The On-Going Journey of Mr. Jefferson Kinde

Bad Atheism Tactics #1:"We're all born atheist!"

2011-03-05T10:01:00.000-08:00

On the whole, I find atheists to be more rational, logical, and intellectually honest than 99% of the theists I meet. And I don't just say that because I am on the team. I felt that way prior to giving up my faith (which probably played no small role in my final willingness to do so). Rather I say it because many atheists are natural skeptics and skepticism often manifests itself in rational, logical ways.

But for all their logic and rationality, there is a definite streak of meanness and tit-for-tat in modern atheism. And, despite admittedly having engaged in it on occasion myself (usually when I was having a particularly bad day or when I was first wrestling with becoming an atheist and was hyper-defensive of my positions*), I do find it rather annoying and counter-productive to the overall discussion.

So, I'm starting a new series on atheist "arguments" that I'm sick of hearing (because they are often little more than petty comebacks) and that I think are especially weak and unhelpful.

The first is the common retort that "we are all born atheists!"

This is often said to theists who are claiming they don't know how anyone could not believe in god. The atheists then says that when the person was a baby, they didn't believe in god either. I've even seen it used as an opening salvo for little obvious reason other than to intentionally antagonize the opposition ("you used to be an atheist, too. Neener-neener!").

Now, I'll admit, this IS—technically speaking—a true statement. Babies ARE born atheistic.

However, what does this retort really accomplish? The theists often still flat-out denies it or else they admit it and then add "sure, but the second I was capable of believing I did." So what is gained by using it?

And more importantly, why do some seem to consider it a "valid" defense of atheism?

How is the fact that babies cannot hold ANY beliefs somehow "helpful" to the position of atheism? ESPECIALLY since the inference is that atheism is somehow made more valid simply because even babies come into the world as atheists.

Well guess what? Babies also come into the world unable to control their bowels, unable to read, and without any beliefs on science, either. But no one ever runs around shitting themselves and then trying to defend it by saying "So what? We're all born with excrement running down our legs!" And last time I checked "It's OK, I was born not knowing the names of the planets" was not exactly a valid response on an Astronomy exam.

In fact, I can't think of a single other instance where proudly saying "I still think the same way on this subject as I did when I was six hours old!" is ever taken to be a beneficial, helpful, intellectual, or undefeatable position.

Yes, babies are born atheist under the definition that they lack a belief in god. That is technically correct.** They are also born apolitical, having no beliefs on politics or political party affiliation. But this fact does not mean that maintaining no political affiliations later in life is any more or less "correct" than signing up for a party is.

Occasionally, this sentiment can be used as pure fact or in response to a specific claim about belief. I've seen that from time-to-time and it has occasionally worked in its context. But nine times out of ten this is thrown around by someone who is not refuting a specific claim or who clearly hasn't thought the sentence through very much.

Most often, however, I hear it like this:
Theist: "I've always believed in god."
Atheist: "Nu-uh. When you were a baby, you were an atheist!"
Theist: "So? That's not really what I meant and you know it."
Atheist: "Doesn't matter what you meant, I'm correcting you on a technicality I'm fully aware you didn't mean to imply. I win!"
Theist: "When you want to debate like an adult, give me a call."

Now I think atheism is the correct position due to other reasons—rational, considered, logical, thoughtful reasons. The mere fact that babies are born as 'technical atheists' is incidental at best (and often purposefully inflammatory or intellectually disingenuous at worst).

This is one "argument" I would not mind seeing fade out of the atheist vocabulary.

*This is common. Atheism often takes a fairly elitist view and doesn't "on-board" people leaving faith very well. Partially this is because there is no central atheist authority or group or philosophy to do so. Nor should there be for obvious reasons. However, part of it is also due to other atheists who just like being elitist or who are honestly burnt out on debating the same point over and over and don't have much time, energy, or patience for helping those just shedding their faith. And some view such anger and hyper-defensiveness as a natural and healthy part of the process. I don't know that it is, or that it has to be. But that's a whole separate discussion...

**"the best kind of correct."

Celebrity Atheist #5:Richard Dawkins

2011-02-18T10:01:00.000-08:00

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, television host, professor, public speaker, activist, and author.

He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and he served as the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science for thirteen years (1995-2008). In addition to his doctorate from Oxford he's been awarded honorary doctorates from eleven other universities. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and the Royal Society. He is a patron of the Oxford University Scientific Society. He currently serves as a Vice President for the British Humanist Association and is the founder of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

As a best selling author, he's written nearly a dozen books with several selling more than a million copies each. His first book introduced the concept of the "meme," a term which has really gained common use and understanding in the internet age. His list of scientific and literary awards goes on and on, and includes a Royal Society of Literature award, a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize, an American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award, the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic, and a Zoological Society of London Silver Medal.

In 2004, he was ranked number one on Prospect magazine's list of the Top 100 Public British Intellectuals. In 2007, Time magazine listed Richard Dawkings as one of the 100 Most Influential People in the World. And in the same year he was ranked 20th in British newspaper The Daily Telegraph's list of the 100 Greatest Living Geniuses. He is a highly sought after public speaker who sells out venues all over the world and he works with numerous scientific, educational, and humanist charities.

Plus, he was really good friends with Douglas Adams (creator and author of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) who introduced Richard to his third wife, Lalla Ward, who any nerd would recognize as Romana, the travel companion to the fourth Dr. Who. That's some serious geek cred.

And on top of all that, he's an atheist (a particularly vocal one as the first clip with attest to).

Below are some videos of Richard Dawkins talking about his thoughts on atheism, religion, and rational thinking. Enjoy!

Richard Dawkins on CNN: Atheist Calls For Pope's Arrest
(courtesy of Atheist Media Blog)

Richard Dawkins - Interview about The God Delusion
(courtesy of The Hour)

Richard Dawkins is asked "What if you're wrong?"
(courtesy of Eyedunno)

Dawkins talks atheism
(courtesy of pundital; CNN interview)

American Atheists '09 - Richard Dawkins (w/ Q&A)
(courtesy of richarddawkinsdotnet; speech at the American Atheists convention in 2009. It's an hour and four minutes, but worth the watch)

Thunderf00t Thursdays Presents:Why Do People Laugh At Creationists (Part 36)

2011-02-17T22:01:00.000-08:00

Seriously, it is time to put an end to bigotry already.

2011-02-17T10:01:00.001-08:00

Presented without comment other than to say: "You go girl!"

Iowa grandmother speaks in favor of gay marriage
(Posted by RGRJMA

Celebrity Atheist #4:Penn Jillette

2011-02-15T10:01:00.000-08:00

Penn Jillette rules.

One half of the magician duo Penn & Teller, Penn Jillette is a showman extraordinaire.

An illusionist, comedian, juggler, author, and musician, Penn's tastes and artistic abilities are many and varied. Best known for his magic work with his long time partner Teller (30 years this year), he has performed on Broadway, off Broadway, on numerous television specials, college campuses, and theatrical venues around the world, and can currently be found performing a standing show in Las Vegas (at the aptly named Penn & teller Theater in the Rio).

A graduate of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Clown College, Penn's life in entertainment has spanned several decades, more than a dozen Hollywood movies (including Toy Story, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and his own production The Aristocrats), scores of television appearances (including on The West Wing, Friends, The Simpsons, Babylon 5, The Drew Carey Show, and Dancing With the Stars), incalculable live shows, his own cable series (Penn & Teller: Bullshit!), countless guest and interview appearances (on shows like Late Night with David Letterman, Real Time with Bill Maher, and Glen Beck), several video web blogs, musical videos and recordings (for artists as diverse as The Ramones, Run D.M.C., and Katy Perry), and nearly half a dozen books. He's even had his own radio shows and was the original voice-over guy for Comedy Central back in the early 90's.

He is an avowed libertarian, skeptic, and free-market advocate with a long, strong streak of supporting all sorts of causes to expand personal freedoms and liberty (even for things he is not personally involved with. For example, he is against the drug war and most drug laws despite never having taken any recreational drugs himself or even touching so much as a drop of alcohol). Big on sexual liberation, too, he's even invented a hot tub sex toy called the "Jill Jet."

And he's an atheist.
(And a very outspoken, even aggressive, one at that.)

Below are some videos he's made about his thoughts on atheism, religion, and personal freedoms. Enjoy!

Penn Jillette: How Did You Become an Atheist?
(courtesy of JesusSavesAtCitibank)

Penn Says: Calling Atheists Less Than Human
(courtesy of Crackle: Penn Says)

Penn Says: Viewer Mail - Knowing There's No God
(courtesy of Crackle: Penn Says)

Penn Jillette: Atheists Are Better Educated in General
(courtesy of JesusSavesAtCitibank)

Penn & Teller Burn a Flag in the White House
(courtesy of stephencaver; from their appearance on the TV show The West Wing - one of my favorite television scenes of all time)

The deceasing uniqueness of Earth...

2011-02-13T10:01:00.002-08:00

Coming swift on the heels of an announcement that the Kepler Mission had found the first rocky planet outside our solar system, Kepler-10b, NASA announced that Kepler has found five more Earth-sized planets.

This is a fascinating field of study. Now that these reports are coming fast and furious, people tend to forget that the first extrasolar planet was not even confirmed until 1992 (the first around a main-sequence star was in 1995). There were some possible detections prior to that, but they could not be confirmed with the technology of the time (some of them have since been confirmed with new technologies and techniques).

When Kepler launched in 2009, 17 years after the first official confirmation, we only knew of a few hundred potential extrasolar planets. In less than 17 months of operation, Kepler more than tripled that number all by itself.

There are still only a little more than 500 confirmed extrasolar planets, but the backlog of those waiting to be confirmed is now over 1250.

Everyday, the universe gets a little smaller and Earth gets just a little less special. And I'm loving every moment of it.

Who knows what may be waiting for us out there...

Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galaxy

Are we alone in the universe? Findings by NASA's Kepler space telescope are making that seem less likely.

NASA scientists have announced Kepler has spotted five planets about the size of Earth, orbiting stars in our galaxy.
...
To date, the telescope has detected more than 1,200 planet candidates. The fact that so many planets have been found in the Milky Way galaxy "suggests there are countless planets orbiting sun-like stars in our galaxy," said William Borucki, Kepler's principal investigator.

(credit: NASA-Kepler Mission team)

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

2011-02-11T10:01:00.000-08:00

1. Being gay is not natural.
Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay.
Much in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all.
Women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed.
The sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be utterly destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.
Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children.
This is proven by the fact that straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms.
Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Re-post this if you believe love makes a marriage and not gender.

(I found this on an old Craigslist post from 2005, but it's been posted all around the web over the years. I modified it slightly, primarily for style and layout. I tried to find who started it, but had no luck so I can't credit it. Regardless, enjoy the list and if you agree, please follow the instructions at the end.)

Thunderf00t Thursdays Presents:Why Do People Laugh At Creationists (Part 35)

2011-02-10T22:01:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to Thunderf00t Thursdays!

You can learn more about Thunderf00t and who he is by visiting my first post in this series.

These posts are dedicated to his video series: "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?" The series contains roughly 35 parts and is all available in its entirety on his YouTube channel (listed below). I will post one video in the series each week here in hopes of becoming yet another avenue through which people can find his work.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (Part 35) by Thunderf00t

Celebrity Atheist #3:Joss Whedon

2011-02-09T10:01:00.000-08:00

Oh Joss Whedon, how do I love thee?

Joss Whedon is a writer, producer, director, and creator of media.
He has had massive success with his Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie and subsequent TV series (that ran for seven seasons), as well as with his Angel spin-off series (five seasons). His short-lived series Firefly (and subsequent movie Serenity) have achieved cut status, as has his superhero spoof web-series, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, which was written and filmed during the Hollywood writer's strike in 2008. He has worked on other TV shows (his own Dollhouse as well as guest writer/director duties for megahit shows like Glee and The Office), written numerous comic books, pushed the boundaries of online media, and has even worked on multiple big-budget, big-screen projects (he was nominated for an Academy Award for his writing work on a little Disney film named Toy Story and he is the director for the upcoming Marvel Comics ensemble action movie The Avengers). He fills auditoriums whenever he speaks and has won well-known awards in numerous industries and categories (including an Emmy, a Nebula, and two Hugos among others).

His imprint is all over the Holywood and the world of nerds, geeks, and sci-fi/fantasy fans.

And he is an atheist.

Below are some videos and transcripts where he discusses his views on atheism, religion, and the meaning of life. Enjoy!

Joss Whedon: Atheist & Absurdist
(courtesy of baillou2; taken from a Serenity Q&A session where he is asked what he has against Christians)

Joss Whedon on Humanism
(courtesy of HarvardHumanist; Joss Whedon's speech on receiving the Outstanding Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism at Harvard University's Memorial Church.)

From an October 9th, 2002 Onion AV Club article titled Is There A God?:
The Onion: Is there a God?
Joss Whedon: No.
The Onion: That's it, end of story, no?
Joss Whedon: Absolutely not. That's a very important and necessary thing to learn.

All Religions ARE Mythology.(And That's OK.

2011-02-08T10:01:00.000-08:00

Occasionally, when speaking of religion, I refer to it as "mythology" or a "mythos" (e.g., "in the Christian mythos" or "that's not consistent with the mythology of Islam"). Needless to say, the second the "M-word" word comes out of my mouth, I'm blasted with accusations of insult, offensiveness, belittlement, and just flat out being rude. That's followed with how wrong I am "because my God is real."

The problem derives from the fact that I don't tend to use the word in the colloquial sense so much as in the academic one.

Many people operate on the (mistaken) assumption that the word mythology equals "fake" or "made up" or "archaic, no longer believed things." That mythology belongs to the pagan realms of ancient Greece and Rome and Egypt.

This is the colloquial use, but it isn't really what the word means.

Academically, it would be more accurate to define a mythology as a series of stories shared by a particular group, culture, or nation in order to explain and pass on that group's values, beliefs, knowledge, and traditions. When used academically, the terms does NOT make ANY value judgment about whether or not the stories involved are true or false.

Now it is true that these stories are often considered sacred by those who utilize them and themes of cosmic or human origin, social development, death, morality, love, natural order, and sin are very common. However, the word itself simply does not comment on that sacred stature.
(A mythos can also be any traditional collection of non-sacred stories, but we'll come back to that in a moment.)

When the word is used in this academic sense, Christianity most certainly qualifies as being a mythology because Christians do in fact use a series of stories to pass down values and traditions. In the same vein, stories about Norse gods, Egyptian gods, and Greek gods are also religiously-based mythologies. As are the stories of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

Again, the word implies no inherent judgment on the validity (or falsity) of these various story collections. Of course every person believes their own is true (else why would they follow it), but I'm not speaking to that aspect of religion when I use the word. I'm merely seeking a neutral, scholastic way to refer to these classes of story collections.

When I say "the Christian mythos states...," I am not saying "the Christian faith, which is false, states..." What I am saying is "The collection of stories that make up the Christian faith speak to this idea and the general consensus is that..."

Now, as I said above, mythologies do not have to be sacred or religious by nature. Any collection of traditional stories can also be called a mythos. Another name for these types of stories is "folklore."

A good example of this would be the American folk tales of the 17- and 1800's. Stories of Johnny Appleseed, John Henry, Paul Bunyan, and Pecos Bill all speak to traditionally valued attributes in this country (exploration, self-reliance, generosity, etc) and they could all accurately be referred to as part of "the American mythos" despite never being part of any religious belief system.

In a more modern sense, any self-contained universe of stories, especially those with strong values, could be considered mythologies. It is not uncommon to hear people refer to the "Batman mythos" or the "Star Trek mythos" since these include collections of related stories that are often used to espouse and encourage certain values—though clearly these present themselves as fantasy on their face and never claimed any religious affiliations or aspirations.

In short, I don't use the word "mythology" to insult or imply falsehood, but rather to grant a fair and academic footing in a discussion of attributes that often involves two or more competing claims and ways of looking at the world.

As I often tell people: there are many mythologies...and yours is just one of them.

Making Better Use of Our Space #2:Flexible Crosswalk Signs

2011-02-07T10:01:00.000-08:00

I'm not a big environmentalist—not in the stereotypical way, anyway. I understand the human desire, the human need, to push limits, to build, to spread out, to conquer, to rule, to manipulate, to study, to grow in every way possible. And yes, I understand that this desire does put us into conflict with the rest of nature almost constantly.

Now, I think it is an enlightened value to rise above our more base desires, to recognize the damage we are capable of, and to see the wisdom is preserving and protecting our natural brethren. But I also understand that not all see it that way—and that not all have the luxury of seeing it that way (and in so many ways it can be a luxury; many of the more extreme activists seem to forget that). Many people are fighting poverty, starvation, thirst, illiteracy, warfare, natural disasters, and other obstacles. And they see land and water and animals as resources and opportunities to turn their fortunes around.

Personally, I like to "save" nature not for any grandiose moral reason, but simply because I find nature beautiful and fascinating. I enjoy spending time in it and I want some of it to still be around when I have kids and want to take them camping or out to see the arm of the Milky Way away from the lights of a city. Plus, I think nature still has a lot to teach us in fields ranging from biology to medicine to economic theory.

To that end I enjoy inventions that don't try to buck one ideal for the other, but rather find ways to merge the natural desire of humans to build with the ability to preserve as much of nature as we can and bring more nature into our urban, traditionally non-natural spaces.

Below is one such idea. A low-power wrap-around LED screen for crosswalks. It is solar powered and can wrap around tree trunks in urban spaces without hurting them. I assume you could also make versions for bus stops, parking signs, etc. Tres cool.

Granted, there are some concerns (how well will the solar power work beneath the leaves of the tree, will the branches grow to obscure the sign, will the sign expand as the tree grows), but it is the concept that is intriguing. The possibility and outside-the-box thinking is what is truly important and I want to do whatever little part I can to spread such ideas and encourage them.

Signs on a Tree
(article via Yanko Designs)

Imagine using a flexible LED solar panel as traffic signal! The idea is awesome. It can be installed on any existing circular base like a tree or a utility pole. So there you have a tree that’s a prime spot for a pedestrian signal, and here is this flexi strip waiting to be coiled around the tree! Easy urban and rural installation.such

Celebrity Atheist #2:Seth MacFarlane

2011-02-06T10:01:00.000-08:00

What can one say about Seth MacFarlane?

He is the creator, writer, and voice actor of several massively popular prime time animated shows (Family Guy, American Dad!, and The Cleveland Show) and at age 24 became the youngest executive producer in television. He's also dabbled in live action work (The Winner) and has provided voice over for other shows (Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Robot Chicken) and movies (Hellboy II). He's a popular speaker among young people and been asked to speak Stanford, George Washington University, The University of Texas, and gave the "Class Day" speech for Harvard's graduating class in 2006. His show panels at ComicCon fill auditoriums and he routinely does guest spots on shows like Real Time with Bill Maher and late night talk shows like David Letterman and Jimmy Kimmel.

At only 37, his star is still rising and his popularity among those 12-40 is on an upswing.

And he's also an open atheist.

Below are some clips where he discusses his atheism or displays it through satire and parody on his shows. Enjoy!

Seth MacFarlane on atheism and gay rights
(courtesy of mille666; clip of an interview from Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO)

Adam Carolla and Seth MacFarlane talk Religion and their Atheism
(courtesy of Scramble243; interview on Adam Carolla's radio show)

Family Guy - Fetching a Cross
(courtesy of huluDotCom; there's a whole Family Guy episode dedicated to Brian, the family dog coming out as an atheist. This is one clip from that episode where Meg tries to trick him into fetching a cross)

Celebrity Atheist #1:Ricky Gervais

2011-02-05T10:01:00.000-08:00

Ricky Gervais is a comic genius.

He is the co-creator, co-writer, and star of the British TV show "The Office" (and producer of its many worldwide spin-offs, including the very popular American version) and "Extras" (which aired on HBO). He is a stand-up comedian, has hosted the Golden Globes twice, has starred in several movies, written books, was on Time magazine's 2010 100 Most Influential People list, and hosted a radio show and podcast (the latter of which was animated and shown on HBO, as well).

He's also an outspoken atheist.

Below are some clips where Ricky Gervais speaks openly about his atheism, why and when he became an atheist, and what he thinks about religion (through both "legitimate interviews" and his stand-up act and TV shows).

Enjoy!

Ricky Gervais: My Atheism
(courtesy of AtheistReference)

Ricky Gervais - On Genesis
(courtesy of TimelessLuso; from his "Animals" stand-up show)

Ricky Gervais act outs atheist bewilderment and frustration in the face of nice Christian nonsense
(courtesy of Oceanus57; a clip from Ricky's show "Extras")

Ricky Gervais on Atheism
(courtesy of dohboy3000; basically a rehash of the first link but in an interview on Inside the Actor's Studio)

There's another good clip of an interview by Piers Morgan on CNN after the 2011 Golden Globes, but CNN doesn't allow embedding the video so I didn't include it above. Here's a direct link to the video on YouTube, though: Atheism Shouldn't Offend.

There are a lot more videos, interviews, skits, and other instances of Ricky Gervais speaking openly about his thoughts on god, religion, and his atheism. If you liked the clips above, go search for more on YouTube or through Google.

Making Better Use of Our Space #1:Turbine and Solar Powered Bridges

2011-02-04T10:01:00.001-08:00

We waste space. A LOT of space.

We're always looking for new land for homes, new land for cell towers, new land for wind farms, new land for agriculture, new land for businesses—the list goes on and on. And of course, there are trade offs. You want to build a city, you can't build a farm. You want to build a warehouse, you can't build a home.

Or can you? What if we found creative ways to minimize those trade-offs? To make more structures serve multifunctional roles?

Below is one such idea. The town of Calabria, Italy went to demolish an old aqueduct and found out the price to do so was $55 million. So, in a flash of inspiration, they held a contest instead asking designers, engineers, and others to come up with creative ways to reuse the aqueduct and give it a new purpose. The idea below took second place. I don't know what beat it, but this one is genius.

Attractive Italian Viaduct Has Wind Turbines Built In
(article via Popular Science)

The Solar Wind concept would use the space between an existing viaduct [supports] in southern Italy to install 26 wind turbines, which designers Francesco Colarossi, Giovanna Saracino and Luisa Saracino say could provide 36 million kilowatt hours of electricity every year.
..
The proposal also includes a solar-paneled roadway to provide another 11.2 million kilowatt hours. It turns the entire viaduct into a park, with spaces to pull over and take in the view off the Italian coast. Travelers could stop and buy fresh produce grown in solar-powered greenhouses located along the bridge. The whole roadway would be covered in a dense grid of solar cells coated in a thin, transparent plastic, the designers say.
...
All in all, the system would be capable of generating 40 million kWh each year, enough to power 15,000 homes.

It not only saves money, it makes it—along with power, tourism opportunities, and food!
Plus, imagine all the other bridges that could employ similar technology, right down to tiny turbines on neighborhood bridges to power small local devices like streetlights or crosswalk signals. Bridges are often natural wind tunnels, and the spaces beneath many of them is frequently underutilized. Even if another road runs beneath (perhaps especially if there is a road beneath as the traffic may serve as natural wind generators), a row of snug-fitting 1-foot wide turbines provide plenty of clearance while still generating enough power to keep nearby devices off the grid.

This is a great idea and I hope they move this from concept to prototype and proof of concept. And if it works, to mass implementation.

Thunderf00t Thursdays Presents:Why Do People Laugh At Creationists (Part 34)

2011-02-03T22:01:00.000-08:00

Ask an Atheist

2011-02-02T10:01:00.002-08:00

This is a quick post to recommend another good website.

The website is Ask an Atheist (http://askanatheist.tv/), a group of Seattle area atheists who post blog entries and produce a radio show of the same name in Tacoma, WA. They also had a short-lived public access television show (though the station itself went defunct when the Seattle city council defunded it) that can still be seen on their YouTube channel (along with video of their radio shows).

The weekly content seeks to educate and covers topics like "What is atheism?," Pascal's Wager, rational thinking and skepticism, debunking pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, how atheists celebrate Christmas, living life after religion, and atheists in the media among other topics.

These guys (and gals) are doing a great show and have overcome several obstacles to keep it up and running. The dedication is amazing and the content they put out is a nice addition to the discussion.
Below is a link to their first radio episode from January 2011 and is a good introduction to the group, atheism, and the philosophy of their show.

Season 3, Episode 1: What is an atheist? Why do we have a show?

Siftables Follow-up

2011-02-01T10:01:00.000-08:00

Back on August 2, 2009, I posted a link to a really cool TED talk focusing on prototype toys called Siftables. You can view that original post and video by clicking here.

Well, about a year-and-a-half has passed and Siftables are back...only this time as an actual, consumable product!

It was announced a few weeks ago at the annual Consumer Entertainment Show (CES) that Siftables—now known as Sifteo— are back and will be available for sale in the very near future. Costing $150 for a pack of three and $50 per additional unit, the Sifteo cubes have better screens, better UI, and more and better apps than their predecessors did. Plus, they use a laptop-based App-manager program to keep them up-to-date. They look great and it is really cool to see such an innovative idea make the jump from prototype to mass market product.

Congrats to all those involved and I hope they live up to the potential.

Check them out online at Sifteo.com!

How far we've come in 17 short years:"What is the internet?" from 1994

2011-01-31T22:01:00.000-08:00

This hilarious video is flying around the web today and rightfully so.

It is a clip from The Today Show filmed way back in 1994. Seventeen years ago now, but not really all that long ago if you think about it. I mean, some of the kids born when this was being filmed aren't even high school seniors yet.

The clip features Bryant Gumbel and now megastar Katie Couric discussing these strange and mysterious technologies known as "e-mail" and "the internet." Granted, you can't really fault them. After all the technology WAS new then. In 1994 the net was just a few years old, the vast majority of people had never used the internet, and 2G cell phone networks were still brand spanking new (the phones themselves still looked like this gem of a 1993 Motorola Flip Phone).

My favorite parts are the the producer off-camera explaining the internet, the confusion over whether or not phone lines are needed to use it, Bryant Gumbel's pronunciation of the website, and the incorrect @ sign shown on screen as part of the e-mail address. Ahhh, we were so young and naive then...

Today Show January 1994...What is the Internet?!

Fact Checking Atheists #1:All Dogs Go to Heaven, but No Atheists Go to Prison?

2011-01-28T10:01:00.001-08:00

If I have one nasty little quirk as an atheist, it is this:
I hold atheists to the same high standards of fact-checking, data collection, and intellectual honesty that I hold theists to. And when atheists play fast and loose with the truth, quote mine, or present questionable statistics...they SHOULD be called out for it and made to justify their claims.

On that note, the first common atheist claim that I would like to discuss is the concept that "Atheists make up only 0.2% of the US prison system!"

To start, here's a more complete version of the claim:
"According, to the 1997 statement from the Federal Bureau of Prisons. In the the U.S. Federal Prison System:
Catholic makes up 40% of the prison population
Protestant makes up 35%
Muslims make up 7.2%
Atheist make up ONLY 0.2%
And yet people still claim atheists are the morally depraved and dangerous ones..."

This factoid gets bandied about ALL the time by atheists wishing to showcase just how morally superior they can be despite not having any central, shared, or divinely objective source for their morality. But is this statistic true?

Here the waters get fairly murky.

The claim often cites the same source: a 1997 report from the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
This gives the claim the immediate air of validity. Not only because a source is cited at all (something not found with most quoted facts) but because a specific year is even given. Specificity is a sign of accuracy, right? All you have to do is go Google the report yourself and confirm it.

There's only one problem. Googling the report doesn't return any such result.

Nor does a search on the Federal Bureau of Prisons' own website.

Oh, sure, you can find lots of websites and discussion forums CITING this report...just no examples of the report itself. You can't even find other government documents referring to the report. The only time any official prison reports seem to make any official mention of religion at all are in cases of hate crimes and discrimination cases.

So the big question is, why can't you find the report? And there is a very good answer to that question—because the report simply does not exist.
(Well, to be fair, the report may exist. But if it does, it has never been released to the public before.)

Where then do these statistics originate from and why have they been credited to a government study?

The whole story seems to go back to the website HolySmoke.org and an article posted to that site by the site's operator, Rod Swift, entitled The results of the Christians vs atheists in prison investigation.

This article presents a supposed e-mail sent to Rod Swift on March 5, 1997 by one Denise Golumbaski who claimed (and may well be) a Research Analyst for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. This e-mail provided a supposed breakdown of prisoner religious affiliations in terms of both whole numbers and as a percentage of the overall federal prison population.

Why do I keep saying "supposed?" Because all of the e-mails were sent "under the table" as it were and none were part of any officially released prison report. They were sent directly to the website owner (as opposed to the larger, more established news and media outlets) and as far as I can tell, Denise Golumbaski never again showed up in the public record to defend her e-mail, lose her job for having sent it, or anything else. Apparently all attempts to contact Ms. Golumbaski at the Federal Bureau of Prisons have met with failure.
(Some websites, like Adherents.com, have claimed to have been able to confirm the numbers with the Federal Bureau of Prisons—and have even presented new numbers—but again the only evidence they actually provide for this is personal testimony as opposed to anything official, making their numbers and claims every bit as suspect.)

All of this, of course, means that the numbers are in the very best case "accurate but non-confirmable" and at the worst "downright lies made up to further an agenda."

Until more empirical evidence is brought to bear on the claim, I cannot in any good conscience support or cite it and I encourage other atheists to stop using it as well. The last thing any atheist who claims to be about proof and evidence and logic and rationality should do is stoop to unverified factoids and possible lies to make their points. We have enough good points without this one and this one only taints the credibility of those who cite it without further confirmation of its validity.

Addendum: There WAS a report released by the UK Home Office entitled Religion in Prisons. This report covered English and Welsh prisons in 1999 and 2000. This report is sometimes thrown into the mix on discussions of atheists in prisons and is much more reliable for its official backing.

According to this report, 30% of the respondents marked "no religion," as their preference. However, it is clearly possible to be a theist without a formal religion and only 1% of the prisoners specifically identified as being either atheist or agnostic.

Does this add some credence to the American claim? Meh.
It is interesting, but still not entirely comparable due to the differences in numerous population size and demographic comparisons between the two nations, their laws, and their prison systems.

Thunderf00t Thursdays Presents:Why Do People Laugh At Creationists (Part 33)

2011-01-27T22:01:00.000-08:00

Qur'an's Scientific Accuracy #1:Is the earth really "egg-shaped?"

2011-01-27T10:01:00.001-08:00

One of the claims I've been seeing more of lately is that the Qur'an is a book that is "scientifically accurate" and that it "predicted" many scientific discoveries supposedly unknown at the time of its writing (the notion has even spawned its own Wikipedia entry: Qur'an and Science).

Since more and more Muslims seem to be quoting these little factoids of faith, I wanted to take a closer look at these claims and see if they hold any water.

For this post, we'll take one of the more common ones bouncing around. Here is how it is explained in the Wikipedia article linked above:

"The Qur'anic verse, "After that (Allah) spread the Earth out (dahaha: from the verb 'daha')" [79:30] has been interpreted as foreshadowing the modern concept that the figure of the Earth has an ellipsoid shape. Kamel Ben Salem's explanation for this is that "the ancient exegetes had earlier explained the Arabic verb (dahaha) by (has flattened it)" but that "the origin of this verb is found in the word (Ud-hiya)," which means "egg of ostrich," thus "the Earth would look like an ostrich’s egg." Rashad Khalifa alternatively translated the verse as: "he made the earth egg-shaped.""

So, what's happening here?

In layman's terms, one single part of one single verse the Qur'an uses a verb (dahaha) that has its origin in a different word (Ud-hiya). This different word means "egg-shaped." However, that is clearly NOT what the word used in the text meant.

We can find many similar cases of modern words that differ in meaning and spelling from their word of origin in English.

One example is the word "clue." It is defined in modern terms as "something that guides through an intricate procedure or maze of difficulties; an idea; a notion." But, that is not it's origin. Originally the word was a variation of the word "clew," meaning "a ball of yarn."

However, it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that you could simply interchange these two words and their meanings at will. If I said "I found a clue as to who really shot Kennedy," you couldn't just up and say that I really meant "I found a ball of yarn as to who really shot Kennedy."

And it would be even less honest to wait until we found out at some point in the future that the assassin happened to be wearing a knitted sweater and then going back and claiming that I had secretly encoded that information all along by my use of the word clue (clue=clew=ball of yarn=sweater!).

Yet that is essentially what is happening here.

No one suggested that the word used even meant "egg-shaped" in this context until the 1970's. There was no secret Muslim treasure trove of knowledge they were waiting for the Western world to catch up on. Rather, they waited until the Western world had first proposed, then confirmed these observations for some 300 years, before re-translating a metaphor in order to back it into a vaguely matching proposition.

All that's bad enough, but it's not all.

Besides the fact that you only get this particular interpretation by dishonest wordplay to begin with, the fact remains that the description is not only STILL inaccurate, but woefully unfilling as a scientific "prophesy."

It is inaccurate because—though not a perfect sphere (slightly oblate spheroid is a more accurate description)—the Earth is still much closer to being a sphere than it is to being an ostrich egg in shape.

In fact, the difference in the equatorial and polar circumferences of Earth (24,901.55 miles and 24,859.82 miles, respectively) is a scant 0.17%—less than one fifth of one percent. The difference in the equivalent measurements on your average ostrich egg is 44.53 cm to 40.35 cm (with the "polar" circumference being the longer) for a difference of about 9.4%.
That's slightly more than 55 TIMES LARGER, proportionally, than the difference in Earth circumferences. And that's not even counting the fact an egg is pointier on one end than the other...

The description of the Earth as being "egg shaped," is simply wrong.

Further, the prediction is particularly unfulfilling because we're expected to believe that for all his divine knowledge, all that Allah elected to give us was a super-secret hidden reference to the highly inaccurate descriptor of "egg-shaped"— a descriptor that wouldn't even be noticed until three centuries after man had already established that knowledge WITHOUT divine help.

This is the extent of the Qur'an's "scientific" evidence in this matter.

Now, had the Qur'an been written 1400 years ago and said something more like this:
"The Earth is the third rocky body from the sun that is large enough to have a roughly spherical shape and clear its orbital path of debris. It formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago and orbits in a slightly elliptical path with an aphelion of 1.0167103335 AU and a perihelion of 0.9832898912 AU. It's average orbital period is 365.256366 days and it orbits at a speed of 29.783 km/s. It has an average density of 5.515 g/cm³ with the core being composed primarily of liquid nickel and iron. It is a slight oblate spheroid. The surface gravity at sea level is 9.8 m/s/s."

...THEN, admittedly, I'd be impressed.
(Hell, had that been the case, then I'd probably be a Muslim myself.)

But despite its origin by supposedly perfect, divine inspiration, the Qur'an didn't say that. It didn't say anything close to that.

So in the end, what are we left with but a prediction that was only found after the fact, a word that required retranslating in order to even vaguely match known scientific realities, and a descriptor that is both wildly inaccurate (by more than one-and-a-half orders of magnitude) and frighteningly limited in the information it provides.

In this case, as with so many others, a run-of-the-mill fourth grade textbook written by underpaid office drones and fact-checked by interns is more scientifically accurate than a text that was allegedly provided by the very being responsible for giving the planet its shape to begin with.

Scientific accuracy for the Qur'an?
0 for 1.

AronRa Wednesdays Presents: AronRa Errata

2011-01-26T22:01:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to AronRa Wednesdays!

You can learn more about AronRa and who he is by visiting my first post about his videos or his YouTube channel.

In his latest video, AronRa provides a list of errors that he has made in past videos, explaining it thus: "I have been meaning to post a list of the errors that have made it into my videos over the years - ever since I realized that tetrachromats can't really see ultraviolet light. But I'm glad I couldn't spare the time to do this video then, because I would have missed one more gaff, and it is an important one. For the first time in more than a dozen years, a creationist has caught me in an actual error, which I must concede, and will list among a few others in my long overdue errata."

This is the essence of personal and intellectual honesty and it is one of the reasons I continue to feel that AronRa is one of the best, most honest, most powerful YouTube bloggers. His work and personal integrity are something I hope he and his family are quite proud of because not everyone who has taken a visible stance in this arena can lay claim to such a consistent and honorable approach.

AronERRata by AronRa

More Christian Love from West Virginia:"We need to stop burning flags and start burning fags."

2010-05-22T10:01:00.001-07:00

Ahhhh, Christianity. Religion of love and compassion.

This guy proves that extremist Christianity is a religion of "love" as much as the 9/11 hijackers proved that extremist Islam is a religion of "peace."

It includes such gems as and "we need to stop burning flags and start burning fags," "we need hunt-a-homo week," and "we need to take 'em all out and shoot 'em with a scatter shotgun."

All from the pulpit of god's eternal and all-encompassing love...

Shenandoah Baptist Church's Pastor Jeff Owens: BURN AND SHOOT FAGS!

Who Is Pastor Jeff Owens?

This Week in History:Artificial Life was created for the first time

2010-05-21T10:01:00.000-07:00

On Thursday, May 20th, Dr. J. Craig Venter announced that his team had, well, created artificial life for the first time.

No small feat, that!

I won't go into all the details, but here's the basic principle: the team used a computer to create from scratch a bacterium genome (complete with a few Easter eggs to prove that it was made by man) which they then inserted into a "blank" cell. The new cell began to read the genome and operate accordingly (producing proteins, replicating, etc).

They used a known genome from another species as the base, sequenced it, made some alterations in the computer, and then literally built a genome from chemicals from scratch.

To prove that they indeed made the genome, the scientists inserted their names and several literary quotes using a code. One, from James Joyce reads: "First to live, to err, to fall, to triumph and to create life out of life."

This week, the story is getting a lot of play as a curiosity (and a little fear).

Ten years from now, it will be commonplace and barely thought of at all.

A hundred years from now they'll look back on this week and say that is when much of modern science changed.

Here are some articles for you to read more. And do read it. It'll be something your children and grandchildren ask you about one day.

Scientist: 'We didn't create life from scratch' (CNN)
In a statement, Venter called the results "the proof of principle that genomes can be designed in the computer, chemically made in the laboratory and transplanted into a recipient cell to produce a new self-replicating cell," controlled only by the synthetic genome.
(Contains an interview with Venter and a news video on the achievement)

Scientist Creates Life. That's a Good Thing, Right? (Time)
"We're basically getting new life out of the computer," Venter says. "We started with a genetic code in the computer, wrote the 'software,' put it into the cell and transformed it biologically into a new species. We're still stunned by it as a concept."

Craig Venter: The dazzling showman of science
A maverick, headline-grabbing biologist with an ego the size of a planet or a brilliant researcher who has succeeded in creating life? A bit of both, actually
For the last 40 years, that pure energy has driven Craig Venter to extraordinary heights. ("A doctor can save maybe a few hundred lives in a lifetime," he told his brother as he embarked on his scientific career, with a characteristic mix of hubris and chutzpah. "A researcher can save the whole world.")

Good Video from TED (#19)Stephen Wolfram: Computing a theory of everything

2010-04-28T22:01:00.000-07:00

Wolfram Alpha - The Ultimate Computational Search Engine

2010-04-28T10:01:00.000-07:00

This is quick post to recommend another good website. It is a website I've played around with for the past year, but for some reason I didn't think to list it on here until seeing a recent TED talk by the website's creator.

The website is WolframAlpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com/).

Wolfram Alpha is, according to the website, "the first step in an ambitious, long-term project to make all systematic knowledge immediately computable by anyone."

But what does this mean?

In short, it means that Wolfram Alpha can not only find data like a search engine, but it can USE the data, actually make on-the-fly, complex calculations with and about the data. Google can tell you when Barack Obama was born, but Wolfram Alpha can tell you how old he actually is right now (48 years, 8 months, 24 days) because it doesn't just go find his birthday, but calculates it against the current year.

Now, the ramifications of such an engine are profound (and I am no where near smart enough to fully take advantage myself). What those ramifications may be are covered in the TED talk which I will post this evening. But for now, go to the site, read up on how it works, and then play around.

Below are five examples of random, unusual calculations I ran on the site:

1. What is Jupiter's diameter divided by Pluto's Mass?
Answer: 6.542x10^-18 mi/kg (miles per kilogram)
(Granted, I don't know when or how you'd ever use this information, but this is the kind of thing it can go calculate on the fly.)
See the results

2. 1908
Answer: Just type in a random number and it will bring back all sorts of information about that number, like:

The year 1908 was 102 years ago.
1908 was a leap year.
1908 in Roman numerals: MCMVIII
1908 in binary: 11101110100_2
and 1908 has a representation as a sum of 2 squares: 1908 = 12^2 + 42^2

See the results

3. Water Molecule
Answer: Just type in something like "water molecule" to find an incredible wealth of information about water molecules, ranging from 3D representations to properties to atomic formulas.
See the results

3b. Water Molecule + Caffeine Molecule
Answer: OK, so that was neat, but is it more useful than Google? Well, now add another type of molecule, say caffeine to see instant, side-by-side, property comparisons.
See the results

4. What is the difference in the revenue of DuPont and the revenue of General Electric?
Answer: Let's say you want to compare two companies to find out which is the better investment opportunity. Just type them both in and voila! Side-by-side financial information.
(FWIW - GE's revenue is 495% larger than DuPont's.)
Read more

5. The Human Genome
Answer: I typed in a random string of genetic code (GATTACCAGA) and it gave me back the exact location(s) of that code in the human genome, as well as how many base pairs it consisted of, the amino acid sequence, and graphical representations of where each match occurred.
See the results

BONUS - Esoteric fun
For more fun, type in questions like:

*Still no answer on why there are so many songs about rainbows (and what's on the other side), however. Someday, perhaps, someday...

The Secret Life of Scientists (PBS)

2010-04-27T10:01:00.000-07:00

This is quick post to recommend another good website. It is a website I've played around with for the past year, but for some reason I didn't think to list it on here until seeing a recent TED talk by the website's creator.

The website is PBS: The Secret Life of Scientists (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/secretlife/).

The Secret Life of Scientists is a fun PBS website dedicated to showing scientists as, well, regular people. Each scientist does several interviews—mainly focused on how they came to science and developed a passion that led them in that direction, about their hobbies outside of science (everything from music to salsa dancing to distance running, etc), and a "10 Questions" rapid fire interview format where they are asked questions about themselves and how they might balance their science and their hobby (for example, if their hobby is music they may be asked if they'd rather win a Grammy or a Nobel prize).

This is a GREAT way to give science and scientists a more human, everyday person-next-door face. For a long time, I think, a lot of people have been thinking of science as this thing that happens by faceless people in "bunny suits" in some sterile lab somewhere. To see the more creative, fun, passionate faces applying their trade in places as diverse as Antarctica, the Hayden Planetarium, and even your living room is a welcome change of pace and public relations.

I don't know if the series has run its course or if they are still conducting more interviews, so check it out a few times.

Go science!

Below are five of my favorite examples of scientists and their secret lives:

1. Neil deGrasse Tyson
Field: Astrophysics and Astronomy
One of my favorite astronomers and scientists of all time, Neil deGrasse Tyson is a wonderful communicator and author. He is great at explaining complex ideas in a fun, passionate way to non-science types. Make sure to check out his "30 Second Science" and "10 Questions."
See the interviews!

2. Joe DeGeorge
Field: Phyiscs (grad student)
Young, Joe is the next generation of physics and he brings a fun energy and youthful passion to it. Plus, he is in the band Harry and the Potters (who I once saw live in Austin at a library back in November of 2005 I think it was (so I'm old school!).
See the interviews!

3. Eva Vertes
Field: Cancer research (grad student)
Another youthful entrant, Eva made waves in the field of cancer research while still a teenager in high school! She studied the link between stem cells and brain cancer and has developed new theories on why cancer occurs.
See the interviews!

4. Eran Egozy
Field: Video game design (Guitar Hero and Rock Band)
That's right, computers are science and video game programmers often have very scientific backgrounds. And people like Eran Egozy are breaking new technological ground in order to entertain you and your friends. Watch his "Music for the Masses" video for a little history on how Guitar Hero came to be.
See the interviews!

5. Adrianne Block
Field: Geologist
She studies global warming and ice movement and spends a lot of time living in Antarctica. How cool is that?
See the interviews!

Watering down the target pool by drawing Mohammed...

2010-04-25T22:01:00.000-07:00

As a follow-up on this morning's post, here are a few more examples of people already standing up by depicting the Prophet Mohammed.

What's so offensive about Muhammad's face?

Is THIS Muhhamed?

Have You Seen This Man?

Have You Seen This Man? Playlist #1
(Scores of videos showing depictions of Mohammed.)

Have You Seen This Man? Playlist #2
(Scores more videos showing depictions of Mohammed.)

Keep on drawing and keep on publicizing those that do.

Protect your First Amendment rights NOW or risk losing them forever.

may liberty win out.

Everybody Draw Mohammad Day!

2010-04-25T10:01:00.000-07:00

In case you've been living under a rock, last week the cartoon South Park ran a depiction of the Prophet Mohammed on their show. However, to avoid directly depicting him, they put him in a bear suit, as seen below:

Needless to say, this still offended certain Muslim extremists. One group, Revolution Muslim, a small, but extreme, group out of New York, posted on their website the following, thinnly-veiled threat:

"We have to warn Matt and Trey [the show's creators] that what they are doing is stupid, and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

They accompanied it with a picture of the Dutch director Theo Van Gogh, dead on street with a knife in his chest after being killed by a Muslim assassin for making a controversial film about women in Islam. Further, they included addresses to the headquarters of Comedy Central and the South Park production facilities.

Here's a news story on the entire incident:
Death Threat For South Park Creators Over Muhammad Satire

South Park went on the following week to censor the subsequent episode, chopping part of a speech about giving in to fear and limiting the use of the name or "image" of Mohammed.

In other words, Comedy Central caved and gave in to fear.
(I've already called them and filed my boycott of their network and affiliated programming on Hulu and other such locations.)

Having first depicted Muhammad in July 2001 without objection, Matt Stone observed that this new censorship by Comedy Central marked something of a cultural retreat. Censorship became "the new normal," he said. "We lost. Something that was OK is now not OK." Concurring with this take, Trey Parker pointed out that if "everyone would have rallied together" in Denmark after the initial threats in 2005, there never would have been a problem today.

In the wake of all this, numerous groups have been calling for various forms of standing up for our freedom of speech rights and fighting back against those that would use fear and intimidation to stifle them.

Here is one such form of protest, and a fairly effective one I hope.
The premise is simple.
Someone tells us what we cannot draw.
We draw it over a thousandfold.

Seattle cartoonist launches "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"
After Comedy Central cut a portion of a South Park episode following a death threat from a radical Muslim group, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris wanted to counter the fear. She has declared May 20th "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day."
Norris told KIRO Radio's Dave Ross that cartoonists are meant to challenge the lines of political correctness. "That's a cartoonist's job, to be non-PC."
...
"As a cartoonist I just felt so much passion about what had happened I wanted to kind of counter Comedy Central's message they sent about feeling afraid," Norris said.
Norris has asked other artists to submit drawings of any religious figure to be posted as part of Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor (CACAH) on May 20th.
On her website Norris explains this is not meant to disrespect any religion, but rather meant to protect people's right to express themselves.

In an interview about this subject, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh said:
"The consequence of this position is that the thugs win and people have more incentive to be thugs. There are lots of people out there who would very much like to get certain kind of material removed, whether religious or political. The more they see others winning, the more they will be likely to do the same. Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated."

I think we best remember that sentiment and take it to heart. And then we'd better start really fighting back against these thugs now if we want to continue living in a free society that is willing to openly embrace ideas, speech, and thought.

Celbrating 20 years of AWESOME

2010-04-24T10:01:00.000-07:00

Happy Birthday Hubble Space Telescope!

You had a rough upbringing, and a troubled adolescence, but it has been worth it. You have added to the whole of human knowledge beyond anyone's wildest expectations. And for that, we thank you.

Mystic Mountain - the officially released 20th Anniversary image:

Potholer54: God and DNA

2010-04-14T22:01:00.000-07:00

Potholer54 is one of YouTube's most well-known and vocal critics of creationism and people that peddle creationist theory.

In this video, Potholer54 discusses the problems with DNA and the concept of an "intelligent" design. The fact is DNA is flawed. Sometimes VERY flawed.

**WARNING**
This video does contain a number of images of genetic defects and malformations that many people will find disturbing. It is a good video that makes good points, but watch it at your own risk. It is not meant for the squirmish.

God and DNA by Potholer54

One less requirement for finding viable life on other planets...

2010-04-10T10:01:00.000-07:00

Oxygen.
It is a great thing.
Heck, we need it to live.
...Man, we are weak.

Turns out, it might be the case that some multi-cellular, non-plant organisms don't need oxygen after all. And how freaking cool is that!

I'm sure there's a lot more research to be done, but these millimeter-long creatures could alter a lot of assumptions about what life is and what resources it requires in order to survive and thrive, both here on earth and out there in the cosmos.

New species 'live without oxygen'

The first animals that do not depend on oxygen to breathe and reproduce have been discovered by scientists on the bed of the Mediterranean Sea.

Three species of creature, which are only a millimetre long and resemble jellyfish encased in shells, were found 2.2 miles (3.5km) underwater on the ocean floor, 124 miles (200km) off the coast of Crete, in an area with almost no oxygen.

The animals, named Loriciferans due to their protective layer, or lorica, were discovered by a team led by Roberto Danovaro from Marche Polytechnic University in Ancona, Italy.
...
The species found in the latest expedition were alive, two of them containing eggs, and though they died on extraction the eggs were successfully incubated on the ship, and hatched in an oxygen-starved environment.

The professor said: "It is a real mystery how these creatures are able to live without oxygen because until now we thought only bacteria could do this."

Yet Another Missing Link?Sure looks like it...

2010-04-09T10:01:00.000-07:00

SHOW ME THE FOSSILS!!!

We have, but what the heck, here is yet another one!
How many more of these things do we have to find to convince you?

New Hominid Species Discovered in South Africa

In a report being published Friday in the journal Science, Dr. Berger, 44, and a team of scientists said the fossils from the boy and a woman were a surprising and distinctive mixture of primitive and advanced anatomy and thus qualified as a new species of hominid, the ancestors and other close relatives of humans. It has been named Australopithecus sediba.

The species sediba, which means fountain or wellspring in Sotho, strode upright on long legs, with human-shaped hips and pelvis, but still climbed through trees on apelike arms. It had the small teeth and more modern face of Homo, the genus that includes modern humans, but the relatively primitive feet and “tiny brain” of Australopithecus, Dr. Berger said.

Geologists estimated that the individuals lived 1.78 million to 1.95 million years ago, probably closer to the older date, when australopithecines and early species of Homo were contemporaries.
...
Scientists not involved in the research are debating whether the bones belong to the Homo or Australopithecus genus, but most agree that the discovery of the skeletons at the Malapa site here in the Cradle of Humankind, a World Heritage site where dolomitic limestone caves contain fossils of ancient animals and hominids, is a major advance in the early fossil history of hominids.

Catholic Church gets off to TOO good a start with preist abuse hotline.

2010-04-03T10:01:00.001-07:00

Abuse hotline set up by Catholic Church in Germany melts down on first day as 4,000 people phone in

An abuse hotline set up by the Catholic Church in Germany melted down on its first day of operation as more than 4,000 alleged victims of paedophile and violent priests called in to seek counselling and advice.

The numbers were far more than the handful of therapists assigned to deal with them could cope with.

In the end only 162 out of 4,459 callers were given advice before the system was shut down.

Andreas Zimmer, head of the project in the Bishopric of Trier, admitted that he wasn't prepared for "that kind of an onslaught'.

The hotline is the Church's attempt to win back trust in the face of an escalating abuse scandal that threatens the papacy of German-born Pontiff Benedict XVI in Rome.

I don't think that many more words are really necessary...

From Big Bang to Us - Made EasyPart 11: Creation 'Science' Made Easy

2010-03-31T22:01:00.000-07:00

Potholer54 is one of YouTube's most well-known and vocal critics of creationism and people that peddle creationist theory. He'll be taking over AronRa's regularly appearing Wednesday night slot for a few weeks in order to present two video series, Creationist Junk Debunked and From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy.

In this video, Potholer54 continues his From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy with a discussion of creation 'science' and the attempts to disguise religion as a valid scientific alternative to evolution through some creative repackaging and relabeling of the content.

11 -- Creation 'Science' Made Easy by Potholer54

BONUS!
About the Made Easy Series
("A wrap-up of the Made Easy series that explains our origins, from the Big Bang to the human migration out of Africa." If you want the whole video series condensed into one tenth the time, this is a great high-level overview of the series.)

Thunderf00t Thursdays Presents:Is Islam a hate crime?

2010-03-25T22:01:00.000-07:00

Welcome back to another Thunderf00t Thursday!

From the video description:
"If the line is not drawn and defended, then you will lose the battle of free speech inch by inch.
This work is in defense of the video by zomgitscriss where all she basically said was 'if the big bang and evolution are in the Koran, as many Muslims state, then why weren't these discoveries made by Muslims 1400 years ago!'
This video got taken down for 'community guideline violations' within a few hours of her putting it up, presumably by criticism-hypochondriac-Muslims who interpret any dissenting voice as 'hate-speech'.
...
Well if this is the way youtube is going to run the forum, then it has little further value as a forum for discussion. The line is drawn."

Is Islam a hate crime? by Thunderf00t

From Big Bang to Us - Made EasyPart 10: The Scientific Method Made Easy

2010-03-24T22:01:00.000-07:00

Potholer54 is one of YouTube's most well-known and vocal critics of creationism and people that peddle creationist theory. He'll be taking over AronRa's regularly appearing Wednesday night slot for a few weeks in order to present two video series, Creationist Junk Debunked and From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy.

How does science work? In this video, Potholer54 continues his From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy series with an explanation of science itself and more sepcifically of the scientific method, the mechanism that allows us to gain accurate knowledge and lets science police itself for bias and undue influence. The scientific method demands that knowledge follow evidence and that conclusions not be drawn until after evidence has been gathered.

10 -- The Scientific Method Made Easy by Potholer54

AronRa Wednesdays Presents:Orwellian revision of history in Texas classrooms

2010-03-23T11:14:00.000-07:00

Welcome back to AronRa Wednesdays!

From the video description:
"In his book, Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell described a corrupt government which didn't approve of its actual history, so they changed it to one which would made it easier to manipulate the populace. Religious extremists on the Texas State Board of Education now seek to do the same thing, -after having already vandalized the studies of science and health- in the name of censorship and propaganda, and in the hope that all the other states bow to the whim to Texas fundamentalists.

Don't.

It's time to fix this broken system. It's time to revise the system such that uneducated and unqualified political ideologues no longer oppose all the experts in every field of study we need to teach."

Orwellian revision of history in Texas classrooms by FFreeThinker

From Big Bang to Us - Made EasyPart 9: Human Ancestry Made Easy

2010-03-17T22:01:00.000-07:00

Potholer54 is one of YouTube's most well-known and vocal critics of creationism and people that peddle creationist theory. He'll be taking over AronRa's regularly appearing Wednesday night slot for a few weeks in order to present two video series, Creationist Junk Debunked and From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy.

In this video, Potholer54 continues his From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy series with a look at how humans came out of Africa and colonized the world. DNA evidence is examined to show how scientists can determine mankind's common ancestry, point of origin, and the approximate age of our species.

9 -- Human Ancestry Made Easy by Potholer54

BONUS!
Errata 2
(Once again, in the interest of scientific honesty and accuracy, Potholer54 corrects some errors that he made in his previous videos.)

Good Video from TED (#18)Tim Berners-Lee: The year open data went worldwide

2010-03-14T10:01:00.000-07:00

TED, an acronym for 'Technology, Entertainment, Design,' is a non-profit group that presents talks, conferences, and symposiums on "ideas worth spreading." It is a fascinating entity and some of the talks they present are downright mind-blowing.

From the video description: "At TED2009, Tim Berners-Lee called for "raw data now" -- for governments, scientists and institutions to make their data openly available on the web. At TED University in 2010, he shows a few of the interesting results when the data gets linked up."

(The Community Generated maps segment, starting at 3:30, is particularly interesting and really shows the potential power of the web and worldwide computing with open data.)

Tim Berners-Lee: The year open data went worldwide by TEDTalksDirector

What if the Great Depression and WWII had been in color?

2010-03-13T10:01:00.000-08:00

The Library of Congress's Flickr stream proudly presents: 1930s-40s in Color.

"These vivid color photos from the Great Depression and World War II capture an era generally seen only in black-and-white. Photographers working for the United States Farm Security Administration (FSA) and later the Office of War Information (OWI) created the images between 1939 and 1944."

As pictures are worth 1000 words, I'll just let some samples from the site speak for themselves. Click on the link to see 1610 more examples!

Living quarters and "juke joint" for migratory workers, a slack season
Belle Glade, Florida
1941

L. Logan, of West Chicago, boilermaker at the roundhouse at the Proviso yard
Melrose Park, near Chicago
1942

Jesse Rhodes Waller, A.O.M., third class, tries out a 30-calibre machine gun he has just installed on a Navy plane
Naval Air Base, Corpus Christi, Texas
1942

Riveter at work on Consolidated bomber at the Consolidated Aircraft Corporation
Fort Worth, Texas
1942

Jim Norris and wife, homesteaders
Pie Town, New Mexico
1940

There really are 1600 more. Go check 'em out!

Good Video from TED (#17)James Cameron: Before Avatar ... a curious boy

2010-03-12T10:01:00.001-08:00

TED, an acronym for 'Technology, Entertainment, Design,' is a non-profit group that presents talks, conferences, and symposiums on "ideas worth spreading." It is a fascinating entity and some of the talks they present are downright mind-blowing.

From the video description: "James Cameron's big-budget (and even bigger-grossing) films create an unreal world all their own. In this personal talk, he reveals his childhood fascination with the fantastic -- from reading science fiction to deep-sea diving -- and how it ultimately drove the success of his blockbuster hits "Aliens," "The Terminator," "Titanic" and "Avatar.""

James Cameron: Before Avatar ... a curious boy by TEDTalksDirector

It should be said that James Cameron CAN definitely rub me the wrong way at times. However, he is pretty visionary and is really good at mixing artistic vision with technological reality. This is an interesting talk on how he went from a 10-year old, curious sci-fi geek to a director who explores the real-world in order to design and imagine fantastical ones.

One step forward, three steps back...

2010-03-11T22:01:00.000-08:00

The other day I posted about Washington D.C.'s first legal gay weddings. I praised it as a "win for love and liberty."

Well, like with most such things, our culture has predictably taken three steps back for every one step forward.

Florida has decided to make film and television the battle ground for its stand against gay rights, Virginia wants to not just allow but encourage colleges to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and Mississippi has decided to put a target on one teen's back by taking out her lesbian preferences on the entire school.

Red and be afraid. Be VERY afraid. Oppression is far from dead. In these places, it is alive and well.

Florida:
Shows with gays could lose Florida tax credit

Florida lawmakers are considering a "family friendly" bill that would deny tax credits to films and television shows with gay characters in favour of those promoting traditional values.
The proposal, which has fuelled a heated controversy for its discriminatory nature, would increase current tax credits from two to five percent of productions costs for shows considered "family friendly."
Those productions are defined as films or TV shows with a "cross-generational appeal" that includes a "responsible resolution of issues." Smoking, profanity, nudity and sex are also out, along with what the state's sex crime laws define as "obscene."
The little-known provision was slipped into a 75-million-dollar incentive package that Republican leaders who hold the majority in the state House of Representatives hope will bring more entertainment industry jobs to Florida.
...
Precourt, whose district includes Walt Disney World, denied his bill targeted gays by using the term "non traditional family values."
Yet when asked whether shows with gay characters should receive the tax credit, he said "that would not be the kind of thing I'd say that we want to invest public dollars in."

Virginia:
Students irate at Cuccinelli over gay-rights policies

Campus activists across Virginia put spring break on hold Monday to mobilize against Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II, who has riled student groups with a letter advising public universities to retreat from their policies against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
...
"I've never gotten so many e-mails from students wanting to do something," said Brandon Carroll, 21, president of the student government at Virginia Tech. He said any erosion in gay rights at state universities is "going to make us lose top students. It's going to make us lose top faculty."
...
On Thursday, Cuccinelli wrote in a letter that Virginia's public universities could not adopt policies that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation "absent specific authorization from the General Assembly." All of Virginia's largest state schools have adopted such language. Faculty leaders at William and Mary sought expanded protections for gender identity and expression earlier this school year.
...
In Richmond, Democrats raced to condemn Cuccinelli's letter and pushed McDonnell to distance himself from the attorney general, with whom he shared a ticket in November. In fiery speeches on the floor of both legislative chambers, they urged McDonnell to send a bill with his blessing to the legislature to write nondiscrimination against gays into the state code.
The GOP-led House of Delegates has declined twice this year to act on similar proposals.

Mississippi:
Lesbian teen in prom flap sues, returns to school

Constance McMillen didn't believe her Mississippi school district would really call off her senior prom rather than allow her to show up with her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo. On Thursday, a day after the Itawamba County school board did just that, the 18-year-old lesbian high school senior reluctantly returned to campus to some unfriendly looks, she said.
...
The district announced Wednesday it wouldn't host the April 2 prom. The decision came after the American Civil Liberties Union demanded that officials change a policy banning same-sex prom dates because it violated students' rights. And the ACLU said the district not letting McMillen wear a tuxedo violated her free expression rights.
...
"This situation with the prom is a perfect example of why we need to protect students from discrimination. In this case it's a prom. It other cases, it's getting beaten up or killed," Polis said.
Polis said he was "dismayed" by the school board's action.
"They ruined the prom, not only for this young woman, but for all of the straight kids at the school," he said.
The school district had said it hoped a privately sponsored prom could be held. McMillen said if that happens, she's sure she'll be excluded.

New York is no longer worth its salt, as it were...

2010-03-11T10:01:00.002-08:00

Salt. It is one of the most basic of all cooking ingredients. It's in everything from soups to roasts to salad dressing to cake and cookie recipes. There are many restaurants that simply cannot be made properly without it. Restaurants with no other condiment on the table, still provide salt shakers. It's ubiquitous.

And now, New York state literally wants to make it illegal.

Chefs Call Proposed New York Salt Ban 'Absurd'

Some New York City chefs and restaurant owners are taking aim at a bill introduced in the New York Legislature that, if passed, would ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking.

"No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises," the bill, A. 10129, states in part.

The legislation, which Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn, introduced on March 5, would fine restaurants $1,000 for each violation.

That really is about all the bill says. There's no way to misread it. It is a blatant attempt to ban salt in restaurant cooking. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it will make it out of committee. But the sheer gall it takes to file something this egregious cannot be allowed to go without comment.

This is not just stupid, it is downright embarrassing. It is an example of everything that is wrong with government—a nanny state mentality, government over protectionism, lack of personal responsibility, behavioral conditioning and modification through force of law, restriction of choice, fear mongering, over-reaction, and short-sighted thinking.

Assemblyman Felix Ortiz is an embarrassment to his profession, his district, and his state. He wanted to make a point and he made a fool of himself—and his constituents—instead.

From Big Bang to Us - Made EasyPart 8: Human Evolution Made Easy

2010-03-10T22:01:00.000-08:00

Potholer54 is one of YouTube's most well-known and vocal critics of creationism and people that peddle creationist theory. He'll be taking over AronRa's regularly appearing Wednesday night slot for a few weeks in order to present two video series, Creationist Junk Debunked and From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy.

In this video, Potholer54 continues his From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy series with a look at the crown jewel of creationist controversy—evolution.

This second part of his look at evolution focuses in on the evolution of the human lineage, the rise of the great apes, and the fallacious idea that there is a missing link that cannot be found by scientists.

8 -- Human Evolution Made Easy by Potholer54

Another Win for Love and Liberty...

2010-03-09T10:01:00.000-08:00

I don't have a lot to add to this, other than to say thank goodness. Liberty and equality for all claims another foothold against bigotry and bias.

Kudos to D.C. You house our federal government. You SHOULD be leading the way.

Same-sex couples in D.C. say 'I do'

A lesbian couple together for more than a decade smiled through tears Tuesday as they became the first same-sex couple to marry in the District of Columbia, on the first day such unions are legal in the nation's capital.
Sinjoyla Townsend and Angelisa Young said they had waited years to marry. They were first in line last week to apply for a marriage license at Washington's marriage bureau.
"You are my friend, my partner, my love," Young, 47, told Townsend, 41. "I will love you today, tomorrow and forever."
After the wedding, those present cheered as the two women embraced and cried. They have been together for 12 years and have children, according to biographical information released by the Human Rights Campaign and D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality.
...
The district joins Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont in allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Mayor Adrian Fenty signed the Washington measure into law in December after the city council overwhelming passed it.

Good Video from TED (#16)Dan Buettner: How to live to be 100+

2010-03-08T10:01:00.000-08:00

TED, an acronym for 'Technology, Entertainment, Design,' is a non-profit group that presents talks, conferences, and symposiums on "ideas worth spreading." It is a fascinating entity and some of the talks they present are downright mind-blowing.

From the video description: "To find the path to long life and health, Dan Buettner and team study the world's "Blue Zones," communities whose elders live with vim and vigor to record-setting age. At TEDxTC, he shares the 9 common diet and lifestyle habits that keep them spry past age 100."

Dan Buettner: How to live to be 100+ by TEDTalksDirector

Good Video from TED (#15)Nick Veasey: Exposing the invisible

2010-03-07T10:01:00.000-08:00

Good Video from TED (#14)Derek Sivers: Weird, or just different?

2010-03-06T10:01:00.000-08:00

TED, an acronym for 'Technology, Entertainment, Design,' is a non-profit group that presents talks, conferences, and symposiums on "ideas worth spreading." It is a fascinating entity and some of the talks they present are downright mind-blowing.

From the video description: " "There's a flip side to everything," the saying goes, and in 2 minutes, Derek Sivers shows this is true in a few ways you might not expect."

Derek Sivers: Weird, or just different? by TEDTalksDirector

Good Video from TED (#13)Kevin Kelly tells technology's epic story

2010-03-05T10:01:00.000-08:00

TED, an acronym for 'Technology, Entertainment, Design,' is a non-profit group that presents talks, conferences, and symposiums on "ideas worth spreading." It is a fascinating entity and some of the talks they present are downright mind-blowing.

From the video description: "In this wide-ranging, thought-provoking talk from TEDxAmsterdam, Kevin Kelly muses on what technology means in our lives—from its impact at the personal level to its place in the cosmos."

"Technology is anything invented after you were born."—Alan Kay

Kevin Kelly tells technology's epic story by TEDTalksDirector

Good Video from TED (#12)David Cameron: The next age of government

2010-03-04T10:01:00.000-08:00

TED, an acronym for 'Technology, Entertainment, Design,' is a non-profit group that presents talks, conferences, and symposiums on "ideas worth spreading." It is a fascinating entity and some of the talks they present are downright mind-blowing.

From the video description: "The leader of Britain's Conservative Party says we're entering a new era—where governments themselves have less power (and less money) and people empowered by technology have more. Tapping into new ideas on behavioral economics, he explores how these trends could be turned into smarter policy."

David Cameron: The next age of government by TEDTalksDirector

From Big Bang to Us - Made EasyPart 7: The Theory of Evolution Made Easy

2010-03-03T22:01:00.000-08:00

Potholer54 is one of YouTube's most well-known and vocal critics of creationism and people that peddle creationist theory. He'll be taking over AronRa's regularly appearing Wednesday night slot for a few weeks in order to present two video series, Creationist Junk Debunked and From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy.

In this video, Potholer54 continues his From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy series with a look at the crown jewel of creationist controversy—evolution.

This last topic is divided into two parts. This first part deals with evolution in general and the first three billion years or so of life on earth. It talks about basic concepts like speciation, DNA similarities, and why scientists cannot (and do not expect to) find the infamous "crocoduck."

7 -- The Theory of Evolution Made Easy by Potholer54

Good Video from TED (#11)Philip Howard: Four ways to fix a broken legal system

2010-03-03T10:01:00.000-08:00

TED, an acronym for 'Technology, Entertainment, Design,' is a non-profit group that presents talks, conferences, and symposiums on "ideas worth spreading." It is a fascinating entity and some of the talks they present are downright mind-blowing.

From the video description: "The land of the free has become a legal minefield, says Philip K. Howard -- especially for teachers and doctors, whose work has been paralyzed by fear of suits. What's the answer? A lawyer himself, Howard has four propositions for simplifying US law."

In this talk, Philip Howard proposes these four fundamental shifts in mindset/reforms to the US legal system:

Judge law mainly by its effect on society, not individual situations.
Trust in law is an essential condition of freedom. Distrust skews behavior towards failure.
Law must set boundaries protecting an open field of freedom, not intercede in all disputes.
To rebuild boundaries of freedom, two changes are essential:
- Simplify the law.
- Restore authority to judges and officials to apply law.

Philip Howard: Four ways to fix a broken legal system by TEDTalksDirector

Good Video from TED (#10)Temple Grandin: The world needs all kinds of minds

2010-03-02T10:01:00.000-08:00

TED, an acronym for 'Technology, Entertainment, Design,' is a non-profit group that presents talks, conferences, and symposiums on "ideas worth spreading." It is a fascinating entity and some of the talks they present are downright mind-blowing.

From the video description: "Autism activist Temple Grandin talks about how her mind works -- sharing her ability to "think in pictures," which helps her solve problems that neurotypical brains might miss. She makes the case that the world needs people on the autism spectrum: visual thinkers, pattern thinkers, verbal thinkers, and all kinds of smart geeky kids."

Temple Grandin: The world needs all kinds of minds by TEDTalksDirector

Good Video from TED (#9)Jamie Oliver's TED Prize wish: Teach every child about food

2010-03-01T10:01:00.000-08:00

TED, an acronym for 'Technology, Entertainment, Design,' is a non-profit group that presents talks, conferences, and symposiums on "ideas worth spreading." It is a fascinating entity and some of the talks they present are downright mind-blowing.

Recently, they've been on a roll with their speakers, so I'm going to dedicate this whole week to the recent TED talks and some of the best of the best in discussions on art, science, technology, health, law, and education that you will find anywhere on the web.

From the video description: "Jamie Oliver is transforming the way we feed ourselves, and our children. Jamie Oliver has been drawn to the kitchen since he was a child working in his father's pub-restaurant. He showed not only a precocious culinary talent but also a passion for creating (and talking about) fresh, honest, delicious food...Now, Oliver is using his fame and charm to bring attention to the changes that Brits and Americans need to make in their lifestyles and diet. Campaigns such as Jamie's School Dinner, Ministry of Food and Food Revolution USA combine Olivers culinary tools, cookbooks and television, with serious activism and community organizing—to create change on both the individual and governmental level."

Jamie Oliver's TED Prize wish: Teach every child about food by TEDTalksDirector

Mr. Deity Sunday:The Identity Crisis

2010-02-28T10:01:00.000-08:00

Welcome to Mr. Deity Sunday! Keeping it sacred with the big man himself...

Mr. Deity is a comedian who specializes in religious satire. In this episode, the Big Boss talks through the whole concept of the trinity with Jesus, who is of course, himself, yet not really, but at the same time he is. I'll let Mr. Deity describe it better than I can...

Mr. Deity and the Identity Crisis by MisterDeity

Home Schooling taken to the next level: Learn while inside the womb

2010-02-27T10:01:00.000-08:00

Ahhh, science. It's ever marching on and learning new things.

Weird things, but things none-the-less.

Crickets Warn Young Before Birth of Dangers of Wolf Spiders

If an expectant mother knew that dangerous creatures lurked around her, and knew also that she wouldn’t be around to take care of her young, she might be stressed.

And if she had a way to warn her young before they were born, surely she would.

Human mothers cannot do this, to the best of our knowledge. But pregnant crickets, it appears, do have the ability to forewarn. This is especially useful since crickets abandon their young after birth.

(Note that this stands in stark contrast to human babies, which studies show, are actually really very stupid.)

In the experiment described above, scientists scared pregnant crickets with wolf spiders. At first the spiders were kept from killing the mothers. Then the young were later exposed to wolf spiders. Those whose mothers were threatened when pregnant proved to be "more predator-savvy"—staying hidden longer and more likely to remain still in the presence of spiders—than the young whose mothers had not been taunted with spiders.

Later, scientists allowed the spiders to actually catch and eat and young and sure enough, in a mixed enclosure, the children of those mothers that were threatened lived longer. The spider got them all in the end, but at least they lasted a little bit longer than their poor, non-frightened cousins.

I'm sure there's a valuable lesson in that somewhere.

Mental Floss—Where Knowledge Junkies Get Their Fix

2010-02-26T10:01:00.002-08:00

This is another quick post to recommend a good website.

The website is Mental Floss (http://www.mentalfloss.com/). The online companion to the magazine of the same name, Mental Floss is "an intelligent read, but not too intelligent. We're the sort of intelligent that you hang out with for a while, enjoy our company, laugh a little, smile a lot and then we part ways. Great times. And you only realize how much you learned from us after a little while. Like a couple days later when you're impressing your friends with all these intriguing facts and things you picked up from us, and they ask you how you know so much, and you think back on that great afternoon you spent with us and you smile."

In short, this site is a trivia lover's dream.

Mixing humor with high-IQ tidbits, Mental Floss excels in its wide-ranging randomness of topics, giving a storytelling flair to everyday factoids, and providing interesting and insightful context for facts historical, scientific, natural, and artistic.

Below are five of my favorite examples from the site:

1. Nine People, Places & Things That Changed Their Names
Did you know? Pepsi was originally called "Brad's Drink?" Or that Google was originally named "Backrub?" Can you imagine Backrubbing a topic on the internet?
Read more

2. Ten Stories Behind Dr. Seuss Stories
Did you know? "Dr. Seuss actually said Yertle was a representation of Hitler. Despite the political nature of the book, none of that was disputed at Random House – what was disputed was Mack’s burp. No one had ever let a burp loose in a children’s book before, so it was a little dicey."
Read more

3. The Stories Behind 10 Famous Product Placements
Did you know? Junior Mints weren't the first choice for that infamous Seinfeld episode. "Other candy companies were originally asked for permission to place their product in that episode. Not seeing the humor in having their bread-and-butter fall into the open chest cavity of a patient, Seinfeld was turned down by M&Ms and Lifesavers (among others) before finally getting to the Junior Mint people."
Read more

4. Five Famous Actors & The Roles They Turned Down
Can you imagine? Sean Connery as Gandalf in Lord of the Rings? Well, that was the original plan. In fact, New Line wanted him for the role so badly that they offered him up to 15 percent of worldwide box office receipts. Had he taken the deal he would have earned more than any actor had ever been paid for a single role—around $400 million. So why didn't he? Because he had never read Tolkien and "didn't understand the script."
Read more

5. Twelve Oddly Specific Museums Preserving Our History
Did you know? There is a SPAM museum (yes, SPAM the canned meat) which contains "a scale model of a SPAM plant, where visitors can don white coats and hairnets while pretending to produce America’s favorite tinned meat." America also has a Hobo Museum, a Museum of Funeral History, and a Barbed Wire Museum just to name a few.
Read more

BONUS - The Amazing Fact Generator
Exactly what it sounds like. Click the link and win a free, random fact!
Use the Fact Generator Now!
(My fact: ‘Jay’ used to be slang for ‘foolish person.’ So when a pedestrian ignored street signs, he was referred to as a ‘jaywalker. Cool.)

Thunderf00t Thursdays Presents:Why Do People Laugh At Creationists (Part 32)

2010-02-25T22:01:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to Thunderf00t Thursdays!

You can learn more about Thunderf00t and who he is by visiting my first post in this series.

These posts are dedicated to his video series: "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?" The series contains roughly 30 parts (EDIT: NOW 32!!) and is all available in its entirety on his YouTube channel (listed below). I will post one video in the series each week here in hopes of becoming yet another avenue through which people can find his work.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (Part 32) by Thunderf00t

From Big Bang to Us - Made EasyPart 6: Natural Selection Made Easy

2010-02-24T22:01:00.000-08:00

Potholer54 is one of YouTube's most well-known and vocal critics of creationism and people that peddle creationist theory. He'll be taking over AronRa's regularly appearing Wednesday night slot for a few weeks in order to present two video series, Creationist Junk Debunked and From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy.

In this video, Potholer54 continues his From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy series with natural selection. Natural selection is one of the central-most mechanisms in the theory of evolution, yet many people have misconceptions about what it is and how it works. This video seeks to clarify the concept and correct any misunderstandings or inaccuracies people have developed about it.

6 -- Natural Selection Made Easy by Potholer54

Jessica? Were you doing your homework topless last night?

2010-02-23T10:01:00.000-08:00

Suit: Pa. School Used Webcams To Spy On Students

According to a lawsuit filed in federal court, a suburban Philadelphia area school district used remotely activated webcams in school-issued laptop computers to spy on students after school hours.

Excerpt:
"The Robbinses said they learned of the alleged webcam images when Lindy Matsko, an assistant principal at Harriton High School, told their son Blake that school officials thought he had engaged in improper behavior at home. The behavior was not specified in the suit.

"(Matsko) cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in minor plaintiff's personal laptop issued by the school district," the suit states. The behavior was not specified in the suit, which did not make clear whether the family had seen any photographs captured by school officials.

Matsko later confirmed to Michael Robbins that the school had the ability to activate the webcams remotely, according to the suit, which was filed Tuesday and which seeks class-action status."

According to an even newer report (and his lawyer), the photo in question involves the kid holding two Mike & Ike candies ("which he eats religiously"). Of course, the story goes, the district thought the candies were drugs and over-reacted. The lawyer even accused the school of alleging that the student may have been involved in selling drugs—all assumed from this one illicitly taken photo of him eating candy at home.

Now, at this point, I'm not saying the kid is telling the truth. Hell, for all I know they WERE drugs that he was holding. The subsequent investigation into this incident (which now involves the FBI and a federal grand jury) will figure all that out, I'm sure. And if they were drugs, the kid is probably in for a world of hurt.

But the point is, drugs or no, what the school did is not only unethical, it is downright illegal:

"Such actions would amount to potentially illegal electronic wiretapping, said Witold J. Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which is not involved in the case.

"School officials cannot, any more than police, enter into the home either electronically or physically without an invitation or a warrant," Walczak said."

This is an egregious violation of civil rights, made even more eerily 1984 Big Brother-like for the fact that the camera in question was provided to the student by the state on a machine ostensibly meant to further his education.

Now, I'm not a conspiracy nut and I am pretty sure this is an isolated incident. But between you and me, I hope the school district gets absolutely reamed over this one.

I hope the lawsuit succeeds and hurts them financially (not deep enough to truly affect the education of other students, but enough to make them think twice about doing this again). I hope some officials and administrators lose their jobs (I'm stopping short of saying criminal charges at this point, though). And I hope this is passed around to all the other school districts in America so that they, too, will realize that school powers stop at the end of the school day and the end of school property.

Can you imagine if the photo in question was of a topless 14-year old girl doing her homework thinking no one is watching?

Now that records have been subpoenaed and the district forbidden from deleting any information related to the cameras, such a photo may still surface. Who knows what else the district snapped a picture of without anyone being the wiser...

AronRa Monday Follow-up:Question and Answers

2010-02-22T10:01:00.001-08:00

Noted YouTuber AronRa gave a presentation for Darwin Day 2010 at a convention of scientists and other lovers of knowledge in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. His 45 minute presentation was on the evolution of morality and evidence of morality in nature. I presented that presentation in yesterday's post.

Here is a three part follow-up showing a subsequent, free-form question and answer period with the audience.

Enjoy!

AronRa Q&A on Darwin Day (1 of 3)

AronRa Q&A on Darwin Day (2 of 3)

AronRa Q&A on Darwin Day (3 of 3)

AronRa Sunday Special!The Evolution of Morality

2010-02-21T10:01:00.000-08:00

Noted YouTuber AronRa gave a presentation for Darwin Day 2010 at a convention of scientists and others lovers of knowledge in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. His 45 minute presentation was on the evolution of morality and evidence of morality in nature. Lots of great examples, jokes, and good science, as always, Aron is a joy to watch.

Without further ado, here is his speech, presented in 5 parts.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Is God is the best explanation for things we don't understand?

2010-02-19T10:01:00.000-08:00

Science cannot—and makes NO claim to—prove or disprove the existence of god.

However, what science can do and has done is to show that so far, there has not been a natural force that has needed to invoke a god in order to be explained. For everything we've discovered, a natural mechanism has been found or can be suitably theorized. On the surface, it does not seem that a single event or system has ever required the invocation of a supernatural being to work. And even when the hypothesis is young or has some holes, that is no justification for a belief that the holes cannot and will not someday be filled in with a naturalistic mechanism.

Sure, there are some things that still need explaining, but even in those realms there are working theories and models and mathematical concepts that are being tested—none of which require a god in order to function properly.

Science cannot disprove god's role in the universe, but so far it has clearly shown that in every instance god is not necessary to make anything do anything.

"Can scientist no matter how hard they try determine where atoms come from? Can they explain where the gases came from from the Big Bang? Science cannot explain them, they are only theories. Plus why do so many scientist contradict each other? Therefore, there is only one answer God does exist."

Actually, yes. They can answer both of those questions in most satisfactory manners. Just look up time line of the big bang and you'll see precisely the theory on how a post-big bang universe cooled to allow the formation of quarks and then atomic particles and then nuclei and then atoms and then more complex molecules and structures.
There are still some questions about why atoms have mass at all, but scientists have testable, working models for that and hope to find answers within the next decade at some of the world's largest particle accelerators.

But, the fact that some people have not yet provided answers to EVERY question, or that some people disagree, does NOT lead to "therefore" anything, least of all "therefore there is a god." That simply does not logically follow from the previous statements.

Of course there are questions scientists cannot yet answer, probably always will be. This does NOT mean God is the answer. One hundred years ago, scientists didn't know about DNA, yet that didn't mean that God was controlling the inheritance of characteristics from parent to child. DNA was still doing that, even though scientists could not yet point to it.
Prior to Newton's work on gravity, scientists could not say why the moon stayed in orbit around the earth, nor the earth around the sun. Yet, just because it was not explained did NOT mean God was keeping the moon in its orbit. Gravity was still the cause, even if we didn't know about it yet.
When doctors didn't know that germs caused diseases (which they didn't until a century or so ago), it did not mean that God was causing diseases. The germs were still doing it, even though scientists couldn't yet point to them or explain it.
When primitive man didn't know what caused an eclipse, it did not mean that God caused them. It was still the dynamics of the sun/earth/moon system, even though no one could yet explain it.

Scientists are daily making headway on the very questions you bring up, and they likely will answer them (perhaps in the next few decades). Yet these answers will only bring new questions. And what will you do then? Predictably, you'll ignore the examples you give today and are proven wrong on and jump to the newest unanswered question and cite the temporary inability to answer that as "proof" of God.

It is sad AND intellectually lazy.

Thunderf00t Thursdays Presents:Why Do People Laugh At Creationists (Part 31)

2010-02-18T22:01:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to Thunderf00t Thursdays!

You can learn more about Thunderf00t and who he is by visiting my first post in this series.

These posts are dedicated to his video series: "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?" The series contains roughly 30 parts (EDIT: NOW 32!!) and is all available in its entirety on his YouTube channel (listed below). I will post one video in the series each week here in hopes of becoming yet another avenue through which people can find his work.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (Part 31) by Thunderf00t

From Big Bang to Us - Made EasyPart 5: The Age of Our World Made Easy

2010-02-17T22:01:00.000-08:00

Potholer54 is one of YouTube's most well-known and vocal critics of creationism and people that peddle creationist theory. He'll be taking over AronRa's regularly appearing Wednesday night slot for a few weeks in order to present two video series, Creationist Junk Debunked and From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy.

In this video, Potholer54 continues his From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy series by looking at one of the single most "controversial" topics in all of creationist propaganda—dating methods.

Potholer54 looks at methods of dating our planet (and universe) as diverse as comparative dating, dendrochronology, carbon dating, DNA testing, paleomagnetic dating, and various forms of radiometric dating—describing the science behind them and demonstrating why the most common objections to the methods are founded on invalid assumptions.

5 -- The Age of Our World Made Easy by Potholer54

5 Great Charles Darwin Quotes

2010-02-12T10:01:00.000-08:00

(Happy 201st birthday, Chuckie D!)

1.
"False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness."
—Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Chapter XXI (1871)

2.
"Man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system – with all these exalted powers – Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."
—Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1859)
(This is the passage that immediate follows the often taken out of context passage about the human eye *seems* absurd and impossible. He goes on here to say that it is not, but somehow the oh-so-holy, thou-shall-not-sin creationists tend to conveniently omit this part of the quote in order to purposefully mislead their flocks.)

3.
"One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die."
—Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1859)

4.
"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine."
—Charles Darwin, Autobiography of Charles Darwin (restored edition; 1958)

5.
"As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."
—Charles Darwin, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1887)

Top quote about Charles Darwin:

"If Darwin's theory should be true, it will not degrade man; it will simply raise the whole animal world into dignity, leaving man as far in advance as he is at present."
—George Eliot

And one to grow on...
"Darwin's idea of natural selection makes people uncomfortable because it reverses the direction of tradition."
—Daniel Dennett

Thunderf00t Thursdays Presents:Why Do People Laugh At Creationists (Part 30)

2010-02-11T22:01:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to Thunderf00t Thursdays!

You can learn more about Thunderf00t and who he is by visiting my first post in this series.

These posts are dedicated to his video series: "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?" The series contains roughly 30 parts and is all available in its entirety on his YouTube channel (listed below). I will post one video in the series each week here in hopes of becoming yet another avenue through which people can find his work.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (Part 30) by Thunderf00t

From Big Bang to Us - Made EasyPart 4: The Story of the Earth Made Easy

2010-02-10T22:01:00.000-08:00

From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy
Part 1: History of the Universe Made Easy

Potholer54 is one of YouTube's most well-known and vocal critics of creationism and people that peddle creationist theory. He'll be taking over AronRa's regularly appearing Wednesday night slot for a few weeks in order to present two video series, Creationist Junk Debunked and From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy.

In this video, Potholer54 continues his From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy series by discussing the formation of Earth and the natural processes, like plate tectonics and volcanism, that shaped the planet into the dynamic, complex, varied, living world that it is today.

4 -- The Story of the Earth Made Easy by Potholer54

16-year old girl buried ALIVE in honor killing...for befriending boys

2010-02-09T10:01:00.000-08:00

I don't know what to say. I think the title just about covers it. A 16-year old girl was buried alive by her own father and grandfather for the crime of making friends with some boys.

This is sick, twisted, and allowed under a backward religious belief system that usually turns its head the other direction when such an event as this occurs. Especially in this particular region.

The whole concept of killing someone to regain lost honor is misguided in the extreme. Add to that the fact that the killer is a trusted, beloved family member. And that the crime is so mundane as to be almost meaningless (and certainly not murder-worthy). Finally, add to this all the fact that the method of killing is monstrously painful and inhumane. We kill livestock and rapid wild animals with more dignity than tying them up and burying them alive.

Imagine this all from that girl's point of view, her horrible last moments as her own father tosses a shovel full of dirt in her face because she spoke to a boy. The pain, confusion, terror, sorrow, regret, guilt, shame. Do yo think she begged for mercy? Do you think she was even dead yet before the dad lit up a cigarette and went about the rest of his day? How long did she sit there in darkness, inhaling rock and dirt into her lungs, gasping for air and screaming in utter silence?

All because a religion and culture claim peace and honor out on the one hand while murdering little girls, their own daughters, with the other. Because we all know murdering defenseless little girls is what regains a man his honor...

Pathetic.

Hearld Sun: Girl Buried Alive for Befriending Boys
February 09, 2010

PROSECUTORS in Turkey are seeking life in jail for the father and grandfather of a girl who was buried alive for befriending boys.

The pair were arrested after the body of 16-year-old Medine Memi was found in a sitting position with her hands tied, in a hole in a chicken pen outside her house in Kahta town, Adiyaman province, 40 days after she went missing.

A post mortem examination showed a significant amount of soil in her lungs and stomach, meaning she was buried alive, forensic experts said.

Newsweek: Asking and Telling in Israel

2010-02-08T10:01:00.000-08:00

I recently learned that Israel allows openly gay soldiers to serve in its armed forces (and has since 1993). Not only has it not hurt morale there, but fifteen years on--and in one of the most decidedly religious nations on Earth--it seems to be an almost non-issue.

Here is one gay soldier's take on what it is like to be openly out of the closet in one of the most elite fighting forces on the entire planet. Maybe we can take a lesson and finally stop denying our own gay citizens the right to serve their nation without having to hide the sexual identity in order to do so.

Newsweek: Asking and Telling in Israel
Feb 5, 2010

And so, oddly enough, it was my military service that helped me make sense of my sexual orientation. By the time I became a young officer, I'd come out of the closet to my family and friends and had a steady partner. I did not pin a gay-pride flag on my duffel bag or hang one at my base; I don't think that would have been appropriate in the military, given the diversity of opinions and beliefs. But I never lied about my preferences, and by the time I became a senior officer in an elite unit, most of my fellow officers knew my story. Yes, I was a gay officer in a special-forces unit—and a damn good one, at that.

As Israelis, we are taught from a young age to admire the United States. The American dream offers an alternative to the somewhat harsh reality of life in the Middle East. But that dream has been betrayed by the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that governs gay and lesbian service in the U.S. military. Repealing it will help America fall in line with what many other countries have already accepted—that, in the 21st century, sexual preferences should not be a matter of shame or secrecy, not even in the military.

Thunderf00t Thursdays Presents:Why Do People Laugh At Creationists (Part 29)

2010-02-04T22:01:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to Thunderf00t Thursdays!

You can learn more about Thunderf00t and who he is by visiting my first post in this series.

These posts are dedicated to his video series: "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?" The series contains roughly 30 parts and is all available in its entirety on his YouTube channel (listed below). I will post one video in the series each week here in hopes of becoming yet another avenue through which people can find his work.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (Part 29) by Thunderf00t

From Big Bang to Us - Made EasyPart 3: The Origin of Life Made Easy

2010-02-03T22:01:00.000-08:00

Potholer54 is one of YouTube's most well-known and vocal critics of creationism and people that peddle creationist theory. He'll be taking over AronRa's regularly appearing Wednesday night slot for a few weeks in order to present two video series, Creationist Junk Debunked and From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy.

In this video, Potholer54 continues his From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy series by looking at current hypotheses on how life might have arisen on Earth. This video focuses on abiogenesis, the early formation of organic chemicals by natural means, and the fallacies that creationists often promote as objections to a natural origin for life.

3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy by Potholer54

Thunderf00t Thursdays Presents:Why Do People Laugh At Creationists (Part 28)

2010-01-28T22:01:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to Thunderf00t Thursdays!

You can learn more about Thunderf00t and who he is by visiting my first post in this series.

These posts are dedicated to his video series: "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?" The series contains roughly 30 parts and is all available in its entirety on his YouTube channel (listed below). I will post one video in the series each week here in hopes of becoming yet another avenue through which people can find his work.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (Part 28) by Thunderf00t

From Big Bang to Us - Made EasyPart 2: History of the Universe Made Easy (con't.)

2010-01-27T10:01:00.000-08:00

Potholer54 is one of YouTube's most well-known and vocal critics of creationism and people that peddle creationist theory. He'll be taking over AronRa's regularly appearing Wednesday night slot for a few weeks in order to present two video series, Creationist Junk Debunked and From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy.

In this video, Potholer54 continues his From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy series by looking at how we sent probes and people out into space and how we slowly, but surely, uncovered the natural processes that built our planet, our solar system, and our entire universe.

2 -- History of the Universe Made Easy (Part 2) by Potholer54

BONUS!
ERRATA
(Here's the wonderful thing about science. When we make mistakes, we admit it. When new evidence arises, we acknowledge it. Here, Potholer54 corrects a few errors found in his first two videos.)

Fear the Boom and Bust Video(Hayek v. Keynes rap)

2010-01-23T10:01:00.001-08:00

I love this kind of humor. I encourage you go watch and then support it!

I'll let the artists describe the clip in their own words (from the YouTube page):

"In Fear the Boom and Bust, John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek, two of the great economists of the 20th century, come back to life to attend an economics conference on the economic crisis. Before the conference begins, and at the insistence of Lord Keynes, they go out for a night on the town and sing about why there's a "boom and bust" cycle in modern economies and good reason to fear it."

"Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem by EconStories

School Bans Dictionary

2010-01-22T10:01:00.001-08:00

Menifee school panel will review banned dictionary

The Menifee Union School District is forming a committee to review whether dictionaries containing the definitions for sexual terms should be permanently banned from the district's classrooms, a district official said Friday.
The 9,000-student K-8 district this week pulled all copies of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary after an Oak Meadows Elementary School parent complained about a child stumbling across definitions for "oral sex."

OK, granted that an elementary level school probably does not need a collegiate level dictionary and can get by just fine with an age/grade/reading level appropriate one, but this still seems like a gross over-reaction.

Personally (an I say this having been a little boy once and having had access to dictionaries in my youth), I do not for one second think that the boys actually "stumbled across" this phrase at all. Little boys do not read the dictionary for fun. Even if they were looking up another word nearby, they probably didn't waste time reading other entries. Rather, I think that these boys already knew the term and were looking in the dictionary to see if it was there.

If this was the case, then the boys already knew the word and removing the dictionary serves NO real point save to remove a valuable educational resources from the school and to reinforce the taboo nature of the term (which will only make them more curious about it).

This was a reaction on the parts of parents and teachers, NOT an actual solution to the issue at hand. The way I read this, this was about the parents feeling a loss of control and taking some action to regain it, not about protecting anyone.

I remember doing this with my friends. We'd grab a dictionary and giggle as someone said "Oh! Look up 'bitch!'" or "My brother uses 'shit' a lot, look that up." Eventually, our giggling would attract attention and we'd pretend we were doing something else. This is typical 10-year old, exploring-a-growing-understanding-of-the-world, juvenile humor, boy behavior.

Shame on the school and parents for seeking the preservation of their own piece of mind and the status quo over the ACTUAL education of their, and everyone else in their community's, children.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

Thunderf00t Thursdays Presents:Why Do People Laugh At Creationists (Part 27)

2010-01-21T22:01:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to Thunderf00t Thursdays!

You can learn more about Thunderf00t and who he is by visiting my first post in this series.

These posts are dedicated to his video series: "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?" The series contains roughly 30 parts and is all available in its entirety on his YouTube channel (listed below). I will post one video in the series each week here in hopes of becoming yet another avenue through which people can find his work.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (Part 27) by Thunderf00t

From Big Bang to Us - Made EasyPart 1: History of the Universe Made Easy

2010-01-20T22:01:00.000-08:00

Potholer54 is one of YouTube's most well-known and vocal critics of creationism and people that peddle creationist theory. He'll be taking over AronRa's regularly appearing Wednesday night slot for a few weeks in order to present two video series, Creationist Junk Debunked and From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy.

In this video, Potholer54 begins his From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy series by starting at the very beginning of human exploration of the stars.

How did we first discover the planets? How did we first measure the size of the sun? How did we measure the distance first to the planets and then to our neighboring stars? How did our most basic and fundamental understandings of the space around us start, change, and refine into the planetary models and cosmological theories that we have today? Before we study too deeply about what we've learned, we take a look at why we bothered to learn it at all . . . and how.

1 -- History of the Universe Made Easy (Part 1) by Potholer54

Thunderf00t Thursdays Presents:Why Do People Laugh At Creationists (Part 26)

2010-01-14T22:01:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to Thunderf00t Thursdays!

You can learn more about Thunderf00t and who he is by visiting my first post in this series.

These posts are dedicated to his video series: "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?" The series contains roughly 30 parts and is all available in its entirety on his YouTube channel (listed below). I will post one video in the series each week here in hopes of becoming yet another avenue through which people can find his work.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (Part 26) by Thunderf00t

(Embedding on this video has been disabled, so click on the title to go see it. It is all about Sarah Palin's role in the creationist movement.)

Creationist Junk Debunked #3

2010-01-13T22:01:00.000-08:00

Thunderf00t Thursdays Presents:Why Do People Laugh At Creationists (Part 25)

2010-01-07T22:01:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to Thunderf00t Thursdays!

You can learn more about Thunderf00t and who he is by visiting my first post in this series.

These posts are dedicated to his video series: "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?" The series contains roughly 30 parts and is all available in its entirety on his YouTube channel (listed below). I will post one video in the series each week here in hopes of becoming yet another avenue through which people can find his work.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (Part 25) by Thunderf00t

Creationist Junk Debunked #2

2010-01-06T22:01:00.000-08:00

2009 Great Quotes Round-up

2010-01-03T10:01:00.000-08:00

Here is a central roll up of the 2009 Great Quotes posts.

5 Great John Adams Quote (10 August 2009)
Quote #1
"The science of government it is my duty to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take the place of, indeed exclude, in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain."
—John Adams to Abigail Adams, 1780

5 Great Samuel Adams Quote (15 August 2009)
Quote #1
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
—Samuel Adams: The Rights of the Colonists, 1772

5 Great Thomas Jefferson Quotes (28 August 2009)
Quote #1
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
—Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791

5 Great Teddy Roosevelt Quote (25 September 2009)
Quote #1
"Don't hit at all if you can help it; don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep."
—Teddy Roosevelt: Speech in New York, 1899

5 Great William Shakespeare Quotes (29 September 2009)
Quote #1
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages. "
—William Shakespeare
As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII, lines 139-43 (Jaques)

5 Great Quotes from "Inherit the Wind" (5 Octoboer 2009)
Quote #1
"In a child's power to master the multiplication table, there is more sanctity than in all your shouted "amens" and "holy holies" and "hosannas." An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral. And the advance of man's knowledge is a greater miracle than all the sticks turned to snakes or the parting of the waters."
—Henry Drummond
Inherit the Wind

5 Great George Bernard Shaw Quotes (11 October 2009)
Quote #1
"A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing."
—George Bernard Shaw

5 Great Dolly Parton Quotes (23 October 2009)
Quote #1
"When I'm inspired, I get excited because I can't wait to see what I'll come up with next."
—Dolly Parton

5 Great Edward Gorey Quotes (30 October 2009)
Quote #1
"My mission in life is to make everybody as uneasy as possible. I think we should all be as uneasy as possible, because that's what the world is like."
—Edward Gorey

5 Great Quotes on Death (1 November 2009)
Quote #1
"Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist."
—Epicurus

5 Great Last Words (2 November 2009)
Quote #1
"To the strongest!"
—Alexander the Great
In response to his generals asking the heir-less Alexander which one of them would get control of the empire.

5 Great General George S. Patton Quotes (11 December 2009)
Quote #1
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."
—General George S. Patton, unsourced

The greatest glory a Muslim can achieve...Assassinating a cartoonist?

2010-01-02T10:01:00.002-08:00

Danish cartoonist hid in 'panic room' during attack

Danish political cartoonist Kurt Westergaard hid in a "panic room" inside his home as a man wielding an ax and knife cracked the glass in the home's front door, Danish police said Saturday.
...
Westergaard took his 5-year-old granddaughter into the "panic room" when he realized what was happening, Chief Superintendent Ole Madsen said.
Westergaard, who has been threatened for drawing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, is ordinarily accompanied by bodyguards when he leaves his home, but nobody was on guard at the house Friday, the Security and Intelligence Service told CNN.

OK, so it is bad enough that a man was attacked in his home, much less over lingering anger from cartoon issues, but to scare his 5 year old granddaughter, too?

Even better, here's the response to this situation from Al-Shabaab, the militant organization with alleged ties to the suspect:

At a news conference in the Somali capital of Mogadishu, al-Shabaab spokesman Sheikh Ali Mohamud Rage said, "We are very happy with the Somali national who attacked the house of the Danish cartoonist who previously insulted our prophet Mohammed. This is an honor for the Somali people. We are telling that we are glad that anyone who insults Islam should be attacked wherever they are."

This is the state of modern religion and Islam, the "religion of peace." Because we all know we cannot have "free speech" running around shooting its mouth off in the name of "liberty," "freedom," and "natural rights." Allah forbid (apparently)!

And of course, we all know that the ONLY solution for someone speaking their mind is physical VIOLENCE, correct?

Seriously, how are these ignorant, backward, fundamental zealots still allowed to roam the earth? Why do their fellow adherents of this so-called "religion of peace," the supposedly moderate factions that supposedly outnumber them do more to keep these nutbags in check when they are out there making a mockery and farce of the whole of Islam?

We are proud of the fanatic that attacked a man and his granddaughter in their own home? Really?

Pathetic.

And growing worse by the day.

Thunderf00t Thursdays Presents:Why Do People Laugh At Creationists (Part 24)

2009-12-31T22:01:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to Thunderf00t Thursdays!

You can learn more about Thunderf00t and who he is by visiting my first post in this series.

These posts are dedicated to his video series: "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?" The series contains roughly 30 parts and is all available in its entirety on his YouTube channel (listed below). I will post one video in the series each week here in hopes of becoming yet another avenue through which people can find his work.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (Part 24) by Thunderf00t

Creationist Junk Debunked #1

2009-12-30T22:01:00.000-08:00

Top 10 Christmas Songs on My iPod

2009-12-25T10:01:00.000-08:00

Like all good and festive people, I have a holiday playlist on my iPod. And, despite my not being Christian and the list containing some songs that do not typically meet the criteria, it is indeed named "Christmas songs." I do still celebrate Christmas in a secular manner with friends and family.

These are the favorite, top 10, most played Christmas songs on that list.

1. Breath of Heaven (Mary's Song)
by Amy Grant

My favorite Christmas song. I find it haunting and beautiful and powerful. It is moody, slow, and passionate and I love listening to this one with all the lights, except those from the tree, turned off.

I know, it seems odd to some people for an atheist to have such a distinctly Christian song as his favorite Christmas carol over say, Rudolph or Frosty. Hey, I may not believe in the tenets of the faith, but I cannot deny that the passion for that faith did produce a lot of powerful art and wonderful stories. And this one in particular speaks to me.

What I love about it is that it is not as "praising" as many religious songs. Rather, it is questioning.

Mary walks along, lonely and pregnant and she wonders what she did to deserve this. She admits that she is frightened by the situation god's put her in. She asks god if he second-guesses his choice as he watches her struggle and realizes maybe she wasn't strong enough after all. It is about a human being frail and scared in the face of divine destiny and I like that sentiment.

(It might shock some to learn that I still have a Southern Gospel playlist on my iPod too, and that I listen to it regularly. But that's for another post.)

2. Jesus, Born on this Day
by Mariah Carey

A tender, caring, personal take on a classic Christmas hymn. This one gets me precisely because it is more of a hymn than a carol—more reverent and powerful and stirring. It remains a more pure expression of the holiday, less tainted by commercialism and exploitation than most other songs you'll hear this season on the crackly mall speakers.

"He is light; he is love; he is grace..."
*Sigh*
If only it were that simple.

3. I Saw Three Ships
by Sufjan Stevens

I never cared much for this song one way or the other until I heard Sufjan's version. It is spunky and fun and playful and really puts me in a festive spirit. Other songs hit me on a deeper level, but this is the guy I put on when I'm decorating or making hot chocolate with loved ones or wearing garish red sweaters with little white reindeer knitted into them.

4. Up On the Housetop
by The Jackson 5

Even at age 10 or so, Michael Jackson's voice is distinctly powerful and special among his family members. This is a personalized, fun, upbeat version of what is usually a bland and predictable child's classic. Michael really puts the soul in this standard.

5. Adeste Fidelis/Silent Night
by Bing Crosby

This one really hits me hard.

It is a recording of an actual radio broadcast (from 1943, I think). It was an auditorium performance,as opposed to a closed studio. The songs are excerpts from a holiday special broadcast for the troops serving in WWII. They are reverent and serious and yet they remain uplifting.

It walks that strange line between what it feels like on Christmas to be home and cozy and surrounded by family and what it feels like sitting cold and hungry in an open-air trench on strange, foreign soil. Bing Crosby gets the live audience to join in, and encourages those at home to sing, too, so that those overseas could hear it. You feel like you are in a movie where the camera pans across the live audience in New York, then the nuclear family in Iowa with an extra stocking hung for their brother serving overseas, then the bar in San Francisco, then the boys on ships off the coast of Iwo Jima, then the freezing breath of the boys in the Black Forest of Germany. It just feels like that beat where people all over the world sat up, came together, and for just one moment sang out in unison for one another.

This one is a haunting, lingering reminder of a very different time and a very different type of Christmas feeling.

6. Brothers/Our World Reprise
by The Frogtown Hollow Jubilee Jugband

A recording from Jim Henson's somewhat trippy, 1977 Muppet-related, Christmas special masterpiece "Emmet Otter's Jug Band Christmas."

Based loosely upon the idea that Gift of the Magi meets KISS, it was a cult classic that never really caught on with the masses the same way the Charlie Brown Christmas special did. But it sure left an impression with my warped young mind. This is the song between Ma Otter and her son's band after losing the big town talent show. They mash up the two songs they sang into a heartwarming whole that is far more beautiful than the mere sum of its parts.

"Live a lifetime of surprise..."
Indeed.

7. Come On! Let's Boogie to the Elf Dance!
by Sufjan Stevens

This is an original song, and one that hits me in the happy spot. I cannot listen to this and not smile. Plus, it has a banjo. How many Christmas carols do you know that can pull that off?

I could really put this guy's whole Christmas album on here because it is one of the few I can just put on and leave playing straight through (and at four discs, that is no small feat). His Amazing Grace, O Holy Night, and Jupiter Winter all have 5 stars and also find themselves in my Top 20 carols playlist.

8. Jesus, O What A Wonderful Child
by Mariah Carey

This one brings back happy memories from my church camp days. This was one of the songs we'd sing early in the morning or around the occasional fire at night. It ranks so high for pure, personal, sappy sentimentality.

9. Closing of the Year
by the Cast of the movie Toys

This scene at the beginning of the movie where Robin Williams's character flies in and drops presents on all the children is a moment of pure joy and happiness. Moreover, it is the exact moment of pure joy and happiness that made me realize how much I really wanted to be a rich, eccentric toy maven.

"If I cannot bring you comfort, then at least I bring you hope..."

10. Carol of the Bells
by Unknown Choir

I don't know who did this version of the song, but I love it. The fast-paced, repetitive, up-and down, male-versus-female choir, horns-versus-delicate crystal sounding bells, trance-inducing arc of the song has an edge of something panicked and furious behind it.

When done right, this song is, for me, the darker side of Christmas.

Of course, close runners up included Linus and Lucy, anything by Burl Ives or Gene Autry, and Tender Tennessee Christmas as an homage to the homeland.

Strangest song on my Christmas playlist:

Good Vibrations
by Marky Mark

Seriously. I have to listen to this song several times every year or else it just isn't Christmas.

When I was 17, I worked in a computer games store in the mall (the now defunct Software, Etc). One Christmas, Sega had just put out a new system, the Sega Mega CD or some such thing. The title selection was limited and we only had one or two demo discs. But being the new thing, it was wired into half the monitors and all the store's speakers.

One of the games we did have with a good demo loop was Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch's Make My Video. It was a game that played the songs of Marky Mark and showed you three different video streams and you got to mash them up to make a "custom" video. Anyway, during that Christmas season I basically heard the song Good Vibrations EVERY DAY from Thanksgiving to Christmas Eve. What's more I heard it ALL DAY, EVERY DAY, EIGHT TO TEN HOURS A DAY.

It became inexorably linked with the season and now I just simply cannot get into the Christmas mood until I've secretly listened to this song several times.

Tis the Season for Marky Mark.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you all!

Thunderf00t Thursdays Presents:Why Do People Laugh At Creationists (Part 23)

2009-12-24T22:01:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to Thunderf00t Thursdays!

You can learn more about Thunderf00t and who he is by visiting my first post in this series.

These posts are dedicated to his video series: "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?" The series contains roughly 30 parts and is all available in its entirety on his YouTube channel (listed below). I will post one video in the series each week here in hopes of becoming yet another avenue through which people can find his work.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (Part 23) by Thunderf00t

AronRa Wednesdays Presents:The Ida Tapes (Part 4)

2009-12-23T22:01:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to AronRa Wednesdays!

You can learn more about AronRa and who he is by visiting my first post about his videos or his YouTube channel.

In this video (hosted by FFreeThinker), AronRa explains a "controversial new taxonomy stating not only that humans and other apes not only evolved directly from monkeys, but that we are in fact still monkeys right now." Once again, he is thoughtful, well-spoken, and backs up his comments with solid, scientific evidence.

Besides, how can you not like a video with sentences like:
"Polyphyletic omissions attempting to exclude basal simiiforms and avoid embarrassing associations are unscientific and unacceptable, being reliant on subjective criteria."

Ahhhhhh, science.

Human Evolution: Did We Come From Monkeys? by FFreeThinker

Shoplifting? What's not to like?This priest says its OK.

2009-12-21T10:01:00.000-08:00

Ah yes...the "absolute" moral code of religious authority at its finest. Stealing is NOT OKAY . . . except for when it IS OKAY! And we mean it!

Look, fellas, this isn't hard. Either your moral code IS absolute and eternal or it ISN'T. Make up your minds. You don't get to have it both ways.

Priest outrages police by telling congregation: 'My advice to poor is to shoplift'

A clergyman has been criticised [sic] as 'highly irresponsible' after advising his congregation to shoplift following his Nativity sermon.
Father Tim Jones, 41, broke off from his traditional annual sermon yesterday to tell his flock that stealing from large chains is sometimes the best option for vulnerable people.
It is far better for people desperate during the recession to shoplift than turn to 'prostitution, mugging or burglary', he said.
The married father-of-two insisted his unusual advice did not break the Bible commandment 'Thou shalt not steal' - because God's love for the poor outweighs his love for the rich.

That's right, according a priest of the cloth, god—the all-loving, pure love, all-forgiving, all-providing, creator of all that is—loves poor people more than rich people!

What's more, stealing is totally fine if the only alternatives are prostitution, mugging, and burglary...because, you know, those often are the ONLY choices a person has when on hard times. But, so long as I can just steal instead of those things, everything will be alright...

...
Delivering his festive lesson, Father Jones told the congregation: 'My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift. I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither.
'I would ask that they do not steal from small family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices.
'I would ask them not to take any more than they need, for any longer than they need.

So, it is not OK to steal . . . except for when it is OK to steal . . . but even then you should only steal from certain people . . . even if you know that stealing from other people IS a cost that is passed on to millions of people. So it is also better to steal a little bit from thousands, than a decent amount from one. Moreover, the many should happily bear that burden for you?

Jesus did say to be kind and charitable to our neighbors, but he NEVER ONCE advocated the use of worldly FORCE to achieve that end. Raising my costs to meet your own needs for free IS FORCE. It is unfair, unjust, and UNCHRISTIAN.

To the best of my recollection, Jesus also never called for increased taxation or social programs to take care of the poor (and in many cases, actually, programs that wind up keeping people poor for longer by creating a cycle of dependency and setting monetary income limits on benefit qualification...you know, the whole give a man a fish versus teach him to catch his own thing). Jesus wanted individuals to be personally charitable, not for "society" to handle it.

How about encouraging your congregation to give more time, money, and resources rather than telling them that looting big chain stores is a valid alternative answer to life's little rough patches?

...

'Let my words not be misrepresented as a simplistic call for people to shoplift. The observation that shoplifting is the best option that some people are left with is a grim indictment of who we are.
'Rather, this is a call for our society no longer to treat its most vulnerable people with indifference and contempt. Providing inadequate or clumsy social support is monumental, catastrophic folly.'
But a spokesman for North Yorkshire Police said: 'First and foremost, shoplifting is a criminal offece [sic] and to justify this course of action under any circumstances is highly irresponsible.
'Turning or returning to crime will only make matters worse, that is a guarantee. We recognise [sic] some people find themselves in difficult circumstances but support is readily available and must be sought.'...
[Richard Dodd, spokesman for the British Retail Consortium] added: 'Stealing is wrong and it isn't less wrong to steal from a big retailer than it is to steal from a small retailer.
'I thought this was a central part of every religion.'

So did I, Richard, so did I.

This is why Christianity is a crock. They want to scream "perfect, absolute morality" out one side of their mouths, while excusing sin and setting relativistic standards on the other.

Sorry, father, but this DOES break the 8th Commandment and quite clearly, too. I just reread it and there is NO "...except" clause attached to it. I know, it is any Christian's privilege to ignore what is actually written in the Bible and to insert any half-assed interpretation that they want so that they can get away with doing whatever it is they want, I get that. But still, that one was pretty clear. There's not a lot of interpretation to be done. Straight from god's holy lips, carved into stone, only four little words long..."Thou shall not steal" is about as clear ct as it gets. If that one is relativistic then how can ANY moral rule of the Bible ever claim to be absolute?

For what it's worth, this suggestion ALSO breaks the 10th Commandment about coveting, which was all about how god has provided to each the things that they have and to want what god has given to another is to defy god's plan for yourself and question his holy judgment about who deserves what.

Maybe being poor is a test god has given unto people to see if they will remain faithful or if they will resort to sin and theft. Ever think of that? A LOT of bad shit happened to Job, too, but I still don't remember him ever deciding to become a petty criminal and lowly thief to deal with it. Did you ever once stop to think that you, father, just sent those people that listen to you straight down the path to hell and damnation?

No, of course you didn't. Because if you cared about that, you wouldn't be able to make headlines saying controversial things, would you?

Pathetic.

Shane Battier - The No-Stats All-Star

2009-12-19T10:01:00.001-08:00

This is an interesting article about the power of statistics.

It is from the New York Times (February 13, 2009) and it discusses Shane Battier, a professional basketball player for the Houston Rockets.

He is a player with an odd on-court ability, an ability that doesn't seem obvious when watching, but one that is wholly backed up by the statistics of his on-court playing time. What is his ability? Is it a good outside 3-point shot? A nearly perfect free throw record? Fastest down court run? good dunking height? No, his ability it far more subtle than all that. What Shane Battier does, it seems, is make everyone else on his team play better...and players on the other team play worse.

I highly encourage you to read the whole article linked below. I've included the link and some excerpts here, but to get the full effect you need to go to the original source. It is an interesting study in the power of teamwork, ego, and the skill of keeping an selfless eye on the end goal instead of personal achievement.

The No-Stats All-Star

...Battier has routinely guarded the league’s most dangerous offensive players — LeBron James, Chris Paul, Paul Pierce — and has usually managed to render them, if not entirely ineffectual, then a lot less effectual than they normally are. He has done it so quietly that no one really notices what exactly he is up to.
...
Here we have a basketball mystery: a player that is widely regarded inside the N.B.A. as, at best, a replaceable cog in a machine driven by superstars. And yet every team he has ever played on has acquired some magical ability to win.
...
When Morey came to the Rockets, a huge chunk of the team’s allotted payroll — the N.B.A. caps payrolls and taxes teams that exceed them — was committed, for many years to come, to two superstars: Tracy McGrady and Yao Ming. Morey had to find ways to improve the Rockets without spending money. “We couldn’t afford another superstar,” he says, “so we went looking for nonsuperstars that we thought were undervalued.” He went looking, essentially, for underpaid players. “That’s the scarce resource in the N.B.A.,” he says. “Not the superstar but the undervalued player.” Sifting the population of midlevel N.B.A. players, he came up with a list of 15, near the top of which was the Memphis Grizzlies’ forward Shane Battier. This perplexed even the man who hired Morey to rethink basketball. “All I knew was Shane’s stats,” Alexander says, “and obviously they weren’t great. He had to sell me. It was hard for me to see it.”

Alexander wasn’t alone. It was, and is, far easier to spot what Battier doesn’t do than what he does. His conventional statistics are unremarkable: he doesn’t score many points, snag many rebounds, block many shots, steal many balls or dish out many assists. On top of that, it is easy to see what he can never do: what points he scores tend to come from jump shots taken immediately after receiving a pass. “That’s the telltale sign of someone who can’t ramp up his offense,” Morey says. ... Battier’s weaknesses arise from physical limitations. Or, as Morey puts it, “He can’t dribble, he’s slow and hasn’t got much body control.”

Battier’s game is a weird combination of obvious weaknesses and nearly invisible strengths. When he is on the court, his teammates get better, often a lot better, and his opponents get worse — often a lot worse.

He may not grab huge numbers of rebounds, but he has an uncanny ability to improve his teammates’ rebounding. He doesn’t shoot much, but when he does, he takes only the most efficient shots. He also has a knack for getting the ball to teammates who are in a position to do the same, and he commits few turnovers. On defense, although he routinely guards the N.B.A.’s most prolific scorers, he significantly reduces their shooting percentages. At the same time he somehow improves the defensive efficiency of his teammates — probably, Morey surmises, by helping them out in all sorts of subtle ways. “I call him Lego,” Morey says. “When he’s on the court, all the pieces start to fit together. And everything that leads to winning that you can get to through intellect instead
...
It is in basketball where the problems are most likely to be in the game — where the player, in his play, faces choices between maximizing his own perceived self-interest and winning. The choices are sufficiently complex that there is a fair chance he doesn’t fully grasp that he is making them.of innate ability, Shane excels in. I’ll bet he’s in the hundredth percentile of every category.”
...
Having watched Battier play for the past two and a half years, Morey has come to think of him as an exception: the most abnormally unselfish basketball player he has ever seen. Or rather, the player who seems one step ahead of the analysts, helping the team in all sorts of subtle, hard-to-measure ways that appear to violate his own personal interests.
...
One well-known statistic the Rockets’ front office pays attention to is plus-minus, which simply measures what happens to the score when any given player is on the court. In its crude form, plus-minus is hardly perfect: a player who finds himself on the same team with the world’s four best basketball players, and who plays only when they do, will have a plus-minus that looks pretty good, even if it says little about his play. Morey says that he and his staff can adjust for these potential distortions — though he is coy about how they do it — and render plus-minus a useful measure of a player’s effect on a basketball game. A good player might be a plus 3 — that is, his team averages 3 points more per game than its opponent when he is on the floor. In his best season, the superstar point guard Steve Nash was a plus 14.5. At the time of the Lakers game, Battier was a plus 10... For his career he’s a plus 6. “Plus 6 is enormous,” Morey says. “It’s the difference between 41 wins and 60 wins.”

It's like Twitter for lower primates.The deciphering of a monkey language.

2009-12-18T10:01:00.001-08:00

Not a lot to add to this topic, other than "awesome!"

This is a link to (and a few excerpts from) a New York Times article on the newly discovered 'proto-syntax' in the language of the Campbell's monkeys of Ivory Coast.

Syntax, long thought to be a fairly unique characteristic of human speech, seems to be used on some primitive level by this primate group. The monkeys mix several different sounds so that each sounds' context in relation to the others changes the meaning of the entire call—much the same way that humans can string together the same words to make sentences with different meanings.

Science is so freakin' cool!

Boom! Hok! A Monkey Language Is Deciphered

...The adult males have six types of call, each with a specific meaning, but they can string two or more calls together into a message with a different meaning.

Having spent months recording the monkeys’ calls in response to both natural and artificial stimuli, a group led by Klaus Zuberbühler of the University of St. Andrews in Scotland argues that the Campbell’s monkeys have a primitive form of syntax.

This is likely to be a controversial claim because despite extensive efforts to teach chimpanzees language, the subjects showed little or no ability to combine the sounds they learned into a sentence with a larger meaning. Syntax, basic to the structure of language, seemed be a uniquely human faculty.
...
“Krak” is a call that warns of leopards in the vicinity. The monkeys gave it in response to real leopards and to model leopards or leopard growls broadcast by the researchers. The monkeys can vary the call by adding the suffix “-oo”: “krak-oo” seems to be a general word for predator, but one given in a special context — when monkeys hear but do not see a predator, or when they hear the alarm calls of another species known as the Diana monkey.

The “boom-boom” call invites other monkeys to come toward the male making the sound. Two booms can be combined with a series of “krak-oos,” with a meaning entirely different to that of either of its components. “Boom boom krak-oo krak-oo krak-oo” is the monkey’s version of “Timber!” — it warns of falling trees.
...
The meaning of monkey calls was first worked out with vervet monkeys, which have distinct alarm calls for each of their three main predators: the martial eagle, leopards and snakes. But the vervets did not combine their alarm calls to generate new meanings, unlike human words that can be combined in an infinite number of different sentences.

If the Zuberbühler team’s observations are correct, the Campbell’s monkeys can both vary the meaning of specific calls by adding suffixes and combine calls to generate a different meaning. Their call system, the researchers write, “may be the most complex example of ‘proto-syntax’ in animal communication known to date.”

Thunderf00t Thursdays Presents:Why Do People Laugh At Creationists (Part 22)

2009-12-17T22:01:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to Thunderf00t Thursdays!

You can learn more about Thunderf00t and who he is by visiting my first post in this series.

These posts are dedicated to his video series: "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?" The series contains roughly 30 parts and is all available in its entirety on his YouTube channel (listed below). I will post one video in the series each week here in hopes of becoming yet another avenue through which people can find his work.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (Part 22) by Thunderf00t

AronRa Wednesdays Presents:The Ida Tapes (Part 4)

2009-12-16T22:01:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to AronRa Wednesdays!

You can learn more about AronRa and who he is by visiting my first post about his videos.

This series of posts are dedicated to his video series on Ida, a well-publicized primate fossil find unveiled in the spring. The series has 4 videos and is available in its entirety on his YouTube channel (listed below). I will post one video in the series each week in hopes of becoming yet another avenue through which people can find his work.

Ida Met the Challenge by AronRa

You do NOT have a right to a "jury of your peers" in America...and that's a GOOD thing.

2009-12-15T10:01:00.000-08:00

I heard this phrase used the other day on the radio in response to the apparent plan to move Guantanamo detainees from Cuba to a prison on American soil (in Illinois to be precise).

The hosts kept saying things like "do we really want these guys having access to our guaranteed rights, like a jury of their peers?" and "what is a jury of their peers, anyway? Are we going to stack the jury box with terrorists?"

No fewer than three of the hosts used the phrase and they all insinuated (if not downright stated) that the concept was a guaranteed right for American citizens. One even called it a "Constitutional right."

They need to reread the Constitution.

The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution states:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed..."

What you have, as an American citizen, is the right to a trial by an fair and impartial jury, NOT a jury of your peers.

What's the difference? Well, the concept of a jury of one's peers comes from old British law whereby the term "peer" carried a clear and distinct legal meaning.

For centuries, Britain operated under a system of peerage, or nobility. "Peer" was a legal ranking of a distinct social class. Specifically, it was a term for a member of the noble classes that had the right to vote in the House of Lords. The levels of peerage (in Britain) from least to greatest in terms of power and influence were barons, viscounts, earls, marquesses, and dukes.

A "jury of one's peers" meant that only peers could judge peers. In other words, only barons (or above) could judge other barons. Dukes could demand trial by other dukes. The basic concept was that "commoners" could not sit in judgment of their social, political, and financial "superiors."

Peerage is an idea not found in America. In fact, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the US Constitution states that nobility is an expressly forbidden concept in the United States.
("No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.")

In America, we quite purposefully do not have a right to a jury of our peers because we don't recognize anyone as being inherently more special—socially or legally—than anyone else.

In this country, what you have is a right to an "impartial jury." This jury can (and ideally should) be a cross-representational mix of the population demographics of they area in which the crime took place. This demographic cross-section includes attributes like race, religion, gender, age, wealth, professions, political affiliations, etc. So long as they swear to be fair and impartial in their ruling and interpretation of the applicable laws, that is all that matters.

A lot of people make this mistake due to the common colloquial meaning of the word "peer," which simply means "equal." However, this is not the type of peer referred to in the phrase.

Is this a big deal? Not usually.

People make the mistake innocently enough. But it is a pet peeve when people state it so emphatically, claim it is in the Constitution, and use it to spread misconceptions and make jokes about stacking jury boxes with terrorists.

If you want to debate evolution with me, you must know...(Part 18: Not all genetic mutations are BAD)

2009-12-14T10:01:00.000-08:00

This is part of a continuing series of posts on the groundwork that must be agreed upon in order to have a serious, intelligent, valid debate on evolution.

18. Not all genetic mutations are BAD.

Although the colloquial meaning of the word "mutation" carries with it a negative connotation, that is not necessarily what the word means in a scientific context.

Scientifically, a "mutation" is simply a "relatively permanent change in hereditary material involving either a physical change in chromosome relations or a biochemical change in the codons that make up genes" (or the term for "an individual, strain, or trait resulting from mutation").*

In other words, "mutation" is simply a more technically correct word for a "change" in genetic material. It does NOT make any assumption that the change is good, bad, or neutral. It does not indicate the degree of change, the effect of the change, the type of change, or anything else about the change.

The fact is that MOST mutations are neutral—resulting in neither a beneficial, nor a detrimental outcomes. Many take place in the so-called "junk" DNA which does not seem to encode for anything, so no outward result of the mutation is ever expressed anyway. It is estimated that as many as 120 mutations occur EVERY time a cell duplicates. You are, right now, chocked full of various mutations. Few result in anything of consequence, however, good or bad.

Granted, the pictures of the two-headed calf and the cyclopic kitten are easy to trot out and it would be folly (and scientifically wrong) to argue that such expressed mutations are beneficial. Beneficial mutations are often harder to photograph, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. A gazelle that is 1.5% faster than its kin, a bear that is 1% more efficient storing fat, an E. coli strain that is less susceptible to extremes in heat and cold, etc. Yet these beneficial mutations DO clearly exist.

To be completely honest, all mutations are relative to the environment. "Beneficial" is a word used with respect to the organism's ability to survive and thrive in its current environmental conditions (weather, predators, prey, etc). For example, for a long time size increases were beneficial mutations for many dinosaur species because size helped them compete for food, mates, and other resources. However, once the environment changed those generations of "beneficial" mutations became deleterious and size, once helpful, because a distinct disadvantage. So, when I say "beneficial mutation," I merely mean one that, under current conditions, helps the organism survive and thrive better than other members of its species without such a mutation.

It is ironic that the very same creationists who so often show two-headed calves and scream up and down about how mutations are "bad" will then, ten minutes later, admit that there is "micro-evolution" or change within a species (like breeding dogs from wolves). Yet, the mechanism FOR "micro-evolution" IS mutation, the very mechanism they were trying to portray as always bad not a few minutes before.

The very process of breeding dogs from wolves WAS the artificial selection of beneficial mutations and the expressed traits of those mutations. The only way wolves could "micro-evolve" into dogs IS and WAS through genetic mutation.

It is folly to claim that all mutations are bad, but it should especially be called out if the "micro-evolution" argument is also being used by the same individual. You can either believe that all mutations are bad and that "micro-evolution" could thus not occur, or that "micro-evolution" could occur and thus that not all mutations are detrimental. You simply don't get it both ways.

Mutations can be bad, yes, but they can also be neutral or even beneficial. One should not confuse public perception of the word "mutation" with the scientific accuracy of the word in this case. As one leading biologist** said "Mutants are not monsters!"

* Definitions from Merriam-Webster.
**Baynard Bratstram, Cal State - Fullerton

Why the 10 Commandments are NOT the "basis for our system of law"

2009-12-13T10:01:00.000-08:00

There is a common claim among Christian and Jewish individuals that the 10 Commandments are the basis, the very foundation, for our current system of law in America. Therefore, they argue, it is completely appropriate (maybe even necessary) to display the 10 Commandments in public places like schools, courthouses, legislative chambers, parks, civics textbooks, and other official buildings.

This is, of course, complete horseshit.

Besides the fact that legal history—and the evolution of law and the social contract—clearly proves this false (a topic too long and complicated to go into here), there is not even a basis within the Commandments themselves to support this claim.

I want to break down each Commandment as it relates to modern law in order to give you the ammunition needed to destroy this argument whenever some zealot tries to make it. Enjoy!

The 10 Commandments as listed below are based on the general Protestant cataloging of the Commandments (basically the same as other Abrahamic faiths, though each group sometimes catalogs them slightly differently. For example, many Catholics lump 1 and 2 listed below into 1 Commandment and split number 10 into two separate ones. The basic points stay the same, however).

I used the language from the New International Version of the Bible.
(See Exodus 20 at BibleGateway.com)

1. You shall have no other gods before (the Abrahamic) God.
"You shall have no other gods before me." —Exodus 20:3

Status under US law:
Not only is this first Commandment NOT a law in any way, shape, or form in America, but the very opposite is actually the case. Your right to have ANY god(s) that you want, and to worship them freely, is enshrined in the very 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

Even when swearing an oath for public office or at a trial—the closet you ever come to 'officially' declaring a principle god—you are free to swear upon any god you want or to eschew a religious oath all together in favor of a secular affirmation.

0 for 1. Not a good way to start (and a seemingly important Commandment for us not only to fail to include in our legal system, but to directly contradict).

2. Do not make false idols or worship graven images.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God..." —Exodus 20:4-5

Status under US law:
See above...the ability to do just this is enshrined as a legal right by our own 1st Amendment.
Heck, you can even buy graven images and false idols at your local drug store. I once got a little Buddha wearing a Santa hat at Walgreen's.

0 for 2.

3. Do not use the Lord's name in vain.
"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name." —Exodus 20:3

This Commandment has two popular interpretations, though neither rise to the level of law.
The first is using god's name when cussing or making 'immoral' requests (such as asking god to literally damn a person or thing to hell on your behalf—a distinctly immoral thing to do).
The second interpretation is that of a false oath. That is to say that you promise something by using god's name, even though you have no intention, desire, or ability to follow through on it. It is trading on the stock people put in god to get false credit for yourself.

Status under US law:
Maybe some vulgarity laws include this Commandment by social convention, but they are certainly not based on it. Nor are they absolute or specially protective with regards to religious-based swearing.

Don't believe me? Watch:
Goddamn.

Just try to ticket or arrest me for that. You can't.
Nor can you arrest me for using god's name in a false oath. See:
"I swear by god that I will clean up my office today."

I can't and I won't do that. That is a false oath. And see? Again, no legal punishments are possible. Why? Because this Commandment is NOT a basis for any of our laws.

0 for 3.

4. Keep the Sabbath holy.
"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates." —Exodus 20:8-10

Status under US law:
The closest you get to law in this area is that some states' laws still enforce some version of old "blue law" concepts—such as certain types of stores not being allowed to open, or liquor not allowed to be sold, before a certain time on Sunday. Though even here, many of these laws are being reduced or over-turned entirely.
And where they are not (Texas recently prevented a proposed law aimed at allowing liquor stores to open on Sundays), they are often kept in place for secular, not religious reasons (the liquor store association, not the churches, campaigned to prevent the law, largely for practical business reasons like reduced staffing costs and being better able to compete with larger wine and grocery chains by creating higher market demands on Saturday as people "stock-up" for the whole weekend).

You might claim that Sundays off work are based on this, but such closings are not usually mandated by law (even in the government arena); are based on the common, world-wide private business concepts of the limited hour work week with a two day weekend; and are certainly not specified to be kept holy even if given the day off work. The post office may give mail carriers Sunday off, but it certainly doesn't demand (or even encourage) that they use the time for religious studies.

There are few, if any, federal laws to this effect (except maybe office closings and the lack of postal runs, though even then outfits like the post office are still up and running behind the scenes). Even Congress sometimes meets on Sundays or holds committee meetings and they set the tone for all other departments. And even where such work breaks do exist, they do so for convenience and alignment to the private sector, not as some religious legal foundation.

0 for 4.

5. Honor thy father and thy mother.
"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you." —Exodus 20:12

Status under US law:
Nope.

You are under NO legal obligation to honor or respect your parents. In fact, we even have laws on the books allowing minors to be emancipated from their parents. You aren't even legally responsible for their well-being when they get older and less able to take care of themselves, even though they did it for you.

0 for 5.

6. Thou shall not kill.
"You shall not murder." —Exodus 20:13

Status under US law:
Ahhhh, now we're getting to the good stuff.

This one is a no brainer. It is most definitely against the law.

We only had to go six items into the list (over half way down this supposed "basis" for our legal system) to find one that aligned to any of our laws, but at least now we've started to find some agreement between the old and new.

1 of 6! Huzzah!

7. Thou shall not commit adultery.
"You shall not commit adultery." —Exodus 20:14

Status under US law:
And we were making such progress, too.

Adultery, in-and-of itself, is not illegal in the US, at least not at the federal level. In fact, as a criminal activity, it is only illegal in 26 or 27 of the 50 states. This means that it is totally legal in just under 50% of the states. You can legally have an affair in states as widespread as New Jersey, Alaska, Arkansas, Vermont, and Texas.

Of the other states, the laws are almost never actually enforced and there are currently attempts to overturn criminal laws against adultery in most jurisdictions.

Now, although adultery is not a criminal offense in nearly half the nation and is rarely enforced as such anywhere else, I will give you that it is legal grounds for divorce in all 50 states and all US territories.

So, more of a civil offense than a criminal one, and an offense only applicable on the state and not the federal level, I'll give you half a point for this one.

1.5 of 7

8. Thou shall not steal.
"You shall not steal." —Exodus 20:15

Status under US law:
Again, another clearly illegal activity. Full point for you!

2.5 of 8

9. Thou shall not lie.
"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." —Exodus 20:16

Status under US law:
This one is contextual.

Lying, by itself, is typically not an illegal act. Watch:
"I am Abraham Lincoln."
Once more, no one comes to arrest me. Even literally saying something false about my neighbor (though I think most would agree that "neighbor" is a metaphor for "all of your fellow man" in this context) is not an illegal act. Watch:
"My neighbor is 4-foot-2." (not true!)

Heck, we elect our public officials based on nothing but lies. And we actually enjoy it in a perverse way! We encourage and reward the best mudslinging, the most false hope, the biggest unfulfillable policies, and the sharpest attacks by putting them in charge of our nation. The system, "based" on a Commandment not to lie, routinely elects liars to the highest offices in the land.

Now, lying can be illegal when it causes actual harm, such as in cases of libel or slander, when using fraud to sell or misrepresent a product, or when under legal oath to tell the truth, such as being a witness in a trial (perjury). The reason for this is obvious—harm. These acts are not illegal because the Bible says they should be, but because they directly cause harm to another.

So, we'll give you another half point on this one since only very specific forms of lying are actually illegal in any way.

3 of 9

10. Thou shall not covet they neighbor's things.
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." —Exodus 20:17

Status under US law:
This one is a tricky one, but here is the best interpretation of the Commandment that I have heard and agree with most: God does not want you to covet the things that belong to your fellow man because ALL things come from god's grace and are part of god's plan. God has given unto your neighbors that which they deserve. And rather than covet what god gave them and scheme to get them for yourself (which is an assault on god—when you scheme against your neighbor you scheme against and question god's plan), you would be better served to work harder so that god will reward you with things of your own.

Basically, don't be jealous over that which god has given to another man but focus on what god has given unto you. Be happy within your own sphere and see your own blessings for what they are rather than be blinded to your own good fortune by the blessings of another.

As a meritocratist, I'm totally down with this Commandment. Let the success of others inspire you, not make you jealous. Use their success and possessions to fuel your own desire to succeed; don't be so worried about what they have that you don't.

In the end though, coveting (however personally limiting it may be) is simply not illegal. Nor is it officially discouraged on the spiritual grounds for which it was intended. Heck, the entire tabloid, fashion, and entertainment industries are based on coveting the goods and looks and opportunities of others.

Coveting given action becomes stealing, but that one is covered elsewhere, so no points here. Sorry.

3 of 10

So, in the final tally, only 30% of the 10 Commandments are laws (and only two in full; the other two are only sometimes laws and then only in specific places or situations).

At least 20% of the Commandments are specifically ignored and over-written with contradictory legal code guaranteeing freedom from the restrictions of those Commandments. Others can be overwritten (such as the emancipation of minors) or legally ignored in specific cases (Tiger Woods is alleged to have committed adultery is several states where it is actually a criminal offense, including his home state in Florida. None have come forward to pursue adultery charges, however, and none likely will).

But here's the real kicker of the situation.

Of the 30% figure above that are illegal under both god's law and America's, ALL of them are shown to have existed in legal systems PRIOR to the supposed revelation of the Commandments to man, and well before the writing of the scriptures detailing them. They were pretty much universally illegal and applied in much the same way as today in cultures as diverse as Greece, Egypt, China, and others 2000 years before the book of Exodus was compiled in its modern form around 500 BCE.

It is more likely that the 10 Commandments borrowed from existing laws rather than serving as the basis for them.

Meanwhile, even more crucial, very fundamental ideas that form the real basis of our legal system—personal civil liberties and individual freedoms; guaranteed rights to fair trials, legal representation, and humane treatment at the hands of authority (50%+ of the Bill of Rights deal with these concerns); democratic ideals, power structures, and voting rights; natural rights to property and personal security; legal economic and business rights that are CENTRAL to the function of our society; or the separation of crime into civil and criminal, federal and local, and felony and misdemeanor statuses—are not present at all in the 10 Commandments.

Nor are many other violent crimes included in the 10 Commandments—like rape, child abuse and age of consent laws, or good old fashioned assault. These stand out as being critical to a stable society and very central to our own legal system.

In the final analysis, it is not only clear that the 10 Commandments are NOT the basis for our legal system, but it is quite clear that the only concepts from the list to make it into our legal system were pre-existing legal concepts anyway and that many other notions fundamental to the 10 Commandments are directly undermined and contradicted under our modern law.

How to Debate a CreationistPart 4: Pascal's (superflawed) Wager

2009-12-12T10:01:00.000-08:00

This is part of a series I'm calling "How to Debate a Creationist." This series will look at some of the most common creationist lies and present my own thoughts on how not only to beat the tactic, but how to turn it around on the creationist that is using it. Though I can carry my own, I am not a trained or particularly outstanding debater. Please comment on these ideas and tell me where they fall short and/or how you would strengthen them even more.

This issue in particular is not part of creationism, per se. However, it is a tangential topic sometimes used by creationists as a false, strawman-like argument used to derail debates. So, it is good to have the counter-logic to this argument in your tool belt in case it should come up.

Part 4: Pascal said that you risk more by not believing in god than by believing in him.

The creationist line:
Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager is a classic pro-god argumentation device utilized (primarily by Christians) to make it sound like believing in god is a 'low-cost/big win' scenario when compared to the potentially 'high-cost/big loss' risk of being an atheist.

For those that are not familiar with it, the basic structure of Pascal's Wager is roughly as follows:

1. If you believe in god and god/an afterlife does not exist, then you have lost nothing.
2. If you believe in god and god does exist, then you will be rewarded with eternal bliss and happiness in heaven.
3. If you do not believe in god and god does not exist, then again, you have lost nothing.
4. But...if you do not believe in god and god is real...then you will be eternally punished in Hell for not believing.

Thus, the conclusion is that it is better (and safer) to believe in god than not to because if there is no god then you neither lose nor win anything, regardless of your earthly belief system. But if there is a god, you "win" eternal rewards by believing in him and receive eternal punishment for not doing so.

So, on the off-chance there is a god, it is better to believe.

Or is it?

The logic of the wager simply does not hold up.

1. The problem of the False Dichotomy

The scenario is often presented as a choice between: a) god and b) no god.

However, that is not actually the choice that needs to be made. The real choice is one between: a) all possible gods and b) no god.

There are approximately 10,000+ religious entities of some social significance that have been worshiped during the history of earth. You know, people like Thor, Zeus, Quetzlcoatl, Amon Ra, Zoroaster, Tiamut, etc.
Right there, you have somewhere in the neighborhood of a 10,000-to-1 chance of picking the right god.
(Here are just a few of the other gods you could believe in...)

Plus, within each religion are numerous variances.
Just being Christian might not actually be enough to get into heaven. To choose the correct version of god, you might have to specifically be Baptist. Or specifically be a Catholic. Or Mormon. Or Presbyterian. Or Methodist. Or be a specific branch of Catholic. Etc.

So, now your odds are more like 100,000-to-1 of picking the right flavor of the right god.

What's more—and this is the kicker—you can't just limit it to all known gods. You have to include and consider all POSSIBLE gods.

Take Steve, the god I just invented, who created everything 5 minutes ago—complete with false memories and false evidence that things are older than that. He's a dubious god that Steve. But, dubious or no, he has to be included in the consideration.

So now your odds are essentially INFINITY-to-1 of guessing right because there are an infinite number of possible gods to choose from. And all of the possible gods have an equal, infinitely small chance of being true ... and an equal, infinitely large chance of being false.

2. The cost/benefit analysis.

But you aren't done just yet. For a complete analysis, you have to take into consideration not just the gods themselves, but the costs and benefits of each system of belief. After all, the claim is that the benefits of believing are what outweigh the costs of not believing.

Some have tried to counter the above point (many gods) by saying that gods like Zeus and Thor don't offer the same benefits/costs as a Christian god and should not therefore be considered in the equation. I would say that not only is this not necessarily true (as they are still valid, even potentially correct options), but that such an argument opens up a HUGE hole for Christianity.

First, any god that does offer the equivalent rewards/costs (eternal good and bad afterlives) IS still in the equation and there are, with all possible gods, still an INFINITE number of those. (Isn't infinity a fun number?)

However, what's more, there are some systems where the reward is even greater than the Christian heaven. Under Steve's system, for example, you literally BECOME a god yourself, complete with your own universe to run as you see fit. And the punishment is both eternal torture AND simultaneous non-existence. It's all very complex and painful.

Why settle for a weaker Christian afterlife when some gods offer better ones?

In fact, according to their own argument against including gods like Zeus in the equation, the possibility of even a single "better" god would mean that you shouldn't even bother including the Christian god in the consideration process to begin with.

To add to that, some religions proclaim that it is WORSE for you to have believed in a false god than no god at all. So you are better, if one of those turns out to be true, believing in no god than a false Christian one.

So, Christianity has an infinitely small chance of being true, there are better rewards and worse punishments under other beliefs, and you may wind up WORSE off for believing in the Christian god than not...so that option is essentially out of the mix, right?

3. The problem of belief for belief's sake versus true belief.

Another problem for the wager is that it is assumed that god only wants "real" belief in him, not just people who claim to believe on the off-chance that it will keep them from going to hell should it actually exist. The irony of demanding that people believe in order to avoid punishment is that if the only reason a believer believes is to avoid punishment, then it will not be enough to actually avoid punishment.

As Richard Dawkins put it: "Would you bet on God's valuing dishonestly faked belief over honest skepticism?"

Again, some people, including Pascal, have tried to counter this point by essentially begging the question and saying that disbelief is an unnatural state. Belief, they claim, may start as a fear of punishment, but the mind is meant to believe so even an initially forced belief will naturally morph into a real, true belief over time.

Of course, this presupposes both that god is real and that belief is the natural state of mind. Yet, neither of these things have any proof. Of course, they say that if god isn't real it doesn't matter anyway, but if he is (which is the wager they are making) then this statement is true and forced belief will become real. However, this again presupposes that the Christian view is the "correct one."

Under Steve's system, for example, belief is NOT the default or natural state of the mind—cynicism is. Steve loves all the little cynics of the world.

If Steve is right, then belief will always be forced, even if thought natural and real by the believer. In fact, Steve doesn't want believers, he wants questioners. There is nothing more sinful in his eyes than forcing yourself to believe in him instead of using the mind he gave you to question his reality constantly. After all, he purposefully hid from us by making all those fake memories and false evidence of an old universe. He doesn't want to distract you from your own mental journey and he is particularly wont to cast you down for falsely professing belief in him in an attempt to curry favor or avoid his wrath.

4. Is the afterlife all you have to risk or lose?

There is another misleading point about the wager that stands out to me and cannot be overlooked.

The wager is VERY dismissive (or perhaps purposefully misleading) as to the value of one's time on Earth, which is, ironically enough, the only form or realm of existence that we can prove to be real.

The wager says that if you believe and it turns our that there is no god, then you have lost nothing.

I say this is untrue. If you believe and there is no god then you have lost quite a lot, indeed. Since one of the possibilities is that NOTHING happens after death, then the weighing of the wager cannot solely be about what happens after death (heaven/nothing/hell).

You have to give considerable weight to what happens on earth. If you believe and there is no god, no afterlife, then you will have wasted MUCH of your very limited time, money, resources, and opportunity in this life—the only life you actually got. All to no end and in lieu of other choices you may have actually preferred.

Let's do a little math.

Let's say that you pray for 20 minutes every day. If you do that for 50 years, then you will have spent a solid 6086+ hours of your life in prayer. That's the equivalent to roughly 253.67 solid days of your life spent in prayer. That's 253.67 days you could have been doing something else like writing, skiing, cooking, dancing, making love, playing tennis, or doing anything else you enjoyed in this life.

Add another two hours of church every week on top of that and you are up to 470.25 days. That's nearly 1.3 SOLID years of your life (24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year) spent in religious prayer and study. And for some, two hours a week is conservative. They may spend twice that. Or one may have to spend another hour a week in getting ready and in transportation and that should be counted, too.
(You could literally spend months more of your life doing nothing but sitting in traffic to get to and from church. Months.)

Some religions also want you to tithe up to 10% of your income. If you meet this requirement and make an average of $50,000 a year for 50 years, then you'll give the church some $250,000 over the course of 50 years.
That's what? ten new cars? a new home? college educations for yourself or your children? maybe both? fifty overseas vacations? a better-funded retirement?

And don't forget about the behaviors that you might or might not engage in on behalf of your religion. From avoiding life's little pleasures like music or dancing to acting on normally abhorrent thoughts like going to war and killing others or yourself for your potentially unreal god. Any number of such things may be required of you.

Let's take an extreme, but real, case..
What if you die for religion and there is no god? Is losing 50 years of potential life not considered a loss worth including in the equation?
The average age of a suicide bomber is somewhere between 20 and 22. The average lifespan in the Middle East in general ranges from about 66 (in Iraq) to 76 (in Israel). The average male lifespan in Saudi Arabia (where 15 of the 9/11 hijackers came from) is approximately 72. A 22-year old suicide bomber from Saudi Arabia, on average, loses about 50 years of life. And if there is no god and this is the only life you do get, then is that 67% of your potential life "worth" the price of the wager for betting on a false god?

Now, some counter that church is not all bad and can provide happiness in and of itself. People like choirs and potlucks and community. Granted, but that is not the point. All such things can also be achieved equally without church, and I would argue even more so. Even if the balance is good, the argument is that you lose "nothing," and many people not only do not lose "nothing," but may lose everything.

5. The problem of the continuing lack of proof.

Finally, one last point against the wager is this: There is still NO actual, empirical, non-biased proof for any god, afterlife, heaven, hell, or supernatural anything of any sort existing in any place.

And why should anyone believe in ANYTHING without proof for its (at least potential) reality?

If this logic is so strong, then could (and should) you not apply the same basic wager to other things and live according to the results?

What about vampires?*
Should you eat garlic daily and carry a wooden stake around all the time on the off-chance that vampires are real? After all, if they aren't you've lost nothing. But it they are, you're protected from them.

Should you carry silver bullets in your pocket for the "potential" of werewolves? Should you send a list to the North Pole "just in case" Santa Claus is real? Should you seriously never seat 13 people at a table on the off-chance that 13 might really be capable of bringing bad luck and that the first one to rise from a table of 13 people might die in the coming year?

Even most theists would find these ideas laughable, yet using the very same logical construct they all hold weight (and logical weight equal to the idea of believing in god since all are justified in an identical manner). In every case there is a reward for doing them if they are real, a loss for not doing them if they are real, and neither a gain nor a loss for doing them or not if they are not real.

Ironically, in some ways, it is the very ability of the wager's construct to prove that other "silly" ideas are logically sound that demonstrates just how illogical the construct is.

The wager is something theists pull out to justify their belief by showing that they have a logical basis for that belief. However, they only used just enough logic to get to the wager itself. Using even more logic to undermine the wager only goes to show that one must keep thinking beyond the answer you are aiming for to find the answer that actually is.

*1. If you believe in vampires and vampires do not exist, then you have lost nothing.
2. If you believe in vampires and vampires do exist, then you will be rewarded by being ready for them and possibly surviving the encounter.
3. If you do not believe in vampires and vampires do not exist, then again, you have lost nothing.
4. But...if you do not believe in vampires and vampires are real...then you will not be ready for them and will be killed or turned.

5 Great General George Patton Quotes

2009-12-11T10:01:00.000-08:00

1.
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."
—General George S. Patton, unsourced

2.
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do, and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
—General George S. Patton, 1947, "Reflections and Suggestions," War As I Knew It

3.
"Do your damnedest in an ostentatious manner all the time."
—General George S. Patton, unsourced

4.
"Always do everything you ask of those you command."
—General George S. Patton, as quoted by Porter B. Williamson in I Remember General Patton's Principles, 1984

5.
"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week."
(also sometimes quoted as "A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later.")
—General George S. Patton, unsourced

Top quote misattributed to General George S. Patton:
"I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."
—George C. Scott
in the movie Patton, 1970

Top quote about General George S. Patton:

"If you're a leader, you don't push wet spaghetti, you pull it. The U.S. Army still has to learn that. The British understand it. Patton understood it. I always admired Patton. Oh, sure, the stupid bastard was crazy. He was insane. He thought he was living in the Dark Ages. Soldiers were peasants to him. I didn't like that attitude, but I certainly respected his theories and the techniques he used to get his men out of their foxholes."
—Bill Maudlin
in The Brass ring, 1971