Should Britain Become Secular

Yes.


Oh, you wanted more? I enjoy listening to both sides of the argument, so I will attach this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EE-4wy8vsiQ

BBC One's debates are always enlightening, frustrating, and fair. We need to have such debates such as this in the USA. The Big Questions has weekly debates offering the public the views of multiple sides of any controversy. The question about should Britain become secular erodes into one side proclaiming that there should be no bias, united against any form of religious bigotry, and the side claiming that the state should infer god's existence and eventually fragments into their own disagreements on how this can be achieved or what god even is.

Other than the UK, the only other state with unelected religious representation is.... yes, Iran. It is patently absurd to have a majority non-religious state run in part by sinister virgins who proclaim to know precisely what a deity is and what he wants or doesn't want you to do. If they want a voice in government, they should run for parliament!

As the USA and France vie for the most secular state, both have highly different approaches. Now, that IS a good debate. Which system offers the most freedoms for people?

Reward For Disproving the Bible??

In another publicity stunt for Young Earth Creationists, Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, link here, has cast his word out, once again.

In what he calls the Life Science Prize, he offers $10,000 for anyone who can disprove the creation account in the bible. Seriously?? Sounds easy you say? Well go ahead and read what his requirements are.

In this Huffinton Post article, it also outlines someone who has tried to rise to the challenge, and at every step of the way, being told that evidence is not evidence, and claiming that the Professor on trial is not qualified.

Simply put, our Dr. Mastropaolo has no interest in discussing science, but simply to raise awareness for his ludicrous Young Earth Creationism, in which he says the world is about 6000 years old and events unfolded as is quoted in Genesis.

Refresh your account of Genesis chapter 1 here, and note that God did not create the sun or lights in the sky until the third day. I dare say, how could there be days without the sun? Well there you go, my $10,000  please, Mr. Joseph.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/joseph-mastropaolo-creationist-10000-disprove-genesis_n_2964801.html?utm_hp_ref=science

Religion does not OWN this!!

I am tired of listening to religious people claiming things that do not belong to religion.

When discussing with a religious person, I am confronted by the ignorance of someone who is so biased, they have no ability to analyze their own beliefs. As we run into Easter, Bill O'Reilly is moaning on about how atheists have a war on Easter, not understanding that "Easter" never belonged to Christianity. The Vernal Equinox has been celebrated by cultures long before and still around the Middle-east, Europe, and Asia.

Although the origin of the name is unknown, some sources claim the word is derived from Eostre, a teutonic goddess of spring and fertility. I need not go into the other Easter traditions, such as Rabbits and Eggs, as they obviously have nothing to do with religion.

The same goes for Christmas, in which every notion of the common holiday has it's origins in pagan society, mostly Germanic and Nordic in origin. From Eggnog to evergreen trees covered in lights, to mistletoe and yule logs. Even Santa himself.

I go down the list of ideas and traditions religions have conveniently absorbed into themselves to be more attractive to potential converts. Or simply because those who started the religions thought them to be normal.

Everything from meditation to marriage, afterlife to truth. Awe and wonder.

It was the last two I was most shocked to hear religious complaining about lately. PZ Myers recently brought this subject up quoting the guardian, a British newspaper.  The article, titled "Prof Brian Cox: Physicist or Priest?" claims that religion and only religion holds dominion over awe, wonder, amazement.  Once again, this only demonstrates how narrow of views some religious people have and their disdain for science.

The Language of Religion, as PZ points out, is "Dominion, Tribalism, Ignorance, and Fear"

DOMA

OH how attitudes have changed since Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law. A democratic president could little have imagined the current president, almost all of democratic congress, even the previous presidency, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, and so many others would voice their support for Gay Marriage.

Despite the squeaky wheel which is veering farther and farther to the right, despite the attack on women's rights here in North Dakota, the country is not more liberal than it has ever been.

Short term, conservative politics tends to impede progress, however it would seem history is reserved for the tolerant, the wise, and the compassionate. When Republican congressman Rob Portman voiced his support for Gay Marriage because of his gay son, we all saw this as the obvious. Republicans refuse to see issues until it is right in front of them.

The Supreme Court is now investigating the constitutionality of DOMA, and  experts put the likelihood at 80% that the supreme court will strike it down, forbidding states to make Gay Marriage legal. Let's be honest about this guys, this is religions last attempt to spit on homosexuals, and they are making sure to get their last throat clearing in.

Give it up at simply accept your religion is the reason you are hateful.

No Luxury...

It would seem that by and large, the majority of my generation who I meet in the States tend to be resting upon the fence of indifference when it comes to religion. On the plus side, there are so few believers remaining, and after the passing of the elderly, the US will be far less religious. On the other hand, there are daily encroachments on free society by religion, and when I open the paper, I see another reason to stand up and shout!

When in discussion, I get the opinion that most understand that the time will come, but at the moment, no need for an uprising. It truly baffles me how so many people can come to the conclusion that religion is untrue, and even harmful for society and yet sit back and not see the urgency to speak out about it.

In today's newspaper, the cover story is called "Battle of the Uterus", "A bunch of men decide the fate of women's reproductive rights."

The bill outlines unprecedented anti-choice legislation which prohibit abortion. People across the state are outrages, democrats and republicans alike. If not vetoed by the governor, these bills would:

1) Outlaw abortion for severe genetic abnormalities
2) Make abortion illegal after a detectable heartbeat
3) Declaring human life starts at conception
4) Deny exceptions to victims or rape, sexual abuse, or women who are under severe risk to their health
5) Forces doctors to break confidentiality agreements and punished doctors who do not comply
6) Now includes an amendment to stop sexual education funding to schools

Now I would love to believe the legislators were not religiously motivated, but there is no way around it. What does sexual education, an integral part of understanding and making informed decisions, have to do with abortion?? Certainly removing sexual education will increase the need for abortions and underage pregnancies. If you want to limit abortions, and I would say that is also my aim, education is the starting point. No one wants abortion, and regardless of your beliefs, it is a delicate debate. Apparently this debate is one ND legislators feel is not worth having.

One idea I have heard is the oil-rich state is purposely taking this challenge on because they can afford the forthcoming lawsuits until it gets to the supreme court.  Either way, religion has stepped on secular toes once again, and if this is not the time for our generation to voice itself, I do not know when that may be.

If you are in the Fargo/Moorhead area, please join the people on Monday, March 25th at 5:30 pm at the Fargo Civic center for the Stand Up For Women Rally, and wear white.

I hope to see you there!

Against Gay Marriage

Browsing the internet, you might come across some thought provoking ideas. I found one the other day which struck me as ironic.

A high school student had posted online, something I failed to find again, sorry for the lack of links, an assignment to take on a public debate. The teen student chose the topic of Gay Marriage only to learn that the teacher then instructed each student to argue the opposite position they feel about it. Since the student supported Gay Marriage, he was in a bind.

So his question was: I am lost in finding a reason against gay marriage which does not come from religion.

I pose the challenge to all of you, can you find any sound reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry?

Science Questions

So on Tuesday I was at a science conference at NDSU, featuring a biologist describing why creationist claims are not valid. I had great discussions before and after the meet, and met more of the creationist folk in the area. After the conference, a bible teacher, and who I presume was his student came up to me asking some questions about evolution.

I was happy to field such questions, but the very first thing I mentioned was that I am NOT a scientist. I am not a biologist, I am just interested in discussion science, nature, and religion. Sure, I have read extensively about biology and evolution, and a beautiful thing it is, but when people think it is an Atheists job to defend science, and if they cannot, then science fails, are simply looking for a straw-man.

This case, however, the younger guy asked me some pretty easy questions, so I felt comfortable to answer. The first question was: "How do we evolve if humans get old and die?"

So clearly his idea of evolution is WAYYY off, but if I am permitted to speculate, I would guess he thinks evolution is like Ray Comfort believes, transition from one life form to another, like a half duck, half crocodile. See Crocoduck!

No no, evolution occurs in gene pools, a competition between the genes in a population rather than individually. If North Koreans, isolated as they are, started artificially selecting only the tallest members of their society to breed, then the North Koreans of the future would be generally taller because some genes allowed some to breed, and others not to. Nature does this through selection pressures of survival.

Changes are extremely slow and occur over vast stretches of time. We are able to view this process in nature though, as environment changes, the species in them must change accordingly.

The second and last question was 'why humans evolved higher than others'. Again, a common misunderstanding among creationists, who tend to disseminate false information about evolution to confuse people. Evolution is not a ladder, nature is blind and has no direction. We are able to contemplate these issues because we evolved 'higher brain function', which just happened to work out for us quite well, but if put in a running match with a cheetah, a wrestling contest with a bear, or a swimming contest with a whale, we would not fare well. Humans have evolved the ability to communicate more efficiently than others, use tools, and shave off undesirable body hair. This, however, does not make us higher, or better than other animals, just better at those specific things.

This is a classic anthropocentric fallacy. If we see something from our point of view, it seems significant, of course. I will use the puddle analogy once again. If a puddle is amazed because the roads, the pothole, and the world around it have been designed for it, before it asks if it is possible for the shape of the puddle to have formed in the available environment, then it is being puddle-centric. Imagine if the puddle remarks about how inferior the human is for not being able to change shape. Imagine the giraffe making fun of the human who has to CLIMB trees. No, we are pretty good at doing what we need to do to survive and continue spreading our genes.

Here is my question though. WHY are so many people simply unable to read about evolution? In my previous post, I offered some suggestions of which books to start with about evolution. Why does it seem that people are so religious only when they refuse to read opinions outside their own beliefs?

Read a f*#$!ing book!

Why is Marijuana still a debate?

Let me ask this in the broader sense: Is there a reason Marijuana should be illegal? Please comment and join the conversation!

Science Refutes Religion

Does Science Refute Religion? Although I think it is fair to say this question might never entirely be answered, four people try to answer it. Please enjoy the Intelligence2 debates, as Lawrence Krauss and Michael Shermer debate Ian Huchinson and Dinesh D'sousa.

Just a teaser... the audience votes on the most compelling argument and the most swayed votes takes home the bacon.

Cardinal Says Pedophilia Not Crime

Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, Archbishop of Durban, South Africa has shown once again, people's love of religious authority outranks their own morality. After listening to this BBC Radio 5 program, I was shocked to hear Cardinal Napier say that Pedophiles should not and do not get punished for having sex with young children, suggesting that it should be treated as a mental condition, an illness.

The result of this would allow convicted pedophiles to simple be removed from children and nothing more. Why must there always be exceptions of the law to people who claim to have a godly position? Certainly I would put them in a more suspicious light.  Time after time, pedophiles, corrupt leaders, faith healers, con-men, and fraudsters walk away from conviction, prison, and repercussions because of the leadership positions they hold in religious organizations.

We tend to think lowly of those in the big banks, big pharma, or hypocritical politicians, so why should we give any exception to those who hold sway over others' hopes and dreams?

'A' Week!

Sorry folks, I had a full schedule this weekend, and limited time for coffee as well (gasp!)

Welcome to 'A' Week, a movement to show solidarity and support for the atheist movement. So far tens of thousands of people have shown on their online accounts the A for Atheism to raise awareness.

Why is this so important? One of the reasons minority groups become demonized is the perceived distance between people. Before homosexuality became accepted on a public level, people could have never imagined that 9-11% of all the people around them were homosexual. Then people encouraged each other to come out to family and friends, and like prominent GOP Rob Portman, who reversed his opinion about gay marriage upon learning his own son was gay.

In the same way, we want to encourage atheists to come out and show everyone that there are non-believers everywhere in the world, hidden often because of the fear of discrimination, hatred, bigotry, or being shunned by one's family.

Show your support!
http://www.aweek.biz

Hitchslaping from the Grave

Christopher Hitchens, a legendary journalist, raconteur  author, and contrarian, passed away in December of 2011, much to the dismay of many around the world. One of the loudest and most potent voices in New Atheism, Hitchens had an ability to put into words what most have not yet thought of. Personally, he was my favorite author, and a great motivation to read and write more.

Although he had made many enemies in his life-long career, only the petty tried attacking him, for the pen is truly mightier than the sword here. Therefor it surprises me to see someone has put out a new book, Unhitched: the trial of Christopher Hitchens, not only after his death, but with such vitriol, the author, a Richard Seymour, has stepped in it, and now reviews are coming from everywhere to point out his inaccuracies. The Daily Beast has a beautiful run down, as well as Spectator. I will leave my own conclusion until I read it myself.

What I find most compelling about this type of post mortem assassination is the irony of it. Christopher has always said:

"My Critics increasingly use the ad hominem in reply to me, and I regard that as a small moral victory."

There were the occasional topics which he brought up tastefully with a sense of honor which I may disagree with him on, but you need to get into each discussion as it comes, not slander the man with original thoughts.
You see, Mr. Seymour, now you brought up Hitchens again, his words will come back as well, and be shared to another round of people who have never heard them.

Please enjoy the YouTube clips
- The Best of Hitchslap - Part 1
- The Best of Hitchslap - Part 2
- Christopher Hitchens Debates Tony Blair
- Hitchens Submits to be Waterboarded
- Hitchslap Playlist

Clarifications and Comments

So I do get comments these days, however I wish they would be added to the blog for all to see, as they are full of great points! I would like to take the latest, from my best friend, ze German  For the sake of this blog, let's call him, uh, something Swedish, like Sven.

So 'Sven' started by reminding me how important it is to remain skeptical until the evidence of something is overwhelming, and to not be convinced by my personal biases. Exactly right. He started by saying:

I recently read your post. An interesting topic ! I want to add my 2 cents. I personally am convinced there is some sort of correlation of religiosity and development. Yet it is very complex. Just a reminder the observation of two issues behaving in some way  does not necessarily mean they are connected. 

So to start with, you are spot on here, Sven, and I should highlight for everyone that the information I gave in the previous post about development and religiosity is simply a CORRELATION, and not necessarily caused by each other.  This correlation, however, is quite strong, and it is important to ask many questions to try and find out why.

You rose the question of cause and result. Does religion cause low development, or does low development foster religion? Well, it looks established that even if religion and development do not have much to do with each other

Here is where we will have our first disagreement. When you say they do not have much to do with each other, I want to reiterate some ideas most organized religions proudly and loudly display in order to show you my point of view.

1) Most world religions encourage poverty, plain and simple. Buddhism teaches to avoid all earthly possessions, Hinduism teaches to keep one's head down avoid all luxury while remaining humble to the gods. Jesus reflected on the Sermon on the Mount that it is easier "for a camel to go through the eye of a needle to than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." If Jesus existed, his hatred of money and wealth was abundantly clear. Islam venerates the figures in history who have taken poverty upon themselves.

2) Not a single world religion encourages the empowerment of women, as I have previously noted, the single greatest cure for poverty.

3) Most religions encourage a form of subjective learning and the largest religions, especially the monotheisms, have gone out of their way in the past to discourage standardized education, or limiting education to the few who have wealth and power. "Eastern Solutions" are nothing but spiritualism which undermines objective learning and Human Rights.

4) Most religions I have come across in my travels strongly suggest, if not demand, procreation to the max. I met a woman yesterday who said she had 11 brothers and sisters. "Ahh catholics?" I asked, and got an affirmative. Muslim families in Europe are bragging about the low birth rate of the locals and declaring that Muslims have so many children, the countries will soon become Islamic states. People who have more children then they can afford to give medicine, education, and food will fall into poverty.

5) Denial of reality. When science is in doubt, you are undercutting the development of the future. The Dark Ages were caused by total control of the papacy. For over a thousand years, there has been very little development in the Middle east, apart from modern oil money. In the USA, the christian right denies evolution, global warming, and keeps trying to defund science programs.

Then you mentioned:

there were cases when religion influenced and interacted with existing knowledge. It is not all easy though. Here are some classic examples.  A bunch monks building a church in the middle of the jungle, will put (another) religion on the folks, yet they teach reading and writing. The likelihood of the literate to enter "developed" jobs is actually higher than the illiterate ones. Can we claim that secular schools accelerate the process?

Of course, as far back as we can go in human history, superstition has always played a part. I will not deny that for the development of society and social structure, religion and superstitions played a major role. They helped to define group morality, help to keep groups cohesive, and helped the people to understand the unknowns around them in a way they could comprehend. That time is long gone, however, and now those needs are met by more true, peaceful, and universal concepts.

When you discuss clerics of history, you are highlighting an important point, and although I can not remember which Greek philosopher said it, but the path to education comes through empty hands. As in, until the people had time on their hands and did not have the struggles of keeping food in their mouths, education never had a chance. The priests, monks, teachers, philosophers, and imams were the first to do this in their respective societies. Looking back, we can be grateful, however in the modern world we live in, it is superfluous.

"Can we claim that secular schools accelerate the process?" ---yes! An emphatic yes. If you want more of an answer, I will write about it next time.

There are examples where religion inspired to  push a discipline => architecture, building.How do they tie in? In some cultures priesthood (ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece) was an educated elite, that pushed their people into very developed cultures.

We must be careful throughout history to label something as a Christian accomplishment, or a Muslim accomplishment. In the same way find it unfair to label children as Hindu, or Jewish, we must learn to divide Muslim culture from Islam, and Christian culture/architecture/science from Christianity. The Atomic bomb is not the result of democracy, the Autobahn is not due to the tenets of national socialism, and mustaches do not make people into dictators, despite Hitler and Stalin.

Even the Sistine Chapel was the embodiment of art and architecture, from great minds as Pontelli and Michelangelo were representative of their time and the abilities they had. I admit, take religion away, and you have taken away these works of art, however we can not forget that the ancient Greeks invented cement and the Romans mastered reinforced masonry, yet these ideas were lost throughout the middle ages until the Industrial Revolution. The mass burnings of heretical materials might be the reason for this it is speculated.

Some officially secular countries are anything but developed. What are the factors limiting those? Did they just transfer the concept of religion to a leader ? Is that all?

There are many examples of this either way, and I find the most important detail is the attitudes of the people and the strength of the Leviathan, or the security and trust the people have in their government to solve disputes. One of my favorite topics to discuss, I think it is too long for this entry, but let me give you some examples. India is secular, and has a solid constitution to back it up, yet people are still being arrested for blasphemy and local officials refuse to touch any disputes involving religious tensions. There is such a strong admiration for faith, religion and traditions, that Human Rights, education, and safety falls to the wayside.

In Indonesia, officially a secular country, it is still punishable to offend religions, and explicitly illegal to have no religion. Where people feel free to speak out about religion, religion recedes from public view, and that means it is limited from influencing schools and government. Italy is secular, yet we all see how much influence the Vatican has on it. Turkey is secular but with a majority of Muslims, people are still oppressed within families. Somalia and Ethiopia are both secular, but it take more than a word on a document to cement this into place, it takes the understanding of an entire people. Not to mention, those two countries contribute the most to the more than 100 million women who have had mutilation of their genitalia.

The Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba etc. have an ideology that sometimes can be represented as a state religion, and sometimes as a political ideology which coincides with the lack of a religion. As Hitchens pointed out, Kim Il-Sung started his autocratic society the same year as the book Nineteen Eighty-Four came out, joking that it was a personal challenge to see if he could replicate the story in real life. Correlation is not causation, as you have pointed out.

The last part of the email, 'Sven' pointed me in the direction of a Pew Poll regarding the public's knowledge of religion. I read it with glee and plan to use to for a future post. for now though, I have already mumbled enough. I will finish with a quote from 'Sven':

Knowledge is power they say. I disagree with that one. I'd change it to: Knowledge empowers.

New Pope

For most people on the planet, the  news will come and go, irrelevant to their own lives. The Papacy, however, has had a strong recent history of influencing governments, even those with a minority of Catholics, of obstructing justice, and of the horribly obscene abuse and rape of children. 

SO who is the new hotline to God?? Pope Francis, or Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, from Argentina. A brief foray into his past displays he is on par for evil crap typical of the Vatican, and there are not high hopes for a further reformation. 

The new pope has spoken his thoughts on homosexuality, known to be so ironically rampant in the Catholic church, saying "it is a destructive pretension against the plan of god." and it is "a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."

The future will show, that despite many allegations, the skeletons in his closet will emerge. Anyway, at the ripe old age of 76, perhaps he was chosen as a short term leader. Time will tell. 

Inverse Correlation between Religion and Development

We can spend all day talking about the finer points of theology, however since there is no reason to believe it to be correct, it seems irrelevant. Honestly what it comes down to is whether religion causes harm to society or not. This debate has been had many time, I might suggest the great debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens on the topic of "Is religion a force for good in the world?"

Despite the claims, religion does not support secular education, freedom of speech, or the freedom of belief until it is forced to. Take one example, the single greatest cure for poverty known to man. It has worked every time we have tried it, 100% success is not easy to find. It is called the empowerment of women, and without it, a society is destined to make very slow progress, if any. Name me one organized religion which supports the empowerment of women.

Putting that into perspective can be difficult, but I will attempt it. Using a meta analysis of polls over three years from the Gallup organization, we can see the religiosity of the worlds population in this map:

As well as in this one,

You can clearly see the increased religiosity from certain parts of the world, namely, Central and South America, Africa, The Middle East, and South East Asia. In the next map I have the world's Human Development Index, a composite statistic of "Life Expectancy, Education, and Income."

As you are browsing these images, please ask yourselves, which countries contribute to science the most, and to education, and to Human Rights? The most developed countries in the world are the most secular, and the least developed are the countries immersed in superstition and mythology. Countries like Japan and Norway, where religion is in the minority. Of course this is correlation, and I have to ask, what is the connection between religion and retarding the development of society? Perhaps it is the attacks on secular education, or perhaps the lack of critical thinking skills leads to a lack of ingenuity. It could be many things.

Let's take a look at the United States itself.

And based on this poll, where would you guess the highest poverty and the lowest development is?

Of course we can find areas that do not correlate so well, and perhaps the uneducated, poor find solace in religion. Either way we need to be asking these questions more often, because the religiosity of a population may be an indicator of poor education, and also tends to be an indicator of hatred and violence:

Islamic Dishonesty....Again...

I don't suppose you guys have been keeping up with the latest happenings in the Grand Old Battle? Once again, Islamic dishonesty has shocked people who desire to have an honest conversation, and once again, the main population of Muslims will not chide, deride, or blame those involved for being assholes. 

Devout Asshole Hamza Tzortzis, a particularly vile man who I find myself debunking all the time with Muslims  makes continuous and dishonest attacks on atheist figures in order to produce videos proclaiming he defeats them for his audience. The latest charade trumps all previous dishonesty, as he arranged for Physicist Lawrence Krauss, an outspoken atheist, to come and debate the topic of Islam vs. Atheism at the prestigious University College London.


Organized by the iERA - Islamic Education and Research Academy, they had previously disputed the possible segregation of the audience, where women would sit in the back, away from the men. Krauss warned them with an ultimatum, and they promised no segregation at the even. Of course when Krauss arrived, not only was there enforced segregation, they violently removed all who voiced opposition. 

On Ophelia Benson's blog, guest writer Abishek Phadnis has a wonderful description of the events and the evil shit Hamza has been known to stand for, such as criminalization of homosexuality, bringing the United Kingdom into the caliphate, and the amputation of limbs for minor crimes. 

Also please watch the video of Dr. Lawrence Krauss packing his bags at the sight of segregation, and listen to the majority Muslim audience (it was arranged) boo him. I just wish we could communicate on a level playing field, rather than have to deal with this level of dishonesty.

Lastly, if you can stomach it, this interviewer stalks Dr. Krauss along the streets and tried to interview him but never allows him to speak. Disgustingly, he titles the video "Proff. Lawrence Krauss get OWNED by MUSLIM!" Are there no depths they won't sink to?

Update: It has been concluded that UCL has banned all future events by iERA

Epicurean Paradox

Welcome to the Epicurean Paradox:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? 

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

Can you figure this great puzzle out?

Dominant Religions Don't Hide Their Animosity Towards Secularism

When you are the biggest boy on the block, you tend to have things your own way, and certainly don't appreciate intervening forces when trying to press others. There have always been and always will be those with more power and persuasion who are capable of more than those who have less.

I encourage a society where people earn those things they have, but when you talk about modern society  you have to acknowledge the one of the single greatest markers we tend to use to gauge development, Human Rights. When Secularism was first proposed in ancient Greece, in Rome, and numerous other times throughout history, it never stuck for long, and that is primarily because those who suggested it were never part of the majority opinion. In every example I can think of, they were the most educated of their time, surrounded by mythology and superstition.

Secularism never had in mind to do away with these things, but to simple to limit them to those who wanted it. Needless to say, without the political power of the majority, it never came about until a burgeoning little group of colonies banded together and the intellectual majority leadership, members of whom consisted of lawyers, professors, and scientists decided it was a good idea to protect the beliefs of all, not only the majority.

When I talk to Muslims from Muslim majority countries, or Christians from America, or Buddhists from Myanmar, or Hindus in India, I often hear unapologetic attacks on secularism as they see a political force trying to take away their freedom of religion.

TO THE CONTRARY, secularism ensures and guarantees your freedom of belief. It does not, however, allow the majority to pressure, to cajole, or to influence public society with those beliefs. Why is it so hard to understand that equality is important, and since being fair to all is not feasible or possible, the separation of religion and state is the easiest.

Here in Fargo, ND, there is an ongoing debate about the Ten Commandments on public property, outside the city hall. If you wanted to suggest this is a Christian community, then you can just read my previous entry. If you suggest we can be fair, then how would people react to if we put engravings from the Koran outside city hall as well? It would not stop there, as we would need a Buddha, a Shiva shrine, a Sikh statue, as well as monuments to every religion represented in the area! Or....get this idea....none!

Christians in the area want to hold on to it because they are allowed to ignorantly assert this is a Christian country because...because look! There are the Ten Commandments!  Likewise countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, most of North Africa and the Middle East arrogantly refuse to allow the freedom of belief because it threatens the power of the majority religion. In India, Muslims are protected under secularism despite the best attempts of the Hindustani nationalists. In the United States Muslims are protected from learning about Christianity at public schools because of secularism, and at every period throughout American history, Christians have tried to change this.

Let us point out the bullies of society and make sure they swallow secularism as a commitment to the freedom of belief they enjoy the support of. Not everyone will have the experience of being in a minority belief, so I feel the need to remind them. Hell, I might even enjoy doing it.

America Is NOT a Christian Nation

Let me be as clear as possible, The United States of America has never been founded with, based on, or intended to be associated with, Christianity. 

Within the last 60 years or so, there has been an ever growing fallacy coming out of the religious right, and just like so many religious claims, despite the evidence against the claim, people keep repeating themselves.

So when people say that 'Merica was founded as a religious country they are implying a few things. For starters, they imply the founding fathers were Christians, as well as imply the constitution was based on the bible, not to mention suggesting that there was an official Christian ideal from the beginning and recently the evil atheists took their membership away from them. If I am fighting a straw man, then please comment.

This comment is lifted from Mr. Lindgren's blog:

"...You both repeatedly demonstrate a real hard time accepting this country was founded by Christians with Christian principles. Recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Look at the words on our currency. America is not catering to the self righteous free thinkers that represent 2% of our population. It’s time smart folks like you that can’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance hit the road and leave your food stamps with your intellectual neighbor on your way out."

Without going in to too much detail, I will explain why these claims are wrong.

"founded by Christians with Christian principles..."

American Historian Richard B. Morris wrote a very insightful book about the attitudes of the time, Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries, in which he identified seven figures as the "key" founding fathers.

-George Washington

-James Madison

-John Jay

-Thomas Jefferson

-John Adams

-Benjamin Franklin

-Alexander Hamilton

From that list, there is only one who we can consider a Christian in any meaningful sense. John Jay was the only member to profess Christianity and had been known to invoke it in decision making, as he did on the 12th of October in 1816:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

This is what many revisionists have in mind when they refer to the founding fathers as Christians. To conclude this would to ignore most available evidence.  Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Hamilton were all outspoken deists, not affiliating with Christianity, from their own words:

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the biginning of the world until this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning, and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind" --Thomas Jefferson 1816

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstiion (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." --Thomas Jefferson 

 "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."--James Madison

 "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserves -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"--John Adams in a letter to Jefferson

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."--John Adams

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."--Benjamin Franklin

And so on with far too many to quote here. To say the founding fathers were Christian would be mostly wrong. As for the next claim, that we can find the Christian status in the pledge of allegiance is simply stupidity and willful ignorance.

A casual glance at the first two Google results show Wikipedia and UShistory.org, both demonstrating why this is erroneous. From the UShistory website I quote:

"The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.""

So Even the family of the original author objected to the usage of your deity in this national pledge. So on the the next utterance if idiocy, that we should look at our currency to see this is a Christian nation. I will completely ignore the fact that, by your argument,  this is a deist nation, with no mention of Christianity, because it is still an idiotic argument.

Again from Wikipedia, we can quickly see how he was in error. "In God we trust." was adopted at the United State's official motto in 1956, changing from "E Pluribus Unum". Similar to the pledge, it was pushed at a time of "red scare" demonstrating a rivalry for the evil atheist communists. Claim debunked. Even the coin usage, which started in 1864 was an attempt to show those pesky secessionists that god was actually on the side of the north, not the south, although both sides made this claim.

Please, religious people, adhere to skepticism and question what you already know, especially before you throw out blind statements with an arrogant certainty. That said, if I have made any inaccurate claims, please feel free to correct me.

The hardest part in dealing with these claims is that they keep coming up, without people learning their lesson. Just because you keep repeating it does not make it true!

Official Response

Mr. Mohammad, thank you for thoughts, I know you believe Islam is true, and obviously, I do not. We are at an impasse, this is where your burden of proof comes in. In my previous blog post, I included a nice video explaining what burden of proof is and why we need it, please check that out here.

As a form of evidence you sent me the video I linked to before, and the first thing I will point out is that there is no need to go through the web of dishonesty in the video, but to point out some very simple mistakes which have been repeated.

Before getting into the thick of it, however, I want to mention that I am not sure you care to learn about this. Back in Kuala Lumpur, you mentioned "proof" of the prophet's miracles by citing  a NASA photograph from a Muslim creationist website. I added the Wikipedia article above. At the time I pointed you to another website which debunked that claim, as well as clear and precise quotes from astronomers, astrophysicists, and more importantly, from NASA itself,

"My recommendation is to not believe everything you read on the internet. Peer-reviewed papers are the only scientifically valid sources of information out there. No current scientific evidence reports that the Moon was split into two (or more) parts and then reassembled at any point in the past."
Brad Bailey
NLSI Staff Scientist

Yes, that is NASA Lunar Science Institution.  Now, in your recent email to me, you once again bring up a very specific point which I clearly remember getting you to admit was wrong! My concern is that despite finding your evidence to not be correct, you went back to it as truth once again. This is intellectually dishonest.

You said:

I do believe in our Quran religion, which has been by written by an illiterate man before 1434 years ago, and which describes things happening today or happened before his birth and after his death. All and each word in our Quran came from our creator but not from our Prophet, and he declares it clearly that whatever I tell you has been summoned on me.In his days he told us scientific proves seen by your NASA guys today, which our prophet couldn't see or judge it during his lifetime, and ironically you want me to believe in books written by some drunken materialistic guys who just want to sell their idea to others like you. 

It is explicitly clear to me that you are not interested in hearing an opinion from someone who is a materialist, which constitutes the majority of all scientists. By closing yourself off to only certain information, you are committing a confirmation bias.

Now back to what the NASA representative said, that "Peer-reviewed papers are the only scientifically valid sources of information out there." This is a very powerful statement, and it is clearly misunderstood by the video. Science is not something a scientist puts together by him/herself, science is the checking and rechecking of data and hypothesis against natural measurements by making falsifiable predictions.

Throughout the video, there were massive claims made with little to no evidence, such as "the project is literally the secularization of the world, to completely strip the world of religious beliefs, that is why it is called (The New World Order)"

Besides being classic conspiracy nonsense, these claims are made with an uncomfortable amount of certainty. Don't forget, with extraordinary claims, you need extraordinary evidence, and all I see are people who drastically misunderstand what it means to be secular. Now it is funny you live in a Muslim majority region of the world, and secularism is considered an evil intrusion. Well, for many Muslims living in the USA, as well as Sikhs, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and others, the concept of secularism is a precious idea, as it protects them from the majority of Christians, who have been known in the past to force their beliefs on others through the school systems, the courts, or the law.

Secularism is not any attempt to remove religion, but an effort to make sure that the particular religion people personally believe in is their personal choice, not forcing it on others, including their children. Secularism is vital for any application of Human Rights, something many Muslim countries are notorious for ignoring or forgetting.

For the rest of the video, this will be very easy:

The Multiverse hypothesis is not supported by much evidence, and is highly controversial even among those who advocate it. The video makes it sound like all scientists are certain about this. This is the other primary difference between science and faith. There are a lot of really cool questions out there, some for answers we may never get. The only way to proceed though, is through doubt and skepticism, not by attributing what we don't understand to a god, which does not explain anything at all!

YES, if someone says a god created something you must ask where did the god come from, and simply by saying that there is this one idea which doesn't need to come from anything, that a god always existed, then shall we skip a step and simply say the universe always existed? You see, god is not needed in this argument.

Uhhh, Fine Tuning again? When will this argument die? This has been debunked over and over again. Believing the universe is fine tuned for us is like a puddle in the street admiring how neatly the potholes were designed for precisely it's shape. I would highly suggest this book to you, by Victor Stenger, an actual physicist, but he is one of those "materialists" you mentioned. Thus I will send you a YouTube link as well!
Fine Tuning is done, sorry.

Lastly, Evolution is a fact. In everyday language we accept Neo-Darwinian Evolution as as much of a fact as gravity (which is also a theory!), or the planets going around the Sun (also a theory!). You will not get away with trying to refute evolution. As I quoted above, the only thing we need to look at is Peer-Reviewed Scientific literature, and even then be skeptical. The men you have speaking in your videos (I rarely see creationist women debating these things), are not peer-reviewed scientists. They are discredited kooks who are financed by creationist organizations. The apologist William Lane Craig was featured many times, a man who took Kalam's cosmological argument to be proof of the Christian god. This is a man who justifies the biblical slaughter of the Canaanite people, every man, woman and child, on the grounds that they were "corrupt and deserving of punishment". Sounds like a pretty damn good reason for secularism.

As I previously explained, even if you could somehow show evolution to be false, you would still not be any closer to demonstrating that your god or your religion was correct.

So no, no denying evolution unless you are a biologist submitting a peer-reviewed scientific paper because it is absolutely clear to me you do not understand biology if the video makes sense to you. Try reading this, this, or this book for a better description of how biology and evolution works.

So, we are back to an impasse, and the default decision: Non-belief, becomes the one we will accept until there is a good reason to believe in any of the claims.

Suggestion -- start small, make a simple claim and try to demonstrate it is true before throwing out other claims. We can make progress this way. Good luck, Mohammad, I hope to hear from you.

Prelude to Debate

OK, so to catch everyone up on what has happened behind the scenes, It was earlier this week I was in communication with a great guy I met in Malaysia years back and through a very good friend, Let's call him "Showlib".

This man, Mohammad, from Yemen, is a truly generous, thoughtful man who I enjoyed many long discussions with over our time together. It is an honor to find someone who simply enjoys the discussion itself. So earlier this week, Mohammad sent me a link to a YouTube video, the same creationist video I referred to in my previous post about Islamic Creationism. Well, I sent him a reply which was, from his point of view, very unfair and rude, and I feel an obligation now to clarify as well as bring this into the public light.

Here was my email to Mohammad,

The video you sent me is of the vilest anti-intellectual trash I have ever seen. To keep it short, it is a collection of misrepresented scientists and broadly misrepresented science, followed by creationists who have lost all credibility in their fields, or who had none to begin with. The show combines some of the most common and easily debunked fallacies about theology, as well as mixing it all together with the worst of the conspiracy theories. Any scientist who might watch it would crap their pants, and the creationists featured on the video would have a heart attack if they knew their work would go towards supporting Islam.

Here is my proposal. I know many people do not care to learn but only from sources they enjoy. To send you a critique of the video, detail by detail pointing out the uncountable errors, would take me a long time. So, I have to know, if I were to send you links, eBooks  and other information, do you want to read them and reply, or would that ultimately be a waste of my time?

YES that means you have to read books on science, evolution, cosmology, and so on. If you are willing to believe this childishly simplistic nonsense, I wonder how amazing you would find proper science. So, I will leave it up to you if you want to take the next step or not. 
Take care, I look forward to hearing from you! 

Enjoy life, this is your only one...probably ;-)Jeffrey

I feel I need to explain why I chose this tone of voice to express myself. First of all, throughout humanity, there are many people who sincerely care if their beliefs are true or not, and they are not adverse to finding corrections or criticism, and take pleasure in being wrong, at least they are learning.

Then there are those who are happy with their beliefs, and not care if they are truth or fiction. If I find this person, then the conversation becomes very annoying, as no matter what I say, it will go in one ear and out the other. This becomes one of the first things I try to find out.

Secondly, all across the world, we find pockets of creationists who, in secular societies, try to gain leverage in introducing creationism in the classroom by asking for two sides of the debate. By suggesting there is legitimate controversy, it gives legitimacy to the entire concept of creationism, which there is none. I will write more about that specifically, tomorrow, but for today I simply wanted to point out that I refuse to give creationism any intellectual foothold, and by not respecting it as science. So when I say "anti-intellectual trash", what I am trying to say is that the very premise of every argument involved is flawed.

So here is my plan. I will be in contact with Mohammad, and hope that he can get involved with me here, to share information and have an on-going dialog, this time to explain why the video he sent me was vile, but in a more technical way. I hope a dialog can commence this way.

Thanks everyone and look for tomorrow's formal response to the video.

On the Question of Death

I have never thought much of death, perhaps a bit cold-hearted about it. Early man must have recognized the not getting up, lack of warmth, and decomposition as signs of death, and eventually started customs of burying those who have passed on...

Passed on where? This question comes up often, and I find it to be a legitimate and honest question from religious people. What happens when we die? In Jon Lindgren's recent blog post, a question caught my attention:

What do most Agnostics believe happens to people when their physical Life is over, i.e. death? What was the purpose, reasoning for that belief. 

As to the answer, I don't know. Neither does anyone, and thus we must take a look at what we do know. As a mammal, descended from a common ancestor of every other species on this planet, I feel safe to assume we simply cease to be, stop existing similarly to every animal.

Answer aside, I prefer to answer this with other questions. Such as where did you come from before you were born? Or what was the purpose of not being born yet? How about: was there something immaterial before your conception?

By flipping these questions around, and asking about before life rather than after life, we may see how arbitrary the questions are. Humans, like most mammals, have evolved to fear death, to do anything in our power in order to protect the passing of genetics into the next generations. Isn't instinct enough to explain our obsession with the after life?

TPF: Thought Provoking Films... The Man From Earth

So, when teaching an Introduction to Philosophy course in Indonesia, I was trying to find easily accessible material which not only provokes thought but allows those to engage in hypotheticals. Films like The Matrix or Watchmen, although well written, are far too complex for the newcomer.

I found this little-know film while cruising IMDB one day and gave it a shot despite it's obvious low production quality and unknown actors. I have to say, it is a winner. Very simply, if you are not one to complain about cheesy acting and a lack of special effects, or someone who enjoys a nice script, then I would suggest giving it a shot.

The film is titled The Man From Earth, a dramatic sci-fi if I had to put into a category, and to summarize, according to IMDB,

An impromptu goodbye party for Professor John Oldman becomes a mysterious interrogation after the retiring scholar reveals to his colleagues he never ages...

Who wouldn't enjoy listening to a conversation between professors? Add a bit of philosophy, some religious conflict, and you have a good script.  Give it a shot and let me know what you think about it!

Anti-Intellectualism 2.0

Just a bit I found on the news today, good old Fox News is at it again, and this time simply demonstrating my point. In the following clip, the hosts of Fox and Friends try to answer questions Gretchen Carlson's daughter received at school.

When asked to convert 2.5kg into grams, and given a multiple choice, they collectively failed. 

Watch how Kilmeade derides Doocy about being able to, or at least trying to answer the questions.

"Oh stop it. Let's hear the answer. Come one Steve, don't try to be smart," Kilmeade said

Carlson later asked "Does somebody have a calculator on their phone."  From a network claiming it has news. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/fox-friends-hosts-math-homework_n_2812584.html?utm_hp_ref=media

False Equivalencies

I hear the same old mistakes over and over in this grand conversation, people on both sides repeating debunked fallacies, repeating logical errors. Sometimes insignificant, other times they are the basis of a belief.

The most common though, is from creationists, who start with the presupposition that their holy book is true and try to form their "science" around it. For example, by attempting to disprove natural selection and evolution, the intelligent design movement believes the only other option would then be a deity.

This sets up both a false dichotomy and offers no competing explanation for the workings of nature. The old "God did it" argument from ignorance does no favor to those trying to understand more about the universe. It simply defers the question. So, for the sake of argument if evolution is wrong, how do you explain observable nature?

This is repeated ad infinitum as religious try to cast doubt on physics, cosmology, biology, and just about everything science related. Even the hardened cosmologist will base multiverse hypotheses, and everything they know on doubt and skepticism as they know how often our understanding needs to be adjusted by new evidence coming to light.

Not creationists, who simply keep changing terminology and strategy to reaffirm their beliefs as true, every time someone comes along and shows them why their entire hypothesis was wrong.

The other mistake I feel obligated to mention is idea that if one aspect of their belief is true, then all of it is. If I say that Napoleon Bonaparte was a Chinese princess who conquered Brazil, I can point out that there was a Napoleon Bonaparte and he did conquer something. It does not imply the entire thing is true, however.

Someone will point out that we know for certain there was a King David in history and this demonstrates the Bible is true. OK, and then what?

Getting into this discussion recently, let me be very clear. We can not know if there was a historical Jesus Christ, or if he was simply fictional, based on available evidence. For my opinion, I am convinced there was a historical character, perhaps a wandering rabbi who inspired some of it, but at most. Scholars have a diverse range of beliefs about this, but as for the non believer, the existence is not even an important issue, a red herring.

Even supposing the Jesus figure existed, a believer still needs to demonstrate there were super-human feats performed, or miracles happened, or a virgin gave birth. Even if you could demonstrate those things, it would still not imply Jesus was divine, nor would it demonstrate a god exists.

Let's flip the idea on it's head. Lets pretend there was sufficient evidence for a god. Then I would believe a god existed. It would never even cross my mind at that point that any of the currently existing religions were correct. That would still have to be demonstrated.

So I laugh when I hear theologians argue for the general existence of a creator, and then casually say, 'well, of course I am talking about the christian god!'

Come on, people, let's take this one step at a time, and let's be humble about it, shall we?

Come on Muslim Creationists, Catch Up!

In my travels, I have taken great pleasure to study a great deal about Islam. I try to read an English translation on the Koran once a year and have been through much of the Hadith. My time spent with Imams, prayer leaders, and many Muslims from different backgrounds and persuasions has given me an opportunity to effectively understand the culture and religion.

Personally, I think the primary reason Islam is such a delicate subject is due to the mass ignorance the world has about it, and the lack of accessibility someone might find in learning more. In every corner of the globe, Christians have seen to it that everyone hears about their prophet. Due to this, in almost every circumstance, a random person would be able to tell you the gist of the mythology of Jesus. The prophet Muhammad  however, is not more than a question mark in the mind of most. Ask your neighbor about the miracles attributed to the famous Arab, or the life he led, and you will have cautious stares at best.

Another problem with accessibility is the simple fact that you can not introduce a religion to an adult, unless incredibly gullible,  without the inevitable questions. Those types of questions are often met with hostility in Islam, or the closing of minds by those who have previously been forced to swallow their own dogma.

Across the Middle East, and throughout Malaysia, Indonesia and North Africa, I have enjoyed every opportunity to dive into the depths of Islamic theology. My Saudi friends, the more open-minded ones, would commence all night debates, purely for the sake of discussion.  It was just the other day, actually, that My friend living in Yemen sent a message insisting I watch another YouTube video believing it would finally convert me to Islam...

Oh dear. Perhaps he forgot the part where I said that the Prophet Muhammad was an uneducated member of a backwater superstitious tribe who became a megalomaniacal, pedophilic warlord who was known as a treacherously murderous theocratic dictator, encouraging his followers to raid cities, rob the innocent, and commit their lives to holy war. I see no need to go into details here, but I may suggest a few books below.

On the other hand, over an extensive period of time, other monotheistic religions eventually were forced to  allow dissent within their realms and even reformation. Islams has not gone through this yet, and since there is not much dissent within most Islamic societies, there has not been a strong need for a Islamo-political force to fight against secularism.

Except in countries like the secular republic of Turkey, where Creationism is on the rise against a state controlled education demanding science, of all things. Funnily enough, creationists in Turkey are not that creative though, as we seem to find the material taken verbatim from American Christians and simply change a few words to become justification for the Islamic creation story. Authors such as Adnan Oktar and his now infamous Atlas of Creation has demonstrated  this sufficiently.

As expected, one irrational belief follows another, and the same man has published books suggesting a conspiracy between Jews and the Free Masons designed to "erode the spiritual, religious, and moral values of the Turkish people."


It doesn't get more sophisticated, though, and now YouTube is littered with videos, claiming the secular world is in a massive cover up of Islam, while forcing Evolution, gospels of godlessness, and science to confuse our young. Throw in suggestions of a New World Order, and you have a massive, indiscernible cocktail of conspiracy. I have to wonder if the Christian creationists, such as William Lane Craig, featured here would have a heart attack if they knew their arguments were used to justify Islam.

Disclaimer: Only link to this video if you have the stomach to listen to one of the worst attacks on science, rationality, and education. A combination of quote mining, a patchwork of clips, Fine-Tuning fallacy, Intelligent design, false dichotomies, and conspiracy ideas designed to fit into Islamic teachings. Take this with skepticism please...

Worse than any Zeitgeist film by far...and it gets worse.


Suggested sources:
The Holy Koran, the most violent book I have ever read
The Origins of the Koran - Ibn Warraq
Why I Am Not a Muslim - Ibn Warraq
Islam Unveiled - Robert Spencer
The Truth About Muhammad -  Robert Spencer
On the Reality of Islam - Sam Harris
Lifting the Veil: The True Faces of Muhammad and Islam - I.Q. Al Rassooli

Safe Topics and Anti-intellectualism

Everyone feel free to comment, I would love to hear back from you!

I am an idiot about so many things in life, in others, I pride myself for the love of learning. Most importantly, I try to share and compare information by having something called conversation. Conversation is a funny thing, for some it is easier than for others. We all need some of it at least.

So when having discussions around Fargo, ND, I find myself divided. On one hand you have people who genuinely enjoy bringing up universal issues, which may require opinion and thought. These people seem to be in the minority around here as a majority of people have built a society around avoiding controversy and have accomplished this by leading the chat into gossip, celebrities, sports, and personal chat.

Not that I have any issue with these things...well ok, perhaps I have an issue about celebrities, but gossip is one of the most important moral developments our species has made. No, what I have an issue with is when people shame others for bringing up issues which require discussion. The slightest hint of science, politics, religion, or any other controversial topics and people cower into their safety zones by suggesting those topic are too serious, boring, or rude.

This tends to compound over time as most tend to listen only to the media which already agrees with them, entrenching people's opinions to the point where inflammatory remarks are made every time the subject comes up.

By avoiding conversation about certain issues, American adults have lost an ability to rationally deliver their opinions and it would seem they now consider disagreeing with someone to be a negative thing. I assert, the ability to disagree with someone and discuss it is a luxury which has been amplified with individualism.

Also, when people ask me how I know things, then scoff when I mention the act of reading a book, I am astounded. Where is the congratulation for reading, the encouragement to expand your mind and grasp a different perspective. Where is the challenge friends and colleagues should offer to help one overcome their ignorance or fears? Where is the societal support to educate oneself?

I think the lowest moment, though, was when someone asked me... "why would you want to know that?"

Shame on you United States of America, we have a lot of work to do....

Should we stop being surprised by Pat Robertson?

Across the blogosphere, the atheist media websites, and even occasionally on the news, people react to the vile words of Pat Robertson.

Robertson, a former baptist minister, and currently host of the Christian Broadcast Network, and it's flagship, the 700 club. The numerous media-focused industries, companies which make their living recording and selling clips to various news and media companies, such as The Daily Show, CNN, or MSNBC, have been recording Robertson and his ilk in hopes they catch another boneheaded thing coming out of his mouth...

The headlines are always interesting...

Pat Robertson dismisses "nutty" climate scientists
Pat Robertson prays to make you a millionaire
Pat Robertson blames atheists for Sikh temple shooting
Pat Robertson: Ignore Bible on slavery
Pat Robertson: "Miserable" atheists trying to "steal" Christmas
Pat Robertson blames Haiti's "pact to the devil" for catastrophe

They go on and on... So why are people so concerned about the ramblings of an old man? What's the difference between him and your awkwardly-racist older relative who is not living in modern times?

On the website, the Christian Broadcasting Network claims "CBN programs have aired in approximately 108 languages in 218 different countries and territories, from Mandarin to Spanish and from Turkish to Welsh."  Furthermore, any more than a cursory glance at the network and it's primary goal is clear... to bring money in.

Although I can not say what that money has gone towards, and as a non-profit organization, they have continuously refused to disclose their financial information. The Better Business Bureau has never been able to give it a rating, simply because they refuse to play ball and hide under the protection religion offers them. In 2006, CBN brought in $462,597,261 and will not state what it was spent on. Pat Robertson himself is said to be worth $200 Million.

At any moment, according to Nielsen ratings, there might be half a million people watching in on his show, being fed what they want to hear so they donate money. What are they being told? The 700 Club shows it's viewers a person who was at the brink of bankruptcy, but gave their last $20 to the 700 club, and all of a sudden they received a $100,000 a year job, and bought a brand new big house, all through the glory of god. They will milk people dry and just like a faith healer, if things do not work out, it was only because the caller was not righteous enough. 


At 83 years old this month, Robertson has no shame, and tends to fabricate more fiction than L. Ron Hubbard. 


Just check this clip out... Titled Pat Robertson says used clothes can harbor demons. 

This man influences the ignorant and the faithful to give him money with messages of bigotry, hatred, anti-science rhetoric, and racism. After all that, he is protected by government under a tax-exempt religious non-profit. Is this not worse than running a money laundering business? Is this not worse than thieving people with false hopes and encouraging poverty while living in opulent luxury? If this is going to be legal, I insist they pay taxes and document where people's money goes.

Derren Brown

I find it so hard to give Derren Brown an elevated status over the greats and the influential, such as the previously mentioned Houdini, James Randi, or Penn & Teller, but Derren Brown has been able to utilize modern media unlike the others, and all the while performing feats which never cease to stun.

The most stunning thing, however,  is the relative ignorance of this man throughout The United States. A Briton born and raised, he has made TV shows for many UK Stations, primarily on Channel 4, and yet briefly appearing on such American channels as Sci-fi... oh well.

SO WHAT has he done to earn him such admiration?  Mr. Brown is an illusionist, mentalist, hypnotist, a painter, a writer, but above all, a skeptic. At the beginning of every show, he states that he achieves his results via a combination of "magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection, and showmanship."

According to Wikipedia, "Using his knowledge as skill, he appears to be able to predict and influence people's thoughts with subtle suggestion, manipulate the decision making process and read the subtle physical and psychological signs or body language that indicate what a person is thinking."

Just a few, if I has to narrow it down, of things to watch would be:

The series, Trick of the Mind, an episodic look at his street performing abilities, showing you everything from how to defeat 13 grand chess masters at the same time, to how to pay for things with blank paper, as well as how to influence people using subliminal messaging.

The special, The Heist, in which he takes a group of your average, law-abiding citizens and actually programs them into robbing a bank.

I might also suggest watching any of his live shows, such as Something Wicked This Way Comes...

The best reason I could have for obsessively watching this man's performances, is that I have learned so much about what it means to be human, as well as our mental and cognitive limits from seeing how easy it is to fool the mind with well practiced and timed trickery.

The cream of the crop, and so closely tied to this blog, is his massively impressive works with the mystical, the spiritual, and the religious. Throughout his shows, he explains how numerous spiritual and mystical claims have been performed in history, as well as effectively debunking numerous fraudsters. It is his work on the psychology of religion I find to be immensely interesting...

In this TV special, Messiah, he sets off to the States to persuade five leader that he has special powers in their respective fields: Christian Evangelism, alien abduction, psychic powers, New Age theories, and contacting the dead. All are impressively convincing.

Another special, Miracles for Sale, Derren teaches people to performs faith healing to the followers of a church in Texas, demonstrating how easy it is to deceive when the mind is willing.

And finally, Mr. Brown's most recent special, Fear and Faith, a two part series demonstrating in the first part the power of the placebo effect, and it's possible applications, and in the second part, he demonstrates he can induce a powerful religious experience in the most ardent of religious skeptics and atheists. The main effect he demonstrates on a card-carrying atheist, a stem-cell scientist. Most importantly, he never, for even a moment, strays from the explanations, and is very careful to detail the natural processes, and not any supernatural elements.

Derren Brown is a hero among skeptics, and if he did not make the decision to be honest about his claims, it is no short leap of the imagination that he might be the leader of a religious cult, or perhaps even the messiah reborn in the eyes of believers. So many with lesser talent have been convincingly portrayed as such. It make me thankful he is on the side of reason.

Magicians; Our Friends

It is hard to look back in the history of modernity without finding that the numerous sources of entertainment were likewise a source of inspiration and motivation. We have films to give us a different perspective, music to allow us to feel through another's creativity, and so many others. For my part, magicians have always been  a role model of sorts.

Harry Houdini, The Amazing James Randi, Penn and Teller, Derren Brown.... All men who dedicated themselves to dispelling illusions and enlightening the public through showing us how easily our minds can be tricked.

When Houdini met with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who fell into mystical beliefs later in life, the magician had some wonderful advice for him:

Sir Arthur, I have devoted a lot of time and thought to this illusion ... I won’t tell you how it was done, but I can assure you it was pure trickery. I did it by perfectly normal means. I devised it to show you what can be done along these lines. Now, I beg of you, Sir Arthur, do not jump to the conclusion that certain things you see are necessarily “supernatural,” or the work of “spirits,” just because you cannot explain them....

The Amazing James Randi has made a reputation of himself as not only a brilliant illusionist, but bent on a crusade against tricksters, con-artists, frauds, and all others who attempt to take advantage of others' ignorance. A brief YouTube search for this man will uncover a career of taking down the biggest frauds in the business, from spiritual mediums, to those claiming psychic ability, to evangelical preachers taking millions for faith healing. Every person who he has called out and has risen to the test and fallen. Needless to say, most do not stand to be tested.

The James Randi Education Foundation is one I often quote due to their famous $1 million challenge, an offer of a cool mil if any can demonstrate "under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

Equally needless to mention is the fact that it has gone unclaimed until this day. I still ask those who make claims of ghosts or the supernatural if they understand that the JREF's $1 million, and the Nobel prize would be minuscule next to the recognition and fame they would obtain if they could demonstrate such a thing.

Penn & Teller have always been a part of educational videos, offering a bit of variety to the outdated school sponsored videos we got to see in class. As an adult, I can appreciate them ever more, since the obvious vulgarity tends to come out more hilariously now. Their projects, such as the Showtime mega-hit series BullShit! was one of the very few shows that actively encouraged skepticism and critical thinking, while analyzing many of the less trafficked topics in society. It still remains on a very short list of shows I have enjoyed watching. Although very opinion based, and I certainly do not agree with much of what was said, it encouraged discourse in a way which was highly accessible.

Derren Brown... in the humblest of opinions, the man deserves a post entirely of his own...stay tuned....

So you see the primary difference between magicians and the charlatans masquerading as religious authorities is when you go to see a magic show, you are paying to be fooled, paying to understand the limits of your perception and to enliven your curiosity.

When you see a religious or spiritual leader, you are willingly sacrificing the one thing that identifies us from other life forms, leaving your critical thinking skills at the door and willingly being deceived.