09/11/2012 - Thought for the Day

For the last time . . . . No, secularists are not trying to remove God from the public square.

We only object when he's driven there in the mayor's motorcade.

Sam Harris' Fireplace Delusion

Why rational arguments are resisted by emotional appeals

It seems to me that many nonbelievers have forgotten—or never knew—what it is like to suffer an unhappy collision with scientific rationality. We are open to good evidence and sound argument as a matter of principle, and are generally willing to follow wherever they may lead. Certain of us have made careers out of bemoaning the failure of religious people to adopt this same attitude.

However, I recently stumbled upon an example of secular intransigence that may give readers a sense of how religious people feel when their beliefs are criticized. It’s not a perfect analogy, as you will see, but the rigorous research I’ve conducted at dinner parties suggests that it is worth thinking about. We can call the phenomenon “the fireplace delusion.”

I'm sensing an "F"

Curious how "read the spirit world" looks exactly the same as "making stuff up."

Miscellany

For the tenth anniversary, gifts should include whips, chains, or a nice, tasteful cattle prod:

A few facts. There are 171 men still held at Gitmo; exactly one faces actual charges. 36 more are expected to face charges, but they will do so under a system of military tribunals that is so unjust that no fewer than five JAG prosecutors, all of them decorated military officers, have resigned in protest rather than take part in them. 46 of them will likely never face a trial of any kind because the government says they are too dangerous to be released but impossible to prosecute because much of the evidence against them was obtained through torture.

And 57 of them — one third — have already been deemed to be innocent by the government but continue to be held in prison. 537 prisoners were released by the Bush administration, but as soon as Obama took office Congress decided that releasing detainees should be far more difficult, no matter how innocent they may be.

****************

Christmas Inerrancy

I wish I could claim credit for this. I found this at another message board, but I don't have any author details.

Gleaned via my time machine from over 2000 years in the future, the debate over scripture still rages...


Q: I'm unclear about the nature of the Trinity. Can you explain it in more detail?

A: The nature of the Trinity is a tricky subject even for scholars. Essentially, the Godhead is composed of Santa Claus, Frosty (the Son) and Rudolph (the Spirit). Though Santa Claus is the ruler of the North Pole, admittance to the Pole is only achieved through belief in Frosty. Rudolph, as the Spirit, is both a part of and apart from Santa and the Son. Additionally, Rudolph may manifest himself within others, including Frosty but not Santa Claus (whose will rules all). Frosty may manifest Himself in Rudolph, though He does not manifest in man (since He is part man and part divinity). All of the authors of Scripture were possessed of Rudolph while writing, and this is why we say that Santa manifested Himself through Rudolph to produce a completely inerrant work. Simple, isn't it?


Q: Santa is depicted as a rather portly Being, and yet He can slip down chimneys with ease. How is this logically possible?

A: Remember that we are speaking of the chimneys of antiquity and not the ones found in homes today. Archeological digs supervised by our own Ministry have unearthed chimneys as large as 15 feet square, thus fully capable of accommodating Santa's legendary girth. However, the problem is moot since Santa, being divine, could go through the key hole if he so desired.


Q: The Book of "'Twas" lists eight reindeer, and yet Rudolph makes nine. How do you explain this obvious discrepancy?

A: A careful reading of the relevant passage easily harmonizes this "discrepancy"…

…When, what to my wondering eyes did appear
But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny reindeer.

Scripture makes specific reference to "eight TINY reindeer". Rudolph was a reindeer of average proportions. Therefore, there is no discrepancy. The sleigh was being pulled by eight "tiny" reindeer and one normal sized reindeer, namely Rudolph.


Q: How did Santa navigate in foggy weather before Rudolph? Are we to believe that there were no foggy Clausmas nights prior to His birth?

A: Yes. In fact, there were no foggy nights period before the advent of Rudolph. Scripture clearly teaches that Santa created fog to punish "all of the other reindeer" for laughing at Rudolph's radiant nose and the sin of idolatry. Since that time, however, Rudolph's glorious light has led many out of sin and into the eternal holiness of the North Pole, there to bask in the glory of the True Claus.


Q: How do we know that Frosty is the Son of Santa? He's not even mentioned in the Book of 'Twas.

A: You need to read more carefully, my friend! Frosty is clearly referred to many times…

The moon on the breast of the new fallen snow
Gave luster of midday to objects below…

…is a clear reference to Frosty's nature as both snow and man (that is, "breast" fed) and his ability to "shine light" upon (or illuminate) objects below. Additionally,

…his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot.

…is a clear reference to Frosty's coal (or "ashes and soot") eyes. Also, both Frosty and Santa smoke pipes, wear hats and are jolly. What more evidence do you need?


Q: Isn't Frosty just another "resurrection" god, much like Adonis, Jesus and Osiris? And what's so special about His resurrection anyway? Doesn't water turn into snow automatically when the temperature drops?

A: The resurrection of Frosty differs in many ways from that of others. First, Frosty did not just "turn into snow" by some capricious act of nature, but rather his resurrection was self-willed. Secondly, He Himself forecast His own resurrection - it was not forecast by local weather stations of the period, contrary to the opinions of some skeptics. And finally, He forecast His ultimate return to earth to judge the unworthy with His last remark…

…he waved goodbye, saying
"Don't you cry, I'll be back again someday!"

I'll be ready for his return. Will you, my friend?


Q: In the often quoted passage…

Here comes Santa Claus
Here comes Santa Claus
Who despises all things homosexual in nature and will cast their sinning asses into hell
Right down Santa Claus lane…

…the third line doesn't seem to "scan" with regards to the rest of the text. Is it possible that the text has been tampered with in some way?

A: No. It is a common ploy among those with a homosexual agenda to try to discredit Scripture by claiming that those who wrote it had some sort of bias or political agenda. Just because they don't like what Santa had to say about their lifestyle is no reason for them to try to re-write Scripture. Much the same argument has been advanced by pro-abortionists who view …

…It's a beautiful sight,

we're happy tonight,

Santa hates baby-killers,
Walkin' in a Winter Wonderland….

…as some sort "altered" text. The authors of the Scriptures were DIVINELY moved by the will of Santa through the power of Rudolph. They had no political agenda whatsoever, and in fact, we have good evidence to support the claim that most were far too uneducated to even spell the word "agenda".


Q: The verse…

…there must have been some magic in that old silk hat they found
For when they placed it on His head, He began to dance around…

…seems to strongly imply that magic was involved in Frosty's initial creation. Yet the Church forbids such practices. Explain.

A: This is purely a problem of translation, not doctrine. The word "magic" here comes to us from the root maj - ika, which means literally "divinely given holy power of the Santa". Some newer versions of Scripture have actually edited out this deceptive translation and the text now reads (as it always should have)…

…there must have been some divinely given holy power of the Santa in that old silk hat they found…

…and there was, my friend, there was.

Non-believer's Christmas Carol

I'm not a big fan of Christmas music. I can enjoy it for perhaps the week of Christmas, but when I have to endure it from the beginning of November, by the time the holiday rolls around I'm sick of it.

But I found one I like, and I could probably enjoy this one year round:

 

A Christmas Carol For The Rest Of Us

Thanks to Jerry Coyne for this one.

Cross Partially Removed from Water Tower ??

A while ago, I highlighted the case where the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to the town of Whiteville, Tennessee, requesting they remove the cross the town had erected on the top of the water tower.  The mayor, James Bellar, called it an act of terrorism.

Well, to avoid losing what could have been an expensive court case, the town has indeed removed the 'cross' . . . sort of.  They simply cut off one of the arms.



Now it's not a cross, it's some abstract symbol or something.

Mayor Bellar had this mature thing to say:

"This brings to close a sad chapter in the history of Whiteville that can best be described as terroristic, cowardly and shameful! The fear and terror caused our older people here is shameful. So shame on your client and your firm!"

Yes, what a perfectly appropriate response to someone requesting you obey the law.  Shake your finger at them and cry, "Shame, shame shame!"

More Jack Chick weirdness

Jack Chick has a new tract, always a source of amusement. 



This one's called "The Awful Truth," and it by turns rehashes old Chick material and goes deep into new unfathomable territory.  This one focuses on how Satan rules the Earth and that the Catholic Church is behind every evil deed in the history of ever.

While I'm no fan of the Catholic Church myself, I'm not convinced they are behind the rise of Islam and the assassination of JFK.  But it seems strange to me that God is supposed to be all-powerful, and is the creator of a universe that's over 30 billion light-years wide, but can't prevent Satan from having free rein on Earth.

The Algebra of Good Works

1. Religion + Good Works = Good Works

Solve for Religion.

From Dan Barker, as seen here.

Flip-flopping creationists

Donald Prothero, author of Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, writes in the Skepticblog

"I’ve posted frequently. . . on the religious kooks who insist that Galileo and Copernicus and all later astronomers were wrong and that the earth, not the sun, is the center of the solar system. They base this weird notion on their own version of biblical literalism, since there are many passages in the Bible (e.g., Isaiah 11: 12, 40:22, 44:24; Joshua 10:12-14) which clearly present a geocentric world viewpoint (as was widely held in almost all ancient cultures and not overturned until the 1500s)..."

He reports on a Los Angeles Times article concerning the latest version of a geocentric movement within the Catholic church. Robert Sungenis uses scripture to demonstrate that Galileo was wrong, the Catholic Church was wrong to apologize for their mistreatment of him, and that everything was better back in the 1200s when the Church ran everything. (This, of course, embarrasses the modern Catholic Church to no end.)

What tickled me about the article was that Ken Ham was quoted for his keen insight. Ham, as this board's members know, employs biblical literalism to argue that the universe was created after the Babylonians invented glue, and that a senior citizen built the world's largest boat. But how does Ken Ham feel about the Bible's stance on geocentrism?

“There’s a big difference between looking at the origin of the planets, the solar system and the universe and looking at presently how they move and how they are interrelated,” Ham said. “The Bible is neither geocentric or heliocentric. It does not give any specific information about the structure of the solar system.”

Which of course is not true. The Bible makes a strong case for geocentrism, much stronger than heliocentrism, and even stronger than the young earth scenario that Ham insists we must take seriously. So what's the difference between one scientifically-discredited notion and the other? What makes one fringe theory only embraced by religious whackos and the other still fighting a holding action in the halls of government and schools?

Time, apparently. Geocentrism received its first body blow 500 years ago, so that now even Ken Ham thinks it's ridiculous, whereas Creationism has been in retreat for only 150 years. Which suggests that somewhere between now and the year 2461 creationism will be finally resigned to the dustbin of absurdity.

Separation of Church and State equals Terrorism

James Bellar, mayor of Whiteville, Tenn. feels that his community is under attack by terrorists.  Is this based on any violence waged against town residents?  Any intercepted communications involving plots to construct explosive devices or stage attacks?

No, it's because he got a letter in the mail. The Freedom From Religion Foundation warned Mayor Bellar they would sue if he didn't remove a cross erected on a town water tower eight years ago.

“They are terrorists as far as I’m concerned,” said Mayor James Bellar about the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “They are alleging that some Whiteville resident feels very, very intimidated by this cross..."

“A terrorist is more than a guy that flies the planes into the building,” he said. “It’s anyone who can disrupt your way of living, destroy your lifestyle, cause you anxiety. It’s more than killing people. If they can disrupt your routine in life, that’s what they want to do. They are terrorists as far as I’m concerned.”

Yes, because expecting other people to obey the law is just like flying planes into buildings.

While the cross was paid for by private funds, that it was erected on public property is a government endorsement of religion, says Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, who received notice of the cross from an anonymous Whiteville resident. Even the Jackson Sun editorial called for the town to remove the cross. "God doesn't call governments to be Christians, he calls Christians to be Christians,” the newspaper wrote.

But Mayor Bellar shows the homogenous thinking typical in fundamentalist conservatives. He doesn't believe that the complaint originated locally. “As a matter of fact, I don’t even think it’s a Whiteville resident,” he said. “We don’t have people of that belief here and if we do they’re not going to raise that kind of ruckus for the rest of the town.”

Mayor Bellar would do well to both brush up on both the law and the diversity that can be found even in conservative Tennessee.

Pastor burgles parishioner for drugs

So it seems a woman noticed some of her prescription pain meds were missing.  Who do you suppose would be the culprit?

Prescription painkillers kept disappearing from her house, so a few months ago Jean Harris set up a surveillance camera outside. What she found was her minister, Pastor Rickey Alan Reed, 55, of First Free Methodist Church, trying to get inside her home.

This is the part that intriques me:

The day after she caught him on video, she said she called a church meeting and confronted Reed. He said he would get help. She said church members pressured her not to go to the police.

Police have charged Reed with aggravated burglary. Reed is free on bond, tensions are high at church, and police are investigating whether he may have broken into other homes looking for drugs. Harris, who has attended the church for 55 years, says church members have ostracized her.

I recall a song from church camp that went something like, "And they'll know we are Christians by our love."

Pastor Orders Flock to Beat Gay Couple

I've been told by Christian conservatives that their faith in Jesus makes them more loving and accepting, even of people whom they believe are engaged in sinful behavior like homosexuality.  The phrase, "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin," has been often used to summarize their position.

Too bad it didn't work in this case:

[W]ho could imagine the hate and rage that would motivate a Pastor to instruct deacons and members of his congregation, Grace Fellowship Church in Fruitland, TN. to physically attack a couple arriving in the church parking lot last Wednesday?

The fact that one of the gay men attacked happened to be the Pastor’s own son, Jerry Pittman, Jr., no doubt contributed to Pittman senior’s noxious edict. According to Pittman Jr., after hearing his Dad yell, “SICK’EM!:”

“My uncle and two other deacons came over to the car per my dad’s request. My uncle smashed me in the door as the other deacon knocked my boyfriend back so he couldn’t help me, punching him in his face and his chest. The other deacon came and hit me through my car window in my back.”

The situation was made worse when a Deputy Sheriff arrived.

Once the barrage of punches ended, the Deputy refused to let the two victims press charges.

I can't fathom how preventing someone from pressing charges after they've been assaulted would be legal. Maybe someone with a better legal understanding could enlighten me.

Colbert's Christian Nation

The latest humorous Stephen Colbert quote making the rounds:

So wedding-day virgins deserve to die of cancer?

Pandagon reports that yes indeed there are some misconceptions about HPV out there, namely that anyone who contracts it must be a 'person of loose morals' and that by preventing one of the consequences of extra-marital sex by vaccinating against HPV, all we really accomplish is that we give permission for our tender teenage girls to grow up to be a 'person of loose morals.'

What's not said, of course, is that HPV is far more prevalent than one might expect.  It's not just prostitutes and twelve-year-old non-virgins who get it.  Practically everyone who has sex contracts it at some point, usually asymptomatic, and with no long-term consequences. You can be a wedding-day virgin marrying a man who's had consensual sex with just one other person, and whoops, you've got HPV, but you'll never know it. But to hear religious conservatives like Thomas Peters tell it, you now deserve to die of cancer because you didn't follow the rules properly.

HPV is like the common cold in terms of severity. Most people are fine, but a percentage of people get sicker and die. That's why we vaccinate against the flu, and why we should vaccinate against HPV. But that doesn't mean we need to have some society-wide panic about the flu. Just get the shot and get on with your life. Sheesh. The only reason to freak out about HPV---and about the vaccine---is that we can't handle the fact that people fuck. Even though pretty much everyone fucks. It's bizarre, it really is.

Quote of the Day

"A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie."

--Robert Green Ingersoll



This quote reminds me of the people who look at a scientific discovery and get the sinking feeling that the discovery removes one more item off of God's list of accomplishments. Then they scour their scriptures to find something--anything--that might suggest that it was God pulling the strings behind the discovery all along.

Atheist myths debunked

Nice debunking article by Amanda Marcotte on ten common myths about atheists and atheism.

Debunking these myths about atheists in print can only do so much to quell believer fears about the supposed atheist menace. Even better would be for believers to find themselves an atheist, and instead of simply attacking them with these myths in an effort to frustrate them into submission, instead get to know them better. You might find they’re basically like everyone else, except more rested on Sundays and less afraid that invisible beings are judging them for masturbating.

Episode 24 - Daniel Dennett - Thank Goodness

This episode of Cold Beer for the Skeptic's Mind features Daniel Dennett, philosopher, writer, and cognitive scientist.  Today's excerpt comes from his essays called "Thank Goodness," which can be found in the recent publication, "Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life," published last year by Oxford University Press.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
You can subscribe in iTunes or download it directly from here.
 
I hope you enjoy it.

Thought for the Day

This from PZ Meyer's blog Pharyngula, when he responds to a religious apologist's complaints about "New Atheists" and their lack of belief in objective morality.  I acknowledge that the handful of readers of this blog are no doubt already subscribers to Meyer's writings, but as the saying goes, this bears repeating:

Let’s assume that Stephens is right, and there actually is a god who somehow is the source of all good. One of the unfortunate qualities of this god, however, is that he’s unknowable: we have many religions on earth claiming knowledge of god’s desires and plans, but we have no way of determining which, if any of them, is right. Perhaps the congregation of some odd sect in a small town in Saskatchewan are getting clear instructions beamed right into their heads by the one true god, but we have no way of telling, and they look just as random as the Mormons or Buddhists or Jews or Muslims, who are just as adamant that they have the truth. Maybe we atheists are poor unfortunates who have our god-antennas broken off, so we don’t hear the celestial transmissions everyone else is getting.

What should we do?

I think it’s clear that one thing we broken receivers should not do is blindly accept an absolutist morality based on the authority of a religious source — that would be irresponsible, and given that there is absolutely no consensus on which one is right, and that there are so damned many of them, most likely to be wrong. We should, instead, do as we have been doing, and use reason and evidence to assess beliefs and choose to follow the ones that make objective sense and help us get the business of living done. That does kind of rule out Stephens’ penis-obsessed genocidal racist deity who believes in proxy sacrifices and magic chanting, though.

ACLJ: Money funnel for lawyers in the guise of religious liberty

Fred Clark of Slacktivist has a new piece on the the ACLJ, the American Center for Law and Justice, or the ACLJ.  The ACLJ poses itself as an alternative to the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, except the ACLJ doesn't stand up for anyone whose religious freedoms are being curtailed in America, only those who are evangelical Christians.

Not only does the ACLJ have the freedoms of only one religious group in mind, but it also stands against the freedoms of other competing religions, such as when it joined the resistance against the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" (which is neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque.) 

But Clark has highlighted how perhaps the true purpose of the ACLJ is to keep its head, Jay Sekulow and his family, rolling in the dough.  Sekulow also runs charities, and according to Bob Smietana writing for The Tennessean:

Since 1998, the two charities have paid out more than $33 million to members of Sekulow’s family and businesses they own or co-own, according to the charities’ federal tax returns, known as form 990s.

One of the charities is controlled by the Sekulow family — tax documents show that all four of CASE’s board members are Sekulows and another is an officer...

Who knew that pretending persecution could pay so well?