different groups of people coming together and living in world peace is totally naive. I highly doubt that anyone, even the people who have that sticker on their bumpers believe it's likely, or even possible. But it's a sweet enough idea.

What shocks me is the praise that McMahon is getting from some blogger. McMahon is basically comparing Communism and National Socialism to the other ideas/groups represented in the "COEXIST" bumper sticker. That includes Muslims. But it also includes Christians. And most of the people praising it fall into the category of "Muslims or Christians."

There's a long string of comments over at Boots and Sabres, Charlie Sykes idiotically calls it "Pure Genius" and Peter the Hypocrite praises Tom's art project while asking what the world would look like if the greatest generation had tried to coexist with the Nazis. (Answer: Who knows, but it would look alright if the Nazis has also tried to coexist with the Jews/Poles/Brits/Russians/French/Americans/etc. Both are huge "ifs," but it's not an evil idea. Just a naive one.

2007-03-12T14:40:00.000-07:00

Biggest douchebottle in the entire world.

I know I haven't posted in quite a while, but I just had to come out of lazy-man's retirement to link to this post that proves for once and for all who the biggest pig-humping asshole in the entire world is. Although our friends Fred and Peter have made very good cases for themselves in the past, this little shit named Lucas takes the cake. He writes:

Nigeria has a law that is working its way through its government that would assign a five-year prison sentence on anyone practicing homosexuality. Would American Christians support the same type of legislation if it came before our government for a vote? We are on comfortable ground talking about legislation and constitutional amendments to keep marriage between one man and one woman. Fine. But if we are going to be consistent, if we truly believe that homosexuality is wrong, then is there a reason why we wouldn't support such a law? Are we afraid of those who would laugh at us? I can see the comments already to this post--most wouldn't even be charitable and I will be openly mocked even to entertain thoughts about this law. But we must be consistent and we must stand up for the truth even if it hurts.

This kid is literally arguing that we should be more like Nigeria by imprisoning gay people. Lucas is a religious goofball college student at Patrick Henry University, a school very similar to the Taliban. [ed. I think it's somewhat ironic that a kid that is advocating a fascist government would go to a school named after the guy that said "give me liberty or give me death." Or maybe it's ironic that a school named after Patrick Henry is in favor of a fascist theocratic society. Or maybe Patrick Henry was being ironic when he said that thing about liberty, because he was actually the most useless of the founders imho]. Paul at The Electric Commentary has called him out. I'll be interested to see if Lucas's "alliance" will condemn him for being such a shit-head.

This it really a prime example of how messed up religion is and how messed up the world is because of it. Here's this American kid with every opportunity that is so brain-washed by Christianity that he thinks it's okay to throw people in prison because they're different than him. It's quite sad really.

On a brighter note, I've been having a relatively civil conversation with Dean the thoughtful conservative about religion here. He certainly hasn't been able to answer all of my questions, and he certainly has some delusions, but he really is a thoughtful guy, and unlike most religious people, I think he'll ponder different ideas if they're presented to him. I think there is hope for Dean. Lucas the Deuchebottle would benefit from a chat with Dean the thoughtful conservative.

2006-11-01T19:53:00.000-08:00

Scientific evidence of what I've always thought was obvious.

One of the shittiest things about religion is the idea that religion is necessary for morality. If God doesn't tell us right from wrong, the argument goes, how are we to set our moral compass? This is, of course, totally asinine. Different gods from different religions largely agree on what is right and wrong. It would make sense that whoever invented the different religions were guided by something in their brains. It was very refreshing to read this article:

An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong

Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard biologist, has built on this idea to propose that people are born with a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution. In a new book, “Moral Minds” (HarperCollins 2006), he argues that the grammar generates instant moral judgments which, in part because of the quick decisions that must be made in life-or-death situations, are inaccessible to the conscious mind.

People are generally unaware of this process because the mind is adept at coming up with plausible rationalizations for why it arrived at a decision generated subconsciously.

Dr. Hauser presents his argument as a hypothesis to be proved, not as an established fact. But it is an idea that he roots in solid ground, including his own and others’ work with primates and in empirical results derived by moral philosophers.

2006-10-28T14:07:00.000-07:00

I guess I'm like a paleo-liberal or something.

It says I'm basically a centrist leaning a little towards personal freedom and a little towards economic freedom. But scored higher on both than 99% of people my age. Weird.

You can take the test here:

http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take

Paleo-Liberal
You scored 64% Personal Liberty and 53% Economic Liberty!

A paleo-liberal believes in low to moderate government intervention on personal matters and moderate government intervention on economic matters. They tend to be opposed to war, police powers and victimless crimes. They believe in a social safety net, but to a lesser extent then most leftists. They generally believe in protecting personal liberty. They support self-ownership and privacy. Some Paleo-liberals may lean towards embracing capitalism as an economic system. Paleo-liberals are reminiscent of the attitude of the "new left" of the 60's and 70's. Strong Paleo-Liberals border on Libertarianism.

My test tracked 2 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 99% on Personal

You scored higher than 99% on Economic

Link: The Politics Test written by brainpolice on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test

2006-09-30T22:38:00.000-07:00

Jesus is an asshole.

And I thought that the idea of seeing JC in a grilled cheese sandwhich was ridiculous.

2006-09-19T20:45:00.000-07:00

Required viewing. Why can only satirical news outlets get this right?!?!

2006-09-19T20:09:00.000-07:00

The Pope is, without a doubt, a total hypocritical d-bag. And Christopher Hitchens, as always, is there to call him out on it. Required reding:

Attempting to revive his moribund church on a visit to Germany, where the Roman congregations are increasingly sparse, Joseph Ratzinger (as I shall always think of him) has managed to do a moderate amount of harm—and absolutely no good—to the very tense and distraught discussion now in progress between Europe and Islam.

After the most perfunctory introduction, Ratzinger goes straight to his choice of quotation, which is taken from 14th-century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II. This potentate supposedly once engaged in debate—the precise time and place is unknown—with an unnamed Persian. The subject was Christianity and Islam. The Byzantine asks the Persian to "show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." (On the face of it, not a very open-ended inquiry.) But, warming to his own theme, the purple-clad monarch of Constantinople allegedly added that "to convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death."

Now, you do not have to be a Muslim to think that for the bishop of Rome to cite this is the most perfect hypocrisy. There would have been no established Byzantine or Roman Christianity if the faith had not been spread and maintained and enforced by every kind of violence and cruelty and coercion. To take Islam's own favorite self-pitying example: It was the Catholic crusaders who sacked and burned Christian Byzantium on their way to Palestine—and that was only after they had methodically set about the Jews, so the Muslim world was actually only the third victim of this barbarity.

Read the whole thing.

2006-09-08T17:29:00.000-07:00

Fred Phelps on John Stewert and Stephen Colbert

Check out this D-bag going off on Stewert and Colbert. What a shithead. The unintentional comedy here is off the charts.

2006-09-05T20:22:00.000-07:00

Christian Jihad

How fitting that just as I am discussing the lack of difference between Islam and Christianity with a commenter in the post below, I find this preview for the upcoming movie, Jesus Camp:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE

I'm both excited and scared to see this movie. The trailer makes it pretty clear that there is absolutely no meaningful difference between Christianity and Islam. Crazy is as crazy does.

2006-08-24T17:17:00.000-07:00

Leave it to the Onion to put things into perspective.

"Religion is the one thing that has never let us down," Taheri added over the low rumble of AK-47 fire emanating from the nearby home of a radical Israeli rabbi.

Taheri is not alone. In a time of seemingly unending conflict between Israelis and Arabs, a growing number of Middle Easterners are fervently embracing the unshakeable wisdom of Judaism and Islam.

Palestinian Omar Abdel-Malik, a resident of the Gaza Strip town of Khan Younis, credits his Islamic beliefs for preserving his sanity.

"The Israelis have fired missile upon missile on my neighborhood, but it has only made my trust in Allah that much stronger," Abdel-Malik said. "I cringe to think where the people of the Middle East would be right now if it weren't for our steadfast belief in one true, merciful, and loving Supreme Being."

It's amazing to me how many people don't grasp the obvious point the Onion is making here. I recently found myself in a comment section debate on this very subject. Most of the commenters seemed to be under the impression that Islam was this crazy religion that can't be reasoned with. I think they are largely right on that point. But what's crazy is that they believe almost the same things themselves. How can a person see the irrationality of Islam and not see the same irrationality in Christianity?

2006-08-11T13:09:00.000-07:00

A few interesting items I'd like to share:

First, We're screwed.

A recent survey shows that we are dumber than every country except Turkey. See the graph on the link. Gulp.

In other, more positive news, a Wisconsin family is has thrown it's hat into the ring to fight the good fight.

Nearly 200 bishops were named in a civil lawsuit Tuesday by the family of Dan O'Connell, one of two men shot to death at his family's Hudson funeral home in 2002.
The family filed the unprecedented lawsuit, which asks for the names and locations of some 5,000 clergy accused of molesting children, so they can publicize the list. They say the list is known only to the church.

The litigation is unique because of its scope and because others may join to make it a national class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said Jeff Anderson, the attorney for Dan O'Connell's family,

"The bishops and the USCCB have established a policy of harboring and protecting suspected child molesting agents, thereby endangering numerous children throughout the United States," the complaint said.

Maybe the courts and the media will quit giving this organization a pass for once. But it's not likely. "Religion made me do it" is a pretty surefire defense when it comes to conspiracy, child molestation and murder.

Finally, my garrulous old pal Steve has, based on my comments on another of his posts, asked where my morality comes from absent god. I always find this question to be insulting and obvious at the same time. Yet it is often asked. I posted a brief response there, but I haven't had time to fully answer it yet. Steve hasn't answered me, or the other commenters yet. He is completely dodging the question of whether he would still find murder to be morally wrong if god told him it was morally right.

Update: Steve has still not responded. I'd like to think that maybe it's because he's seen the error of his ways and has decided that morality has nothing to do with belief in illogical fairy tales. But I doubt it.

2006-07-28T07:40:00.000-07:00

Maybe this is why they hate science:

HEAVEN IS HOTTER THAN HELL

A study was conducted to determine the temperature of Hell. The reasoning process used in the study is interesting because itinvolves both the knowledge and the logic with which you should
be equipped. The Bible (Rev. 21:8) tells us that Hell is a lake of fireand brimstone. What is brimstone? Brimstone is sulfur. Sulfurmust be molten (liquid phase) since the Bible says it is a lake.

From this information, we can determine the temperature of Hell. Start by looking up the melting and boiling points ofsulfur. If sulfur is present as a liquid, its temperature mustbe somewhere between sulfur's melting and boiling points. The boiling point of sulfur is 832 degrees Fahrenheit, and themelting point is 246 degrees Fahrenheit. Since Hell is eternal,it could not be at the boiling point for then it would quicklyevaporate. Most likely, Hell is about 246 degrees.

The same study also determined the temperature in Heaven. The Bible (Is. 30:26) tells us that in Heaven the light of the moon is as the light of the sun. Also, the light of the sun isseven times the light of seven days on earth. Heaven receives 50 times more light than the earth. Heavengets 49 times the amount of light from the sun relative to theearth and an additional amount of light from the moon that equalsthe amount of light we on earth receive from the sun. So, all in all, Heaven receives 50 times more light than we do on earth. Assuming that the temperature of Heaven remains constant,Heaven must also lose by radiation 50 times as much heat as doesthe earth. The Stefan-Boltzmann fourth-power radiation law predicts that Heaven must be 977 degrees Fahrenheit if it were toradiate this much heat.

Knowing that Hell could be about 750 degrees cooler thanHeaven may be a comforting thought for some of us.

Adopted from an article written by Ronald DeLorenzo appearing in Problem Solving for General Chemistry, 1993, Wm. C.Brown Publishers.

2006-07-06T13:59:00.000-07:00

Does hearing voices make you insane?

In Texas, that depends. I was pointed to this blog post via dispatches from the culture wars. It's pretty scary when you think about it.

This is a story about two women in Texas who murdered their children.Both women are the same age. Both were deeply religious, stay-at-home moms when they killed their children. Both women confessed.One mother was found insane, and hospitalized in a mental institution to receive treatment. The other was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

Actually, there was one way the women were different.Deanna Laney heard God tell her to kill her children. Andrea Yates heard Satan tell her to kill her children. Guess which one got the life sentence.

apparently hearing the voice of God alone is not enough to qualify a person as nuts. Under Texas law, to qualify as insane, you must not be able to determine right from wrong. So when God tells you to kill your kids and you do it, you're insane because God's will would never involve killing. But if Satan tells you to kill your kids, you should know it's wrong since it is Satan advocating it. This type of reasoning makes me pretty sick. It's as if these people believe that right and wrong is determined by some crusty old fiction book. If you ask me, Yates and Laney are both nuttier than squirrel turds. But you know what else is crazy? Using biblical ideas to determine right and wrong.

2006-07-06T10:58:00.000-07:00

Religious Overreaction of the Week

A movie about a Christian football coach's faith in god received a PG rating from the Motion Picture Association allegedly based on it's religious content.

"This incident raises the disquieting possibility that the MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous for children than exposure to gratuitous sex and violence," Blunt said in a letter to MPAA Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Dan Glickman.

First off, this is an outright lie. Gratuitous sex and violence usually draw an R rating. Second of all, PG stands for "parental guidance suggested" not "worse than G movies." Aren't these the same freaks that talk about not having sex ed in school and stuff like that because it's the parents' job? Religion IS a matter that parents should provide some guidance in. And this movie seems to take some rather extreme positions. The movie poster's taglines are "Never give up. Never back down. Never lose faith." and "With God, all things are possible." So right there, it is advancing the position that faith is good and God is real and that all things are possible. All of these are dangerous ideas, not to mention demonstrably, or at lease arguably, false.

I would much rather have my kids see some tits or hear the F-bomb a few times than watch some pro-Christianity movie without me there to explain why some people believe that weird stuff. What if the movie was advancing the idea that, "With Thor, all things are possible"? Or more realistically, I think most Christians would be against having their kids watch this awesome movie without a little "parental guidance." And I'm pretty sure it contains no profanity, sex or violence.

2006-04-24T13:10:00.000-07:00

Just as I suspected

All but four of the forty-three polls listed support the conclusion that native intelligence varies inversely with degree of religious faith; i.e., that, other factors being equal, the more intelligent a person is, the less religious he is.

Conclusions In this essay:

sixteen studies of the correlation between individual measures of student intelligence and religiosity, all but three of which reported an inverse correlation.

five studies reporting that student bodies with high average IQ and/or SAT scores are much less religious than inferior student bodies;

three studies reporting that geniuses (IQ 150+) are much less religious than the general public (Average IQ, 100), and one dubious study;

seven studies reporting that highly successful persons are much less religious in belief than are others; and

eight old and four new Gallup polls revealing that college alumni (average IQ about 115) are much less religious in belief than are grade-school pollees.

Scott Adams asks why this is so?

"it’s fair to wonder whether the low IQ/faith correlation – if real – is based on direct causation or something else. According to your comments, here are some of the top contenders for the “something else.”

1. Smart people tend to have more resources. Therefore, God’s quiet whisper to their soul is drowned out by the sound of their home theaters and BMW engines.

2. College professors are a bunch of atheists who consciously or unconsciously brainwash students to disavow their faith. So the more college you get, the more brainwashing you get.

3. Higher education teaches a rational way of looking at the world that is well suited for worldly decision-making but cripples the student for recognizing the subtlety of the divine.

4. And my favorite: People with high IQs are notoriously stupid when it comes to real world questions."

2006-04-11T09:31:00.000-07:00

The War on Easter

has begun.

2006-04-11T07:31:00.000-07:00

Peter the Hypocrite

One of the silliest bloggers I've come into contact with is Peter the Hypocrite. I find his hypocrisy so bat-shit crazy that I had to provide him a perma-link on my sidebar. One of my favorite characteristics of Peter the Hypocrite is his hypocrisy. That's why I call him Peter the Hyipocrite. Every so often I comment on his blog and ask him to explain how statements he makes are not hypocritical. He deletes them. Even if I'm nice about it. So I'd just like to point out an example of Peter the Hypocrite's blatant hypocrisy. Check out this post.

In the post, Peter the Hypocrite is taking issue with some conservative referring to a particular brand of conservatives--those from south-eastern Wisconsin-- as "Charlie Sykes' Stormtroopers." He also referred to them as "nutso."

So Peter the Hypocrite notes that this is just another example of "Liberals of any stripe Â Republicans or Democrats Â referring to conservatives using Nazi terminology."

Got it? Liberals often refer to conservatives using Nazi terminology. This is bad.

So than Peter the Hypocrite asserts that his accuser is no more conservative than "Sgt. Dale "I Know Nussing" Schultz." Now Dale Schultz is a Republican Wisconsin senator. But "I know nussing" is obviously a referencece to Sgt. Schultz on Hogan's Heroes, who was in fact, a Nazi. A bumbling one at that. So a few paragraphs after chastising liberals for referring to conservatives as Nazis, Peter the Hypocrite refers to a conservative as a Nazi.

This is not the end of it. Peter goes on to claim his accuser is not a conservative:

"Why do I say that I don't believe he is a conservative? Because the ad hominem personal attacks he launched were right out of the leftist playbook."

Ahhh, the leftist playbook and its reliance on ad hominem attacks. Peter the Hypocrite is so far above ad hominem attacks that in the same post he says this in the very next paragraph:

"This guy is most likely one of these blue-blood country-club Republicans that are the ruination of the GOP every time they are in control of the agenda. These blue-blood, country-clubbers lose at the ballot boxes unless their district is gerrymandered to ensure their election."

So this type of Republican is different and weak and wrong because they belong to country clubs or have "blue blood." I got news for you Peter the Hypocrite; calling someone a blue-blooded country clubber is arguing against the person. It is an ad hominem.

Hypocrisy? I think so.

2006-04-06T07:14:00.000-07:00

My Politics

I got myself into a little exchange with a few right-wingers on the topic of immigration over at the Badger Blog Alliance. Whenever I comment over there or on Bible-Brian's blog or Jenna's blog, I always seem to get accused of being a liberal. Gee-wiz, do I hate party politics. We live in a politically ridiculous world where conservative means Republican and liberal means Democrat. People have so many totally inconsistent ideas that have been lumped together by one stupid party or the other for so long that they don't see the inconsistencies. The immigration debate is a prime example. Free immigration IS free trade. Yet the Democrats are typically for immigration and against free trade, while the Republicans are typically for free trade and are against immigration. The war is another example. If you are against big spending, why be so eager to go to war? The Patriot Act is another example. Republicans are supposed to be the party in favor of liberty over order. The Patriot act almost explicitly places order over liberty.

So where do I stand?
-I am in favor of small government. Laws that tell me (or anyone else) what I can and can't do for my own protection are bad laws. This includes smoking bans (with respect to tavern owners more than smokers), drug laws, laws telling people who they can and can't marry, and tariffs meant to tell me who I can and can't buy stuff from. In the same vein, I think that welfare programs should be reduced significantly. I think that nationalized health care would lead to shitty health care (see e.g. Canada).

-I am in favor of freedom and equality. For this reason I think our borders should basically be open. We should have some limits based on prior criminal acts perhaps. And there should be some formalities. But it should take a few days or weeks to become a US citizen, not a year or more. People shouldn't be doomed to a shitty life just because of where they were born. Also in the category of freedom and equality: I'm against affirmative action. Although I think it was necessary for a time, that time has passed. I think it's doing more harm to minorities than good these days. My stance on gay rights fits into this category too.

-I believe in the harm principle. If an act hurts nobody but the actor, the actor should be free to do it. This is one of the many things that separates gay marriage from pedophilia etc. Despite what the right-wingers argue. This also applies to drug laws. Smoking pot doesn't hurt anyone really. You can't even argue that it hurts anyone besides the user.

-I can't stand the notion of God. It has held back progress since some primitive man first put a skull on a pike and threw some red dirt on it. But today it's at a very dangerous level. We're too smart to believe such nonsense in this day and age. It should be kept out of politics as much as possible. Sam Harris said this:

We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal truth of the Book of Revelation, or any of the other fantastical notions that have lurked in the minds of the faithful for millenniaÂbecause our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

And I agree. By the way, check out this Sam Harris interview. I know Samdisappointedd some with the last chapter of The End of Faith but he is still a damn smart guy and everyone should hear what he has to say.

-That's my politics in a nutshell. My Democrat friends would laugh at anyone who characterizes me as liberal. My Republican friends would laugh at anyone who characterizes me as Conservative. I'm neither. But the chances are, either are you.

2006-04-04T09:54:00.000-07:00

It's been a while

So I thought I'd post something.

Lance Burri of the Badger Blog Alliance (Making Wisconsin Scary in '08) thinks he is smarter than one of America's greatest literary geniuses. He criticizes the logic of the quote at the top of this here blog after he read it on a bumper sticker. He's right to some degree. The quote would be more accurate if it said "Faith is believing what you ought to know aint so."

This expensive study proves the something that all of us ought to already know.

And here's a disheartening study indicating that atheists are the most distrusted group in America.

Asked whether they would disapprove of a child's wish to marry an atheist, 47.6 percent of those interviewed said yes. Asked the same question about Muslims and African-Americans, the yes responses fell to 33.5 percent and 27.2 percent, respectively. The yes responses for Asian-Americans, Hispanics, Jews and conservative Christians were 18.5 percent, 18.5 percent, 11.8 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively.

When asked which groups did not share their vision of American society, 39.5 percent of those interviewed mentioned atheists. Asked the same question about Muslims and homosexuals, the figures dropped to a slightly less depressing 26.3 percent and 22.6 percent, respectively. For Hispanics, Jews, Asian-Americans and African-Americans, they fell further to 7.6 percent, 7.4 percent, 7.0 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively.

How sad. These are the same people that will watch the Larry the Cable Guy Movie.

2006-03-09T15:43:00.000-08:00

Study:

Ignorance more common among republicans and the uneducated.

2006-02-14T17:10:00.000-08:00

Teaching kids critical thinking

This is disturbing:

Their Own Version of a Big Bang

Those who believe in creationism -- children and adults -- are being taught to challenge evolution's tenets in an in-your-face way.

WAYNE, N.J. — Evangelist Ken Ham smiled at the 2,300 elementary students packed into pews, their faces rapt. With dinosaur puppets and silly cartoons, he was training them to reject much of geology, paleontology and evolutionary biology as a sinister tangle of lies."

Boys and girls," Ham said. If a teacher so much as mentions evolution, or the Big Bang, or an era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, "you put your hand up and you say, 'Excuse me, were you there?' Can you remember that?"

The children roared their assent."

Sometimes people will answer, 'No, but you weren't there either,' " Ham told them. "Then you say, 'No, I wasn't, but I know someone who was, and I have his book about the history of the world.' " He waved his Bible in the air.

"Who's the only one who's always been there?" Ham asked.

"God!" the boys and girls shouted.

"Who's the only one who knows everything?"

"God!"

"So who should you always trust, God or the scientists?"

The children answered with a thundering: "God!"

I'm speechless. God's been around forever. We know this because the Bible says so. And we know the Bible is true because why? Because god wrote it? And we know he wrote it why? Because it says so? Is this guy dryhumping me? What a bunch of shit. I weep for these poor children.

2006-01-24T09:57:00.000-08:00

"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history."
-Robert A. Heinlein

2006-01-22T10:01:00.000-08:00

Required Listening

If there is anyone out there who thinks a Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) as a mere stage magician, that person needs to listen to him speak on religion, pseudoscience, hucksterism and the like.

You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?

You should also read his books and watch Bullsh!t. I think Penn has just about the most posative worldview of anyone.

2005-12-29T11:08:00.000-08:00

On Bigotry

I'm a bigot. According to dictionary.com, a bigot is "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

But I have a problem with this definition. I think there is a major difference between being strongly partial to one's own religion or politics and being partial to one's own race or ethnicity or sexual orientation. I think we need two words.

Race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation are inherent. And they have no inherent affect on a person's ideas. To say, "I hate black people because they are all gang-bangers or welfare bums" is a completely bigoted statement. For one thing it is totally untrue. For another, there is no causal relationship between race and gang-banging or anything else. But to say, "I hate Christians because they believe in irrational things" is different. (Note: I'm not saying I do. I don't hate anyone.) For one, this is true. Christians are defined by an irrational belief. They choose to be part of that group.

I am strongly partial to my religion (or lack there of) because I think that other religions are substantively wrong. I think feel the same about people who believe in god as I do about people who deny the holocaust, think the Earth is flat, or who believe 2 + 2 =5. If that makes me a bigot, fine. But I'm the good kind. People like this are the bad kind.

2005-11-28T16:37:00.000-08:00

Sign of the proverbial apocalypse

A recent poll suggests that the majority of Americans are fucking idiots.

-Sixty-four percent (64%) agree with the statement that "it is important that religious symbols like the Ten Commandments be displayed in public buildings such as court houses," while 32 percent disagree. Among fundamentalist/evangelical/charismatic Christians, 89 percent agree; 9 percent disagree.

-Fifty-six percent (56%) favor, and 39 percent oppose, the teaching of the biblical story of creation alongside evolution in public schools as "equally valid explanations for the origins of human life." Among fundamentalist/evangelical/charismatic Christians, 70 percent favor teaching creationism, with 28 percent opposed.

-Asked "which is a more likely explanation for the origins of human life on earth, Darwin or the Bible?," 57 percent respond "The Bible," while 31 percent respond "Darwin." Among fundamentalist/evangelical/charismatic Christians, 87 percent say "the Bible;" 7 percent say "Darwin."

-On prayer in public schools, 47 percent of Americans believe that "students should be free to express their religious beliefs throughout the school day, including group prayer," while 44 percent agree with the statement that "public schools should only allow a moment of silence for individual prayer." Among fundamentalist/evangelical/charismatic Christians, 69 percent believe that group prayer is appropriate, while 25 percent support individual prayer only.

How embarrassingsing.

2005-11-27T20:55:00.000-08:00

Science 101

Shana, one of my rare commenters on this here blog engaged me in a discussion regarding young-earth creationist "Dr." Kent Hovind in the the comments to post below this one. She provided this little tidbit in defense of "Dr." Hovind:

I agree with most of his points, but they are things that I learned long before I knew he even existed. I don't agree with everything he says, but he has a lot more solid, unchaning information than any other scientist I know. You say that science is absolute, yet the answers are constantly changing. Either something is right, or it isn't, and to keep chaning the answers in lieu of 'better information', shows that you have faith that it will eventually be 'right'.

After reading this, I thought that Shana could use a little introductory science lesson since she clearly doesn't understand what science is. Also, I never said that "science is absolute." But we'll get to that in a minute. I think this is an important issue to address right now. This whole evolution versus ID/creationism debate hinges on the fact that many many Americans are not scientifically literate. Shana is a prime example.

So what is Science?

Science is the investigation or study of nature through observation and reasoning, aimed at finding out the truth. It is important to note that science is the process I just described, not just the actual discoveries the process might yield. Most scientists employ the Scientific Method.

Scientific method uses observations and reasoning to propose tentative explanations for natural phenomena, termed hypotheses. Scientists make predictions from these hypotheses. An important aspect of a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable, in other words, it must be conceivable to prove the hypothesis to be false. If a proposition is not falsifiable, then it is not a hypothesis, and instead an opinion or statement not based upon the scientific method. These hypothesies are tested by various experiments. These experiments should be reproducible.

Once a hypothesis is repeatedly verified through experiment, it is considered to be a theory and new predictions are based upon it. Any erroneous predictions, internal inconsistencies or unexplained phenomena, initiate the generation of correction to hypotheses, which are themselves tested, and so on. Any hypothesis which is cogent enough to make predictions can be tested in this way.

It is important to understand the terms "hypothesis," "theory," "law," model," and also "fact." It is important to understand that a theory is not something less than a fact. All of these terms refer to different and important things.

Shana points out that "Dr." Kent Hovind's information is solid and unchanging. She says this in the same breath in which she refers to him as a "scientist." Solid and unchanging information does not equate to good information. In fact, it usually equates to bad information. Hovind is not a scientist. He didn't begin with a hypothesis and test it. He began with a theory. He then worked backwards and tried to fit all of the observable evidence in the world into his theory. When people do this, they usually twist their evidence to fit their theory. What a true scientist does is twist his theory to fit the evidence. The beauty of science is that it is NOT solid and unchanging. If good science was solid and unchanging, you would still see leeches and rusty drills in the hospital; Man would not be able to fly; the Earth would be flat and at the center of the universe. And the world would suck ass.

Shana assumes that I have "faith" because I think that by changing theories to suit "better information" I will eventually find the "right answer." This is the danger of thinking in absolutes. In many cases, there is no "right answer." In others, such as the origin of life and the universe, there may be a right answer but no scientist emphatically believes that we will ever have a complete answer. Science seeks better answers. And I'm comfortable with that. Religion seeks, or rather religion believes it has, "right answers." The sad thing is that science has proven so many of these "right answers" to be wrong and religion still exists.

2005-11-14T07:25:00.000-08:00

Where did Jesus get is Y Chromosome?

Sperm aren't always necessary. Some female lizards, fish and other creatures can procreate through parthenogenesis (Greek for virgin birth). Cloning allows something similar in mammals.
But there's a problem with arguing Jesus came about through cloning or parthenogenesis - he would have been born a girl. In the past few decades, science revealed that to be male you need a Y chromosome, and the only place you can get one is from a man. '

'There's a big split over the Y chromosome issue,'' says Boston University theology professor Wesley Wildman. One thing Catholics and Protestants seem to agree on is that Jesus was fully human and male, so he must have carried the usual male quotient of DNA. It's not the Y chromosome he needed per se but a gene called SRY normally carried on the Y.

Occasionally this male-making gene gets moved off the Y, giving rise to an infertile XY woman. In a few cases men are found to have two X chromosomes, but such XX males turn out to have this critical fragment of the Y stuck on one of the other 22 chromosomes. That fragment of the Y has to come from a father.

I always had a hunch that the whole religion was founded based on a lie told by a cheating wife (if Jesus was a real person at all) but when you put it like this it seems even more obvious.

Biology professor David Wilcox of Eastern University, a Christian college, said some aspects of reality may lie beyond the reach of science. ''Of course Jesus had DNA and a Y chromosome - and the source for half of that DNA [and the Y chromosome] would presumably be pure and simple miracle,'' he says.

Pure and simple miracle indeed. You can't argue with that.

2005-11-08T08:51:00.000-08:00

Why does god hate amputees?

Marshall Brian wants to know.

If you are a Christian, and especially if you are a devout Christian, you have probably seen prayer work in your own life, and you have also seen it work in the lives of people you know at your church. In both good times and bad, you have prayed to God, and God has reached down to personally touch your life in a positive way.

You also know that there are thousands of examples of answered prayers that have been discussed in innumerable books and magazine articles. You can go to any Christian bookstore and you can find literally hundreds of books about the power of prayer. On the Internet you can find thousands of testimonials to God's grace and the many ways that God works in our lives today. Even large city newspapers and national news magazines run stories about the power of prayer. God must be actively interacting with our world and answering millions of prayers on planet Earth every day.

For a Christian, the reason why prayer works so well and so consistently and so powerfully is obvious. In the Bible, Jesus promises many times that he will answer our prayers.

Therefore, here is an interesting thought experiment for you to try as a Christian. For this experiment, we need to find a deserving person who has had both of his legs amputated. For example, find a sincere, devout, Christian veteran of the Iraqi war, or a devout Christian in your church who was involved in a tragic automobile accident.

Now create a prayer circle like the one created for Jeanna Giese. The job of this prayer circle is simple: pray to God to restore the amputated legs of this deserving Christian. I do not mean to pray for a team of renowned surgeons to somehow graft the legs of a cadaver onto the soldier, nor for a team of renowned scientists to craft mechanical legs for him. Pray that God spontaneously and miraculously restores the soldier's legs overnight, in the same way that God spontaneously and miraculously cured Jeanna Giese and Marilyn Hickey's mother.

If possible, get millions of human beings all over the planet to join the prayer circle and pray their most fervent prayers. Get millions of people praying in unison for a single miracle for this one deserving Christian amputee. Then stand back and watch.

Jesus clearly says that if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. He does not say it once -- he says it many times in many ways in the Bible.

What is going happen?

What indeed?

2005-10-31T17:32:00.000-08:00

Required Reading

I remember reading about this study several weeks ago via The Electric Commentary. I was finally able to get a hold of the actual study rather than b-grade news reports that labled it "controversial."

Here's the abstract:

Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular. Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution America performs poorly.

2005-10-28T15:33:00.000-07:00

What happens when two cults combine?

This.

2005-10-26T13:14:00.000-07:00

I'll take a grande' non-fat latte', no God please.

Coffee drinkers could get a spiritual jolt with their java in the spring when Starbucks begins putting a God-filled quote from the Rev. Rick Warren, author of the mega-selling The Purpose-Driven Life, on its cups.

It will be the first mention of God in the company's provocative quote campaign, The Way I See It. In 2005, Starbucks is printing 63 quotes from writers, scientists, musicians, athletes, politicians and cultural critics on cups for company-run and licensed locations to carry on the coffeehouse tradition of conversation and debate.

I don't really see a big problem with this besides my dislike of giving money to religidiots. Religious quotes can indeed be thought provoking. Maybe these will result in some good atheist-creating coffe house debates. We can only hope that they will include some Sam Harris or Penn Quotes as well.

But they probably won't.

2005-10-26T13:04:00.000-07:00

The Religion Clauses

The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment often come into conflict. Sometimes it is hard to make a policy that allows for free exercise that does not respect the establishment of religion. Sometimes it is hard to prevent the government from respecting the establishment of religion without hampering someone's free exercise.

This is not one of those situation.

Iowa prison officials have permitted a religious group at the Newton correction Facility "to take over an entire unit and to turn it into an evangelical Christian church," a lawyer contended Monday.

Inmates can be accepted into the Newton prison rehabilitation program "only by being subjected to religious indoctrination," said Alex Luchenitser, representing American United for Separation of Church and State of Washington, D.C.

His group is suing Iowa prison officials and Virginia-based Prison Fellowship Ministries, contending the program, known as the InnerChange Freedom Initiative, unconstitutionally represents a merger of state and religion.

More here:

A Christian prison program subsidized by the state is discriminatory, giving preferential treatment to inmates who enroll, a lawyer for an advocacy group argued Monday.

Participants live in a special unit that is more like a college dorm than a prison, with separate bathrooms and doors that are unlocked by keys given to inmates, Luchenitser said.

They get special visits from family members and are guaranteed jobs and access to computers, benefits other inmates may not have access to.

InnerChange inmates receive classes required for early parole while inmates not enrolled in the program have to wait to take the classes, Luchenitser said.

They receive in-house discipline, which Luchenitser said "makes misconduct invisible to the Board of Parole."

Inmates who don't subscribe to the "evangelical teachings" of Innerchange "are treated badly" and expelled from the program, he said.

This is EXACTLY what the framers of the establishment clause were trying to prevent. If there were a program that rewarded prisoners for rejection the notion of god (a far more noble goal) the religious right would be in uproar and citing the First Amendment left and right.

2005-10-26T12:56:00.000-07:00

Required Reading
For my first post here I was going to try to sum up what this blog was going to be about. But this guy just said exactly what I was thinking.

If You're a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong

We live in a twisted world, where right is wrong and wrong reigns supreme. It is a chilling fact that most of the world's leaders believe in nonsensical fairytales about the nature of reality. They believe in Gods that do not exist, and religions that could not possibly be true. We are driven to war after war, violence on top of violence to appease madmen who believe in gory mythologies.

Read the whole thing.