You Made Me Say It...

It's time

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:04:00 +0000

I think it's time we blow this scene. Get everybody and the stuff together.

Ok 3...
...2...
...1...
...LET'S JAM!

Note: Don't forget to change your bookmarks and blogrolls

A change is coming

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 05:27:00 +0000

Soon.

Nude Nymph a No-No in Alabama

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:09:00 +0000

How does Christianity harm? Well here's one way, a vineyard can't sell its wine in Alabama because the label is considered pornographic. That's right, the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board finds the "gorgeous piece of work" which is the label for Cycles Gladiator wine in violation of its prohibition on labels with "a person posed in an immoral or sensuous manner."

So where's the Christianity? You tell me where the definition of immoral comes from that they're working from. How else does "sensual" = wrong? How else does shame and revulsion to the human form manifest? These are all by-products of Christian morality and its war on sexuality. Add this to the ridiculous ban of sex toys in the state, and a sodomy law that could get you, if you're unmarried, up to one year in jail and a $2000 fine. (Ah, but sodomy laws are unconstitutional right, like requiring belief in a god to hold public office? Well as long as they're on the books, you'll have to suffer the charge until you reach the Court of Appeals.) It's all about control, and if you can control sexuality, well you pretty much control humanity. Of course when you can control sexuality AND alcohol, well that's quite a two-fer. Oh, and Alabama will soon be reinstating the ban on liquor sales on Sundays, because that's god's day, you know.

I'm really torn over exactly why this story infuriates me, though. Sure, I'm infuriated due to the imposition of Christian morality, but I'm also infuriated because this is, essentially, an art ban, and as an artist, that REALLY boils my blood. The label is, imo, a beautiful ink or watercolor painting in an early 20th century, art nouveau inspired style. Now of course art appreciation is largely subjective and you may not care for this piece, but then that also undermines the warrant for labeling it offensive. Furthermore, regardless of all that, prohibiting the viewing of such a work is offensive, especially when you'd think that the ones seeing it would be mostly, if not all adults. Even so, what's the basis for determining that viewing nudity in art = harm? For instance, have there been studies of the effect of seeing the Little Mermaid statue on the people of Copenhagen?

No, this is just more ridiculous religious intrusion into society, and yet another thing to throw onto the pile of examples for how religion, in this case specifically Christianity, harms. If you have an opportunity to purchase this wine where you are, try to do so. I know you can find it at Total Wine in Delaware.

What's more embarrassing than being a Scientologist?

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:23:00 +0000

That's what I'd like to know after reading this story alleging that John Travolta is too scared to officially quit Scientology for fears that the church will release all his embarrassing secrets (that they know of). "Scientology keeps files on its celebrity members containing embarrassing personal information about them, and Scientology has proven in the past that it has a penchant for releasing that information to embarrass people who have left and who have said things it doesn't like," says author Rick Ross who has kept tabs on the church for 30 years.

Now let's rehash what Scientology is all about.

Seriously, what could possibly be more embarrassing for anyone to discover about you than having openly admitted for years that you subscribe to this nonsense? Man, it must be good.

Racism and the Prof. Gates story

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:43:00 +0000

I've pretty much ignored the whole Prof. Gates racism story until now after reading a post on the subject by The Chaplain here, which has links to several other sources on this news story. I think, perhaps, liberal sensibilities can possibly add to the continuation of racism due to their ability to blind someone to reality in favor of seeing what you'd want.

I think it's a mistake to completely abandon racial profiling. We shouldn't turn a blind eye to what's unusual and a black man in Whiteyville is unusual. I should also mention that whities in Blacktown is unusual too, and I and other friends of mine have been pulled over, interrogated and subjected to searches due to being whities in Blacktown (since it's perfectly reasonable to assume whities in Blacktown are there for nefarious reasons, like buying drugs). It's an inconvenience, and yeah, it pissed me off but at the same time I didn't provoke the officers beyond asking during the search, "so after you guys are done searching for shit that's not here, which one is going to call my boss and explain why I'm late for work?"

Now I simply would never drop a comment like, "you have no idea who you're messing with" to a cop, no matter how fucking right I was. If Prof. Gates did say that, that was just stupid because no matter what color you are, if you say that to a cop, you've just provoked a person with substantial power who more than likely already has some adrenaline shooting through the veins. Why would you do that? That's what you call your old 'my dick is bigger than yours' challenge, and at that moment, a cop's will ALWAYS be bigger. To quote Sun Tzu, "he who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious." You suffer a cop's shit when you have to, and if warranted, strike back later when you have the advantage, like in court.

I'd also like to add that although Prof. Gates no doubt would love to make this out to be purely racial, and subsequently be some black champion, I'm willing to bet that most blacks wouldn't have acted the way he did because they'd know better. I'm not saying most blacks know their place, but rather they have a better understanding of what I said in paragraph 2, and probably for the same reasons I do, and that's due to exposure to police, something perhaps one doesn't get much of if they're financially privileged, like I'm guessing Prof. Gates is. I'd say if that quote from Gates above was said that night, then the only racism here is maybe a cop would have had more restraint in responding to such a provocation if the provoker was white, but that doesn't excuse Gates being a pompous ass, and furthermore, I find it repugnant that in light of more serious problems of racism, Gates is going to walk away rewarded as a champion against racism for being a pompous ass. I'm sorry, I have little sympathy for a financially well person being denied his unwarranted special privileges believed afforded to those in his position and financial state because he was black. Boo hoo. Furthermore, for every Gates, probably 1000s of less fortunates are fucked over due to race and we never get to hear their stories.

Lastly, let's consider what message this sends to those less fortunate blacks, and perhaps the less fortunate of any color. Essentially what's being put on display is if you're well off enough, you can be a pompous ass and get away with it. Quite the role model Gates may be, huh? It's hard enough trying to convince less fortunate youths to ignore the tremendous wealth possible via crime, but now, on top of the bling and all that, you also get a free pass to mouth off to the cops? Great.

Again with churches' tax exemptions

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:12:00 +0000

Last year, a clever mansion owner in Chicago tried to get out of paying the $80,000 in property taxes he owed by claiming his estate was actually a church, therefore exempt from property taxes. He got his exemption, temporarily, until the matter was investigated but now Illinois has decided his mansion doesn't qualify as a church, although the owner, George Michael (no, not THAT George Michael) is confident he'll win on appeal 'cause ya gotta have faith, I guess. What I find amusing is the state's process of investigating whether his mansion was a "real" church or not.

Consider some of the factors mentioned here. A "snazzy" internet clergy ID isn't comparable to say a silly hat, collar or other "snazzy" vestiges from what are recognized as legit religions? Does the number of people who attend your church determine whether it is in fact a church? Why? If an amusement park can be called a church, to the tune of a $300,000 property tax exemption, because it allows people to enter for free on one random day a year, then why should a church with regular attendance, NEVER with an admission fee, be denied "real" church status simply because only one family and "a couple of guys" attend? And since when did the improprieties of the head of a church have any bearing on whether the church was a "real" church, as suggested in that article?

What I'm getting at is religion, being the deliberately nebulous, abstract, dodgy thing it is, can't easily be defined. By what standards should one determine if a religion is a religion? If that's a heavy, philosophical question, then perhaps the entire notion of tax exemption for churches should be scrapped, especially at our current moment in time when state and local governments are being forced to trim their budgets, sadly including things like police, fireman, and other VERY important people and services. Don't just think of the property taxes not being collected on every plot of land lying under a church in this country, but think of the expense of this case in Chicago, and perhaps others which may, in the future, follow. Not only do I think it's a fool's quest to try and decide what is and isn't a "real" church, but that exercise along with this tax exemption for churches, is fiscally foolish and impractical.

Civility, what is it good for?

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:29:00 +0000

First, this comment from Patrick Appel concerning civility and atheists needs to be read for I think it's quite an excellent response. I don't have much to add to that, but I do want to talk about civility, or the alleged lack thereof, and on what grounds should we judge it's effectiveness.

There's a lot of criticism for the acerbic style of some atheists, and amazingly a good bit of that criticism comes from other atheists. The grounds for the criticism seems to be that the lack of civility would turn people off and thus, make religious deconversions near impossible, but who says that's proper grounds for judgement? In fact, I'd say that many atheists don't express their opinions as sales pitches. We're not trying to be Billy Mays, we're trying to speak out against what we think is wrong and speak up for what we see is right. Yes, there's an implied intent to convince, but not necessarily to convert. Take for instance stands against "In God We Trust", "under god", 10 commandment monuments on government property, Creationism in schools, Abstinence only sex ed, the Office of Faith Based Initiatives, exemption from medical care for children on religious grounds, and a host of other issues. These are issues atheists rant about, and rightly so, and yes we want readers to agree with us but the goal of deconversion is not primary, and perhaps isn't present at all in those rants, so to judge on potential to deconvert, I see as inappropriate grounds.

There's of course the argument from the civility proponents that regardless or your intent, if your message isn't delivered with civility, it'll be disregarded. This was actually taken to a ridiculous extreme awhile back by Sam Harris who suggested atheists shouldn't call themselves atheists because soon as people hear the word atheist, they stop listening to whatever you're saying. Well you know what? Perhaps you may draw more flies with honey than vinegar, but more is not all, and some flies, no matter how sweet the honey or how much of it you put out, just won't come over, so again, the grounds for judgement I see are inappropriate. Since it's not an absolute, judging based on it is pretty dodgy.

Another battle raging currently is in the Science community. One side, the civility proponents, insist that there shouldn't be open objections to religion by scientists and furthermore, that in order for people to accept science and not be threatened by it, they need to be reassured that it won't challenge their delicate, religious sensibilities. The other side, and I believe rightly so, call these people "appeasers", arguing that the goal of science is discovery and understanding, and such facts aren't dependent upon someone's choice to accept them or not, they're facts, therefore objecting to a lack of civility towards religion is ridiculous. True, people can choose to ignore such facts, and many do (and sometimes at great peril), but appeasing such people's fears for fears of your own that they may threaten Science if not appeased is, imo, most objectionable.

I don't like the incivility some bring to the discussion, but if they didn't, would anyone even be talking about this (sic) issues?

Again, I agree with Patrick's opinion. Incivility has it's uses, and that alone should eliminate any knee-jerk opposition to it as absolutely ineffective, but amusingly I think that even on the various grounds some are judging by, it still may not be warranted to object. It's the old axiom of 'different strokes for different folks', and perhaps being berated will provoke a deconversion, or people might be more inclined to listen to what the frothy atheist is saying or what he'll say next (ala Howard Stern's Private Parts) as opposed to the genteel, civil atheist.

Civility, what is it good for? Well, I'd say it depends, so civility absolutists can go sit on that and spin. ;)

Virgin Mary? What crap!

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:46:00 +0000

Maybe the bird ate some crumbs from the Virgin Mary toast.

Now did you know that the Pope issued new guidelines for these kinds of images? From The Daily Mail:

When a claim of heavenly apparitions occurs, the local bishop will need to set up a commission of psychiatrists, psychologists, theologians and priests who will investigate the claims systematically.

The first step will be to impose silence on the alleged visionaries and if they refuse to obey then this will be taken as a sign that their claims are false.

The visionaries will next be visited by psychiatrists, either atheists or Catholics, to certify their mental health and to verify whether they are suffering from conditions of a hysterical or hallucinatory character or from delusions of leadership.

The third step will be to investigate the person’s level of education and to determine if they have had access to material that could be used to falsely support their claims.

If the visionary is considered credible they will ultimately be questioned by one or more demonologists and exorcists to exclude the possibility that Satan is hiding behind the apparitions in order to deceive the faithful.

There is so much ridiculousness in these guidelines, I don't think I can possibly address it all adequately. First, what bearing should a witness' willingness to shut up about their vision have on the validity of the vision? Next, how do you differentiate between vision and delusion? Is it more believable if the claimant is poorly educated, implying that he/she wouldn't be clever enough to effectively lie? And I would LOVE to know how one determines whether it's Satan or any specific supernatural entity behind something since that's a question I ask god believers all the time who claim they hear their god or somehow get signs from it. How do you know it's your god and not another, a devil, pixie, alien, a side effect from eating much too old leftovers, or anything else?

So I would love to hear how the Catholic church would investigate this new image that's come from above in order to determine if it may in fact have come from FAR above. Personally, I just think the image and these guidelines are all a bunch of crap.

Closed-minded?

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:22:00 +0000

Our scene opens inside Avanti's, a fine Italian deli and eatery which also sells beer. A young patron has just picked out a couple of six packs and brought them to the clerk at the front counter to pay for them...

Clerk: Great choice, that's one of my favorites.
Patron: Yeah, so how much is it going to be?
Clerk: Well I'll need to see your ID first.
Patron: Why?
Clerk: I can't sell these to you until I know you're at least 21.
Patron: I don't have it on me, but clearly I look at least 21, don't I?
Clerk: How you look is irrelevant. I need your ID or else I can't sell you the beer.
Patron: Well I have ID, I'm 21.
Clerk: Great, so show it to me.
Patron: I said I don't have it on me.
Clerk: That's a problem for you then.
Patron: You're the one with the problem. Why are you being so closed-minded?
Clerk: How's that?
Patron: You're being completely closed-minded to the possibility that I am 21.
Clerk: Oh no, I'm completely willing to entertain that possibility, but I can't accept it unless I have a good reason, and you haven't offered one.
Another patron: Oh I know him, he's 21.
Patron: There, you see?
Clerk: That's not sufficient.
Patron: What?! He just told you I'm 21!
Clerk: If he knows you, he might lie for you, or you've successfully mislead him into believing you're 21. No, all I'll accept is your ID.
Patron: That's pretty closed-minded.
Clerk: No, I'm just not willing to accept a claim like you're 21 on questionable evidence.
Patron: You don't think saying I'm not 21 without any evidence isn't being closed-minded?
Clerk: I'm not saying you're not 21. I'm saying you've offered no evidence for me to accept that you're 21.
Patron: Same thing.
Clerk: No, actually they're two quite different things.
Patron: I've offered you evidence.
Clerk: It was inadequate.
Patron: Says you.
Clerk: Says any rational person.
Patron: So now I'm irrational?
Clerk: Accepting an unwarranted claim is irrational.
Patron: You just don't want to sell these to me.
Clerk: Not if you can't prove you're 21.
Patron: An ID can't prove I'm 21. I could have a fake ID. It's impossible to know absolutely if I'm 21 or not.
Clerk: I wasn't using "prove" as an absolute proof, but rather as a valid warrant for acceptance of a claim.
Patron: Your choice of what's valid is arbitrary.
Clerk: No, it's not.
Patron: Just saying it's not isn't an argument, it's an assertion.
Clerk: Sort of like just saying it is?
Patron: Well it is.
Clerk: Nice argument. At least I explained to you why your warrants weren't valid.
Patron: But you're still volitionally dismissing evidence.
Clerk: "Volitional" doesn't imply arbitrary.
Patron: Well you're not going to sell a lot of beer being so closed-minded.
Clerk: I'll sell plenty to those able to verify they're 21.
Patron: You won't sell to me.
Clerk: Because you can't verify you're 21.
Patron: I tried.
Clerk: Try harder.
Patron: No matter what I do, you won't sell to ME.
Clerk: Come back with some ID and let's see if that's true.

Based on what?

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:00:00 +0000

Imagine a deeply engaging debate between two sides of scholars. Trained at the best institutions in the world, these highly educated and intelligent scholars spend their lives charting the known universe, making detailed observations of celestial objects, their characteristics, movements, and so forth. Volumes of data have been compiled and from this data these scholars base their well reasoned decisions but two groups have emerged who are at odds over what the data suggests concerning a single issue. The issue? Whether Pluto in the House of Leo is a sign of fortune or misfortune for those born to water signs.

What's the problem here? You have educated, intelligent folk dedicated to a field of study. Everyone in the field bases decisions on empirical data. The entire process of study and reaching conclusions is completely rational, but most of you probably immediately scoffed once you saw this was about astrology, as you should, and that's because although the exercise of a belief may be rational, the foundational belief is irrational. There's nothing to suggest that anything about celestial objects drives humanity's moods or their likelihood of finding fortune or misfortune (short of them crashing into the Earth or something nearby which would have a physical effect). The basis of the field is faith, so it doesn't matter whether you're combing through the data to determine whether you should play the lottery or if the girl you met at the store would go out with you, the belief that such an answer could be found in this way is irrational, and pure faith. Likewise, with such a basis for your belief, you have no leg to stand on to criticize someone else who may be combing the same data for messages from the dead. Both of your beliefs are based on faith, so regardless of the rational and seemingly scientific approaches either of you make, neither has any kind of authority to dismiss the other's assertions based on their own. In other words, to say reading the stars for messages from the dead is silly because the stars are there to predict the future is absurd.

Take for instance the recent ghost of Michael Jackson story. Imagine if three groups were arguing over it. The first believes it's his ghost because ghosts appear as shadowy forms. The second discounts this as being a ghost because they believe ghosts emit light, and this clearly wasn't emitting light. The third group says the other two are nuts and the debate ridiculous since ghosts can't be captured on film. Who has an objective leg to stand on? No one, because not only isn't there some reference to cite on what the actual characteristics of ghosts are, the very possibility of ghosts existing can't be verified. Again, the argument may be conducted rationally, but what all the arguments are based on is faith, making the entire exercise one of futility, comparable to debating the winner of a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse.

Isn't protesting a lot of work?

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:52:00 +0000

Here's an interesting account of what it's like being the target of religious outrage in Jerusalem by ultra-Orthodox Jews. I just have a few questions about the ultra-Orthodox Jewish position:
• Isn't protesting which involves throwing dirty nappies, lighting things on fire and physically assaulting people work?
• Is work done on Shabbat to fight work done on Shabbat excusable, and if so, what are you using for justification of this exemption?

I can certainly see how someone (or several guys) long ago came up with this Shabbat idea to ensure everybody set aside one day a week to relax. Their intent I'm willing to believe was good, but now look what's happened. What you have is a bunch of sable headed guys consumed with following rules to the letter without ever thinking about them or grasping any understanding of them (reminds me of a Trig teacher from high school who wouldn't let anyone use a calculator so you'd have to understand what's going on when figuring sine, cosine, etc). Hey, maybe there was once a good reason for TPS reports, too.

Or perhaps this is all just another example of people who wish to impose their wishes, in this case one dedicated lazy, do nothing day a week, on others and are using religion to justify it. Well I'm just thankful that a few years ago when Delaware repealed it's blue law forbidding alcohol to be sold on Sundays no one protested by spitting, lighting things on fire or throwing dirty nappies.

I wish it were true, 'cause that would be great!

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:26:00 +0000

If your first reaction to seeing something initially unexplainable is, "OMG it's a ghost", what the hell is wrong with you? Why would you leap to such a conclusion first, before considering ANY reasonable explanation? Well I bet I can guess why, and it's summed up perfectly by the goofball at the end of the video who said, "I wish it was him. That would be great."

This is how people "know" such things like their god is real, that they're visited by dead loved ones, that someone's survival from an accident was a divine act (or conversely that a major tragedy was divine punishment, like Katrina being punishment for letting the gays frolic in public), that prayer can heal, that pixies in Iceland are real, Bigfoot and Nessie are real, the New Jersey devil is real (no, I'm not talking about Brodeur), there's a heaven and hell, and so on, because they wish it were true, 'cause that would be great.

Now before this video explanation, the ghost believers would argue that you don't KNOW what's on the video isn't Michael Jackson's ghost, but what kind of an argument is that? Is that an argument for the thing being a ghost? No, it's an argument for keeping people from popping your wish balloon. I'm sure if you look online right now you'll still find people who reject the explanation, and that's because they need that wish balloon to stay afloat and they'll do anything to keep people from popping it.

So before leaping to the conclusion you wish for, take some time to consider the conclusion which is most probable. Personally, I wish everybody would start doing that, 'cause that would be great!

The Holy Land Experience is a church?

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:57:00 +0000

Check it out. The Holy Land Experience theme park is a church and as such, receives a healthy property tax exemption. The only catch is they have to offer free admission just one day a year. Pretty sweet deal, right? Well it seems not sweet enough for the Trinity Broadcast Network which owns the park and the ministry. They'd really rather keep the whole free day thing pretty hush hush.

Now follow along here at the explanations from the ministry. First, they only advertise the free day on the local company channel. Now before you cry foul, they claim that the channel "literally covers 100 percent of the greater Orlando area". That's great for the people of Orlando who happen to watch that channel (no word about how frequently or how far in advance they make this announcement, btw), but I guess anyone considering traveling there from outside Orlando wouldn't have a clue. No website announcement?

Ah, but if everybody knew, then they'd have their hands full with the mob since the park "simply does not have the parking, traffic control, comfort facilities and food service capabilities of other venues," and cutely adds, "[w]e trust that the city of Orlando does not want an uncontrollable situation to occur at the park on this day."

So to recap, they get a break to the tune of roughly $300,000 a year on their taxes if they offer free admission just one day a year but won't openly advertise when this day will be each year beyond their own local tv channel, defend this move as effective advertising by claiming that it reaches 100% or Orlando yet at the same time say they can't advertise more or else they couldn't handle the crowds, followed by a little fearsome image of what would happen and "trusting" Orlando doesn't want that to happen like some mafia mooks offering protection because it'd be a shame if anything were to happen to this place. Can you smell the bullshit? It's like a day on the pasture.

This whole thing is a complete sham, and it should effectively make every group angry. Anyone who cares about church/state separation and hates tax exemption for churches should be upset. Churches and other non-profits should be upset with the clear exploitation of the current tax exemption privilege that they enjoy. Families looking to actually make a vacation out of going to this park should be upset because they can't find out when this free day is, and finally the people of Orlando and perhaps the rest of Florida should be upset that at a time like this, when they're going to face a double whammy of increased taxes and a reduction of services from their state and local governments due to the economic crunch, TBN is making out like bandits stealing at least $300,000 of money from the governments' coffers.

Boy, imagine if the Mouse caught on and sought such an exemption. I certainly know people who visit religiously. Would it be such a stretch?

When you're around me long enough

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:02:00 +0000

Mrs. Chief used to be a very quiet, soft spoken, amicable, keep things bottled up type. After being around me long enough, here's what happens....

She's in a studio with a mixed crowd of students and adults when a student walks in and announces, "Michael Jackson is dead." Without skipping a beat, she just casually blurts out, "well that's one less pedophile." Apparently it took a few moments before she noticed the room had gotten still and silent, and all eyes were on her. "What?" was her response.

I don't know if it's possible to affect people with just a blog, or if you need to be in my presence to be transformed, but you've now been warned, so keep visiting and reading at your own risk.

Brother Sam's Rules of Engagement

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:07:00 +0000

This guy is a riot. I can't help but sympathize with a lot of it. There's more on his site and as you can see, he's going to be at the Ethical Society of Philadelphia in a few weeks.

"Calling someone on their language is a chicken shit little power play which is really about imposing your rules on the other fella and about putting them on the defensive. No. I'd rather go out and find an adult to argue with, and the 'FUCK YOU' on the way out is optional. I try to be sensitive to the situation."

"Experts" and experts are not comparable

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:33:00 +0000

The "invisible powers" offered to man today are not angels and demons, but obscure material forces. These are the forces that make him contented or depressed, form his character, and direct his life without him knowing it. In place of the priests of old, we have "experts" who dispense therapy and pills to relieve his depression, other experts who construct government education and welfare programs, without which obscure social forces will inevitably turn him into a criminal, and yet other experts who inspect his genetic code like tea leaves and tell him that he is doomed to be a loser anyway. Instead of confession, we have therapy; instead of the sacrament of baptism, we have the sacrament of abortion; instead of Calvinism, we have genetic determinism. Man still vegetates in his primitive stupidity...

So is the response of one David T. to a quote from a Baron d'Holbach from 1772, and one the Discovery Institute is featuring on their site at the moment. The implication is that people today are replacing one set of priests for another, an older set of invisible forces for another, and that somehow these newer things are somehow comparable, when in reality, all that's comparable is the relative ignorance of those seeking help and the trust they place in those they seek for help. The actual help, however, is far from comparable, since the "help" of old was merely imaginary, to treat imaginary causes for real problems.

The fact that most people today are still ignorant of the things in life which affect them in no way makes the people they turn to for help with those things comparable to the people their ancestors turned to, and it's completely ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Unlike the mythical angels and demons our ancestors were told were responsible for their conditions, today's doctors and other experts can point to actual causes such as cholesterol, white blood cell or hormone levels and the existence of viruses, bacteria, and cancer cells. Far from "invisible", these things can be seen and even shown to patients unlike the invisible agents priests of yesteryear claimed were responsible for this or that.

Today we may still be ignorant and dependent on others who are more learned, but "the decisive question" is hardly between "which stories you will believe", but rather whether you're going to believe stories or facts. Perhaps the ignorance of our ancestors was inescapable, but today, to choose the former over the latter, would be inexcusable. Ask Madeline Neumann. Oh right, we can't.

I suggest giving both links above a read, for there are some gems of idiocy in each, like "instead of the sacrament of baptism, we have the sacrament of abortion."

Attempting to merge two crappy tastes

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:22:00 +0000

Communism, the infamous party of atheism (according to most anti-atheist Christians) and religion, the infamous opium of the masses, now might be linking up in a foul tasting antithesis to the wonderful marriage of chocolate and peanut butter. Thats' right, The Communist Party USA is looking into how to partner up with religion. Is nothing sacred anymore these days?

Every atheist has heard the nonsense about how atheism is responsible for more deaths and carnage than say Christianity or Islam because communist regimes like Stalin's or Mao's racked up some damning totals in those categories and, after all, they were atheists. Now aside from the ridiculousness of comparing death tolls when Christianity and Islam are supposed to be about peace, love, and high moral standards and therefore shouldn't even be in competition to begin with if any of that were true, there's no guiding principle, no philosophy of atheism which could prompt anyone to do anything. Even more amusing is the religionists' assertion that atheists believe in nothing, since if that were true, how then can nothing prompt something?

Tim Yeager, chair of the Communist Party USA's new Religion Commission (and Episcopalian) correctly points out that there's nothing inherently anti-religious about communism, and that the atheist position of the Bolsheviks was actually in response to the Russian Orthodox Church's challenge to their authority as a former arm of the Tsar's state, and I would add also in response to their attempts after the revolution to sponsor a counter revolution to regain their lost power and influence. He wants everyone to know that communists in Latin America aren't anti-religious and also wants to hitch his wagon to famous religious Americans of history like Martin Luther King Jr. The Party will hold rallies in the future and write articles to woo the religious to swell the ranks of the Party.

Now frankly, who could blame the Communist Party USA? The Republicans had great success with this tactic, and so did our current Democratic President, Mr. "Committed Christian". Those damn atheists all have minds of their own and trying to get them in line is like herding cats, so why not try and swell the ranks with members of well-ordered flocks, used to following orders from a singular authority? When you also add the fact that these masses are opiated, well honestly, it makes you wonder what took the Party so long to realize the potential of such a market.

For further reading, try Was atheism the cause of 20th century atrocities?

Theist Tricks: The 'atheist friend', and limits to our senses

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:31:00 +0000

I came across a couple of postings today. The first was this which is a response to the second (link in the response). To cut to the chase, the original was a sermon invoking one of the favorite characters in sermons, the atheist friend, and the response was a further attack on this fictional character in order to further advance the old 'limit of the five senses' argument, which is an infamous one from the theist bag of tricks. It takes different forms, and I've probably addressed it in some way before, but I don't think it can hurt to hit it again...

The story is just that, a story. The 'atheist friend' character is a popular one in sermons, where through that character, the preacher can present a false depiction of atheism or any atheist argument and then show how it's flawed. This is known as a straw man argument, where one builds an opponent out of straw and attacks the creation rather than fighting his actual opponent.

Of course the five senses argument is silly, and one no critical thinking atheist would assert. In fact, it's always the religious who use arguments pointing out the limits of the five senses in order to do what Kim here is trying to do, show how if they're limited, then we can't rule out the "non-physical spiritual realm". There exists, however, two flaws in that line of argument.

The first is corroboration. Indeed there are limits to our senses, and we can't always trust our senses, a fact that seems so important to point out by the religious in these arguments yet strangely ignored when relating believer testimonies as proofs for their beliefs. It is precisely because we humans aren't perfect that we seek corroboration, more sets of eyes and ears and so forth to corroborate what we think we're experiencing, or perhaps to show us how we're mistaken.

The second is instruments for observation. A pair of glasses to read, a hearing aid, a pressure gauge, a camera, all of these are instruments for observation, and we rely on them as we do our senses and just like with our senses, we still require corroboration.

Now the limits of the five senses argument is to sow doubt in one's observational abilities, and then prey on that doubt to show how the "non-physical spiritual realm" then can't be dismissed. Well the truth is it can't be dismissed, but that has nothing to do with our observational abilities but rather in the very definition of this supposed realm. For instance, I could say we humans can't discount the possibility of there being a realm that can't be detected. Well if it can't be detected, then sure it could exist and we'd have no way to know, since it is, by definition, undetectable, but what reason would we have to think that this undetectable world exists?

Well likewise, what reason do we have to think this "non-physical spiritual realm" exists? Ah, that's strangely absent from the argument, isn't it? That's because the argument isn't designed to give you a reason to think it exists, but rather to make you doubt your ability to discount believing such a realm exists. That's what's going on with this argument, one that I classify as a "theist trick", for that is what it is, something to trick you. It's design is to make you vulnerable, and then exploit that vulnerability.

So always be alert to any argument which invokes the "friend" who supposedly represents the opposing position of the speaker, and always be on guard for arguments which seek to exploit doubt or confusion.

Lakers defeat Magic, and God

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:18:00 +0000

This is just a follow up to this story, a followup you will no doubt not find anywhere else, because crazy religious bullshit is never called out in the media, especially when it involves celebrities. At the start of this month, Dwight Howard confidently declared his team, the Magic, would win the NBA championship because of his god. The exact words were, "God. That's the reason, I'm telling you." Well, the Lakers won and he and his team lost. So where was his god?

I don't remember seeing the Lakers riding iron chariots, do you? That's apparently kryptonite to the god of the Christian bible (Judges 1:19), which I assume is the one Dwight was referring to. Maybe his god didn't like the shout out. Maybe he failed to give the appropriate burnt offering to his god, which of course smells so sweet to his god (Numbers 29:6). Maybe, despite the promise and the belief from Howard, his god already had the outcome worked out. Maybe he would have liked to help out the Magic, but you know, there's that whole non-intervention, free will thing which prevents him from interfering. Maybe he was able but simply not willing?

We could go around and around like this all day. It's fun, but not really the reason why I'm doing this followup. The reason is I'm really tired of the media giving a pass to nonsense like this. When anyone claims something is going to happen because of some supernatural entity, that everyone needs to beg such an entity for some favorable outcome like rain, or that we must do this or that in order to secure continued favor from such an entity, those kinds of claims need to be called out in the media, and in cases like this where the claim was made and the claim turned out to be bunk, well somebody should be calling that out, and it certainly shouldn't just be me.

The word 'belief', and avoiding misinterpretation

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:33:00 +0000

I caught something today on VJack's blog, the issue of how to respond to the question, "do you believe in god(s)?" I find the awkwardness for atheists trying to respond to this question one of semantics, due to how you define "belief".

If you find claims for the existence of gods unwarranted to accept, then it's reasonable to assume there aren't any gods. I think most atheists are hesitant to say they believe there are no gods because that word "believe" means something different to religionists than it does to non-religionists.

For religionists, belief is unmovable. Once you believe, that's it, and nothing can change or destroy such a position. For the non-religionist, belief is temporary, a position held as long as it's viable.

So due to these contrasting views of belief, we atheists most certainly don't believe there are any gods, but if we were to say we don't believe in gods, a religionist would hear that as we are dogmatic and faith based like them, and this misinterpretation leads to bullshit like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist".

Any apparent unease or waffling by an atheist in light of the question "do you believe in god?" should not then be seen as an attempt to deceive or obfuscate, but rather as an attempt to convey "belief" in a way that won't be misunderstood, and thus exploited by religionists. It's VERY difficult to speak openly for religionists will, either by choice or by ignorance, misinterpret your words if you're not careful (or even if you are).

Personally, I think it's always a good idea to choose your words wisely, regardless of what you're talking about. Speaking in a plain, direct, and not needlessly verbose manner should generally help guarantee that whatever you're trying to convey will be understood, and also limit the opportunities for those who'd like to deliberately misrepresent your views.

How much of a holy book must be read to accurately assess it?

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:07:00 +0000

So I have a question for any religionist whose religion has a holy book - how much of it does one have to read in order to make a qualified assessment of it?

Seems like a really silly question at first, right? These are supposed to be "good books", inspired by immense wisdom, possibly divine wisdom (depending on the faith), so you'd think reading even the smallest bit of one should suffice. Here in the US for example, Christians are always encouraging the reading of the Christian bible. The Gideons have made it so that every hotel in the country has one in every room. There were attempts last year to have free copies of their bible delivered with some Sunday newspapers. Christian groups attempted to send their bibles to Iraq and Afghanistan to be distributed not just to soldiers, but to the locals. We have nicely dressed Christians going door to door asking if we've heard the "good news" and encouraging us to read their book. On and on and on we're encouraged to read their book, as if that's all it takes and BAM! you'll see the light and join the faith. So what happens when people do read it and don't see what the believers see?

On one hand you have the pleading like I described above to crack these things open and have a read, yet on the other, when some take the advice and make unfavorable reviews of what they read, what's the response by believers? It usually takes the form of "you have to put it in context", "you have to see the whole", or sometimes they'll actually go as far as saying you have to believe first. Now am I the only person who sees this as odd? This is supposed to be a holy book, a magical book if you will. Shouldn't it have some effect on me regardless of how much I read? Shouldn't there be SOMETHING of the "correct" message or feeling felt by every reader regardless of how much they read or what part they read? Shouldn't anyone instantly get it? Shouldn't even the briefest exposure to it have the desired effect?

So how could it be that someone could open it, read some random section and be completely put off by the whole thing? How could that be? The response by the faithful is usually context. You have to put the selected passage in the greater context of the book as a whole. This is a criticism we hear time and time again by believers responding to nonbelievers who criticize something in their holy books. So you can't get it without thorough study of the whole. On its face, that could seem legitimate yet do believers ever question those who sing the praises of their holy book about how much of it they read or on how well they understand the parts they're praising in the grand context of the book? Is the burden of biblical scholarship ever one that's expected of each and every believer before they can speak positively about their holy book? No, yet such a burden is always expected to be carried by critics, but then if such scholarship is necessary in order to properly understand the faith, then how many believers actually understand their faith? Shouldn't such scholarship be required by all if it's going to be required for some? Shouldn't just as much scholarship be required to sing its praises as criticize it?

In fairness, some faiths and some members of all the faiths would say "yes", that thorough study is required to better get the message, and that's fine, but such a position is assuming that believers with an inadequate amount of scholarship can understand the little that they've read correctly, so why can't the same be said for those who walk away not believing, and who are quite unsatisfied with what they've read? Why is there this double standard of context and scholarship? I'm afraid this whole thing just brings us back to the same old bugaboo, 'ends justify the means'. If you read just one word, or don't even bother to read any bit of a holy book yet decide it's great and join the faith, then you've read just enough because you've arrived at the desired end, but if you spend years in study of their book and don't buy what it's pushing, then clearly you need to keep at it because you haven't reached the religion's desired end.

So I would love for the religionists out there to think twice before telling a critic of their holy book and religion that they're poor scholars and haven't read or studied enough. I would also hope they ask themselves if they ever make such accusations of their cohorts, or even if they hold such scholarly standards for themselves. Of course I'm hoping that they hold intellectual honesty and fairness in high esteem, otherwise such thoughts don't matter at all. Only the thought of advancing and defending the faith matter, by any means necessary.

Questioning life, an afterlife, and greatest happiness

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:48:00 +0000

A recent commentor has suggested that there is no hell since for nonbelievers (or those who just sin), there simply is no afterlife, that an afterlife is a reward for belief and obeying. So in light of this idea, I have the first of my questions:

If there's something you'd like to do which would bring you happiness without harming anyone else, and if you indulged that desire, then you'll not have an afterlife but if you don't indulge, you'll be rewarded with an eternal life where you still will never be able to experience that happiness, which would you choose, a finite life experiencing your greatest happiness, or an eternal one without it?

Now I'll grant that the above belief is not one that's widely held. I think all religions which have something to say about an afterlife include some sort of penalty for those in that afterlife for failure to believe and obey. Milder opinions on the matter suggest that your afterlife just won't be as good as those who did believe and obey. The otherworldly types might suggest being on the outside looking in on heaven, or being reincarnated as something crappy. In light of this model, let me then ask:

Is experiencing your greatest happiness worth a 2nd rate afterlife?

Again, I don't think most subscribe to that last model either. No, I think most subscribe to some sort of hellish penalty for nonbelief and disobedience, one that generally will be an eternal punishment (some subscribe to the idea that after you've paid your due, you'll get let in to the heavenly afterlife). So then:

Is a potentially eternal punishment worth experiencing your greatest happiness?

Finally, I'd like to present Nietzsche's famous question about a potential afterlife:

If a being came to you at the end of your days and told you that your afterlife would be perpetually reliving your life, would you gnash your teeth in anger and horror or would you smile with delight?

Reality check: religion v. atheism

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:44:00 +0000

So how about a few new reality checks on the claimed values of religion and atheism? Well let's start with quite a huge claim, that atheism is a threat to civilization. Wow, that's pretty damning. So how does it check out? Well for starters, atheist nations are more peaceful. Is peace a threat to civilization? Well perhaps, if you think "civilization" means Christian dominance of every facet of life, which seems to be how that Catholic article is viewing civilization. So sure, I guess if that's civilization to you, then a peaceful, nonreligious society is surely a threat.

Then of course there's this ad suggesting that without believing in a god, people will kill each other. Now aside from the rather startling suggestion that such a belief is the only thing keeping these people in check, and the link earlier showing non-religious nations as actually being more peaceful, there is, sadly, the recent Murder of Dr. Tiller which was religiously motivated (and it should be mentioned that there were previous religiously motivated attempts to kill him, too). Add this to a long list of religiously motivated attacks on clinics and health care professionals (and patients) who've been attacked over the years. Ah, but that's different since it's abortion.

What about abortion? The religious make such extraordinary claims that it's murder, and that abortion is a result of a godless society lacking morals. Well what if I told you that women who went to private religious schools were more likely to have had an abortion? Huh? Well read about it here. Remarkable, no? The conclusion seems to be that social pressure outweighs supernatural pressure. Hmmm, so it's society which influences thoughts and actions. Interesting.

A quick look throughout history shows a surprising change (dare I say evolution?) of religious morality. How can that be if their holy books haven't changed? Ah, but interpretation changes, and what do you think influences interpretation? That's right, society. So you have the collective thinking of society, especially concerning morals, changing over time and influencing interpretations of "holy" morals. You also have societies who are nonreligious shown to be more peaceful. Add the facts that religious morals can inspire violence, and I think we have quite a reality check here. Far from being the necessary foundation for humanity, religion seems more like an anchor, a ball and chain which we've been dragging along behind us for eons, retarding our progress. Some places have been slowly wearing down the size of the ball, making progress ever slowly better whereas other places have gotten free and are running beautifully well.

In defense of "unsophisticed", impassioned atheists

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:32:00 +0000

I read this piece by Chris Mooney on Discover's website where he, in responding to Jerry Coyne, made some comments I don't quite agree with. To me, I sense a sort of weariness. He admits a certain motivation back in 2001, due largely to 9/11, in challenging religion but now wishes to change gears and work towards "common solutions" and engage in "liberal tolerance".

I also have a problem with one of the commenter's expansion on Chris' characterization of challenging religion as "flailing indiscriminately". You ever get the sense that eggheads are completely out of touch with reality, out of touch with the majority of society who are certainly not eggheads? Well I certainly think so. There are many fronts in the war challenging religion. The sophisticated, purely intellectual front has it's merits certainly, but to suggest both that that's the only way to do it and that any other way is some counter productive, uncontrolled "flailing" is a mistake and evident of a lack of perspective outside their own tiny little sphere.

I don't entirely see the problem with less genteel objections to religion. As someone who delights in intellectually challenging argumentation and philosophical discussions, I put a high value on such paths to challenging religion. However, the majority of people haven't much of a care for these avenues, and I dare say most were never hooked into a religion nor continue to adhere to their religion due to sophisticated philosophical or historical arguments, so why should it be assumed not just that such arguments would disengage them from religion, but that such arguments are the only means to do so?

I very much like Coyne's comment about the intent of New Atheist criticism: "to lessen the moral authority and hegemony of religion in our society." A sophisticated line of argumentation will succeed in both intellectual circles and in legal challenges against the impositions of religion, but I would argue such an approach alone will not address the real force of religion, and that's the hearts and minds of society. Surveys show it's virtually impossible for an atheist to get elected to any political office. Most people believe you can't be moral without religion. Most people think you can't be a true American without belief in a god. The allowances for religious exemptions are causing havoc in America by way of kids not being vaccinated and in dire circumstances like Madeline Neumann. Calm, reasoned arguments alone are going to address such things? I'd say no, that such things do require emotional outrage, and comments which are "unsophisticated" with "bile" and "negativity".

I also want to address this sentiment of not wanting to contribute to the culture wars, as if conflict itself is the problem, so that tolerance and appeasement are the solutions to achieve "peace in our time". There are things worth fighting for, things worthy of outrage, things which require unsophisticated, passionate pleas and fist waving. Unfortunately, for some things there simply exists no "common solutions". Giving peace a chance is great, but there are some times when it can't deliver. Furthermore, peace should indeed be sought, but never at any cost. There are things worth fighting for, things which are more highly prized and more substantially rewarding to humanity than peace at any cost.

"God. That's the reason, I'm telling you"

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:33:00 +0000

I'm a sports fan. Even though I don't care a great deal about certain sports, being a sports fan I can get into watching nearly any sport, even if it's something where I have no idea what's going on, like rugby. Certain sports, even though I don't follow them, either have certain teams or players which you just know about, for better or worse. An example would be Kobe and the Lakers. Unless you live in L.A., you can't stand either of them, so when you hear they're in the finals, you just can't help rooting for the other team, no matter who it is. Well that's changed, thanks to Dwight Howard.

"God. That's the reason, I'm telling you"

When asked why his team would prevail against the Lakers, that was Dwight's response. Yup, this idiot thinks his god is the reason why his team is going to win. Now let's forget for a moment the direct insult he just made to the Lakers and their fans who happen to believe in the same god as Dwight, who've just been told their god doesn't care as much about them, perhaps not even liking them, and also let's forget how I guess this extends to every other team and their fans since if they're not in the finals, then obviously this god doesn't like them, either. Let's forget the insult that he no doubt makes to his religion with this comment. Let's forget how inflammatory this could also be to those of other faiths and of course to those of us free of faith. No, let's forget all that and focus on just how fucked up Dwight clearly is.

Of course we have the belief in the magical sky daddy. That's comical enough, but at a time when our nation has two war fronts, North Korea with nukes, a world AIDS epidemic, pirates, slavery, starvation, and American Idol, this magic sky daddy of peace and love, yadda yadda, is going to exercise his all-powerfulness to decide which team is going to win a sports championship. That's an immense level of crazy right there, coupled with an immensely inflated sense of self importance, arrogance, and complete detachment from the world and the rest of humanity.

Now I've heard it explained by believers before that when sports figures thank their gods, it's not an implication that their god favors them or their team, but rather it's an acknowledgment, a sort of thanks for making it possible for them to succeed by giving them some sense of inspiration and drive. Still crazy, in my opinion, but ok, I can sort of buy that, but then there's this lovely statement from Dwight. It really confirms what most of us have always thought, despite the excuses from believers, that these people honestly believe their god made them win, that he favors them over others. It's just like those crazy Old Testament stories of massacring this tribe or that tribe, enslaving their women and dashing their babies on rocks all because god likes them better and gave them victory.

Years ago, there was a quarterback who had an amazing comeback. His name was Randall Cunningham. He lead the Vikings to the NFC championship game, thanking god every second along the way, coming close to Dwight's comment. Although heavily favored, the Vikings lost. I would have paid BIG money had a reporter run up to him on the field after the loss and asked something like, "where was your god today, Randall? Why has he forsaken you? Do you think your god loves the Atlanta Falcons more?"

So now I find myself having to root for the Lakers. Damn you, Dwight Howard.