Mike Adams has a meltdown, then has his arse handed to him

A minor ripple has passed through the skeptical blogosphere recently at the doings of Mike Adams aka the Health Ranger, from NaturalNews.com. I'll spare you the details here, but I will direct you to Tom Foss's comprehensive bitch slapping of the sorry fool.

Go read it and see how this sort of take down should be done.

This is the worst Ranger since Turbo.

Psychics: Real, fake or just fucking useless?

Let's assume for the purposes of this post that psychics are real. More particularly let's assume that those psychics who claim to be able to talk to the dead really can do what they claim. Let's assume that they are not just people who are usually (but not always) good at cold, warm and hot reading. Let's assume that people like Sylvia Browne, James Van Praagh and John Edwards (not the US politician) are actually able to talk with the dead and are not just fakes who prey on the grieving, gullible and vulnerable. Let's assume that there is an afterlife and that it is possible for a tiny minority of people to communicate with those who reside in it. Let's assume that when someone says they are talking to your dead relative and all they get is "I have a male relative who may have, possibly, died, or been ill, with something, probably, to do with the chest, or stomach, area and whose first name begins with J. Or M. Or S. They want to say they love you and that [insert common household object or personal possession that is commonly misplaced] is [in a place where these things are commonly found, eventually]" they are actually talking to a dead relative and that is all they have to say.

Let's assume all this and then ask ourselves one question: What fucking use are psychics really?

A musical interlude

One of the benefits of my eclectic musical taste is that every now and then I come across a CD in my collection that I had forgotten I had. Sometimes there's a reason I have forgotten said album or single - it's crap. Sometimes though it is good to revisit the stuff we used to be in to - for the memories and feelings they provoke.

The other day I came across an old Genesis album "We Can't Dance" and it provoked a lot of memories - but in particular were two songs off that album that I remember as being basically my first introduction to the idea that gods, religion and faith might all be utter bollocks, since up until then I had been raised as a Catholic and was still at Catholic school and very much a believer, albeit not devout.

Yeah bu... I don't... what the fuck?

So if you hang around the skeptical blogosphere you've probably, by now, seen or heard about the Non-Believers Giving Aid website set up to help people donate funds to relief efforts in Haiti (if you haven't donated to something like the Red Cross or Medicins Sans Frontieres then really, what the fuck is wrong with you?) You may have also seen some of the baffling responses to this.

Apparently when religious folks or celebrities or unaffiliated groups get together and raise money, and make sure it is well known, then they are just doing it out of the goodness of their own hearts. When skeptics or atheists do it though, they are just in it for the publicity. Seriously, what the fuck?

I'm sorry, since when did it become a publicity stunt for a group of individuals to attempt to organise a concerted response to aid other people and to explain why they are doing it? Oh that's right, when those people are skeptics or atheists. Everyone else does it because they should, but skeptics do it to make themselves look good. Apparently.

To those who think this is a publicity stunt:

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Your opinion is about as welcome and as useful as an anal fissure.

It's not about looking good it is about helping people. Just because you like to help people to make yourself look good doesn't mean everyone does - ease up on the projection of your own motivations. Did it occur to you that this might actually be an effective way of organising a group of people who pride themselves on being disorganised individuals? Did it occur to you that this might be a good way to encourage people to donate? Did it occur to you that this might have been set up so people who didn't feel they could contribute on the ground could actually make a contribution to easing suffering in Haiti? Clearly not. You leapt straight to "It's a marketing gimmick." Shame on you.

You claim that this is evidence that skeptics and atheists are trying to use the disaster in Haiti to score points for atheism and skepticism - yet your critique of it is so transparently an attempt to score points for you against the people or groups involved.

The fact that you think an organised and concerted effort to get people to donate to ease human suffering is but a publicity stunt says more about you than any of the individuals or groups involved over at Non-Believers Giving Aid.

Go fuck yourself.

Pat Robertson is a worthless sack of monkey vomit

The Secret, Christianity, really: What's the difference? Secretards say that if you suffer you bring it on yourself, Christians say if you suffer it is God's punishment or it is because you turned your back on God. Is there any difference? Witness Pat Robertson, a pathetic excuse for a human being, blame the suffering in Haiti not on the impersonal and uncaring vagaries of nature but on the Haitians themselves.

Of course, he apparently claims he's been taken out of context but that seems pretty clear to anyone who isn't an addled brained religiot with the empathy of a rock and the intelligence to match. Haitians made a pact with the devil ergo deserved an earthquake. True story. Apparently. Of course, it isn't true unless you fail at history and cultural understanding. It isn't true unless you are a worthless sack of donkey crap like Pat Robertson, who likes to use the deaths (estimated at between 45,000 and 50,000 so far, not that you care Patty) of people killed in natural disasters to promote his particular brand of supernatural nonsense.

Religion based on fear? Nonsense. By the way, worship my god and send me money or my god will sic an earthquake on your ass and you'll deserve it. But look how pious I am. I'm just trying to help.

Pat Robertson = human being fail.

Prove you are a better human than Pat Robertson, go donate.

EDITED TO ADD:

Non-critical critical thinking - the G-Spot

At least, in my opinion anyway.

First, you may have seen in the news that a study is due to be released that purports to show the G-Spot may not actually exist. The G-Spot has long been controversial since it was 'discovered'. Many women claim to have experienced it (just as many claim not to), researchers have claimed to show it exists and yet no physical characteristics have actually ever been shown to exist beyond scientific doubt - from what I can tell some of the claimed scientific evidence is questionable or debated and most of the other evidence is entirely subjective and anecdotal.