It all starts with God telling David to do a census, you know like the one the U.S. Constitution requires us to do this year.

And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. 2 Samuel 24:1

Or was it Satan that asked David to do the census, as it says in 1 Chronicles 21:1?

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. 1 Chronicles 21:1

Oh well, maybe it was both. In any case, David sent Joab out to take the census, and after 9 months and 20 days, Joab came back with the results: there were 800,000 sword-yielding men in Israel and 500,000 in Judah.

So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men. 2 Samuel 24:9

Or was it was 1,100,000 and 470,000 men in Israel and Judah, as it says in 1 Chronicles 21:5?

And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword. 1 Chronicles 21:5

Whichever it may have been, either is comparable to the number of active duty soldiers in the U.S. military today. Not bad for small tribal kingdom in 1000 BCE!

After the census, David decided that he has done something wrong, which is weird since he had only taken a census that God told him to take.

And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done. 2 Samuel 24:10

And God was pissed off, too, at least that's what the prophet Gad told him. Gad said God offered him three choices:

1. Seven years of famine (or three years if you believe the story in 1 Chronicles 11),

2. Three months of losing battles,

3. Or Three days of pestilence.

For when David was up in the morning, the word of the LORD came unto the prophet Gad ... saying ... Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. ... Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? 2 Samuel 24:11-13

David couldn't decide, so God decided for him. God chose the three days of pestilence, thereby killing 70,000 men, which would mean at least a couple hundred thousand people (only men count to God).

So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men. 2 Samuel 24:15

But God was still pissed off, even after he finished killing a couple hundred thousand people in the pestilence that he chose as David's punishment for doing the census that he asked him to do. So he sent an angel to destroy the city of Jerusalem. But then God "repented him of the evil" that he intended to do and told the angel to stop.

(OK, I know. God doesn't repent, so when the Bible said that God "repented of the evil" that he intended to do, it meant something else entirely.)

And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. 2 Samuel 24:16

When David saw the angel that was still killing people, he said, "I've sinned, but what have these people done?" A good question, that God, of course, completely ignores.

And David spake unto the LORD when he saw the angel that smote the people, and said, Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? 2 Samuel 24:17

Finally, Gad tells David to buy some land, make an altar, and kill some animals for God to get him to quit killing people. So David buys some land for 50 shekels of silver (or 600 shekels of gold if you believe the story in 1 Chronicles 21), sets up an altar, and kills some animals for God.

And God finally stopped killing people.

And Gad came that day to David, and said unto him, Go up, rear an altar unto the LORD in the threshingfloor of Araunah the Jebusite ... So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver. And David built there an altar unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. So the LORD was intreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel. 2 Samuel 24:17-25

So it all worked out fine, and God said to himself, as the Brick Testament suggests, "This worked out well. Killing 200,000 Israelites but not harming David will teach him not to take a census when I tell him to take a census."

In case you haven’t noticed, I’m quite a fan of lists and plans. So what do you suppose I did first? Yep, I made a master list of everything that I could change that I wanted to change. I tried to picture how I wanted my life to look, and jotted down everything I could think of that I could do right now to get me there. I decided to pick two things per week to work on. This week is insomnia and cleaning up my house. It’s not dirty and doesn’t smell bad, but it is a very cluttered wreck. While those things are going to be my focus, I still want to try to do some of the other things on my list. I’m just not going to worry about it if I don’t manage to accomplish those things.

So this morning, I got up and exercised, then took a shower. And it’s really telling just how bad things are when I had to walk myself through a basic routine. I chanted “I’m going to do X because I’m worth it” through everything I didn’t particularly feel like doing: flossing my teeth instead of just brushing them, actually fixing my hair rather than throwing it back in a ponytail, putting on a little bit of makeup, putting on lotion, and adding a splash of perfume. Wow. That’s pretty sad, especially now that I see it written. The plus side is that I do feel a little bit more like a human being instead of a zombie! Before, it was usually take a shower, brush teeth, throw on deodorant, maybe fix my hair if I had somewhere to go and felt like it (I do always at least brush it and put it up in a ponytail!), throw on some ratty jeans and a t-shirt/sweatshirt, and I’m out the door. Not that there’s anything wrong with not wearing makeup or just doing the essentials if that’s who you are and it works for you. I’m noticing that I’ve let the little things go entirely, and I just don’t even feel like a person anymore, so that’s what I’m personally working on. It’s like I’ve just kind of not felt like I deserve to treat myself with love and respect over the last couple of years, and I’m surprised at how much I have to push myself to do these few things.

But I am doing it and I am already feeling better, clearer. Yay!  Now to just work on feeling not pathetic for feeling like this is a victory!

Turkish girl, 16, buried alive for talking to boys

Turkish police have recovered the body of a 16-year-old girl they say was buried alive by relatives in an “honour” killing carried out as punishment for talking to boys.

The girl, who has been identified only by the initials MM, was found in a sitting position with her hands tied, in a two-metre hole dug under a chicken pen outside her home in Kahta, in the south-eastern province of Adiyaman.

Police made the discovery in December after a tip-off from an informant, the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported on its website.

The girl had previously been reported missing.

The informant told the police she had been killed following a family “council” meeting.

Her father and grandfather are said to have been arrested and held in custody pending trial. It is unclear whether they have been charged. The girl’s mother was arrested but was later released.

Media reports said the father had told relatives he was unhappy that his daughter – one of nine children – had male friends. The grandfather is said to have beaten her for having relations with the opposite sex.

A postmortem examination revealed large amounts of soil in her lungs and stomach, indicating that she had been alive and conscious while being buried. Her body showed no signs of bruising.

The discovery will reopen the emotive debate in Turkey about “honour” killings, which are particularly prevalent in the impoverished south-east.

Official figures have indicated that more than 200 such killings take place each year, accounting for around half of all murders in Turkey.

I don’t know if I’ve seen such a well-scripted bit of comdy about metaphysics and cosmology before:

Your Thoughts?

But, it makes perfect sense through Feuerbach’s work which I have talked about in You Are Your Own God. Since God is human nature externalized and objectified, then denial of such a God would be a denial of human nature. It would be a denial of our Reason, Will and Affection. That would be like the removal of the ego and super-ego from one’s psyche, leaving only the id behind. Like the brute we would be ruled by our desires.

I hope I have made more sense out of religious idiocy. And hopefully through reason I will be able to continue to correct their mistakes.

Related posts:

1. You Are Your Own God
2. The Question of Morality
3. The Ten Commandments and Morality

That’s the key life affirming spirit from the teenaged Swedish sisters in the band First Aid Kit.  I’m not sure if or where they might make the big top 366 list but figured I’d pass on a great song in an atheist spirit to my godless readership.  The dissertation is completing steadily and I’ll be back to blogging about philosophy and atheist issues regularly again soon.

The song is called “Hard Believer”:

Your Thoughts?

Hoe is het leven op aarde ontstaan? (How did life arise on Earth?)

God schiep het leven in zes dagen (God created life in six days) 69.4%
Door Evolutie (By Evolution) 20.7%
Door Spontane Generatie (By Spontaneous Generation) 5%
God stuurde de evolutie (By god-directed evolution) 4.1%
God schiep het leven in langere tijd (God created life some time) 0.8%
Er is een intelligente ontwerper maar onbekend wie (There is an unknown intelligent designer) 0%

"...aims to reinforce states rights by clarifying that the Supreme Court and district courts do not have jurisdiction to hear cases brought against a federal, state or local government or officer for acknowledging God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

• Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996)
• Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
• Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
• Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
• Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
• Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
• Voted YES on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
• Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
• Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)

• Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
• Amend Constitution to define traditional marriage. (Jun 2008)

• Republican Sen. Richard Shelby puts a blanket hold on all of President Obama's nominees for profit
• Senator's Projects Stall Obama Appointees Follow the Money: Sen. Richard Shelby Hold'
• Sen. Richard Shelby blocking Obama nominees
• America Is Not Yet Lost

According to a report on Channel News Asia, ISD told Pastor Tan that in “preaching or proselytising his faith, he must not run down other religions, and must be mindful of the sensitivities of other religions”

The Ministry of Home Affairs gave a brief statement that Pastor Tan’s comments werer highly “inappropriate and unacceptable as they trivialised and insulted the beliefs of Buddhists and Taoists” which can also “give rise to tension and conflict between the Buddhist/Taoist and Christian communities.”

I like my freedom of speech. I find it disturbing when I encounter censorship and the protection of religion in other cultures.  We must protect our rights.

All three boys testified against Cruz during the trial, which began on Tuesday. One of them said he was sodomized by Cruz as many as 150 times between 2005 and 2006. Most of the crimes occurred at Cruz's home, but the jury also heard testimony about crimes that occurred in the church.

Cruz was the former pastor of the Newburgh Church of God in Orange County, New York. He faces up to 25 years in prison.

On the shuttle to the airport, I was sitting next to an active servicemember. He was wearing that really ugly pixelated camouflage uniform they all wear when they travel. I think that alone would be reason for me not to join the military, but I don’t want to fulfill stereotypes about gay men, because I’m really not all that fashion-conscious. There are just two important things you need to know:

1) He was in uniform. 2) He was wearing a wedding band.

I don’t know the guy’s name, or what he does, or really anything about him except for two points: he’s in the military, and he’s married.

There is always the chance that he has a same-sex partner. In fact, after spending the week at Creating Change, I’m actually still a bit conditioned to assume that everyone I meet is a member of the queer community. But given the culture of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, it’s almost impossible that he’s in a same-sex marriage, because he would be constantly asked about his wife. He’d thus constantly have to lie.

I wanted to ask him about his wife. I wanted to ask him about the female troops he works with. Do they feel harassed knowing that he’s heterosexual? Are people concerned he might assault them? Does the fact that he has an ever-present symbol of his sexuality in clear view affect his unit’s cohesion?

As Sue Fulton of Knights Out told us at Creating Change, the policy is not enforced as it is described. It is simply “Don’t Tell.” As soon as an accusation is put forth, an investigation ensues, and then a whole lot of asking takes place, and as we know, a whole lot of discharges.

But the simple, recognizable symbol of a wedding band might be the key to pointing out to people that DADT has got to go. For all the stories we can relate about the consequences for gay and lesbian troops, perhaps this wedding band is the symbol that will help people see how simple and profound the discrimination is.

Later this week I’m going to do a post highlighting the photography of Jeff Sheng, and I think this context will be important to note. Despite the fact that many servicemembers have significant others in their life, they have to constantly hide their private lives. There are a lot of ringless fingers in his photographs.

I have posted a religious dialogue tool, which lists three ways to “Declare Thyself !”

• Philosopher, declare thyself !
• Atheist, declare thyself !
• Christian, declare thyself !

I hope to put up some more in the future.  These posts are tables which help declare what sort of atheist, christian or philosopher you are.  Following are my declarations to illustrate how I use these tables.  I hope by making clear my positions I can facilitate dialogue with my visitors.  See it it helps you.  Take a chance, label yourself, put the tables on a post on your blog — remember, you can always change your mind!

My Atheist Positions

My Philosophical Positions

Granted, it might have been more beneficial for me to be paying attention in class, but I’ve always thought that the RichardDawkins.net website was pretty darn educational (it is the website of an educational foundation, after all). They have podcasts about evolutionary science, links to stimulating articles, a banner asking non-believers to donate to Haiti. Today when I tried to access RichardDawkins.net today from my school’s Internet network I got a message that said that the website was blocked.

Observe (click to embiggen)

Perhaps it was an honest mistake… I’ve very politely e-mailed the peeps who do this stuff so maybe they will unblock it. If not, I shall update here.

Update: Somewhat unrelated, but I just thought I’d share the mission listed in my school district’s twitter page.

To inspire every student to think, to learn, to achieve, to care

Far as I can tell RD.net does three of the four.

They wrote and performed one of greatest songs ever about war, for what it’s worth. Click here to see its incorporation into the brilliant title sequence of the film Lord of War.

Your Thoughts?

Otherwise, though, it is an acceptable overview of octopodal merits.

OK, moment over. Next up: I get to go the the University of Northern Iowa on Wednesday! Don't say it, I know I'm insane. Anyway, it'll be an evo-devo talk in the Maucker Union, Hemisphere Lounge, at 7pm. There won't be much creationist bashing, but I'll probably spend a few minutes bashing Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini and Mary Midgley, because they're morons who are abusing evo-devo in the name of making misguided criticisms of evolution. Everyone expects me to growl and gnash the fangs a bit about something, and I wouldn't want to disappoint.

Then I get to come home again.

Oh, and one last totally random thing in recollection of my wonderful trip to Ireland. Here's me receiving an award from the University College Dublin Secular Humanist Society…from Captain Jack Sparrow. How awesome is that?

Actually, that's David, but if ever he wants to become a pirate, I'll join his crew.

One such problem was dealing with Christians. Pliny told Trajan that Christians, who were recognised as a problem elsewhere in the empire, prayed to a Christ as a form of divinity. Some had been worshipping so for some twenty years. He discussed their religious practices of praying in morning followed by a later common meal on fixed days. Pliny noted that they were otherwise law-abiding. Though Christians were disliked and distrusted by Roman authorities and the society in general, Trajan rejected systematic persecution, especially based on unsubstantiated claims.

What do these letters provide us? Mostly they offer a wonderful look at the administrative concerns and processes of early second century Roman empire. However the two letters, reproduced below, showed there were groups, identified as Christians, who worshipped Christ as a form of a god. The letters was written around 111CE with Pliny dating some of their worshipping up to twenty years previous. We need to remember that Paul, according to orthodox Christian traditions, evangelised throughout this area some 50 to 60 years before. He had a similar message of Christ as god. However these letters say nothing of the historical Jesus; only people believed in his divinity 80 years after his death.

A more interesting question is why Christians beliefs and practices were considered illegal by the Roman authorities? Unlike Christian and Jewish beliefs, the dominant pagan religions of the empire were polytheistic, usually accepting and modifying gods with different origins, like Greek, Roman, and Egyptian. Unlike today, religions emphasised ritual practices towards the gods rather the acceptance of correct beliefs. Life was precariousness 2000 years ago with common-place occurrences, like tooth absences, being death sentences and, so, protection of the gods was of prime importance.

Communities had to be particularly careful to appease the local city gods to ensure the city’s well-being. Regular public festivals were for precisely that purpose and everyone was expected to attend. Not doing so would be like Americans today refusing to take the pledge of allegiance. Ironically Christians were, in some respects, similar to followers of other eastern mystery religions: they typically believed in salvation through special knowledge and cultic practices Even though these mystery religions were of great fascination to Romans, the Christians were different. Their religious practices were exclusive and, more importantly, they would not participate in the public religious festivals. Local communities resented Christians and feared the consequences of insulting the city gods and, not surprisingly, most persecutions came from broader communities than from official actions.

Alex McCullie

Free download – letters of Pliny the Younger (Project Gutenberg)

(Letters below – I separated sentences for easier reading.)

XCVII

To the Emperor Trajan

It is my invariable rule, Sir, to refer to you in all matters where I feel doubtful; for who is more capable of removing my scruples, or informing my ignorance?

Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them.

Whether, therefore, any difference is usually made with respect to ages, or no distinction is to be observed between the young and the adult; whether repentance entitles them to a pardon; or if a man has been once a Christian, it avails nothing to desist from his error; whether the very profession of Christianity, unattended with any criminal act, or only the crimes themselves inherent in the profession are punishable; on all these points I am in great doubt.

In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished: for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction.

There were others also brought before me possessed with the same infatuation, but being Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to Rome. But this crime spreading (as is usually the case) while it was actually under prosecution, several instances of the same nature occurred.

An anonymous information was laid before me containing a charge against several persons, who upon examination denied they were Christians, or had ever been so.

They repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and incense before your statue (which for that purpose I had ordered to be brought, together with those of the gods), and even reviled the name of Christ: whereas there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances: I thought it proper, therefore, to discharge them.

Some among those who were accused by a witness in person at first confessed themselves Christians, but immediately after denied it; the rest owned indeed that they had been of that number formerly, but had now (some above three, others more, and a few above twenty years ago) renounced that error.

They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, uttering imprecations at the same time against the name of Christ.

They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal.

From this custom, however, they desisted after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I forbade the meeting of any assemblies. After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavor to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate’ in their religious rites: but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition.

I deemed it expedient, therefore, to adjourn all further proceedings, in order to consult you.

For it appears to be a matter highly deserving your consideration, more especially as great numbers must be involved in the danger of these prosecutions, which have already extended, and are still likely to extend, to persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes.

In fact, this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread its infection among the neighbouring villages and country. Nevertheless, it still seems possible to restrain its progress.

The temples, at least, which were once almost deserted, begin now to be frequented; and the sacred rites, after a long intermission, are again revived; while there is a general demand for the victims, which till lately found very few purchasers.

From all this it is easy to conjecture what numbers might be reclaimed if a general pardon were granted to those who shall repent of their error.

XCVIII

Trajan to Pliny

You have adopted the right course, my dearest Secundus, in investigating the charges against the Christians who were brought before you.

It is not possible to lay down any general rule for all such cases. Do not go out of your way to look for them.

If indeed they should be brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that where the party denies he is a Christian, and shall make it evident that he is not, by invoking our gods, let him (notwithstanding any former suspicion) be pardoned upon his repentance. Anonymous informations ought not to he received in any sort of prosecution.

It is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and is quite foreign to the spirit of our age.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Last week, we reported on Mayor R. Rex Parris of Lancaster, California declaring his a “Christian community“. The American Family Association wrote on the same story on their OneNewsNow site. Rather than any reference to the separation of church and state, they focused on how evil Muslims were “irked by ‘Christian’ comment“:

The Greater Los Angeles area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has denounced the comments. The chapter says it plans to file a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Justice Department. Executive director Hussam Ayloush says elected officials shouldn’t be using their public positions to impose their religious beliefs.

Naturally, the AFA folks had to run a poll. They asked, “What characteristic of the Christian faith is most beneficial to a community?”

Is it Forgiveness? Christians are commanded to forgive, and a forgiving spirit helps build community. Nah.

How about Repentance? It’s important for Christians to demonstrate that we are all disgusting sinners who should grovel before God as unworthy. Meh, not so much.

I know! I know! It’s Self-Control, right? Christians should be models of moderation, and show people how to avoid a hedonistic lifestyle.

5.57%? No self control here.

A whipping 72.89% said “Integrity/Honesty” was the most important thing Christians bring to a community.

Click thumbnail to see full-sized version.

Here are three news headlines demonstrating that honesty and integrity. All are culled from today’s christianheadlines.com, a news aggregator site.

Pastors Use Church to Commit Mortgage Scam:

Philadelphia pastor Jamaar Manlove, along with wife Rhonda and uncle Larry Manlove, used the Vision Builders Christian Fellowship as a front for a scam to steal home equity from desperate homeowners facing foreclosure.

. . . desperate homeowners would go to the Manloves’ church, after allegedly being told there was a buyer who would purchase their home and lease it back to them.

“They’re unable to buy it back, or get the financing to buy it back, and in the meantime, the perpetrator has stolen whatever equity remained in the house,” Biden said.

All three are wanted by the state, but have yet to be located.

Pastor sentenced jail time for embezzlement

Compton, California pastor Eugene Joshua Sims, former pastor of the Double Rock Baptist Church, was sentenced to one year in jail and five years of probation for embezzling $800,000 from the church . . . and restitution.

Prosecutors say Sims set up a private bank account and between March 1, 2000 and Sept. 30, 2008, he diverted $800,000 in church donations to his private bank account and threatened parishioners who questioned his finances.

Finally,

Woman accused of stealing $91,000 from church

Paulette Dumont volunteered to handle financial and administrative work for the Assumption Catholic Church of Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan. While there, Ms. Dumont helped herself to $91,000.

RCMP say a woman who did financial and administrative work for the Assumption Catholic Church has been arrested over the writing of unauthorized cheques.

Paulette Dumont, 64, is charged with fraud and theft over $5,000.

Police say the cheques were written between 2002 and 2004.

Related posts:

1. Christians to Gap: Promote Our Religion, or Else! Once again, the American Family Association demonstrates its Christmas Spirit...
2. Featured Video: Dominionist Loren Cunningham on How Christians Can “Take Back World Culture” Loren Cunningham, founder of Youth with a Mission (which owns...
3. Proselytizing in Haiti: Not Just for Christians Actor John Travolta and the Church of Scientology are apparently...

Play all videos (6)

I would love to live 500 years if I could be healthy for that long. Would you?

(via)

Jim would take those filled-out surveys and share them with the pastors of these churches, explaining what visitors liked and didn’t like about their visit.

I wasn’t the first person to do this for him, and with Jim’s new site, I won’t be anywhere near the last.

Jim has created a full-blown version of his brainchild, ChurchRater.

“We say it’s our mission to reach out, including to nonbelievers,” Henderson, 62, says. “So why would we not want them to tell us what they think of our efforts to influence, change or even convert them?”

One reason might be that it can be brutal.

His Web site is free and open to believers and doubters alike, to say whatever they want. You can post reviews and one- to five-star ratings of churches, much as Yelp or Urban Spoon rank restaurants.

A church in Everett got one star because someone found the pastor too self-absorbed.

“All his stories are centered around his perfect life,” it says, citing a “perfect blonde wife” and Hallmark kids. “And if we sign up for Jesus, we’ll be perfect, too. Uhhhh … is this really what Jesus told you to do?”

…

So far only 40 churches in Washington have been rated on the Web site, not enough for it to reach a critical mass. Henderson says 30 more have expressed interest in his paid ratings services, which can range from $250 (for two visits by raters plus a written report) on up to $2,950 (for a weekend-long focus group between “outsiders” and church members, moderated by him).

I wouldn’t be surprised if more churches subject themselves to “mystery worshipers” before long — they’re businesses and they want to do what they can to bring in new customers.

These churches could just hang on to the money if regular churchgoers had the guts to tell their pastors what they didn’t like about church — what they found offensive or untrue or disingenuous.

But they almost never do, so I guess it’s our job to tell the truth.

The driver, according to this report, parked without warning – then used a fluorescent jacket as an improvised prayer mat. He took off his shoes, knelt down facing Mecca, and began to chant.

The prayer session held up the bus for more than five minutes with no-one able to get on or off.

Mercifully, there were no randy animals on board the No 24 bus when the driver stopped to pray

Passenger Gayle Griffiths, 33, complained to Transport for London about the bizarre incident on the No 24 bus in Gospel Oak, north London. She had boarded the bus a few minutes earlier on her way home from work.

She said:

I have done the journey a million times before but I was in a hurry to get home to pick my little girl up from school. We had just picked up and let off people at a bus stop and moved off again when the driver stopped the bus very suddenly.

He got out of his cab, leaving the engine running, and walked towards the middle exit door. He laid out a fluorescent jacket on the floor and I thought that somebody must have been sick and he was covering it up. But then he took off his shoes and began praying. I was gobsmacked and quite bewildered.

Miss Griffiths said the bus driver didn’t give the passengers any explanation as to what he was doing. He hadn’t addressed the passengers at all. I didn’t say anything and nor did anyone else. I thought it would all be over in 30 seconds but it went on for over five minutes.

It even went through my mind that this might be some sort of terrorist attack with the bus blown up because I had heard that suicide bombers prayed before attacks.

Everyone was looking round in a mix of shock and amazement. It was truly bizarre, ludicrous and aggravating.We are delayed often enough as it is in London. We live in a multi-cultural society but there is a time and a place for prayer and the middle of a journey with a busload of passengers is not it.

Transport for London said it had apologised to all the passengers for the delay to their journey and said all Muslim drivers are being reminded that they should pray during statutory rest periods rather than hold up services.

A TfL spokesman said:

The bus company, London General, has had a word with the driver as this is not something that should be happening. TfL apologises to passengers for any inconvenience this may have caused them.

He added:

We understand that there is some flexibility in the Muslim faith as to the times of day that drivers can pray. TfL and the individual bus operating companies acknowledge and value the diversity of their staff.  As diverse employers, TfL and the bus operators provide suitable prayer or quiet rooms at garages and other key locations for staff who wish to practise their faith.

We have asked London General to remind drivers who have a requirement to pray to use these facilities during their rest periods.

In March, 2008, The Sun carried a story that London bus driver Arunas Raulynaitis, a Muslim, had turfed passengers of a bus in Slough so that he could pray, and said distressed passengers thought he might be a fanatic. An subsequent investigation by the bus company found that Raulynaitis had actually used his statutory rest break to engage in a conversation with Allah, and there was no question of him breaking any rules.

The Sun issued an apology.

Hat tip: BarrieJohn

We go through the god talk with every major sporting event, entertainment awards show, and even reality TV. The winners always think God wanted them to win and thank him for it. It’s normally laughable, if not a little annoying.

But Reggie Bush has got to be fucking kidding me.

He said that “God had a bigger plan than all of us, a plan that we couldn’t see three or four years ago.”

What was going on four years ago—can you recall? Think hard.

(No, not the overwhelming flood of evidence that Reggie Bush setting off an investiagion of his alma mater that continues today and with which he’s never cooperated by taking money against NCAA rules.)

It was a different overwhelming flood.

Maybe Bush’s fellow Christian and quarterback Drew Brees can jog our memories: “Four years ago, whoever thought this would be happening? Eighty-five percent of the city was under water.”

Oh, that’s right!

Hurricane Katrina had just destroyed New Orleans and killed almost two thousand people. Why? Because God had a plan for Reggie Bush to win the Super bowl, that’s why.

It turns out that God even sent him Jeremy Shockey to catch the game winning touchdown.

He’s got to be fucking kidding me.

Bush’s irrational and arrogant Christian idiocy is amazing, but so is the irrational and ignorant Christian idiocy that applauds it. That idiocy would be most of America.

Another Christian idiot agrees with Bush that Katrina was part of a divine plan, Pat Robertson. He says the divine plan was to destroy New Orleans because of its sin. Reggie says the divine plan was to destroy New Orleans so the Saints could win a Super Bowl.

Neither is more ridiculous. Neither is more arrogant. Both ought to offend any thinking person. But the outrage over Robertson’s arrogance is matched by effusions over Bush’s.

Why?

Because of how they made people feel.

Pat Robertson blamed God. Reggie Bush let God off the hook. Pat Robertson kicked people with God boots while they were down. Reggie Bush offered people God’s coattails to ride when they got up.

They’re both self-centered, arrogant Christian assholes, but Pat Robertson makes people feel like God is nasty and against them. Bush made people feel like God is sappy and for them.

People would prefer a sappy god that is for them. A fairy tale ending god that lends itself so well to sports. The Cultic American Culture’s god.

Gloating over death and tragedy as God’s work is contrary to the Cultic American Culture’s god. Gloating over victory made possible by God’s work (of death and tragedy) is congruent with the cultic god.

So the people of New Orleans are happy to think that God made up for destroying their city, demolishing their homes, and devastating their families by letting them win a football game. They have no problem with the lives of over eighteen hundred fellow citizens being the price of that divine plan.

Winning a football game makes them feel good now. It must be God’s work.

The rest of Americans are happy for the people of New Orleans because God let them win the football game.

Collectively Americans fail to consider that a plan beginning with Hurricane Katrina and ending with winning a football game is a pretty bad plan.

How did the citizens of New Orleans respond to God making up for Katrina by letting their team win a football game? Ironically, by doing what they’re best know for—by partying down, which is why Pat Robertson said God destroyed them in the first place.

Some parents ask their pediatricians to space out the vaccines. But that's a bad idea, says Marcuse. "When you space out the vaccines, you leave your infant susceptible to diseases you could otherwise have prevented, particularly in the first six to eight months of life," he says. Babies can get diseases such as whooping cough or meningitis, and these can be tough on them.

Babies are going to be exposed to bacteria and viruses in one way or another — either during an outright infection, or in the vaccines, says Saad Omer, a vaccine expert at Emory University.

In the vaccines, [Dr. Edgar Marcuse] says, babies are only seeing bits and pieces of the viruses or bacteria, and vaccines are much "cleaner" now than they used to be. "A lot of people say that the number of vaccines has gone up," he says. But, in reality, the number of antigens — the molecules in the viruses and bacteria that spark the immune response — hasn't gone up, it's gone down, he says.

Omer says parents need to remember that for every type of vaccination, the disease is a bigger challenge to the baby than the vaccine. That's easy to forget today, when few can remember what polio and whooping cough and even measles look like.

"After effective control of these diseases, there's a shift in the mental calculus of parents," Omer says. They stop worrying about the disease, and start worrying about the vaccine. But the measles vaccine causes brain damage in 1 in 1 million recipients. The disease itself, which used to hit the majority of kids, killed 1 in 500 people who got it, and caused brain damage in 1 in 1,000.

Jacobson and Grayling at the Natural History Museum

George Jellis isn’t too impressed by Creation, but has a few tips for the Natural History Museum as well.

Howard Jacobson is quoted as maintaining that “comedy is a very important part of what I do.”

So perhaps that was what he was attempting in his presentation in the first part of The Bible: a History. (The first episode, Creation, is still available online and the series continues on Channel 4.)

As he explains in his introduction on the C4 website: “The big question for me is how to believe, and not to believe, at the same time.” He concludes at the end of the film: “The concept that something can be both true and untrue is something that religious people seem better able to grasp than athiests.”

Plenty of scope for double entendre then, one would think.

Unfortunately he actually seems to have been taking these irrationalist theses seriously.

As he says in a related article in the Daily Mail, “We need, in my view, to jettison the idea of utter truth altogether.” And further: “We are complex beings, able to believe and not believe at the same time. We do it with a TV soap opera. We accept as truth what we know not to be true, and sometimes that which is not true affects us more profoundly.”

Jacobson began the programme with an outright attack on a straw-man version of atheism, and continued such quixotic attacks to such an extent that, in common with many other commentators, I found myself almost shouting at the television. He is “moved to fury” by the ‘New Atheists’, but despite being filmed looking at one chapter title of The God Delusion, doesn’t actually seem to have read the arguments in the rest of the book. In the Daily Mail article he even refers to “fire-and-brimstone atheists” who are “closed-minded in the name of science”.

Despite A. C. Grayling’s patient explanation to the contrary, Jacobson seems to think that atheists can have no appreciation of art, music or literature.

His main thesis was that New Atheists misunderstand the nature of religion, in particular the function of the Creation myth, which seems simply to be “to stir the imagination even of unbelievers like himself”.

The thing is, if he’s so keen to believe that everything can be true and not true at the same time, then surely Jacobson should be the first person to accept that, for some, the Creation myth simply isn’t very interesting or moving at all, when set against the wondrous works of natural history.

* * *

The interview with Grayling was conducted at the Natural History Museum in London which Jacobson described as “a temple to Charles Darwin”, kneeling reverently on the steps beneath the great naturalist’s statue. Having paid a visit to the museum myself in the last week, for a look around the new “Cocoon” structure, I have to agree with him that it has taken on the air of a Darwinian Temple.

The statue of the man who engaged the architect and planned the building, Richard Owen, I found is now relegated to a dark corner up the stairs to the left of Darwin. The fact that he is sculpted in devilish black marble and bears a resemblance to Olivier’s version of Richard III, whereas Darwin is enthroned like a bearded sage in saintly white marble adds to the impression. OK, maybe Owen was wrong about evolution, and a bit of a sly politician, but he did get the work done by founding this magnificent building. In my view he should be reinstated in a more prominent position. The obvious place would be in the Central Hall, guiding people to the Dinosaur exhibition, which is still the most entertaining and best presented part of the museum.

He could perhaps be matched on the other side of the hall, at the entrance to the Ecology exhibition, by the statue of Joseph Banks, which is currently to be found in another dark corner up on the second floor.

My visit to the Cocoon I have to say was a disappointment. This may have been in part because no adequate explanation was given about how to operate the exhibit screens. No doubt children are taught such elementary things at school now, and pensioners like me are expected to keep up to date, but I’m finding it going too fast for me. For instance, I tried pressing the Help symbols on the touch screens and nothing ever happened.

The only access and exits from the Cocoon appear to be by lift, which is worrying to someone claustrophobic like me, and most of it consists of a single rather featureless spiral corridor.

Surely it should have been in a double helix design! Anyway, I enjoyed the Dinosaurs once again!

George Jelliss is the secretary of Hastings Humanists and has an interest in history of ideas.

Although I was brought up in a religion, I've discovered that there is a large difference between those who were seriously immersed in a faith, like this fellow, and people who just got a fairly brief and not very deep exposure, like myself. I was rather easily disabused of religion — when I first was taught the tenets of the faith, my reaction was more like, "You believe what? And you expect me to believe it too? That's batty!" I didn't need the careful dissection of belief, because what jumped out to me was the raging absurdity of original sin, virgin births, gods manifesting as men, etc., etc., etc.

Such was my confidence at this time, that I was tempted to revert to the original purpose of the Blog, and advertise the latest bulletin of the British Humanist Association. The BHA represents what is probably, the largest body of people in the world, those who are Atheists or non-believers of every sort. People would be most likely to seek the services of a trained BHA official on the hasppy occasion of a wedding or the less happy occasion of a funeral, and it is interesting to note that at least 3 courses to train such officials, are now underway.

Another issue on my mind has been that of church schools, the majority of which are operated privately and outside the control of the Local authority, which still has to pay the bills even though they have no control over the syllabus or the ethos of the school.

Hopefully I’m not being too morbid when I say that another issue on my mind lately has been that of assisted suicide. The recent case of the mother of a girl who was bed-ridden for 17 years and who had clearly expressed a wish to end her life, being charged with attempted murder, only highlights how much clarification and ammendment is still needed to the law in this country.

http://gbpeopleslibrary.co.uk/blog/?p=2022

The BHA does indeed support a network of celebrants offering Humanist Ceremonies, campaigns on ‘faith’ schools and religion in schools in general, and also on legalising assisted dying for the terminally ill.

These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: 2 Samuel 23:8a

These also are the chief of the mighty men whom David had ... to make him king, according to the word of the LORD concerning Israel. And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had: 1 Chronicles 11:10-11a

1. The The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time. 2 Samuel 23:8

   Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time. 1 Chronicles 11:11b

   The two accounts disagree on who was the chief of the captains and how may he killed with his spear at one time. Was it Adino or Jashobeam, 300 or 800? Maybe it was two different captains in two different slaughters. I'll let the believers sort it out.

   But I'm not giving God credit for this one (or these ones), since neither account says that God participated in any way (besides cheering on the sidelines, of course).

2. Eleazar the son of Dodo ... smote the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand clave unto the sword: and the LORD wrought a great victory that day. 2 Samuel 23:9-10

   Eleazar the son of Dodo ... one of the three mighties ... slew the Philistines; and the LORD saved them by a great deliverance. 1 Chronicles 11:12-14

   But what about this one? The son of Dodo smote Philistines until his hand stuck to his sword, "and the LORD wrought a great victory that day." So God was involved somehow. Did he provide the glue that stuck the son of Dodo's hand to the sword? We may never know for sure.

3. Shammah the son of Agee ... slew the Philistines: and the LORD wrought a great victory. 2 Samuel 23:12

   Shammah isn't mentioned in the 1 Chronicles account, but according to 2 Samuel, God was involved since "the Lord wrought a great victory." I'd like a bit more detail, though, before convicting him.

4. Abishai ... lifted up his spear against three hundred, and slew them. 2 Samuel 23:18

   Abishai the brother of Joab, he was chief of the three: for lifting up his spear against three hundred, he slew them. 1 Chronicles 11:20

   Abishai killed 300 Philistines with his spear, but there's no mention of God, so I'll leave him out of it.

5. Benaiah the son of Jehoiada ... slew two lionlike men of Moab: he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow. And he slew an Egyptian, a goodly man: and the Egyptian had a spear in his hand. 2 Samuel 23:20-21

   Benaiah the son of Jehoiada ... slew two lionlike men of Moab: also he went down and slew a lion in a pit in a snowy day. And he slew an Egyptian, a man of great stature, five cubits high; and in the Egyptian's hand was a spear like a weaver's beam; and he went down to him with a staff, and plucked the spear out of the Egyptian's hand, and slew him with his own spear. 1 Chronicles 11:22-23

   This one is my favorite. Jehoiada killed two lion-like men and then a lion in a snowy pit. After that he killed a good-looking, 7.5 foot tall Egyptian with the Egyptian's spear.

   But he may have done these wonderful deeds on his own, without any help from God (though God certainly approved), so I'll leave it off his list.

So only 2 and 3 seem to be candidates for God's killings, since they say, "the Lord wrought a great victory." But that seems too vague to me, so I'll leave them off God's list.

After I finish going through all of God's killings, I'll put together a list of the God-approved killings in the Bible. That's going to be a long list!

Sikhs should be allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers – known as Kirpans – to school and other public places, Britain’s first Asian judge has said.

There have been a number of cases of Sikhs being refused entry to venues because they wear the Kirpan or other religious artefacts.

Sir Mota Singh QC, who is retired, has criticised schools over the issue.

“Not allowing someone who is baptised to wear a Kirpan is not right,” Sir Mota told BBC Asian Network.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8500712.stm

My non-scientist friends are beginning to ask me “What’s gone wrong with science?” Revelations about melting glaciers and potentially dodgy emails about global warming, the resurfacing of Andrew Wakefield and the MMR scare, and the sacking of the Government’s drugs adviser, have created the impression for some people that science is in a mess.

Of course science isn’t in a mess, nor has anything changed. But the stories underline two important features of scientists and science. First, scientists, just like every other trade — bus drivers, lawyers and bricklayers — are a mix. Most are pretty average, a few are geniuses, some are a bit thick, and some dishonest.

Second, science itself is often misunderstood. Scientists tend to be portrayed as voices of authority who are able to reveal truths about arcane problems, be it the nature of quarks or the molecular basis of ageing. In fact, science is almost the opposite of this. InThe Trouble With Physics, physicist Lee Smolin considers how to describe science and concludes that Nobel Prize winner Richard Feyman’s phrase says it best: “Science is the organised scepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7018438.ece

It doesn’t ask that they become atheists — he has a different goal in mind:

I love the video. My worry, though, is that many young Christians will say they have no problem with expressing doubt.

They question plenty of things:

Evolution.

Sex education.

And, yes, in some cases, certain things their religious leaders say.

But they have no doubts whatsoever about things like the resurrection of Jesus, or the existence of an afterlife, or that a god listens to their prayers. They won’t bother ever questioning those beliefs, and nothing that others say will get them to reconsider.

(Thanks to Ashley for the link)

I'm going back to teaching in the fall. Will this be considered a reasonable educational technique? I'm thinking of putting a rack in the lecture hall and carrying around some thumbscrews just to help my students learn better.

Ask Me Anything

But now some are questioning his luxurious lifestyle:

One former staff member who says he was close to Young but wishes not to be identified, described it this way: “The lack of accountability. The lavish lifestyle that keeps increasing, while the attendance keeps decreasing.” [...]

And, like good ‘ol Benny Hinn, he has a private jet:

Young recently replaced his chief financial officer and replaced him with his personal attorney, business partner and fishing buddy, Dennis Brewer Jr.

With Brewer’s help and a complex series of business creations and transactions, Young is now jetting around the country in a French-made Falcon 50 private jet; estimated value, $8.4 million. [...]

Those who hear him preach every Sunday have never been told about the aircraft.

“The staff members are told that there is no plane, and several staff members who have actually been on the plane have denied that there is a plane,” said the former employee source.

He also makes some serious cash:

News 8 has also learned that Young’s 10,000 square foot, $1.5 million estate on Lake Grapevine is not listed on the tax rolls in his name, but rather in the name of “Palometa Revocable Trust.”

Records show that Young was paid $240,000 a year as a parsonage allowance; that’s in addition what sources say is a $1 million yearly pastor’s salary.

And on top of that, he has been creating numerous for-profit businesses based on the non-profit church:

In the past few years, Young and his attorney, Dennis Brewer Jr., have created a number of for-profit companies generating money apart from Fellowship Church, including: Creative Pastors, CreativePastors.com, Creality Enterprises, Creality Publishing, EY Publishing, Ed Young Resources and UOI Resources.

All the businesses list the fifth floor of Dennis Brewer’s law office in Las Colinas as their office address.

But the resources used to generate the profits come, in part, from the not-for-profit Fellowship Church. For example, Ed’s favorite sermons that were delivered at the church.

Young might not be breaking any laws, but as the article says, “perhaps he is violating the covenant of honesty with his congregation.”

I think this stems from the confusion that some fundamentalist Christians have between atheism and secularism. Since scientific theories do not address the metaphysical beliefs in deities, many fundamentalist Christians see these secular theories as atheist theories. While it is true that most (if not all) atheists accept the secular scientific worldview called “reality” that does not make the scientific worldview an atheist worldview.

By framing science as atheism, these fundamentalist Christians can take the objectivity out of science and metaphorically write off any scientific theory or fact that they don’t like as being atheist propaganda.

The fundamentalist Christian/Creationist worldview is defined by their religious beliefs. As such, they mistakenly think that science is defined by a belief that God does not exist. The fact is that science is open to the possibility of a deity, but has not seen any evidence for such a proposition. Science deals only with the natural world (the only world we know) and not the Christian metaphysical or supernatural world. This doesn’t seem to register with these fundamentalists.

Recently, I had a conversation with a graduate from Liberty University. When I talked about how they have an obvious bias, he told me that he had also studied at atheist universities. There are atheist universities? His view was that if a University didn’t have an obvious fundamentalist Christian bias, then by default, it must have an obvious atheist bias. Atheism is the alternative worldview in his mind.

Interestingly enough, these fundamentalists rarely even consider that there are other religions out there or even other perspectives on their religion. In their minds, people either have a fundamentalist Christian worldview or the alternative atheist worldview. There are no other possible worldviews.

A Statement from Jenny McCarthy & Jim Carrey: Andrew Wakefield, Scientific Censorship, and Fourteen Monkeys

Jim Carrey Los Angeles, February 5, 2010

Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers and public health officials.

It is our most sincere belief that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers reporting on the retraction of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues.

The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England’s General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers served as judge and jury.

Dr. Wakefield strenuously denies all the findings of the GMC and plans a vigorous appeal.

Despite rampant misreporting, Dr. Wakefield’s original paper regarding 12 children with severe bowel disease and autism never rendered any judgment whatsoever on whether or not vaccines cause autism, and The Lancet’s retraction gets us no closer to understanding this complex issue.

Dr. Wakefield is one of the world’s most respected and well-published gastroenterologists.

He has published dozens of papers since 1998 in well-regarded peer-reviewed journals all over the world.

His work documenting the bowel disease of children with autism and his exploration of novel ways to treat bowel disease has helped relieve the pain and suffering of thousands of children with autism.

For the past decade, parents in our community have been clamoring for a relatively simple scientific study that could settle the debate over the possible role of vaccines in the autism epidemic once and for all: compare children who have been vaccinated with children who have never received any vaccines and see if the rate of autism is different or the same.

Few people are aware that this extremely important work has not only begun, but that a study using an animal model has already been completed exploring this topic in great detail.

Dr. Wakefield is the co-author, along with eight other distinguished scientists from institutions like the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Kentucky, and the University of Washington, of a set of studies that explore the topic of vaccinated versus unvaccinated neurological outcomes using monkeys.

The first phase of this monkey study was published three months ago in the prestigious medical journal Neurotoxicology, and focused on the first two weeks of life when the vaccinated monkeys received a single vaccine for Hepatitis B, mimicking the U.S. vaccine schedule. The results, which you can read for yourself HERE, were disturbing. Vaccinated monkeys, unlike their unvaccinated peers, suffered the loss of many reflexes that are critical for survival.

Dr. Wakefield and his scientific colleagues are on the brink of publishing their entire study, which followed the monkeys through the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule over a multi-year period. It is our understanding that the difference in outcome for the vaccinated monkeys versus the unvaccinated controls is both stark and devastating.

Prior to 2005, CS [Carol Scott] and AJW [Andrew J. Wakefield] acted as paid experts in MMR-related litigation on behalf of the court retained by the plaintiff Lawyers. [Lead researcher Laura Hewitson] LH has a child who is a petitioner in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. For this reason, LH was not involved in any data collection or analyses to preclude the possibility of a perceived conflict of interest.

There is no question that the publication of the monkey study will lend substantial credibility to the theory that over-vaccination of young children is leading to neurological damage, including autism.

The fallout from the study for vaccine makers and public health officials could be severe. Having denied the possibility of the vaccine-autism connection for so long while profiting immensely from a recent boom in vaccine sales around the world, it’s no surprise that they would seek to repress this important work.

Behind the scenes, the pressure to keep the work of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues from being published is immense, and growing every day. Medical journals take extreme risk of backlash in publishing any studies that question the safety of the vaccination program, no matter how well-designed and thorough the research might be. Neurotoxicology, a highly-respected medical journal, deserves great credit for courageously publishing the first phase of this vaccinated monkey study.

The press has been deeply misled in the way The Lancet retraction, and Dr. Wakefield’s mock trial, have been characterized.

Led by the pharmaceutical companies and their well-compensated spokespeople, Dr. Wakefield is being vilified through a well-orchestrated smear campaign designed to prevent this important new work from seeing the light of day.

What medical journal would want to step in front of this freight train? Moreover, why now, after 12 years of inaction, did The Lancet and GMC suddenly act?

Is it coincidence that the monkey study is currently being submitted to medical journals for review and publication?

We urge the media to take a close look at the first phase of the monkey study discussed above and to start asking a very simple question: What was the final outcome of the 14 primates that were vaccinated using the U.S. vaccine schedule and how did that compare to the unvaccinated controls?

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration.

Unfortunately, it's downhill from there. He does demonstrate nicely that many liberals do categorize many conservatives as idiots, but he doesn't seem capable of addressing the question of why they think that. It's mostly a lot of waa-waa about the tone and how this attitude is an obstacle to politics.

He doesn't consider the obvious explanation that many conservatives are amazing idiots pursuing idiotic policies.

Seriously. Sarah Palin. Conservatives defending Palin's stupidities. Republican candidates for the presidency who are certain that the earth is only 6000 years old. A Republican party dominated by the religious right.

Years ago, I would have considered Alexander to have a good point: that on some policies, such as economics, conservatives had something to contribute. But then they elected Reagan and Bush and the crowd of clowns in congress, and any claim to being a serious political party went out the window. They are the silly party now, and where they do the most damage is when pompous wankers demand that we treat them seriously simply because they are the conservative party we've got. No, we shouldn't: we should laugh them out of office until they come up with candidates who aren't stupid shills.

So I'm divided on the poll accompanying the article.

Who is more condescending?

They're both impossible 12%
Conservatives 22%
Liberals 66%

It's really just an attempt to tar liberals with another insult — ironic for an article that is so condescendingly disparaging liberal tone — but it's also true. We are more condescending. Because most conservatives are so deserving of condescension.

Dr Michael Mann, Penn State University

I have read the full report of this inquiry Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann and find the whole business interesting. Here are my reasons – quotes are from the report:

1: No specific charges for Mann to confront

Instead the University had received:

“numerous communications (emails, phone calls and letters) accusing Dr. Michael E. Mann of having engaged in acts that included manipulating data, destroying records and colluding to hamper the progress of scientific discourse around the issue of anthropogenic global warming from approximately 1998. These accusations were based on perceptions of the content of the widely reported theft of emails from a server at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain.”

So, all sorts of wild claims were being made as part of the hysterical fall out from “climategate” – the illegal release of emails in the UK. This was promoted by conservative bloggers and media outlets, by the deniersphere’s echo chamber.

“….. no formal allegations accusing Dr. Mann of research misconduct were submitted to any University official …the emails and other communications were reviewed [and] synthesized [into] the following four formal allegations.  …. The four synthesized allegations were as follows:”

1. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

2. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?
3. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?
4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community.

So – no formal charges or accusations. This forced the inquiry to synthesis their own from implied accusations from the deluge of hysterical emails and comments. They were not accusations of the inquiry or the University themselves!

2: No evidence to substantiate allegations

None at all. Not for any of the four allegations! The report discusses each accusation and detail and gives it’s clear finding that “there is no substance for this allegation.”

Naturally Dr Mann expressed pleasure at the result:

“I am very pleased that, after a thorough review, the independent Penn State committee found no evidence to support any of the allegations against me.  …. This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong.”

This does sort of expose the hysterical “climategate” beat up for what it was, doesn’t it. We can seriously discuss deficiencies in the way scientists at the University of East Anglia handled freedom of information requests, how they should be disciplined for this, etc.,  because there are specific charges and evidence. But the witch hunt against individuals like Dr Mann is exposed as hysterical hot air.

3: Further investigation by peers required

This was jumped on by some of the most biased commenters to claim a denier victory. Locally, conspiracy theorist Ian Wishart, claimed the inquiry was “widening “(Hockey-stick’s Michael Mann under deeper investigation). Blogger Poneke claimed Hockey stick fabricator Michael Mann to face further scrutiny in the wake of Climategate emails leak. Similar headlines appeared overseas and in the twittersphere.

However, this was simply a result of the inquiry committee finding itself unable to make a definitive finding on accusation 4 (deviation from accepted practices within the academic community for research). The decided this requited a “review by a committee of faculty scientists.” Clearly they saw that anything short of this would be seen as a whitewash saying: “Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter.”

Consequently an investigatory committee of five faculty members “with impeccable credentials” was set up and will report back within 120 days.

This will of course add extra reliability to Mann’s vindication. He commented “I fully support the additional inquiry which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts. I intend to cooperate fully in this matter – as I have since the beginning of the process.“

You can find the full report of the inquiry panel here: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann

See also:
Climate change deniers’ tawdry manipulation of “hockey sticks”
Breaking: Penn State inquiry finds no evidence for allegations against Michael Mann
Brendan Demelle | Climate Skeptics Try To Spin Penn State Exoneration of Dr. Michael Mann Into “Whitewash”.
Michael Mann updates the world on the latest climate science and responds to the illegally hacked emails
Sorry deniers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger: Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years
Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds
Abandoning all journalistic standards, CBS libels Michael Mann based on a YouTube video — while reporting his exoneration!

Permalink

Similar articles

Related articles by Zemanta

• ‘Climategate’ inquiry shows scientist didn’t falsify data (nationalpost.com)

Here's what gets me the most, though. She didn't have a cheat sheet of wonky little details, stuff that would be hard to keep straight and important to get exactly right. No, she had to write down the three most important goals for a conservative majority. What, she's shaky on that?

Energy
Budget cuts
Tax
Lift Americans
Spirits

Man, next time I go off to give a talk, I'm going to get a sharpie and write "Science. Evolution. Anti-creationism." on my left hand, in case I get asked what I'm going to talk about. 'Cause I might forget, you know.

And then I'm going to ask for a few thousand dollars. And the presidency. All right, I'm not going to be greedy — the vice-presidency will do.

And you guys have stuffed another everlasting thread entry with comments! Let's start again.

This is a nice video that just keeps chugging along and also gives a glimpse of what it looks like out here in Minnesota right now. Except that I really, really wish I could get on a wonderfully civilized train and set off for home, instead of the barbarity of driving a car.

Brother Richard

After my talk, this one furtive fellow who hadn't had the nerve, apparently, to ask me anything in the public Q&A, came down front to confront me with his, errm, 'irrefutable' argument, which came straight from Answers in Genesis. I later learned that he's one of the leaders of a creationist organization on campus.

He first declared that creationists and evolutionists all use the same evidence, we just differ in our presuppositions. AiG makes this claim all the time, and it's complete nonsense. The creationists deny almost all of the evidence, using their catch-all excuse: if it contradicts the Bible, it is false. It's not just a difference in starting premises, but a willingness on the part of the faith-based crowd to stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LA-LA-LA" at the majority of the reality-based evidence.

The only way to call it merely a difference in presuppositions is if they're willing to admit that their fundamental presupposition is an unthinking obtusity.

That was just his prelude, though. His real goal was to try and trap me. He asked me if I admitted that the scientific position demands that we reject all alternative explanations — whether we can consider supernatural causes. I've thought about this before, and I told him no. I am willing to consider other possibilities, if someone provides a useful, testable, confirmable means for evaluating truth claims.

Then I asked him what alternative method to science he was suggesting.

He didn't give me one — he simply announced with a grin that he was just confirming that I automatically rejected alternative explanations, and as I repeated my simple statement, that no, I did not, but that he was obligated to explain what his alternative might be — after all, I reject tarot cards and entrails-reading as methods for interpreting the world, and it's a bit silly to pretend that I should have blanket acceptance of just any alternative method without telling me what it is — he thanked me for confirming his opinion and the sneaky little git scuttled away.

That's what I detest most. Lying weasels who won't listen honestly, and especially won't even speak honestly.

Anyway, what brought up this recollection was an interesting post on Sandwalk on methodological naturalism. It nicely points out that there is a convention in the scientific community that treats methodological naturalism as a straitjacket that arbitrarily binds us. I don't think that's true at all.

The principle of MN is often conceived of as an intrinsic and self-imposed limitation of science, as something that is part and parcel of the scientific enterprise by definition. According to this view (Intrinsic MN or IMN) - which is defended by people like Eugenie Scott, Michael Ruse and Robert Pennock and has been adopted in the ruling of Judge John E. Jones III in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case - science is simply not equipped to deal with the supernatural and therefore has no authority on the issue. It is clear that this depiction of science and MN offers some perspectives for reconciling science and religion. Not surprisingly, IMN is often embraced by those sympathetic to religion, or by those who wish to alleviate the sometimes heated opposition between the two.

However, we will argue that this view of MN does not offer a sound rationale for the rejection of supernatural explanations. Alternatively, we will defend MN as a provisory and empirically grounded commitment of scientists to naturalistic causes and explanations, which is in principle revocable by future scientific findings (Qualified MN or QMN). In this view, MN is justified as a methodological guideline by virtue of the dividends of naturalistic explanation and the consistent failure of supernatural explanations in the history of science.

I think science is primarily a pragmatic approach that takes whatever tools work to build a better (as evaluated by testing against real-world observations) understanding of how the universe works. My major objection to creationism isn't that it violates a set of dogmatic rules established by scientists playing a formal game, but that it provides no working alternative that I can use. The creationists mistake a series of assertions about history for a bank of operational methods for creating and answering new questions about the world.

Exclusion isn't quite the right word for what we're doing. Science's job is to fill up the silos of the world with the grain of useful information, and we've found that applying the principles of the scientific method and operating under the guidelines of methodological naturalism means we're productive: we can keep trundling up with wagonloads of corn and wheat and rice. The creationists are showing up with broken-down, essentially empty carts, containing nothing but chaff, a few dirt clods, and some fragrant manure, and they're being turned away because they have nothing to contribute. You're not being excluded if you have nothing to offer.

I imagine that Belfast creationist went back to his clique of ignorant pissants with a sense of triumph, and proudly announced that I had dogmaticly refused to include his offering of hot air and dust as nutritious and fit for a feast, and therefore was yet another tool of the establishment who unfairly discriminated against their way of knowing. Sorry, guy; a wealth of ignorance is no substitute for even a grain of knowledge.

Oh, cool: somebody standing there actually recorded the conversation in question.

You can also watch sailfish fishing.

(via National Geographic)

19 kids…? My eyes wanted to bulge at the sight of that number, but they stopped doing that when the number hit double digits.

It’s just not a surprise anymore.

The question on the cover is “How Many Kids Are Too Many?” (Really, People magazine, it took you 19 kids to ask this question???)

It’s really easy to bash the Duggars for their reproductive fortitude. I know I’ve done it in the past — just because you can have so many children doesn’t mean you should have so many children — but I’m starting to change my mind.

I’ve heard people go after the Duggars for a number of reasons:

• They have too many kids.
• It’s unhealthy for the mom.
• It’s bad for the individual children.
• The media glare (from their TV show) is bad for the little kids.
• The overpopulation aspect — If other families did what they did, this world would go haywire in a matter of generations. It’s irresponsible of them to have so many children!
• They instill (brainwash) fundamentalist Christian values into the children.
• The children are forced to give up their own youth to care for their younger siblings. (Though none seem to mind.)
• They’re ruining the letter J for the rest of us.
• If my math is correct, in a few generations, all of us will have a Duggar in our family.

But the Duggars are not like the Octomom, who is trying to raise 14 children as a single mom while unemployed and on public assistance. They’re not desperately trying to hog the spotlight. (Really. I mean that. Despite their level of publicity, the Duggars don’t strike me as media-whores in the same way that Jon and Kate do.) The family’s health also seems to be pretty good overall (the most recent child was born premature, but I don’t think the age of the mother or the number of previous births has anything to do with that.)

There are some arguments to silence the critics:

• They’re not in debt. (No doubt their TV show helps with that.)
• As far as I can tell, they’re supporting themselves. (Jim Bob Duggar was a state representative in Arkansas for a couple years, and I’ve heard this entitles his family to free health care for life, but I can’t find a credible citation for this. Their house is paid for, too, partly because it was previously incorporated as a tax-exempt “church” — again, I can’t find a credible citation for this.)
• The kids seem to be good citizens, not getting into any trouble with the law.
• The parents seem to care for the children as much as you would want any parent to — it would be easy to find examples of one-child parents who don’t have the connection to their kid as much as the Duggars do to each of theirs.
• The Duggars are in a committed relationship (unlike this dude with 19 kids).
• While some Quiverfull women have left the movement, Michelle Duggar appears willing and able to be giving birth to so many kids.

…

So what’s the problem?

I doubt anyone would ever want our government instituting some law about how many kids a family should be allowed to have.

We argue that women should have the right to do as she wishes with their bodies… and this is a woman doing just that.

The best argument I’ve heard has to do with the older children having to give up their lives to take care of the younger children, but this doesn’t strike me as too awful. The kids are happy to be helping out their family in this way.

You can argue they’re giving up their individuality, or giving up a social life, but even with a couple kids, this isn’t too far off from what “regular” Christian homeschooling families do. Don’t like it? That’s an argument against Christian homeschooling, not this particular family.

Don’t like that they’re raising the kids with their particular brand of religion? That’s an argument against fundamentalist Christianity, not this particular family.

Is Michelle just brainwashed into doing all this? Again, it’s an argument against faith, not specific to just this family.

Maybe we should just salute the Duggars for (ironically) winning the game of evolution…

…

Incidentally, my interview with Kathryn Joyce, author of Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement, can be found here. It describes the type of lifestyle the Duggars have chosen to follow.

Overcoming personal bias can be one of the most difficult tasks in searching for the truth. The particular experiences and influences in our lives are – to a large degree – out of our control and yet they play a huge role in shaping our beliefs. And it’s not as though we can reboot our lives, remove the biasing agent, and see what we end up believing (we would also have to do it a few hundred times so we can get a decent confidence interval).

A first step is acknowledging our biasing factors, but how do we wrap our minds around it?  Alicorn at Less Wrong gives a great example:

During one of my epistemology classes, my professor admitted (I can’t recall the context) that his opinions on the topic would probably be different had he attended a different graduate school.

What a peculiar thing for an epistemologist to admit!

Of course, on the one hand, he’s almost certainly right. Schools have their cultures, their traditional views, their favorite literature providers, their set of available teachers…
<snip>
But on the other hand… but… but…

But how can he say that, and look so undubiously at the views he picked up this way?

It’s an uncomfortable position.  Now, for all I know, the professor was discussing preferences and not an objective truth claim. I don’t have as big of a problem with the notion that, had I been raised in the South, I would find grits more delicious than waffles (how absurd!). It’s more of a problem when we acknowledge that personal factors are affecting our so-called universal claims of objective truth.

As usual, my mind took the question to religion.  Most people continue to believe the religion they were taught as a child. As it happens, I was raised in a secular household without much discussion of God and grew up to be an atheist. But let’s revisit the scenario in which I was raised in the South (eating foul grits). If I had been raised by Evangelical Christians would I still be an atheist today? It’s conceivable that I would be a Christian apologist, writing philosophical papers for God’s existence and arguing on blogs. That image troubles me – and not just because it’s at odds with what I think right now. I want to be confident that my beliefs are an accurate reflection of reality, not the result of where I was born. The counter factual makes me wonder.

It’s difficult not to sound hypocritical. I believe that, by coincidence, I was raised by parents who were correct. But I’ve heard religious people of all faiths say similar things. What can we do to cut through the biasing influence of our upbringing? How can I be confident that, unlike them, I really WAS coincidentally born into a household which was correct? Obviously, this question applies to everyone, not just me and not just atheists.

All I can see to do is foster critical thinking skills – the conscious effort to overcome bias. I’m trying my best to keep an open mind, give other views a fair hearing, and pursue the truth. So far, as I’ve done that, I’ve found the evidence for the existence of gods to be pathetically flimsy.  I know I can never fully free myself of bias, but at least I’m doing what I can.  It’s my impression that as people learn critical thinking skills, they’re more likely to become atheists. That certainly boosts my confidence.

I know many of you had religious influences growing up and would have a completely different perspective on the issue. I would love your take.

Podcasting has definitely gone mainstream(evidence: even my 60 odd year old parents have an understanding of what podcasting is).  Now while the technology required has become relatively cheap and ease of use means that you don’t need to have years of experience to adequately write record and produce, there is also no barrier to filter out poor quality (evidence:  I did a series of 4 really bad podcasts years 2-3 ago).

Thankfully the podcasters mentioned in this post are quality.

So why solo podcasts?

Because I think that these guys and gal deserve a bit of recognition for the work they do in producing, writing and researching their shows.  Doing everything yourself is really hard, time consuming and draining- part of the reason why I stopped doing it.

Have I missed anyone?

Probably, these solo podcasts are collected from my own listening experience and from questioning my twitter followers.  Additionally there are only so many hours in the day, only so much I can download and listen to.

I am also dreadfully aware that this list is skewed to Australian and American English speaking podcasts.

So without further ado here’s my top 5

Point of Inquiry – This is the old DJ Grothe produced version.  The production is excellent, the calibre of guests is well above par and it true to the spirit of open inquiry or at least it was under DJ.  How it fares in the future remains to be seen(or heard?).  With the backing of the CFI this almost makes me want to take it out of the category as its competitors do great work with far less support.  There are however only so many categories I can break things down into.

Token Skeptic – The brainchild of Kylie Sturgess, this podcast is relatively new (and not with out technical issues with host libsyn).  That being said it is one of the most densely packed productions.  Densely packed with excellently researched material (so much so that I often listen to it twice).  It’s like a short little jab of skeptical goodness that pops you on the chin and makes you listen.

Skeptoid- Brain Dunning’s ever so delightful weekly dose of critical thinking.  I really appreciate the diversity of topics that Brian seems to cover.  If you took out the organisational backing of CFI and JREF backed DJ Grothe casts I’d say that Brian’s would be the top solo podcast.

Geologic Podcast To tell you the truth it was between Geo and Amateur scientist for this spot.  They are both off beat looks at skeptical topics.  But its Geo’s musical talent that wins me over.  That and he survived lying on a bed of minties.

For Good Reason – Another DJ Grothe production that has the same quality as POI.  It’s only two episodes thus far but I swear it’s like DJ didn’t skip a beat or change his stride in moving from POI to the JREF.  Baring the Apocalypse in 2012 I see this becoming another tour de force in skeptical podcasting.

Want to cast your own vote?

Please cast your vote in the poll below or in the sidebar.  Note also that you can cast two votes.

This post forms part of the 31 Days to a Better Blog workbook exercises. Click here to view more details

Related posts:

1. A skeptical look at UFO’s
2. Podcast Review – The Token Skeptic
3. Psuedo Scientists Episode 2

I think there is an incredibly common narrative of “horrible travel.” Anyone who experiences delays and cancellations and whatnot can easily relate the story with drama and flair, as if it was the “worst thing” that could ever happen to you. I want to make it clear that my intention in writing about my travel adventures today is not to evoke pity or rouse tempers. I just think it’s all kind of interesting. This post is just about my weird travel experiences, and hopefully you’ll find my stories and analysis as interesting as I do.

First, I have to say that I think it’s really unfortunate that I’m stuck in DC, while many of my colleagues who call DC home are stuck in Dallas. It’s just bizarre that I had a flight through DC that wasn’t canceled—and not only did it get here, but it had empty seats on it—but my friends and colleagues who would have been satisfied to get no further than DC didn’t make it here. There’s nothing to be said about why it happened, but it seems worth noting. I certainly can’t complain that I only got to DC when some folks might not get out of Dallas until Tuesday.

A colleague of mine had the same DC connection to his home destination. We both had seen that it was still on-schedule despite knowing many of our fellow Creating Change participants had had their DC flights canceled. We decided to go to the airport early in hopes of seeing if there were alternate connections that could still get us to our home destinations. When we got there, we were both told that even our connecting flights were still good to go, and more importantly, we weren’t really given the choice to rebook. If it’s going, it’s going, and that’s just how the airline works.

I could be really pissed about this. After all, our intuitions turned out to be correct, as we would learn upon landing at Dulles that both our connecting flights were canceled. When the airline knows that a ton of DC flights have been canceled, why wouldn’t they air on the side of caution? Maybe they want to keep our business, but also, why wouldn’t they? It’s easy to complain that in the “Age of Information” we should be able to know for sure the status of flights. Surely, though, if we didn’t trust air-traffic controllers to make that call, air travel would be more frustrating and complicated than it currently is.

The pilot informed us that we would be one of the first flights to land at Dulles and that they only had one runway open. At first, I kind of felt special. We were the lucky flight that got to land. But runways are necessary for both landings and take-offs, so it didn’t bode well for the amount of flights that were probably still going in and out of Dulles.

I wondered if the fact that there were at least three military personnel on our flight contributed to its privilege to land in DC. I’ll never know the answer, but I think it’s a worthwhile hypothesis. (I saw another servicemember in the hotel tonight, and he said he’s bound for Iraq for his 7th tour of duty, so I wonder if multiple new deployments are taking place.)

Truly, the quality of the tarmac at Dulles was of concern. Our runway landing was fine, but our taxiing was quite rough. The tarmac was clearly coated with padded snow and ice and it was the most unusual taxi I ever experienced.

It didn’t take long to get a standby flight for tomorrow morning, but I had to wait in a very long and slow line to make sure my bag was retrieved and to get a voucher for a hotel discount. The folks in the line were not happy. Many were by themselves and so didn’t have a companion with whom to socialize (myself included, as my colleague’s situation was not as optimistic and he is now pursuing other means of transportation). Tempers were high.

The situation is what the situation is. Some folks were upset and looking for answers and explanations. Others had accepted the fact they weren’t leaving DC tonight but were frustrated they had to wait so long to get answers about what they’d be doing next. Having gotten some good (and much needed) sleep on the flight from Dallas, I was moderately chipper and was hoping I could make my own relaxed state contagious. I quietly hummed “Don’t Stop Believin’” and “Always Look On the Bright Side of Life,” secretly hoping they’d catch on and the whole customer service queue would break out in song. It didn’t happen, but I think people were somewhat calmed by my smile and relaxed swaying.

One man was not happy. He was from Montreal and was furious that something like weather would be an excuse for the airline not to pay for his lodgings, let alone keep his flight from taking off. After making it clear that this would never happen at the Montreal airport, he totally berated the poor agent and his overseeing manager as well. The manager calmly answered that the problem was the weather. He acknowledged that the man was right and admitted that Dulles is not prepared (or more importantly, equipped) to respond to three feet of snow efficiently. That didn’t change the fact that the underlying problem was the weather. The man was sort of committed to being pissed, but the manager’s calm (and slightly snarky) response was impressive and did help pacify the man at least slightly.

To give you an idea of how complicated the weather makes things for the airport I took a picture of the scene from the baggage claim, I took a picture with my phone. There were literally bags everywhere. I can only imagine what causes this. Some people probably abandon their bags by choosing alternate forms of transportation. Some people might end up flying without their bags. Some bags might have ended up flying without their owners. As an outside observer, it’s difficult to grasp exactly what happened. Still, it was a sight to see. The picture I took does not do it justice. And keep in mind, I took this picture at 10:30 PM. Downstairs there was a line at least 100 people long to get taxis to DC locations, especially since some of those folks might not be going anywhere until Tuesday, at the earliest. This isn’t an ideal situation for anyone, but there were some airport staff working incredibly hard (and enduring a lot of duress) to try to accommodate folks, and I commend them for that.

The hotel clearly does the same. My room here at the Hilton is nicer than the one I had in Dallas the past four nights and I’m paying half the price for it. They also had the free airport shuttle running regularly, and served hot dinner until midnight. I’m sure their staff is tight given lots of people are still stuck and it’s hard to get around, but they have done much to ease the frayed nerves of stressed travelers.

On the shuttle to the hotel, I again tried to maintain some positive attitude. I offered to my eight co-passengers, “This is fun, isn’t it?” I felt particularly bad for a mother who was traveling with her son. Probably about eight years old, her son was desperately tired, and when we were in line to check-in he even started to cry—not a whiny cry but a sincere cry of exhaustion and confusion. I can only imagine the stress of dealing with delays and hotels compounded by a young child who just isn’t equipped to deal with those circumstances.

I made a lovely connection as a result of my cheerful conversation on the shuttle. I met a marketing executive of sorts from northern California who was on her way home after sailing around the Virgin Islands for the past week or two. Our rooms were across from each other, so we agreed to meet for a drink. Despite being two very different people, we had some lovely conversation. You’d think I’d be tired of networking from five days of Creating Change, but it wasn’t networking. It was just two people making the most of the circumstances.

It’s now almost 2 AM, and I’ll get barely four hours of sleep before I return to the airport and try to make my way back to Harrisburg. I’ll sign off here, but I just want to offer a final thought to make some meaning of the stories I just told.

In life, we only get the days we get. The days that aren’t spent doing the things we think we should be doing are no less a part of our lives than the other days. I’m not thrilled I’m stuck in a hotel in a city overwhelmed with snowfall, but who cares? I can still make something positive out of it. Pouting or venting would do nothing to make me feel better and would only reinforce the frustration of those around me. If we all just took the time to look out for each other and realize we’re all going through these experiences together, I think we’d all be better able to respond to complications with the optimism of opportunity.

This wasn’t what I was expecting, but you know what? It’s a new adventure.

I have no doubt that you’ve noticed how slowly the site loads. This is partly due to increases in traffic.

However, the other part of the equation is the existing skin, or “theme”. We love it, but it is code-heavy and inefficient. It loads a tremendous amount of code with each page load, but it is too complex to operate properly with plugins designed to speed things up.

We have realized we need to try something new in order to maintain a good experience for you as the site continues to grow.

We’ll be trying out a new look over the next few days. There will be plenty of code editing required in the change.

If the site happens to be down, or look really out of whack, please give it a few minutes and hit refresh. Whatever’s wrong, we’re working on it.

Don’t worry. The database is safe.

Related posts:

1. A Change of Direction for Paliban Daily After Sarah Palin's political self-immolation, we at the Paliban Daily...

• Objective ethical facts exist
• Ethical facts are not reducible to natural facts and properties
• Ethical facts do not require an external foundation

The view, therefore, is compatible with Theism and is not atheistic, but merely (as presented) non-theistic.

In this article, I will attempt to present the system in a simple manner.

Preliminary Definitions

A state of affair is a necessarily existing abstract entity. It can either obtain or fail to obtain. States of affairs which obtain are called facts and some facts are contingently true in that they exist only in some possible world as opposed to those which are necessarily true, and obtain in all. The state of affairs in which Bob is a firefighter is contingent since there are some possible worlds where Bob is not a firefighter. Further, the state of affairs in which Bob is not identical to the number two is a necessary state of affairs: there is no possible world where Bob is identical to the number two.

Many necessary states of affairs are expressed in terms of mathematical truths or trivial propositions such as “All bachelors are married.” Necessary states of affairs do not have to be so trivial, however, since some theists assert that God exists in all possible worlds, that is, God exists necessarily.

Further, there are some states of affairs which obtain because of other states. One example is the state of affairs in which Bob is hurt; this state of affairs being brought about by the fact that Lucy kicked a soccer ball at his head. States of affairs which are not brought about by other states are called brute facts. An example of one possible brute fact is that God exists. Typically, the theist will assert that there is nothing causing, grounding or being a reason for God’s existence – his existence is just a brute fact.

Ethical States of Affairs

Some states of affairs concern matters of ethics, involving notions of moral rightness, wrongness, goodness, evil, etc. Such properties are sui generis properties. That is, they are distinct from both natural, empirically testable properties and supernatural properties (thus, neither naturalism, nor supernaturalism but non-naturalism).

As discussed in a previous article some ethical states of affairs obtain necessarily, such as that it is wrong to torture the innocent for fun and that pain is intrinsically bad. Some other states obtain only contingently, such as that pushing a red button is morally wrong because it will cause Bob some pain. However, there are worlds in which pushing this button would not cause Bob some pain and therefore can only be a contingent fact.

Ethical Facts

That ‘pain is intrinsically bad’ obtains necessarily is evident in that it is not explained by some other state of affairs, it is not entailed but rather it is a brute fact. Ethical facts which are not entailed or explained by some other state of affairs are called basic ethical facts. These basic facts serve as the foundation of all further objective morality and rest on no foundation themselves. Some may be tempted to ask, “where do they come from?” but as Weilenberg notes:

To ask of such facts, “where do they come from?” or “on what foundation do they rest?” is misguided in much the way that, according to many theists, it is misguided to ask of God, “where does He come from?” or “on what foundation does HE rest”? The answer is the same in both cases: They come from nowhere, and nothing external to themselves grounds their existence; rather they are fundamental features of the universe that ground other truths.

Supervenience

The common view of moral properties is that if they are exemplified, they supervene on non-moral properties. That is to say, if there are two possible entities with identical non-moral properties, they will have identical moral properties: rightness supervenes on instances of truth-telling, goodness supervenes on certain character types in a necessary way.

What, then, is the connection between the natural fact that “Lucie is torturing Bob for fun” and the moral fact that it is wrong? Presumably, it is wrong because it is an act of torture, but how do we make sense of this ‘because’? Weilenberg states:

The answer, I think, is that ‘because’ here indicates metaphysical necessity. It is true in all metaphysically possible worlds that causing pain just for fun is wrong. This is the sense in which a given action is wrong because it is [an example of torturing for fun].

Theistic philosopher William Wainwright thinks that such supervenience is more ‘at home’ in a theistic universe than in a non-theistic one:

[T]he connection between the [natural fact] and the [moral property] can seem mysterious. For, in the absence of further explanations, the (necessary connection between these radically different sorts of properties… is just an inexplicable brute fact. (modifications are mine)

Under Weilenberg’s view, the relationships are equivalent to certain basic ethical facts. The claim that the property of “being intrinsically bad” supervenes on the property of pain is equivalent to the claim that necessarily, pain is intrinsically bad. Is such a ‘brute-fact-supervenience’ a problem? Might this supervenience give reason to prefer a theistic account, as Wainwright seems to think?

It seems only to be a problem if non-trivial necessary truths require explanations. But, there seems to be no reason to accept this. Especially for the theist, who posits one non-trivial necessary truth that does not require an explanation: that God exists. It sees that the proposed brute fact of ‘pain is intrinsically bad’ needs no more explanation. It seems, prima facie, to even be in less need of explanation than the existence of a perfect creator.

Perhaps it is true, however, that there is an explanation to God’s existence that is a ’self-explanation’. Wainwright states that “if we could grasp [God's] nature we would see why it exists.” Wainwright is stating that even if we don’t know the explanation of God’s existence, it is there anyway. If this is true, then the existence of God is not a brute fact after all. Supposing that a self-explanatory being is a coherent notion (there is a lot of literature on this question), it seems that there is still some reliance on brute fact. To suggest that God’s existence is self-explanatory introduces another non-trivial necessary truth: that God’s nature possesses some feature which explains His existence. But, then, what is the explanation for this seemingly brute fact? Even under theism, it seems that one is committed to the coherence of brute fact.

“Mysterious, Floating Values”

Christian philosophers William Lane Craig and J.P Moreland define and criticize this view as follows:

Atheistic moral realists affirm that objective moral values and duties do exist and are not dependent on evolution or human opinion, but they also insist that they are not grounded in God. Indeed, moral values have no further foundation. They just exist.

… It is difficult, however, even to comprehend this view. What does it mean to say, for example, that the moral value justice just exists? It is hard to know what to make of this. I tis clear what is meant when it is said that a person is just; but it is bewildering when it is said that in the absence of any people, justice itself exists. Moral values seem to exist as properties of persons, not as mere abstractions – or at any rate, it is hard to know what it is for a moral value to exist as a mere abstraction. Atheistic moral realists seem to lack any adequate foundation in reality for moral values but just leave them floating in an unintelligible way.

On Weilenberg’s view, among the entities that “just exist” are states of affairs and properties which are accepted to “just exist” by a great number of contemporary philosophers. There are various states of affairs concerning justice, so when some person has the property of being just it is in virtue (partially) of the obtaining of precisely these states of affairs. Weilenberg explains:

For instance, I hold that it is just to give people what they deserve; thus, anyone who gives others what they deserve thereby instantiates the property of justice. The state of affairs that it is just to give people what they deserve obtains whether or not any people actually exist, just as various states of affairs about dinosaurs obtain even though there are no longer any dinosaurs. In this way, my approach cashes out the idea of justice “just existing” in terms of facts about justice. This approach is perfectly intelligible and coherent and no more posits mysterious, floating entities than does any view committed to the existence of properties and states of affairs.

“But You’re Just An Animal!”

A further criticism is that without a Creator, human beings lack moral rights altogether. As Craig states in his debate with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong:

[I]f there is no God, then what’s so special about human beings? They’re just accidental by-products of nature that have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal spec of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and that are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous, and so in the course of human development has become taboo; but that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. On the atheist view, there’s nothing really wrong with your raping someone.

Arguments such as these take the form: If God does not exist, then human beings are just Xs and Xs don’t have moral rights or duties. But this is dubious, just because we may be Xs does not mean that we are nothing more than Xs. That is, human beings are animals, but are we really nothing more than animals? This doesn’t seem any more plausible then the claim that God is a necessarily existing being, and nothing more. It is true, according to theism, that God is necessarily existent but he is more than this, much more. So too, for human beings. We can suffer, love, strive for goals, etc. At any rate, Craig provides no argument for his claim that human beings are just animals, and nothing more.

As for the issue of rape, Sinnott-Armstrong replies, “[w]hat makes rape immoral is that it harms the victim in terrible ways. The victim feels pain, loses freedom, is subordinates, and so on. These harms are not justified by any benefits to anyone.” Essentially, he explains the wrongness of rape by appealing to a moral principle, namely that: any action that involves knowingly inflicting suffering, subordination, and a loss of freedom on another without producing any outweighing benefits is morally wrong. At the very least, we would need to see an argument suggesting that this proposed moral principle fails, but it seems quite plausible.

External Foundation?

Objections of this grade constantly ask for a foundation to be provided and this reveals the assumption that objective morality requires a foundation external to itself. Without any sound argument to suggest that this is true, why should one abandon the view that all non-brute ethical facts rest in part on a set of basic facts which serve as the axioms of morality and do not have an external foundation but are the foundation.

But further, the theist seems to offer nothing better. Craig states that “our moral duties are grounded in the commands of a holy and loving God… His nature expresses itself toward us in the form of moral commands which issuing from the Good, become moral duties for us.” Under this view, our moral duties still rely on some ungrounded ethical fact, namely that if the Good commands you to do something, then you are morally obligated to do it. What is the grounding for this claim? Does it simply “float mysteriously in an unintelligible way?”

Conlusion

At the very least, it is evident that the issue of morality in the absence of God is not as black and white as many people suppose that it is, theists and atheists alike. It has long been supposed that atheism leads to an abandonment of morality, but that doesn’t seem to be the case necessarily. In fact, it seems that a view such as Weilenberg’s is very similar to what the theist requires to escape the Euthyphro dilemma.

______________________________

¹All further quotations are from this paper unless otherwise noted.

Yesterdays’ post was full of good ones. I posted thoughts on one of them last night, and here’s another one:

It’s easier to stay a Christian in a secular university than a Christian one. Why?

Contrasting my personal experience with Baptist college vs. larger secular one, here are my thoughts:

At UofA, there are student unions for Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, Methodists, and probably more. I don’t know about the UofA Baptist Student Union (BSU), but my experience with college Baptist groups is that they are merely extensions of high school youth groups. So if you managed to skate through public high school without losing your faith, you’re probably going to make it through college, too. Christians can segregate themselves in college just like they do in church, and stay in their bubbles as much or as little as they want. (I don’t mean “segregate” in a derogatory way, but in the way that people of like-minded groups tend to stick together.) The only evil secular class that can really cause someone to question their faith (that I can think of off the top of my head) is philosophy. Philosophy is easy enough to avoid, and even if you don’t, there’s not really much dialogue. You can take your list of questions to your student pastor and he can give you the canned apologetic response, or any of McDowell’s or Mind Games materials to read on your own. You might have a faith crisis, but it’s actually easier to weather because you don’t usually have the theological crisis that you have at Christian institutions.

At WBC, people sat around and discussed theology. Why they believed in Calvinism vs. Arminianism and vice versa. Even in that, Three Point Calvinism or a Five Point/TULIP Calvinist?  Every little issue that you’ve never even thought of before gets very in depth in a way it doesn’t tend to get in church. Then you learn about how the Bible came to be and is arranged, and suddenly you realize that there is a LOT your Sunday School teacher and your pastor never told you! There is a  chunk of Mark in your Bible that isn’t found in every early manuscript, so does it actually belong? Is it actually the word of God or did somebody add it in there? They present it mostly like, look how careful the early writers were to preserve the writing intact, but if you actually pay attention in your classes, you start to notice how certain things crept in and out of the writing. Write it over and over for generations, and eventually, it does evolve. Even looking at the Bible from this new perspective caused me to question evolution in a new way. I had all the answers and knew everything that those evolutionary biologists didn’t know , thanks to Ken Ham (snort!). But Ken Ham never discusses the poetical form of Genesis 1, leaving us to wonder if it was ever supposed to be taken literally at all? (The poetry doesn’t translate into English, as I understand; it’s only when you read it in the Hebrew that it becomes a poem, whereas the rest of Genesis is not written in the same poetical form.)

Did anyone here go to a Christian university and preserve their faith? I know lots of people who did. What I don’t understand is why. How did they resolve these conflicts? We all had the same classes, so I know I’m not the only one who learned this stuff. And I don’t believe that it was because I was smarter or more thoughtful than other students, though that probably is the answer for some of them. So I am constantly curious as to why some people lose their faith, while the vast majority do not. Any thoughts?

If you’re a regular reader, you know that this is pretty much a two-person operation, “The Jenny and Mike Show”. (We do enjoy and appreciate the occasional, delightfully snarky commentaries from Dr. Tom.)

We both work full time, and try to maintain lives off the Internet as well. So, while we manage to catch stories sooner than many sources, or connect the dots in ways not apparent elsewhere, there’s a lot of news about the Paliban — people who want to inject religion into politics generally, and Christian theocrats more specifically — that we don’t report on.

We’re hoping to find a few good men and women who’d like to do some writing.

Subjects might include:

• Biographies of the Real Paliban (anyone from Pat Robertson or Sarah Palin to R.J. Rushdoony or Gary DeMar — a long-neglected project)
• Reviews of books, movies, video games, etc.
• Paliban scandals (Which pastor got caught with a teenage prostitute this week? Who is backpedaling from his support of the Ugandan Death-to-Gays law?)
• Intelligent commentary on current events, popular culture, etc.
• Pro-atheist or antitheist commentary
• Education on religion; what the Bible (or other religion’s scripture) really says, compared to “popular” beliefs
• Attempts to manipulate school curricula
• Or something completely different!

If you’d like to see your name (or your nom de plume) on our virtual pages, drop us a line using our swanky new CONTACT FORM. Tell us the sorts of things you’d like to write.

Do you have a blog already, and want to cross-post some of your work here? We’ll be happy to have a look at your writing and see if it’s a good fit!

Our author guidelines are available online HERE.

Another clip:

A friend of mine wrote those words as part of something that I want to share with you. It’s a stark description of his struggles through a depressive episode—a tough period rooted in his struggles dealing with deconversion.

Yep. Deconversion.

He’s an exChristian and has been one for two-and-a-half years, but still struggles with the social and psychological voids left by leaving the faith—particularly the community of faith.

Here’s what he said to me about it:

I had a bit of a meltdown recently, concerning faith issues. …I’m better now… and later found out that [a mutual acquaintance] had been there at Skepticon II the whole time yet we were both unaware! Just talking to more people, I’m sure, would have made my experience a much better one; instead, it was a lonely, alienating experience which triggered a deeply depressive episode… not the first, but one of the worst.

I’m not suggesting his experience is typical of deconversions and by his own words this bout was among the worst he’s had, but I will suggest that his experience is not an anomaly among those leaving behind a lifetime of faith.

What he’s written is a vivid look into why I believe relevant atheism, an atheism that deals with people and with struggles and with personhood, is vitally important.

It also makes explicitly clear what I mean when I say “God is real.”

I’m now 2 1/2 years into a deconversion experience, after having lived more than 30 years as a Christian, first fundamentalist and later more moderate/liberal. One might think that I would be happily exploring my new-found rationality. In truth, I often try (and fail) to find ways to trick myself into not even thinking about it, because of the depression and even morbidity that so often accompanies my thought patterns.

Deconverting was less like a step into freedom and more like an ongoing funeral and mourning process for my best and dearest friend. Say what you will, with all the admittedly strong evidence you can muster, about the biblical God; for all his flaws, he was one swell friend to the friendless, a comfort when nothing seemed to go right and when no actual humans had time to help me pick up the pieces. It is no help whatsoever, none, to attempt to consider that all the good things I managed to do all those years were actually on my own power rather than part of an almighty God’s eternal plan. Without faith to fall back on, I have to consider every failure a real and honest failure which might never yield anything good, unless I stop failing. Needless to say, thoughts like these are not exactly conducive to avoiding failure.

The most striking thing to me about Skepticon was realizing that I knew almost nobody. Late in the process I did run into a family I knew, and was rather shamed by the fact that they have endured worse trials than me and have better attitudes. I guess they’ve been at it longer. As far as what little I got to see of the events, I’ll admit to laughing a few times during Richard Carrier’s talk about the unlikely history of Luke and Acts. Then it hit me that I had been reading those books for three decades before I ever started to see the discrepancies. I’d basically been stupid for thirty years. I suddenly didn’t feel like laughing anymore. PZ’s talk, while actually fascinating, was so far over my ability to comprehend the concepts that it made me a bit angry that I’d only studied fine arts and had pointedly ignored the sciences. I had no idea I’d someday need them this much; I’m shockingly behind.

Nothing I saw made me feel any better that, each day, I wake up in an evolved world where there is no greater plan and that terrible, pointless things happen. Theodicy (the problem of human suffering) has become a crushing weight. Rare is the morning I don’t wake startled from a nightmare about being in a plane crash or dying in a building fire; the night after Skepticon, I was treated to a dream about being drowned to death. I know why this is happening; during my faith years, I got way too good at meditating on the presence of God. Now I can’t stop meditating on the absence of God, and I have no positive imagery to associate with it. The Christians, ironically, managed to get this one right in my case. No Jesus… no peace. And it’s too late for me to go back; I reject the Christian god and the historical Christ for all the same reasons everyone else does. But without the comfort of the delusion, I’m falling apart under the weight of all this reality.

Price never did show up again. I held out hope (foolish me) until the very end that he might make an appearance. It’s not that I think he would have had any magical words for me; I’m not so naive to expect that. But I wish I could have talked to someone who at least had had the experience of having, and losing, faith in the same kind of way I had. And I wish I could have asked him, simply, “When can I expect to get better?”…

What do you say to this?

Buck up?

Here are some pictures from the hubble telescope showing how insignificant you really are?

You’re better off?

You’re hopeless?

Talking about his experience after it passed and he was “back to normal,” my friend told me this:

I found it interesting that the comments from nontheists, both on Xanga and Facebook, were even worse at answering what I thought must be a relatively simply question… “when can I expect to get better?”. No one even attempted an answer; they made comments to the effect that I’d never get better, or brushed it off as irrelevant, or simply ignored it. It’s just like you said; the problem didn’t fit their tool set.

I did say that and I will say it again. Atheists, especially the ones that conflate atheism and science, are far too likely to dismiss others’ experiences. It’s tempting to do when our tools can’t address a problem—just dismiss the problem, so that we can use our tools.

I’ll also say that it’s not really such a simple question, but it’s an important question and it’s a question Christians are poised to exploit. There are a range of human experiences that all exChrisitans will encounter after deconversion—death, loss, profound disappointment.

Those are experiences that could trigger similar confusions and the same question, “When can I expect to get better?” even among those that deconverted without such difficulty.

The Christian deception is that there are easy answers for that question. Snake oil peddled as an elixir for the pain and confusion that sometimes comes just from being human.

Ignoring or belittling the question isn’t going to make atheism relevant. If anything, it will reinforce atheist stereotypes and make the Christian snake oil all the more appealing.

Here is his final thought on that:

It’s okay to not be able to address an issue or answer a question. But I do hope that my letter made them a little less eager to trust their current assumptions, or to promote atheism as a sure-fire path to hunky-dory land.

I hope it’s done the same for us.

Oh, here’s my answer. I’m sure it reflects my own toolbox, but here it is: You can expect to get better when you figure out what part of you resonated with your imaging God and how to tap into that same part of you in ways that are meaningful to your new atheist worldview.

Please feel free to offer yours.

A harrowing and unbelievably brave song about one of the worst imaginable personal experiences:

Your Thoughts?

Hedging her bets, Sarah Palin charged $100,000 to speak at the first Tea Party Nation convention, where attendees paid $500 to get in the convention plus over $300 just to hear her speech. By not speaking for free, Palin avoids being tied too closely to Tea Party Nation.

The Wall Street Journal reports that while Palin was happy to gain support from the (for-profit) Tea Party (Nation) movement, she didn’t want them to interfere with the two-party system:

Asked whether she might run on the Tea Party ticket, Ms. Palin declined to answer directly, saying she hoped that the nascent movement remains a “movement of the people” and that its members “don’t believe that they need some kind of well-oiled machine” to have a political impact.

While Tea Partiers may be offended, they shouldn’t be surprised. It was only just over a week ago that Palin recommended that the Republican Party absorb Tea Party Nation:

Fox’s Greta Van Susteren asked if tea party candidates would end up siphoning votes from GOP nominees, or if the movement will “merge with the Republican Party.”

“They need to merge,” Palin said. “Definitely, they need to merge. I think those who are wanting the divisions and the divisiveness and the controversy — those are the ones who don’t believe in the message. And they’re the ones, I think, stirring it up.”

The pressure to push Tea Party Nation from its original roots as a movement espousing low taxes and smaller government — not a police state and farm subsidies and Republican-only government — may be the reason both Michele Bachmann and Martha Blackburn dropped out . . . leaving Palin as the only big name.

Blogger Kleinhelder at the Nashville Post sums it up nicely.

This new tea party bears no resemblance to the one that began a year ago as a reaction to the collapse of our financial system and the subsequent bailout. That movement of ragtag and unorganized libertarians, independents and conservatives was something new and unique. An authentic protest movement angered not just by the new President, Barack Obama, who had presided over the bailouts but the president who started the ball rolling and whose incompetence had led to the crisis in the first place, George W. Bush.

The people we saw on the steps of Legislative Plaza and county courthouses across the state last year weren’t “movement conservatives.” Certainly the movement conservatives were there at those protests but the tea parties were much bigger in size, scope and concept than just traditional modern conservatism reheated. Last night, the professional conservatives fixed that for good.

For over a year the media has struggled to try and define just what exactly the movement was. Now they have a definition.

Sarah Palin.

WSJ provides a bit more on Tea Party Nation:

As first reported by POLITICO, Tea Party Nation is a for-profit company that also operates a social network site by the same name. [Tea Party Nation CEO Judson] Phillips intends to turn a profit from the convention, with the stated goal of seeding a so-called 527 group that would air ads praising conservative candidates or criticizing their opponents.

But on Saturday he said there likely wouldn’t be much profit, and whatever money is made will go to a second convention he’s planning for July.

I’m sure Phillips will not show any substantial profit from the convention, and that he will clearly demonstrate why on the Tea Party Nation website.

Be careful if you decide to join the Tea Party Nation forum. Irregular Times collected a few details from the “revolutionary, non-partisan, 100%-password-protected (including the FAQ)” website:

* it is a corporation which has trademarked the phrase “Tea Party Nation” and will sue anyone else who uses the words.

* “You can and will be banned for being a liberal.”

* “Tea Party Nation reserves the right to ban anyone for any reason we feel necessary”

* “Trashing of TPN will not be tolerated.”

* “Questions regarding TPN posted in the public forums or blogs on the site will be deleted.”

* “It is not a forum for… calls for militant uprisings.”

* “Tea Party Nation’s strict No Tolerance policy will not make exceptions… if you see such postings, you immediately report them”

While Tea Party Nation’s speakers call for a revolution for the cameras, any actual revolutionary behavior or dissent will be result in swift dismissal. That’s an interesting combination.

A screenshot would be nice, Irregular Times guys!

Related posts:

1. Most Americans Don’t Want President Palin A new CBS News poll finds that a substantial majority...
2. Palm-Reading Palin Promotes Theocracy Sarah Palin gets caught reading notes off her hand during...
3. Lt. Governor Parnell: Surprised by Palin Resignation Just in: Alaska Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell expressed his surprise...

As active participants of this [civil rights] movement, we can and should challenge tactics, strategies, rhetoric, and leadership. Both ours and our opposition’s. However, there’s no reason to turn it personal. As people who come with all of the trappings that are laid upon us as humans, we’ll naturally have our own interpersonal whatnots with each other. But for the sake of the movement, we should strive to disconnect the two. The message is what matters.

~Jeremy Hooper.

See the section in my Religious Dialogue Tools for an explanation for how to use this table as a means of declaring your positions on Atheism.  Both Atheists and Agnostics can use this table to qualify themselves, if they desire.  I will update this post with the suggestions of my readers.

Definition: Atheism: Not believing in any theistic god(s).  Assertion: “I believe in no theistic gods.”

Your Atheism Positions

CATEGORIES & DEFINITIONS

I list some of the above categories below in order to add brief definitions and/or links to help understand each category. I will be working on this list slowly. Suggestions welcome !

• Level of Certainty:
  • Gnostic = affirms no gods, and he also claims to know there are no gods.
  • Moderate = affirms no gods, and holds its it fairly strongly
  • Agnostic = affirms no gods, but doesn’t claim to know there are no gods.
• Intellectual Involvement:
  • Casual Atheist=  affirms no god but hasn’t thought much about it.
  • Strong Atheist= not only lacks a belief in gods, but also affirms that no gods exist (AKA, positive, explicit atheist).  Feels strongly justified in his disbelief.
• Stance toward Religion:
  • Sympathetic: beliefs that practiced correctly it is possible for a religion to do more good than harm.
  • Unsympathetic: believes religion inevitably has bad consequences and needs to be condemned categorically
• Openness
  • Open
  • Cautiously Open
  • Closeted
• Degree of Action:
  • Passive atheist doesn’t believe in god but doesn’t try to influence the world in favor of atheism.
  • Evangelical atheist tries to persuade others to give up theistic belief.
  • Active atheist labors on behalf of causes that specifically benefit atheists (but not necessarily just atheists). For example, he strives against discrimination toward atheists, or he strives in favor of separation of church and state.
  • Militant atheist uses violence to promote atheism or destroy religion. (Often, the term “militant atheist” is misapplied to non-violent evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins. But to preserve the parallel with the “militant Christian” who bombs abortion clinics or the “militant Muslim” suicide bomber, I prefer the definition of “militant atheist” that assumes acts of violence.)
• Religious Participation:
  • Abstaining/Rare
  • Occasional
  • Often
• Degree of Enchantment
  • Disenchanted – depressed thinking that there is not purpose to the universe or yourself
  • Neutral
  • Enchanted — elated at the amazingness of life.  See Luke’s essay.
• Mystical Inclination
  • How inclined are you to have “unity” type of experiences or “ecstatic” experiences or similar unusual pleasant hard to describe changes of your normal consciousness.
• Belief History
  • Tell us if you have ever been a whole-hearted believer before.  Some folks participated in religion but never with a full heart.
• Sect History
  • Tell us how you were raise and religious groups with which you have identified.  Keep it short.

__________
Resources:

• HT to Luke’s 17 Kinds of Atheism which I used as the basis for this chart.

I think people could reasonably assume I sent this in except mine’s not really a secret anymore.

Exploring fantasies and expanding your horizons together as a couple=cool.

Doing something because you’ve been forced, pressured, manipulated, or out of a warped idea of submission or needing to please a partner=not cool.

Why does that have to be so complicated? It’s not, but you don’t hear it in abstinence only sex ed, I wouldn’t know about sex ed, and my fundamentalist parents never taught me a thing beyond the most basic of basics.

To the anonymous sender, I feel your pain.

5:42 Third Commercial in. Good placement.

***End live-blogging***

Well, that was fun.

What should I do the rest of the night?

The crime – which took place yesterday in the suburb of Athis Mons – comes as the French government faces growing calls for the controversial garments to be banned.

President Nicolas Sarkozy himself has described them as a “security risk”, saying they provide the perfect cover for criminals or terrorists.

Innocent shoppers ... or robbers in drag?

Now those fighting for the ban claim the robbery – which is the first of its kind in France – shows how useful the burqa is as a disguise.

It took place at around 10.30am, when two robbers carrying pistols entered the main post office bank building in Athis Mons, which has a large immigrant Muslim community, mainly from North Africa.

Once inside they ordered a bank clerk to take out the equivalent of £4,000 in cash by pointing a pistol at him. After ten minutes they fled to a nearby car park and escaped.

Police fear that they will not be able to identify the robbers on CCTV cameras. Said one detective:

It was a perfect disguise. Their faces and bodies were completely covered.

The robbery led to Le Parisien, the main daily paper in the French capital, to ask:

Will this first robbery using a burqa re-launch the debate about the Islamic veil being worn in public places?

A government committee has already recommended that burqas should not be allowed in civil buildings and on public transport, and a full ban could follow.

Britain is no stranger to burqa crime.

Last November two robbers – dressed in full-length women’s burkhas – pistol-whipped a post office manager during a daylight raid in Bradford.

The attackers bundled their 38-year-old victim into the premises as he opened the shop.

They brutally struck him on the head with the butt of a handgun when he was unable to open a safe.

But the raiders then panicked and fled empty-handed when they saw a customer peering through the window of the post office, in Oak Lane, Manningham.

Last summer a robber dressed from head to toe in a traditional Muslim woman’s burqa raided a travel agent, and also made off with thousands in cash.

And in 2008, a 6ft 6in robber hidden beneath a burqa was involved in a £200,000 raid on a jewellery store in Smethwick, West Midlands.

You can read more about burqa villainy here.

Hat tip: BarrieJohn

The transcript:

Pam Tebow: I call him my miracle baby. He almost didn’t make it into this world. I remember so many times when I almost lost him. It was so hard. Well he’s all grown up now, and I still worry about his health. Everybody treats him like he’s different, but to me, he’s just my baby. He’s my Timmy, and I love him.

Tim Tebow: Thanks mom. Love you too.

The most controversial thing there?

At the end of the commercial is a message to go to Focus on the Family’s website for more information.

Can we move on now?

The trick about Creating Change is that it truly is a refreshing experience, but the challenge isn’t just to ride that fresh energy, but to utilize it. Yes, there is the withdrawal of saying farewell to a queer space and going back to the world of heterosexual privilege. But there is also the thrill of knowing that you have a ton of new information and skills to channel into important advocacy work. We go to Creating Change to learn and connect so that we truly can spend the next year creating change.

My “liveblogging” of the conference will continue this week as I continue to share many of the sessions I attended, as well as a new nine-profile Faces For Equality collection I’ll roll out over the next few weeks. I met some amazing people and reconnected with many others. I hope to share as much of this experience with you, my reader, as I can. So many of us have that passion for making a difference in the world through queer advocacy, and the more we share and learn from each other, the better.

Stay tuned for a whole lot more coverage from the Creating Change 2010 conference as well as more of the regular ZFb coverage you can expect!

OK, I admit, this post’s title was a cheap, journalistic trick, but in a way, it is true:  People may soon notice that my icon has changed and leaping-Sabio is gone! Sniffle …

When I began this blog one year ago, I decided that due to the nature of the material and the community I lived in, I would use a fictitious name and symbol to keep my pedestrian identity secret.  So while trying to create a icon, I ran upon a leaping paleolithic hunter on some nutrition sites and decided to photoshop the fellow over a setting sun and call it my own.  Thus, the Sabio you know and love was born.    But alas, little did I know that this silhouetted  primal maniac was someone’s official corporate logo.  And this week I got the following letter in my e-mail box.

Hello, Sabio,
My name is Aaron Fox. I am the editor of MarksDailyApple.com and the GM of Primal Nutrition, Inc. It was brought to my attention that you are using our brand logo on your site as your own. Our image of “Grok” is the logo for the Primal Blueprint brand. As such we ask that you remove the graphic from your site (as seen here) in the manner in which it is used. Thank you for your cooperation.
–
Aaron Fox, Editor
www.MarksDailyApple.com
Serving up health and fitness insights (daily, of course) with a side of irreverence.

So, to protect my legal butt and because it is the right thing to do (in that order), I have changed my icon.   BTW, Marks’ Daily Apple is a fantastic website for carnivores and/or people interested in nutrition, exercise and health!

In deciding on my new icon, I used a well-researched principle of mythology:  To make a myth easy to remember and thus effective one should tell a fairly normal story and only change one or two facts to be extra-normal or miraculous.  Thus, I am leaving the sun the same and only changing the leaping-lad into an ouroboros — boy, I hope he is not someone’s property.   I use the self-consuming Ouroborus as a symbol for the undoing of self, a theme in my blog.  The Ouroborus is appropriately also used in myths, like the Phoenix, as a symbol for re-birth or eternal return.   The rising sun is a symbol for optimism, strength, inspiration and support.

Though my former version of Sabio has “passed on”, I am not saddened.  One of my favorite posts, called Mini-Deaths, describes why.  Oddly enough, that post was read by few because I posted it back-to-back with another post.  Hint:  If you really have a post you want your readers to see, don’t post back to back or only the most devoted and diligent readers will find it — and don’t be deluded that you have any of those readers. 

So, I thought some of you may enjoy the story and I thought it wise to head off questions and so this post.  It will take time for my new symbol to propagate over the web.  Some of the places I have had to change it are:

• bloggers.com (which I established to comment on blogspot blogs.
• gravatar (for your universally recognized avatar)
• WordPress.com Favicon ( btw, if you have a wordpress, account, try jazzing it up with a flavicon!)
• Intense Debate (another commenting tool used by some sites)
• Atheist Nexus (a great site)

Who’d have guessed it would take so much work to change an image.  If you find my icon elsewhere on locations I have forgotten, please let me know so I can wipe leaping-Sabio off this etheric plane !  And BTW, I am updating my blog’s organizing, so if you subscribe by e-mail, you may be getting hit with several posts over the next few days — sorry.