A-Deistic

Dissonant Discomfort

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:16:00 +0000

This is a very good video. It examines the psychological stages of deconversion within the framework of theoretical psychology.

Part 1 of the pair is here.

Resurrecting Discrepancies 101

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:09:00 +0000

Literalism is always a dangerous policy. Those who insist that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God are skating on melted ice. Their circular arguments for the Bible as "proof" of God's existence are wetter than the mythical flood.

Not, of course, that most of them will ever admit this. Instead, they repeat themselves ever more LOUDLY about Jesus' sacrifice, while they block their ears and close their eyes. Denial is a common coping strategy amongst those who cannot face scholarly facts.

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling, and those who insist on believing refuted and falsified myths inevitably experience considerable discomfort. Blaming all dissonant information on the Devil is a popular fallacy.

Why so much discomfort?

The Old Testament has problems.

The New Testament has problems.

The Qur'an was based on flawed documents, some 6 centuries after the NT.

Speaking of Jesus' sacrifice, the Gospel accounts differ widely and have some famous alterations. Notably, Mark's was the first Gospel, written decades after Jesus' death (around 70 CE)*. The other synoptic Gospels (Matthew and Luke) were based upon Mark, with significant alterations. Infamously, the final twelve verses of Mark were added by a later scribe.

None of the original manuscripts have survived. We have only copies ... often copies of copies of copies. Biblical scholars have been aware of discrepancies in these hand-copied manuscripts since John Mill published a Greek New Testament in which he catalogued some 30,00 errors (1707). The total number of accidental and deliberate alterations in the surviving manuscript copies has been estimated at 200,000-400,00. Many alterations are minor, some are significant. Ignoring alterations, the Gospels still do not tell identical stories.

Crucifixion accounts contradict each other, as do resurrection accounts. Since so much wishful myth-making is based on the resurrection, let's compare. Don't take my word for it, check the on-line Bible references:

Who went to the tomb?
Matthew 28:1 Mark 16:1 Luke 24:1, 23:55 John 20:1

Where was the stone?
Matthew 28:2 Mark 16:4

Whom did whoever see at the tomb?

Matthew 28:5 Mark 16:5 Luke 24:4

What was whomever told?

Mark 16:7 Luke 24:7

What of this information did whoever pass along?

Matthew 28:8 Mark 16:8

To whom did whoever pass the information?

Matthew 28:8 Luke 24:8 John 20:2

How do the disciples respond?

Matthew 20:19 Luke 24:11 John 20:3

* The authenticity of 7Q5 is disputed by most papyrologists.

Goofballs of GooTube

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:35:00 +0000

A furor is raging at GooTube. The goofballs in charge are threatening to shove a new channel design upon users. The design has been around for months, and very few have voluntarily switched to beta. Some tried beta and quickly moved back to the original design. Tens of thousands of irate users are bitterly demanding continued choice of design. Not elimination of beta, merely continued choice.

Is choice so much to ask? Given Google's obstinate refusal to consider any requests from users, it appears that it is.

Just to test beta's features, I opened a new GreedTube channel.

Why?

Apologists for beta – some of whom I suspect of being on the payroll – are claiming that we hate the design because we can't figure out how to use it. These people appear to rank alongside creationists in the logic department.

Beta is cumbersome for visitors to a channel page. It is, however, easy to modify the page's design and modules.

I still hate it. Tens of thousands hate it.

Why?

It is cluttered, cramped, and singularly unattractive, that's why.

Easier channel set-up features are all well and good, but how much time and trouble is it to set up design on the more complicated alpha channels? Very little. Once one has worked out how to do it, a new alpha channel requires only about five minutes to design, particularly if one is familiar with the html codes for colours.

The ideal solution? Adapt the easier editing features to the original lay-out and icon sizes. Seems a simple solution. I have absolutely no confidence that the goofballs at GooTube are capable of coming up with a simple solution that keeps users and advertisers happy.

So, it looks as though boycotts and departures to other video streaming sites are absolutely inevitable.

It might be wise to sell your shares in Google. If they continue to perform at these levels, the company is doomed.

Dickovery Institute

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:01:00 +0000

I have been irritated by the IDiotic agenda of the Dickovery Institute^ since I first learned of its lies.

Since the proponents of IDiocy conduct no scientific research, we can only conclude that it is fitting that so many of their number are lawyers, rather than scientists. Indeed, IDiocy's pet biochemist, the little-published * Michael Behe, is clearly an embarrassment to Lehigh University.

Judging by their output, it appears that DI's full-time scientific staff devote themselves solely to scouring the scientific literature for material so carelessly worded as to be useful for quote mining.

^ I continue to refuse to provide authority-conferring links to the websites of those with an agenda of which I strongly disapprove. It's fine to ridicule their egregious misinformation, but don't boost them further up search-engine rankings! I was horrified when a search for "evolution" placed creationist liars at the top.

* In peer-reviewed scientific journals, that is. Having sold books containing deceitful distortions to credulous sheep is scarcely an "achievement" that confers bragging rights. Publishers, after all, care only about profits and not about accuracy of content.

Surrealistic Lilliputian Realm

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:46:00 +0000

The Downfall of IDiocy: We wish!

These nefarious people, like all creationists, simply refuse to admit that they are beaten. I guess that, since truth matters nothing to creationists, they will not feel defeated until the donations from credulous pseudo-intellectual sheep dry up.

The ill-named Discovery Institute continues to pretend that it has legitimate points. It continues to resort to cheat-tactics – lies, perjury, illogic, and false DMCA claims. The latter are particularly ironic in view of DI's purloining a beautiful video that was made for, and belongs to, Harvard University. (The video contains only a musical background. Interpretion here.)

"magnificent animation of the internal workings of a cell that was ripped off, first by William Dembski, and then by the makers of 'Expelled', as the [linked] eMail explains"

Dembski made some weasel comments about this on his website, but he's mistaken if he thinks that his deceptive IDiocy will soon be forgotten. "Surrealistic Lilliputian Realm" indeed! That pretty much sums up the collective cognitive function of the Dickovery Institute. Or should that be Dissembly Institute?

Sound Familiar?

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:56:00 +0000

Words changed to disguise the original topic:

"As the ___ communities became established, they sometimes faced opposition from ...s and ---s who [see] this new ideology as a threat and suspected its adherents of engaging in immoral and socially destructive practices . . . . This opposition sometimes led to local [ostracism] of ___s . . . . As ___ grew, it eventually converted intellectuals to the ideology, who were well equipped to discuss and dismiss the charges typically raised against the ___s. The writings of these intellectuals are . . . . intellectual defences of the new ideology, trying to show that far from being a threat to the social structure of the ~~~, __ preached moral behavior; and far from being a dangerous superstition, it represented the [epistemic] truth in its [rejection of religious claims]. These [books] are important for ___ readers, as they provided them with the arguments they needed when themselves faced with [ostracism]."

It's probably not difficult to guess what ___, ..., ---, ~~~ could represent on a blog such as this.

It might not be too difficult to figure out what the original text says. I was particularly amused by, "a threat and suspected its adherents of engaging in immoral and socially destructive practices ".

Latter Day Stupidity

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:06:00 +0000

LDS beliefs are so preposterous that it's a wonder that even believers could be fooled into Moroni's flock. I have always thought that the mythical golden-tablet-lending angel was aptly named.

The Hypocrisy of Religionism

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Sun, 31 May 2009 20:17:00 +0000

The more that I know of strongly religious people, the less I respect them. Needless to say, I do not respect religious myths, but I am talking about the people who claim to love Jesus whilst defying the moral teachings ascribed to Jesus.

Commandments 1-5 are, predictably, devoted to entrenching Yahweh's rights, but the next is relevant to the video.

6 “You shall not murder.

"Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime and therefore impose severe penalty on its commission."

Definitions of late-term abortion vary. Some sources place the cut-off after 12 weeks, while others use 20 weeks, or 27 weeks.

Regardless, it is hypocritical to murder a sentient adult to protect unwanted, or life-threatening fetuses.

Abortion is legal in many states. Murder is legal in none.

I consider abortion a last resort technique of birth control, but other methods sometimes fail and some highly fertile young people neglect precautions. Regardless, if abortion is not legal, back-street abortionists will step in to fill the need. In other words, there is no way to stop abortion. Better, then, to reduce maternal loss.

I'm reminded of an old skit by Whoopi Goldberg:

"I have the answer to abortion .......... shoot men's dicks!"

Amusing irony, but vasectomy would seem a less traumatic solution.

Killing doctors for providing a too often needed service is heinous. During a church service, no less.

Creationist Dictionary for Dummies

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:54:00 +0000

Excerpts from the definitive Creationist Dictionary for Dummies:

Apologetics: concocting fancy excuses for the reality that there is no evidence for any deities.

Belief: mental state that is equivalent to knowledge if 1. the Bible says it's TRUE, 2. enough fellow believers agree that it is true.

Cognitive Dissonance: an uncomfortable feeling that arises when creationists are faced with facts and logic; a feeling that elicits classic creationist coping strategies.

Coping Strategy (Creationism): see entries for crealogic, creation science, critical thinking, education, evidence, PROOF, theory, or invent your own.

Crealogical: see entry for Logic (Creationism)

Creation science: science fiction for those who literally swallow godidit myths

Critical thinking: negative thoughts about any unwelcome idea

Education: anything regurgiquoted from AiG or a similar website

Educational Qualifications (Creationism): anything that can be purchased online, or claimed to have been attained, without a requirement for learning (similar items can be purchased by online ministers).

Educational Qualifications (Science): something to be approached with derision or incredulity.

Evidence (Creationism): anything taken, or invented, to supports one's favourite belief.

Evidence (Science): something that must be denied, derided, or twisted to creationist purposes.

Faith: creationism must be RIGHT because lots of fools believe in it.

Falsification: 1. declaring ad nauseam that unwelcome facts are WRONG, 2. inventing misinformation for the sake of making an illogical argument against a scientist, evolutionist, or atheist, 3. Lie-orama.

Godidit (also Goddidit): of course He did!

Knowledge: any strongly held belief, regardless of intrinsic truth value.

Lie-Orama: expensive falsifications that depict dinosaurs cavorting with humans.

Logic: 1. quoting cherry-picked scriptures, 2. regurgiquoting misinformation, 3. resorting to fallacies of logic, particularly in emotional arguments.

Logical argument (Creationism): using creationist logic (aka crealogic) and making irrelevant, negative remarks about the holder of any unwelcome idea.

Logical argument (atheism, science): dangerous, faith-testing arguments from generally better-educated evolutionists, scientists, and atheists.

PROOF: declaration that CREATIONISM IS RIGHT and GOD EXISTS.

Refutation of creationism: something that must be ignored, or denied, at all costs.

Theory: the latest desperate creationist invention that is intended to deny reality.

Unpaid Advertisement: see our new apologetics publication Applied Fallacies of Logic, the definitive aid for those occasions when trolling, false flagging, and votebotting are just not enough.

Another Unpaid Advertisement: MacLiar's Guide to Disreputable Colleges and Universities, the definitive guide to unaccredited purveyors of false qualifications or should-not-be-accredited religion-affiliated institutions of lower learning.

Bittersweet

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Thu, 28 May 2009 17:12:00 +0000

Beautiful planet. Anthropogenic degradation.

If anyone watching this recognizes the music, please leave a comment. I can't find the information.

Experimenting with FilmRookie

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Sat, 23 May 2009 00:52:00 +0000

I don't like the site's colours, and some of its features are less community-oriented than YouTube, but lots of atheists have decamped to FilmRookie because YouTube is so badly mis-managed. At least this video runs in both the US and Canada.

video platform video management video solutions free video player

Yawn, yawn, yawn

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Fri, 22 May 2009 22:17:00 +0000

Needless to say, PZ Myers expresses this better than I could.

Charlotte Allen's recent diatribe against atheists created a minor tempest in a teacup, and rightly so. Until last week's ill-conceived editorial in the LA Times, I had never heard of the woman. A friend sent me a link to Charlotte's venom-dripping web of misrepresentations.

My friend could not even finish reading the article.

I could.

Irritation keeps me awake.

My irritation resulted from the transparent attempt to poison the well – there's a lot of that going around – against atheistic non-acceptance of theistic claims.

Frankly, I don't give a toss whether or not Charlotte finds us atheists "boring". We shall happily spare her feelings and not include her on our list of dinner guests when next we have pizza and beer. Or are atheists supposed to serve tofu and herbal tea?

Allen's emotional stance does underline the fact that theists have not a fact to stand on in defending their beliefs. Without any recourse to incontrovertible evidence for the "omnipotent, omnipresent creator" that Christians love to worship, they have only emotional reactions, fallacies of logic, and invented "facts".

(Misinterpreted evidence is not evidence. There's a lot of that going around too.)

Even if every atheist on the planet were a terminal bore who speaks of nothing but lack of belief in supernatural myths, that would not render disbelief invalid. Nor would it render disbelief valid. That is the point. The personal, emotion-invoking qualities of the thinker signifies nothing about the truth value of the thoughts.

Being mostly both rational and liberal, atheists would accept claims for deities if undeniable evidence of their existence were presented. In the meantime, with respect to something for which there should be evidence, to demand belief despite the total absence of corroborating evidence is to be worse than boring, it is to be ... er ... um ... er ... deluded.

Small wonder, then, that Charlotte cannot protect her cherished beliefs without launching an ill-informed attack on atheists.

Just a couple of her misrepresentations:

Myth #1: Atheists do not refute apologetics.

Admittedly, my refutations are not detailed. However, some atheistic bloggers and video-uploaders take an analytic philosophical approach and do a very thorough job of refuting apologetics.

Myth #2: Atheists can hope for election to political office.

Americans themselves refuted this myth in a recent poll. They would, despite 9/11, sooner elect a Muslim than an atheist.

Charlotte tries to slip one under our rational radar when she claims that old laws against allowing atheists to hold office in a mere six states demonstrates that public office is accessible to atheists.

There should not even be old or new laws, whether in one state or fifty, against public positions for atheists. Why not? The First Amendment to the Constitution is why not. You know the one, the law about separation of church and state. Yes that one, that same law that religionists use to overprotect their religious beliefs. The law that should also apply to those who hold different beliefs.

End of story.

Obviously not the end of the story for voters, but definitely the end for Allen's argument.

As to the attitude of a significant portion of Americans to atheists, I'll quote some Americans:

She writes as if atheists don't get death threats from Christians simply for writing about atheism or talking about it in public. She writes as if we don't get our property vandalized by Christians if we get outed as atheists. She writes as if there are no parts of America where we could lose our jobs for being atheists. Allen writes as if completely unaware that Christians spend millions of dollars every year to put their religious beliefs into law - laws which everyone, regardless of religion or non-religion, will be required to follow. She writes as if Christians don't intimidate the children of atheists in attempts to convert them which sometimes ends up in peer violence visited upon those children.

Show me several million atheists trying to force their beliefs into law, trying to use legal force to coerce all Americans to follow their beliefs. Show me the school children forced to perform atheist rituals under fear of punishment from adults and peers. Show me the atheists protesting at funerals - and I might start to listen to you, Ms. Allen.

and,

I live in the Biblebelt where atheism is equated with immorality and depravity. I get judged left right and center by religious nuts who are pro-war, pro-torture and pro-death penalty; I am anti all violence and YET they act as if they are on the moral highway.

[source]

More Food for Unthought

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Wed, 20 May 2009 20:42:00 +0000

The creationists have something else to deny – Darwinius masillae.

Ida is a beautifully preserved, 47 million yr-old, almost complete, transitional primate fossil from the Eocene.

Undoubtedly, this will prove upsetting to those who resort to challenging taunts of "give me proof", but who, in their eternal love affair with argumentum ad ignorantiam, deny all evidence presented.

Having thus exhibited their profound self-obsessed bias toward obdurate ignorance, creationists will almost certainly proceed on to whining that we atheists are "mean" to them for noting that they are more often less "bright" than atheists.

Why are they?

We are almost all raised within one religious tradition or another. Those who think rationally about the utter lack of evidence are more likely to deconvert than are those who do not think critically.

The IQ discrepancy would be even greater were it not for the fact that some individuals adopt atheistic attitudes for purely emotional reasons.

Since creationists repeatedly, publically demonstrate their poverty of logic, lack of education, or blatant intellectual dishonesty, they have no reasonable grounds for accusations of unfair labelling as being less intellectual than most atheists. End of story.

I make no apologies for the fact that I do not respect ill-founded, prejudiced, opinions that reflect an obsession with personal salvation, but which are typically accompanied by hypocritically anti-social attitudes.

People are entitled to their own opinions only in so far as it is impossible to alter the opinions of a person who is immune to evidence and logic. That is, the reality is that we are stuck with religiously-motivated ignorance. This does not mean that we must afford unwarranted respect to stubborn manifestations of a cognitive disorder. In fact, I think that we should not even feign respect for ignorant, biased opinions. Society can no longer afford to mollycoddle stupid ideas.

This is not to say that believers should be personally disrespected. It is to say that their uninformed notions should be refuted. Even though creationists almost never admit, let alone see, that they have been refuted, bystanders might benefit from having light shone on someone else's cognitive errors.

Ida: official website . Darwinius masillae . Poor, poor Ida, Or: "Overselling an Adapid" . Darwinius masillae - The Panda's Thumb . Introducing Darwinius masillae . wiki .

Franzen JL, Gingerich PD, Habersetzer J, Hurum JH, von Koenigswald W, Smith BH (2009) Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology.

PLoS ONE 4(5): e5723. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005723. abstract .

Only in the USA? Pity!

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Sat, 02 May 2009 23:25:00 +0000

The original version of this video played only in the US. I edited the script slightly and added sound effects. Now it plays.

The title is a joke based on a TV commercial for a brand of tea that's apparently only available in Canada. However, it's true that this video was blocked on YT everywhere except the US. This was particularly ironic since I am in Canada, and even more ironic since I can still access the original on a Canadian channel. YT works in mysterious ways, and so is as unworthy of worship as the mythical deity.

This version plays in Canada, so it probably plays everywhere else:

Misquoting Jesus - Edited Edition

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:56:00 +0000

I found this lecture very interesting, but a little long for reference purposes. So, I have edited the lecture segments into those topics that address textural alterations, both accidental and deliberate, and inconsistencies between Gospel accounts.

I have also added most of Ehrman's answers from the Q&A session that followed the lecture.

I find it horrifying that so much prejudice and oppression has been based on this highly flawed invention.

Playlist url.

Topics:
Transcription errors .
Earliest fragment of copy (P52) and palaeography .
Estimating the numbers of mistakes .
Intentional mistakes .
Altered account of end times .
Late addition of adulteress story .
Late addition of snake handling .
Did Jesus feel anger or compassion? .
Discrepancies in resurrection accounts .
Discrepancies in crucifixion accounts .
Forgiveness and oppression – politically inspired textural alterations .
Alterations aimed at silencing women .
Summary of textural criticism .

Q&A topics
Marcion of Sinope .
Gospel of Judas, and Gnosticism .
First Clement and First Corinthians .
First Council of Nicaea .
Impact of textural errors .
Attempting reconciliation of discrepancies .
Ignoring long-recognized biblical discrepancies .
Authority – whom to believe .
Inclusion and canon .
Trinity and Torah .
Language, oral tradition, accuracy of Jewish scribes .

The full lecture can be found in this playlist.

Platon Aristoteles İlk Mover

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:15:00 +0000

I don't understand a word of Turkish, but it amuses me to see my posts in other languages. Since Google generated the translation, I have no idea whether this is even an accurate translation into Turkish. I rather doubt it since I have found that Google's translator makes a hash of languages that I can read (partially).

Platon (c. 427-c. M.Ö. 347) yasaları, yani evrendeki hareket ilk neden atfolunabilir gerektiğini savundu.

Argümanı bir cosmological argümanları bir aile biridir. Tüm sorunları ile dolu bulunmaktadır.

Platon, bu hareket ilk neden evrendeki tüm
hareket başlatılan savunuyor. O, 'ruh' ya da 'Bu ilke adı hayat. Ayrıca, herhangi bir nedeni de en büyük nedeni olduğunu kendisi başka bir şey-bir heyecanlanmayan taşıyıcı veya heyecanlanmayan olmalıdır Aristoteles's tarzı bir güç olarak.

Aristoteles (c. M.Ö. 384-322), Metaphysics olarak da) genellikle için "güç" veya "heyecanlanmayan Mover" (the πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον veya Primus olarak anılan bir ilk neden, bir fikir önerdi. Aristoteles mükemmel, güzel bölünmez olarak, bu heyecanlanmayan taşıyıcı anlatıyor ve sadece en iyi niyet geçiş: kendisi geçiş.

İranlı filozof, Avicenna (c. 980-1037 CE), Abu ʿ Ali al-Ḥusayn İbn ʿ Abd Allah Ibn Sina ya da Ibn Sina da bu argümanı bir değişim yarattı.

... Bölümünde kütüğü ...
åå Apologetics Debunked åå
åå dini inançları savunan ilâhiyat dalı Debunked åå

Playlist: Religion is the Great Hijacker

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:16:00 +0000

This series is rather negative about clerics, which is, in my opinion, understandable. However, I do not buy the contention that many clerics are closet atheists. I suspect that many if not most clerics have bought religious nonsense hook line and sinker. Most clerics are probably not rational* enough to have spotted glaring scriptural discrepancies for what they are.

Nevertheless, I do believe that most televangelists are in it for money and power. They probably believe little of the nonsense that they sell to their generous flocks. VFX's recent bid for donations is a case in point.

* I mean free of cognitive dissonance and open to critical evaluation of their own beliefs and the basis for those beliefs.

More Apologetics Debunked

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:51:00 +0000

ProfMTH's excellent series on the "DID the disciples die for a lie?" apologetic argument.

Consider the emotionally-appealing-to-believers argument thoroughly debunked. However, as ProfMTH explains, Christians invent excuse after excuse after excuse for cognitively dissonant information.

Search for Truth about the Bible

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 02:19:00 +0000

Search for Truth about the Bible:
This is a very good series on errancy in the Bible. It was made by a deconverted fundamentalist couple, and is both fair and thoughtful. At time of posting, the series is incomplete. I shall try to add to the playlist as videos are uploaded. You might wish to consider subscribing to the channel.

playlist url.

Part 1 - Slavery:
Part 2 (First Half) - Genocide and Murder in the Old Testament:
Part 2 (Second Half) - Genocide and Murder in the Old Testament:
Part 3 - The Value of Women:
Part 4 - Can God Lie or Be Involved with Deception?:
Part 5 - Can god change his mind?:
Part 6 - (First Half) Temptation & Testing:
Part 6 - (Second Half) Temptation & Testing:
.

Christian Reconstructionists

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:49:00 +0000

Old article, but scary nonetheless. I am so glad that I don't live in America—or Alberta. My condolences to those of you who are alarmed by what is happening to your country.

Even though this took place in 2007, I doubt that they have given up their struggle for theocratic domination and submitted to psychiatric treatment.

The writer clearly has an opinion of these "good folk" that matches mine. I might have suspected liberal bias if I had not had many encounters with these types on the Internet. In view of my clinical assessment of some the fundies that I have encountered, I think that the writer was using very mild language.

I am confident that you can deduce why I am highlighting the article excerpts in brown.

Christian Reconstructionists Trying to Take Dominion in America
Monday 02 July 2007

"A recent conference held by American Vision, a radical ministry that toils away to "help Christians build a truly Biblical worldview," displayed the growing organization of the dangerous Reconstructionist movement.

...hundreds of Religious Right activists and their families made their way there for a four-day "Worldview Super Conference." They came to hear fundamentalist Christian speakers rail about the nation's moral confusion, claim the public schools are bastions of secular humanism and warn that Christians, especially their type of Christians, are in danger of being persecuted by America."

I am not in favour of persecution of anyone, but it would be nice to see these types disempowered.

"Based in Powder Springs, Ga., American Vision also produces reams of material that push Christian Reconstructionism, a form of fundamentalism that argues for a re-writing of American history, dismantling secular democracy and constructing an America governed by "biblical law." Reconstructionists seek to impose the criminal code of the Old Testament, applying the death penalty for homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, witches, incorrigible juvenile delinquents and those who spread false religions."

Yes, folks, you too can have a homegrown version of Sharia law. I imagine that a burqua would damage Britney Spears' career.

"Despite its overtly radical theocratic agenda, American Vision is allied with some of the Religious Right's most powerful outfits. This year's conference was cosponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund, a well-funded Religious Right lawyers' outfit that James Dobson and other religious broadcasters helped create; Michael Farris's Home School Legal Defense Association; the late TV preacher Jerry Falwell's Liberty University School of Law; and World Magazine, Marvin Olasky's influential evangelical Christian periodical.

....

"Defamation," Cass argued, "is the precursor to persecution." Defamation leads to marginalization, he continued, and marginalization sets the "stage for discrimination," which inevitably leads to the final stage of religious cleansing."

Which, of course, is exactly what these, er, bigots do to any group of which they disapprove. Their hit list does not merely include the traditional bonfire favourites like homosexuals* and apostates*, but Christians who aren't Christian enough or Conservative enough for these, er, bigots. Needless to say, they despise Obama with a unifying passion. I fear that many of them, despite their obsessive concerns for embryos and fetuses, would happily burn Obama at the stake.

Papa Cass gets even more charming:

""Genocide being the ultimate expression," Cass declared, "the deliberate, systematic extermination of a group of people." Kind of like what is happening in Sudan's Darfur region, he added."

That sounds suspiciously like a hint to me.

I guess that he assumed that his audience would actually know that Sudan is in Africa.

"On the conference's first day, attendees gathered in Ridgecrest's Spilman Auditorium were treated to a lengthy rant against public schools by a Baptist preacher from Texas.

All the railing against public schools and other state-supported institutions has long been a focal point for Christian Reconstructionists, whose goal is a society where their harsh version of biblical law permeates everything. DeMar provided a platform for some of the movement's most radical voices.

"If we encourage our daughters to pursue a careerist philosophy," the Vision Forum's mission statement reads, "if we fail to make our homes economically vital, hospitable centers for love and learning, we are hypocrites."

Well, many of them undoubtedly are hypocrites, but not for that reason.

Good Christians must subjugate their women. It says so in the Bible.

The article goes on, but I'm feeling rather queezy at the thought of American women struggling under the domination of these equine vacuities.

If you are not nauseous, here is the link.

* Just in case it is not clear that I am being facetious here, let me be clear that I am horrified that "Christians" used to burn people at the stake for homosexuality and apostasy (or even heretical disagreement with any aspect of Church dogma). Even more horrifying, some religions continue to kill those considered guilty of homosexuality and apostasy.
.

Deliciously Funny Dishes

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 05:30:00 +0000

If you don't feel too nauseous after watching Nephy*, the dishes sound delicious.

This atheist has missed his calling. Auctioneers should be jealous.

*Nephy is the creepiest, most soporific YECer on YahwehTube. There is a wonderful take-off on Nephy here:

.

JREF and YahwehTube

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 05:12:00 +0000

YahwehTube has reinstated the JREF account, presumably because there was a huge fuss - 10+ pages of mirror videos. If the copyright owner was not even aware that an inadvertent copyright violation had been made, then who tipped off YahwehTube? Persumably the fundie Xtians who are currently whining about anti-Christian discrimination after their votebotting, flagging, and false DMCA campaigns all backfired.

Correction: I was tired when I listened to this. He actually says that YT took the account down because three videos contained copyrighted material and YT removes material because of an "automated" list. This does not alter the fact that fundie Xtians play dirty.

So, was our anger at YT inappropriate?

Knee-jerk removal of entire accounts is utterly ridiculous. I'll explain.

Irritating though WMG's greed is, YT has merely stripped soundtracks rather than take down accounts. I suspect that YT adopted this policy because it has generated anger at WarnerMegaGreed rather than at YT. This probably puts pressure on WMG to make a more reasonable deal with YT.

(We are given the option of re-activating the video with YT approved material—usually so awful that they can't give it away.)

The policy of stripping WMG soundtracks demonstrates that YT has the ability to handle videos with copyrighted material in a variety of ways.

Inadvertent, and advertent violators (those who know that they did not personally compose and record original music tracks), add to YT's stockpile of profit-making videos. (There are original artists on YT—they too are usually so awful that they can't give it away. This is why they don't have record contracts.)

It is understandable that YT is quick to remove material that might prompt legal action against YT.

However, I think that the three-strikes-your-out policy should only apply to guideline violations that include genuinely pornographic material, hate speech, gratuitous violence, and such like. (By "genuinely pornographic material" I mean to exclude those instances of flagging by religious nutters who are easily offended by bare shoulders and kissing.)

YT refuses to print a list of to-be-targetted or likely-to-be-targetted tracks. It does have software to prevent activation of uploaded videos that contain targetted tracks. This software prevents new uploads of WMG material and has stripped the soundtracks of already uploaded videos. This is a reasonable way to proceed in view of the fact that some third parties suddenly decide that they are not being remunerated sufficiently for tubers to advertise their product.

Further, YT states that YT will be exempt from law suits while its uploading tubers are not exempt from prosecution. Since the intent of copyright law is to protect profits, it seems unreasonable that the little guy who does not profit should bear the brunt of litigation. As far as I know, this travesty has not occurred.

One of my videos does have a soundtrack that is blocked in some countries. I was notified of this. Since it is my only problem video, I obviously have the choice of deleting it. If I had hundreds of uploads, then shifting rules about which material is on a hit list could easily result in a sudden unnotified account deletion, such as happened to James Randi.

If YT wishes to keep third parties and tubers sweet, then it ought to rethink the way that they handle accounts that could fall victim to shifting policies and automated software. Simply strip the soundtracks from offending videos or delete those videos with egregious violations.

Transcription Errors in a Total Invention

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:43:00 +0000

Bart Ehrman discussing "Misquoting Jesus" in a Stanford University lecture. Be warned, the lecture is long (Ten segments of approximately 10 minutes, including lecture and Q&A). It is, however, very interesting if you are intrigued by the errors that arose after the myths had been invented and put to papyrus.

Playlist url.

Also long (almost 60 minutes), an interview with Bart Ehrman.

My God, creationists are STUPID

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:38:00 +0000

(Blasphemy is a victimless "crime". Besides, I enjoy it!)

I mean it. Creationist are not only ignorant, but they are arrogant about it. I say this because they flaunt their ignorance and crow about their deluded, uninformed beliefs as though this is a cause of pride. To assume that one knows more than the experts is arrogance in my book.

Ooops, I'm forgetting that the Bible is the supreme science textbook. Never mind that its metaphysics has been soundly and repeatedly falsified.

I shall be eternally [joking] grateful to Bishop Ussher for providing a falsifiable date for the biblical "age" of the Earth, and by extension of the universe.

Creationists either lie or propagate falsehoods told by other creationists. They either do not know the facts or they deny them. They are not only illogical, but they often contradict themselves within a few sentences. If their pronouncements are challenged, they invent "information". Again, frequently contradicting what they said prior to the challenge.

They do all of this within the context of poor grammar, and bad spelling. Not to mention CAPS, which make them RIGHT.

Here's a fool ranting about the universe. I particularly enjoyed this one because of the hilarious malapropism. The fool can't even accurately name what he is denying.

"They are starting to piss me off,they earth is not billions or millions of years old.They have no proof that the big band theory is true,but they teach it like it really happened."

(That's fair. Creationists piss me off. Have done for a long time.)

Um, it's the Big Bang, not a mega-orchestra.

Yes, the Earth is about 4.7 billion years old (judging by meteorites). The oldest known rocks are over 4 billion years old.

No, radioactive decay does not lie, and no, geologists do not use radiocarbon dating to determine the age of the Earth.

Um, scientific hypotheses attempt to best explain observable facts. If hypotheses survive falsification, they graduate to being termed theories. This means that scientific theories follow upon something that actually happened.

What more could one expect from someone who equates the rapid inflation of spacetime to a very large collection of brass, wood, strings and hot air? Or did he mean a huge collection of guitarists accompanied by drummers and amplified to deafening levels? Hence the bang? Either way, I'm willing to bet that he'd also deny cosmic microwave background radiation, even though he's undoubtedly heard that.

.

Minoan Eruption – Atlantis, Biblical Flood

noreply@blogger.com (Arcanum) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:49:00 +0000

Abundant geological and archaeological evidence probably explains the origin of the biblical flood myth, the Legend of Atlantis, perhaps the destruction of Troy VI, and the widespread fear of the sea in ancient Mediterranean myths.

Around 1630 BC, the volcanic island of Thera (now Santorini, sometimes called Strongphyle) blew itself to pieces in a massive Krakatoa-like eruption. The Plinian* volcanic explosion “may have been one of the biggest volcanic eruptions on Earth in the last few thousand years” [s].

Volcanoes rain fire and brimstone on nearby cities. They also drop volcanic bombs (pillars of salt – yes, it does look a bit rude. Lot's wife?).

The Santorini caldera has abundant evidence of repeated volcanic activity prior to the eruption that buried Bronze Age Akrotiri in ash— just as Vesuvius* buried Pompeii and Herculaneum.

(animation of the eruption here. It is inaccurate in so far as the pre-eruption island was a volcanic cone and not yet a caldera.)

The earthquake, eruption, and resultant tsunami disrupted the nearby Minoan civilization **, so it is called the Minoan Eruption. The tsunami would have struck all around the eastern Mediterranean, including the Nile delta. (impact.) Anyone who saw the footage of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami (Boxing Day, Sunday 26th December 2004) knows that the sea recedes, then wave after enormous wave strikes.

The Nile Delta would have dried and then have been repeatedly inundated.

Sound like any myths that you have heard of?

The explosion of Thera could also explain dramatic shifts in the course of the Nile. Some Nile-side cities had to be relocated because the river suddenly abandoned them as a result of silting. A famous relocation (Pi-Ramesses) post-dated the Minoan Eruption.

Compilation of videos:

(If you are ever on a beach and the water recedes, head for the hills!)

We understand that this horror resulted from the phenomenon of plate tectonics. Around the Mediterranean, Bronze Age people would understandably have thought that their gods were furious. The event would certainly have been passed down in oral traditions in countries bordering the Mediterranean. It explains why Greek mythology became so dark, it explains terror of the sea in Bronze Age myths, it explains the fairy tale of the Biblical Flood. It explains so much.

* named for Pliny the Elder, who died during the eruption of Vesuvius

** Protopalatial Minoan Crete (~1900 - ~1700 BCE)