Terrible Truth, Beautiful Lie

Why the personhood movement is wrong

2012-02-11T12:12:00.002-07:00

Conservative 'pro-life' groups in the USA have always been looking for ways to overturn Roe v Wade and ban abortions of any form performed for any reason ever since the ruling was handed down, and their latest high profile strategy has been the attempted introduction of so called 'personhood' amendments in several US states. These amendments usually center around one principle - define life as beginning at fertilization, thereby granting full human rights to the newly formed combination of two gametes. Amendments that attempted this have already been rejected by voters in Colorado, Alaska and Mississippi. And this is a good thing. In fact, a very good thing. For one very good reason:

Defining human life as beginning at fertilization is arbitrary and stupid.

However, the national GOP would love to introduce a federal level personhood amendment - and this act of religious dogma dressed up as human rights concern needs to be fought and finally, utterly, defeated.

The details

HR 212, the Sanctity of Human Live Act, is a bill supported by over 60 Republican politicians and is indicative of the type of language and measures the personhood movement has attempted to introduce at the state level. It was introduced in January 2011 but fortunately has not gone any further. Yet.

It states:

(1) the Congress declares that --

(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and
(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

This would effectively make abortion, and the use of some forms of contraception, murder and would give federal and state governments the ability to prosecute them as such.

A similar bill, HR 374 (also introduced in the senate as S 91), the Life at Conception Act, has over 90 sponsors. This bill seeks to extend the 14th amendment to 'each born and preborn human person' and defines a human person as 'every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilisation...' Very graciously though it does not 'require [my emphasis] the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.'

Not feeling chilled to the bone or floored with the stupidity yet?

Then you really haven't thought this through, or you are one of those people that thinks the rights of a zygote outweigh the rights of a fully developed adult human being.

What is the problem then?

Well, where do I start? At the beginning I guess, just like the ridiculous personood amendments. However, unlike the delusional personhood movement and its attempts at legislation, I am capable of acknowledging the painfully, blatantly, screamingly bloody obvious - how will we know when fertilization occurs?

How, exactly, does one enforce a law that requires a woman and everyone she may interact with that could potentially affect a pregnancy to know that she has a zygote inside her? Come on. If you support the personhood amendments described here, how would you determine when fertilization has occurred and when these provisions are applicable?

Then explain how the process for that determination would not be a gross example of over-reaching big government and a massive invasion of privacy and a violation of a woman's rights.

Should every woman of child bearing age submit to a detailed pregnancy test after sexual intercourse that does not involve contraception? How soon after sex - Immediately? A couple of hours? Within four days (the time it takes for a zygote to become a blastocyst)? A week?

Who enforces this? How? Are we inviting the federal government into the bedroom now? I thought you conservatives didn't like big government?

It's really quite simple. If you can't determine when the law comes into effect, you can't enforce the law. An unenforceable law is a bad law.

But no you say, we don't need to know exactly when fertilization occurs, just that it has. And I reply, then your law is useless. If we don't need to know exactly when fertilization occurs then the definition of life beginning at fertilization is meaningless and has no practical value. It's a political and religious gimmick. If you can't know exactly when fertilization occurred then you cannot enforce a law that requires you to know when fertilization occurs.

Determining how far along a pregnancy is does not come down to an exact science - it is a reasonably accurate guestimate based on a variety of different methods. But you cannot determine the exact point it began. That being the case, imagine the following scenario as if it it took place after the personhood amendments described above had become law:

A woman has sex and one of her eggs is fertilised. She is unaware of this. Two days later she takes medication that causes this new pregnancy to abort. What is she guilty of and how is this determined? Who determines it? What is the person who prescribed the medicine to be charged with? What about the person who provided the medicine? What about the person who made it?

Should all medicine that can potentially end a pregnancy be banned? Should all activities that can potentially end a pregnancy be banned? If not how should we determine when these are OK and when they aren't?

What if it wasn't medicine but something else - vigorous exercise, an alcoholic drink, another sexual encounter, an illness, a car accident? Who is guilty of what crime? If the pregnancy is aborted unknowingly what is the mother guilty of and why, and how do we determine this even occurred?

Are doctors now to be required to report the ending of all pregnancies so that someone can determine if it was a natural cause or the fault of the mother or someone connected to her? In our scenario the woman goes to the doctor a week after taking the medicine that aborted the pregnancy and they determine she had been pregnant - what should the doctor do? Should there be a funeral? Are we now to dispose of every used tampon as if it were a human body? Do we have to inspect every one to determine whether or not a fetus in some stage of development is present?

Every time a woman has a particularly heavy menstrual discharge are we supposed to save it and take it to a doctor for examination to determine if a funeral for a spontaneous miscarriage is needed? There are laws regarding the correct disposal of human remains, if a fertilized egg is classed as a human being they need to be followed and the law is broken if they are not. How is this to be enforced?

As soon as fertilization is confirmed are we supposed to register the pregnancy for a social security number? Can it get a passport? Does it need a passport? Does it count towards maximum occupancy rules? Who is responsible for determining that? Could you sue a nightclub because they let a pregnant lady in and the bouncer didn't count the pregnancy? How does an airline determine the number of passengers on the plane? Can you stop a pregnant lady getting on an elevator with you if that extra little human being took it over the maximum number of people limit?

Do we get rid of birth certificates in favour of fertilization certificates? Swap birthdays for fertilization days? Can you claim a fertilized egg as a dependent on your tax return? Can you claim child tax credits for it? What other legal considerations are there for considering a sack of cells in the womb to be the equal of the adult woman carrying it?

What does this mean for contraception and abortion?

The personhood movement and the anti-abortion movement are virtually indistinguishable. Sure, there are anti-abortion proponents that do not buy in to the personhood argument, but I have yet to see a personhood proponent that was not anti-abortion.

Now, the stated and in some cases unstated aim of personhood is to make abortion illegal, since the unborn fetus, zygote, blastocyst would have a right to life just like a human being who has been born, hence in the eyes of the law performing an abortion would be murder just like taking an adult, juvenile or infant human's life is. So, without overturning Roe v Wade abortion is thus made illegal.

Personhood amendments don't just mean abortion would become illegal however. It would mean a great many forms of contraception would or could become illegal. As ever, religious and social conservatives are coming for your sex life and your right to choose your contraception. Don't forget though, they are totally against big government.

And why do these people have such an obsession with sex?

Anyway, the so called 'morning after pill' and IUDs would be top of the list that personhood amendments would endanger. The morning after pill (Plan B or Next Choice for example) work by preventing the release of an egg and thinning the lining of the uterus, which can prevent a fertilized egg attaching to it. This aspect of this form of contraception would thus be illegal since the fertilized egg would be classed as a human being, and its right to life would be compromised by the pill. So no more morning after pill if personhood amendments come into effect.

With IUDs the argument is not quite as clear, since there is no proof that the IUD prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. But many people argue that IUDs would also prevent a fertilized egg from being able to develop, hence it could also become illegal were a bill like HR 374 to become law.

Since these interfering buggers never know when to stop though (down with big government) it is safe to assume that contraception as a whole would come under attack from personhood amendments as well. Contraception prevents a potential human being from having the chance to the right to life, so why not just ban contraception altogether, right? Then every gamete can have the chance to form a preborn human being after all. Why say the potential for human life only starts at fertilization after all, doesn't it really begin with the creation of gametes, without which there could be no pregnancy?

No exemptions, ever

Another important aspect to note with these personhood amendments is that not only would they make abortion and some form of contraceptives illegal (potentially all forms of contraception if these bastards have their way, of that you can be sure) is that there are no exemptions from them, at all, ever.

Raped by your father? No abortion. Raped by a stranger? No abortion. The pregnancy could kill you? No abortion. The fetus won't live anyway? No abortion. The fetus has developed with no head? No abortion. The fetus will die in the womb? No abortion. More than one fetus where either one must be aborted or neither will survive? No abortion.

What about cases where the mother needs life saving treatment that would abort the pregnancy? No exemption. No treatment. Who would be charged with what in such a case if the treatment went ahead? Whose rights have primacy? Should both mother and zygote lose the right to life? How come the zygote's rights suddenly outweigh the mother's?

When did women move from individuals with rights to walking incubators with less rights than the week old tiny sack of cells in their womb and what kind of monster can justify that?

My wife works in a clinic that deals with high risk pregnancies. Almost every single week she sees cases where an abortion is medically necessary. No dice under a personhood law. No abortion. No matter what the harm to the mother.

If you can't see this is a way to reduce and restrict women's rights, there is no getting through to you.

Don't believe that an abortion could ever be necessary? Don't believe that a pregnancy could go so wrong an abortion is the right thing to do? I suggest you pull your head from your arse and do some research then. This is the uncomfortable truth that anti-abortion and personhood proponents don't want you to know - in fact they go out of their way to make sure no-one ever mentions it.

There are plenty of medical reasons why abortions can be necessary, but personhood proponents want you to believe that abortions are only ever carried out on promiscuous women that just hate babies. Think about it. Have you ever once heard an anti-abortion or personhood proponent talk about anencephaly? I wonder why? Think hard about this lie by omission. No abortion under personhood amendments.

No exemptions. Ever.

And they call themselves pro-life.

And the scary part?

HR 374 does not require the prosecution of a mother for the death of her unborn child.

That should scare the crap out of anyone, you don't have to be a legal scholar or a doctor to understand why that is a disturbing turn of phrase for a law. In other words, if this bill became law the state could prosecute a woman under any circumstance it wanted to whenever it wanted whenever that woman loses an unborn child.

It isn't required to, but it sure as hell can. If a woman loses a pregnancy through an action of her own, even though she didn't know about the pregnancy before that action was taken, this law allows the state to prosecute her.

Not even the Nazis tried that.

So that's it

Personhood has it all:

Its legally unenforcable unless you submit to a tyranny the Nazis didn't even try, with the state policing your sexual encounters and doctors informing on women to the government so it can prosecute them if it wants to.

Its almost medically and scientifically impossible to justify or regulate.

It makes no attempt to understand a massively complex issue - it's black and white and that's that.

It restricts your right to use contraception and infringes on a woman's rights in a multitude of ways.

There are no exemptions, ever.

Thankfully voters have chosen to reject personhood amendments so far - but is it only a matter of time before this kind of stupidity is introduced? Look at the current crop of Republican pretenders to the throne and the current state of American politics and ask yourself if it is only a matter of time, unless we do something now. I honestly can't say that I think a personhood amendment is not likely to be passed somewhere in the USA in the next 10 years.

And that should terrify everyone.

Oh, and I make no apology for the disturbing pictures in the anencephaly link. Anti-abortion advocates make the most of fake pictures of pictures taken out of context in order to provoke an emotional reaction in these arguments. Those pictures are what they don't want you to see, and they make my point for me. Abortions can be justified and necessary.

OK, anger it is

2011-05-23T20:45:00.000-06:00

Honestly, the sheer cheek of some people is breathtaking.

Not content with his spectacular and very public failure to predict something that will never occur, Harold Camping is now at it again. The Rapture won't be on May 21st 2011 but October 21st 2011, after all that.

Quite why this date is a dead cert when the previously predicted two also were and then weren't is not clear. I'll have a guess though. It has something to do with Harold Camping being a clueless lying fuckwit trying to impose his ridiculous interpretations of a ridiculous superstition on the real world, then desperately trying to cover it up when it all goes tits up because he knows the truly stupid won't miss a beat as they accept this new date and his rationalisations.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say the real world is going to win this one. Again.

The sad thing is that people will still suck this shit right up and pretend its chocolate. Who knows though, maybe it'll be third time lucky. But I wouldn't cancel any plans you have for the 22nd October 2011.

Pity? Anger? Amusement? I'm just not sure

2011-05-22T11:33:00.000-06:00

Well, you didn't really think I was going to let the failed Rapture pass without comment, did you?

Now, I'm honestly not sure exactly what I should be feeling about this whole thing. Should I pity the people who believed Harold Camping and gave up money and more? Should I dismiss them as gullible and stupid? Should I feel they got what they deserved for their lack of critical thinking and arrogance? Should I direct my feelings towards Camping in the form of anger and disgust? Or should I just point and laugh?

Right now, I'm going for a mixture of most of the above. But I think I can rule out pity, except for the innocent victims. Those who have no college fund now because their parents are fucking morons. Those who will suffer because others fell for this fast burning stupidity.

Let's start with the obvious

I read with some amusement this article on the BBC news website this morning: 'Rapture': Believers perplexed after prediction fails. Quoth the article:

Some believers expressed bewilderment or said it was a test from God of their faith, after the day passed without event.

I have a much more simple and obvious explanation for this whole thing. One that is stark in its simplicity and fits the facts with the least amount of assumptions: its not real. There is no Rapture and there never will be. Being bewildered by there being no Biblical Rapture as predicted is as ridiculous and absurd as being bewildered by the fact that Skynet has not destroyed the human race yet. They're both made up, hence won't really happen.

Simple. No need for bewilderment or perplexity.

Robert Fitzpatrick, a retired transportation agency worker in New York, said he had spent more than $140,000 (£86,000) of his savings on advertisements in the run-up to 21 May to publicise the prediction.

After 1800 passed and nothing had happened, he said: "I do not understand why... I do not understand why nothing has happened."

"I can't tell you what I feel right now. Obviously, I haven't understood it correctly because we're still here."

Obviously. Or maybe, just maybe its not real.

But real harm has been and will be done

Let's not pretend though that this was just a few gullible or misguided (or just plain stupid) people doing something harmless - real damage has been, or is being, done. Not to mention creationists just adding to the stupid. MSNBC and the BBC both point out the vast sums spent by people, life savings gone. There were people who harmed themselves and others thinking the end was coming. There is a very real risk of people committing suicide through fear, depression and anxiety caused by this.

This was not harmless. Its easy to laugh until you realise people will suffer for it. At first I hoped people would start taking a pound of flesh from Camping and his organisation. But then I realised they only have themselves to blame. You can't hold Camping responsible for the fact that people gave themselves willingly to his delusion. It wasn't a scam. It was religion.

I don't see a difference between them myself. A scam is someone taking your money for something that isn't real. Sounds like religion to me.

The problem isn't Camping. The problem is that religion enables people like Camping. Religion isn't harmless. This is what happens when you take things on faith.

It's hard to feel sympathy for people this dumb

Then, just as I think I do feel some sympathy for the people who fell for it, you come across people this stupid (and a little scary, to be honest), quoted in both the BBC and MSNBC articles:

"I had some scepticism but I was trying to push the scepticism away because I believe in God," said Keith Bauer, who travelled 4,830km (3,000 miles), from Maryland to California, where Mr Camping's Family Radio is based, for the Rapture.

"I was hoping for it because I think heaven would be a lot better than this Earth," said Mr Bauer, a tractor-trailer driver, who took the week off work for the voyage.

Apparently Keith Bauer and I use different definitions of the term 'scepticism'. I wasn't aware that scepticism of the Rapture meant believing in it and taking your family across the continental USA for a week to get ready for the thing you are sceptical of. That sounds like blind credulous acceptance to me. Perhaps it was a typo. Twice. From different sources. Or, perhaps Bauer is a credulous buffoon who got what he deserved. I feel sorry for his family. I especially feel sorry for his family since he apparently thinks hanging out on Earth with them is a bit shit.

"I had some scepticism that I wouldn't burn myself if I put my hand in the fire, but I tried to push that away because I believe I am fireproof."

That's no different to what Bauer said, but we're supposed to believe one is not stupid and one is.

I also can't help but feel somewhat unnerved by people who believe that what we have right here, right now is not as good as something that we can't even prove exists. It's easy to rationalise killing if you think you're doing the person a favour. That you are sending them to a better place.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
-- Voltaire

So, I find myself with no sympathy for Keith Bauer, and he deserves every problem he suffers through for this. And just to reinforce this, MSNBC adds a further quote from him:

Then he added, "It's God who leads you, not Harold Camping."

Really? Then why were you following Harold Camping, Mr Bauer?

Then, you have people making excuses for the stupid people. Again, from the BBC article:

A group from the Calvary Bible Church in Milpitas, California, organised a Sunday morning service to comfort believers in Mr Camping's preaching, the New York Times reported.

"We are here because we care about these people," the newspaper quoted James Bynum, a church deacon, as saying. "It's easy to mock them. But you can go kick puppies, too. But why?"

Because the puppies didn't get themselves in a position to be kicked. They are innocent. Camping and those who believed him are not - they willingly went along with the whole thing. If you can't understand that distinction, you should keep your mouth shut on the topic. I applaud the effort to provide help to these people, but don't pretend the situation they are in is anything but of their own making. This was not an accident beyond their control - they went in eyes wide open.

I feel no sympathy for people who allow their greed to override their common sense and who lose all their money in a scam, just like I have no sympathy for people whose arrogance led them to believe God was coming to take them away to a better place on the say so of someone just as delusional as them.

Still believe there was no way these people could suspect something might not be quite right (apart from it all being made up anyway, obviously)?

He [Camping] has predicted an apocalypse once before, in 1994, though followers now say that only referred to an intermediary stage.

The people who went willingly and lost deserve no sympathy, its the people they dragged with them that deserve the sympathy.

But don't blame Harold Camping - he didn't force anyone to believe him, and don't pretend that the 'victims' have anyone to blame but themselves.

And if you are a person of faith shaking your head at this whole thing and patting yourself on the back for not believing in this particular predicted Rapture then you're a hypocrite - you have no right to feel smug. The faith that led people to believe Camping is the same faith as yours. After all, you think there will be a Rapture to, you're just not certain of the date. From my point of view, there's no difference between you and the people who followed Camping. Its like saying people who believe in the Jedi are silly when you believe in Elves.

It's all very silly.

More Catholic excuses

2011-05-04T23:00:00.001-06:00

I say more, but what I really mean is "More of the same." A recent anonymous comment was added to an older post about the Catholic Church desperately trying to find anyone to blame but themselves for the recent and ongoing child sex abuse scandals revealed in multiple countries around the world. Rather than try to fit my reply into a couple of seperate comments thanks to bloggers annoying comment length limit, I thought that it was a good excuse for a new post, since I've been quiet for a while.

Our intrepid anonymous commenter (henceforth known as Beatrice) basically trotted out two excuses used with disturbing monotony by the Church and its apologists:

But it wasn't every priest doing it.
Blame it on the gays. If there were no gays, this wouldn't have happened.

Seen it before, often out of the mouths of very senior members of the Church. They were both bullshit the first time we heard them, and they're still bullshit now.

Let's look at what was said about number 1

Beatrice opened with:

I enjoy reading comments like these. I'm hoping to be a Catholic priest myself and I'd rather the church just flat out say we screwed up.

Not sure why the post brought so much enjoyment, but I think you'll agree by the time we get to the end that it may have something to do with the fact that Beatrice either didn't read it or didn't understand it. And the Church saying "We screwed up" really doesn't quite seem to do the widespread physical and sexual abuse of children across the world for centuries much justice, does it?

"Sorry about that whole slavery thing. Our bad."

Then on to the meat:

To add a bit more rationality to the picture, technically only 0.3% of priests have molested children.

The irony of someone believing in an invisible sky fairy lecturing others on rationality seems to have skipped by Beatrice completely.

But where does this number come from? I'm going to go out on a limb and say pulled out of Beatrice's arse. No source is immediately cited, no figures given for the conclusion. How does Beatrice know how many priests have raped children? Even the Church can't say how many priests have raped children, how does Beatrice therefore arrive at this figure?

Here's a piece of advice Beatrice - making up numbers or misusing them does not make for a rational argument except in the most esoteric and worthless philosophical sense. Here it will get you laughed out of the room.

It is this simple - WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PRIESTS HAVE MOLESTED CHILDREN. Therefore, claiming only a certain number of them has is bullshit. What we do know is the tiny number who have been caught. Perhaps then Beatrice is referring to the fact that only 0.3% of priests have been caught molesting children (we'll see later, but this 0.3% seems to actually be that, out of reported instances of child abuse in the USA in 2006 priests made up only 0.3% of the perpetrators, Beatrice seems to have misread this, but for now we'll go with their reading of the figure).

According to the Catholic Church there were (in 2009) 5,065 bishops and 410,593 priests. Lets just say that only priests molest children, for the sake of argument. That's 1,272 priests in 2009 alone.

The problem is, these scandals don't cover just one time period, they cover centuries. The church has been getting away with it for that long. Take a look here. The numbers start to add up very quickly just in modern times alone. 200 here, 58 there, 22 in that place. Then take a look at the damage just one priest can do. Some of these evil bastards had dozens, and in some extreme cases possibly hundreds, of victims each.

But here's more to think about. We know that most sexual assaults go unreported just in society at large. That link cites sources claiming that as many as two thirds of rapes/assaults go unreported in the USA. That is in an open society with a well developed legal and judicial system. We know that the Catholic Church is the exact opposite of this. If that figure cited by Beatrice is only a third of the rapists (for simplicities sake) then that means there could have been as many as 3,816 rapist priests in 2009 alone. If you look at a closed hierarchical system more like the Catholic Church, say the US military, then the number of unreported sexual assaults can become horrific - the Pentagon estimates that 90% of assaults go unreported. So if that figure of Beatrice's is the 10% of reported rapists, that means there were 12,720 rapist priests in 2009 alone, correct? Wow. That figure ain't looking so rosy now, is it?

But that would be only if everywhere in the world was just like the world's most developed democracy, wouldn't it? Take another look at the Wikipedia page I linked to on Catholic sex scandals. Notice anything about the countries cited? They are overwhelmingly from the developed or 'nearly' developed world. Not many from the third world, are there? Anyone think of a reason why sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church aren't being reported from failed states, isolated missionary posts and states with endemic corruption or incompetence? Anyone seriously believe that there is no sexual abuse going on where people are less likely to find it and do something about it?

No, me neither.

So, what we have is only the few cases we've found in places where it is eventually likely to be found and something done about it. We have evidence of what Catholic priests do when they think no-one will catch them or care. In fact, from what we see of the Jesuits in Alaska we know the Catholic church will dump pedophiles where they think no-one will find them - there are more likely to be rotten priests in the third world countries where we won't catch them. Where they can get away with it at will.

The simple fact of the matter is that Beatrice's 0.3% figure is a disgusting attempt to excuse the inexcusable by painting a rosy picture using dodgy numbers - it is a cast iron assumption to believe the abuse that has come to light in recent years is merely the tip of the iceberg. I shudder to think what is going on in parishes out of the sight of the developed world's media and law enforcement, because I can guarantee it isn't better than it was here.

That number is obviously still higher than it should be.

No. Really? That number is also bullshit. It is misinterpreted and meaningless and does not take into account what we know about repressive or controlling organisations and the reporting of sexual crimes.

That number also does nothing to excuse or explain the Catholic Churches consistent, constant and unrepentant covering up of child rape by its members. It wouldn't matter if it was only two priests if the Catholic Church successfully kept it secret and just moved them around and around. Which, if it hadn't been caught, it would still be doing (and, let's face it, almost certainly is still doing). The Catholic Church enabled the repeated rape of children and didn't care - it only cared when it got caught. Because of this it doesn't matter if it is 0.3% of priests or 100% of priests. The Catholic Church lays claim to moral authority and states that I have none because I am an atheist - yet which of us has covered up mass incidences of child rape? Which of us continues to do so?

Furthermore, most Catholic priests really don't know why there were these priests who decided to be go off the deep end.

Irrelevant. And I notice it didn't stop you spouting your own theory, which we will get to shortly.

From another perspective, understand that there is the church, which is the largest humanitarian organization in the world and mostly filled with plenty of good people, and the church which has a select number of d bags too afraid to say the truth in fear that people will run away when some priests screw up.

Again, this is irrelevant. If you as an organisation cover up and/or participate in the mass rape and physical abuse of children I don't give a flying fuck what other good you do, you should be broken up and scattered to the winds to be looked upon with disgust by future generations. Still need an outlet for humanitarian aid? Join the Red Cross. Work for the UN. They don't make excuses for chronic pedophiles.

This yahoo question also adds a bit of historical reason into the seen. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100903000552AAaJd49

Ah, now I see where that 0.3% number comes from. And I was close, its a misreading of old data, rather than just made up. Still classifies as "pulled from the arse" though. The figures are from 2006 - before many of the large abuse scandals came to light, and they only represent figures in the USA, not the world. And then the comment by imacatholic2 at the Yahoo link also relys on reports from....you guessed it.... the Catholic Church! Well, they're a reliable source for this data. Why, it isn't like we know that the Catholic Church knowingly covered up child sexual abuse or something, is it? I can't imagine why it would be that the Catholic Church might report only a few cases of abuse in the USA between 2000 and 2007, when it was still getting away with covering this shit up because the tide hadn't yet turned. Especially since we now know for a fact that there were not 15 cases but hundreds. For crying out loud, iamacatholic2 starts his comment off with "A few Catholic priests..." Not sure which dictionary definition of "few" he is using, but it isn't the same as mine.

Beatrice - using out of date data, biased sources and demonstrably false claims to support your argument really isn't going to help you.

What about "the gays"?

Also rationally,

Stop saying that if you don't know what it means. Citing someones bigoted opinion from a Yahoo answers page does not make your argument rational Beatrice. It makes you look lazy and bigoted.

if most of these molestation cases were performed on mostly boys, and often by men who were gay priests

How do you know that the priests performing the abuse were "often" gay men? Cite your source that the majority of the abuse was carried out by gay men because they were gay. Go on, we've got time.

Here's how I know you didn't really read the post you were commenting on Beatrice, I actually cited sources that show pedophilia is not something done because of homosexuality, or even exclusively by homosexuals. Pedophiles often can't be shoved into a convenient box labelled "gay" or "not gay". If you had bothered to read the post you commented on, you would have seen this. If you did read it, then maybe you should try understanding it. For the record, here's the report I cited, again. At least try to understand what it is saying this time.

who were gay priests, who entered the priesthood because in the 1950s and 1960s when being gay was so frowned upon there literally was no where else to go

See now Beatrice, this is what happens when you take your ideas from ignorant and poorly educated bigots who provide Yahoo answers. I think you'll find that 1950s and 1960s Europe and North America were not 13th century France. Were conditions for homosexuals great in the 50s and 60s? Hell no. Did families ship their sons off to the church? Don't be ridiculous. Literally nowhere else to go? Literally, the only thing for a gay man to do in the 1950s was to join the priesthood? The Catholic priesthood. The anti gay Catholic priesthood.

You know, you can't find the word "gullible" in the dictionary Beatrice. True fact.

But go on, you made the claim, now prove it. Start with an accurate estimate (show your working) of how many gay men there must have been in the USA in the 1950s and 60s. Then how many of these were from Catholic families. Then compare that to the number entering the priesthood in those decades. We can wait. They had nowhere else to go after all. Literally.

and a hand full of these same priests did this garbage it's still not surprising that the Vatican doesn't want to see anymore gay priests With the backlash against the church being this high for this the church would want to do everything it could to prevent this from happening.

Being gay has nothing to do with pedophilia Beatrice, you and the Catholic Church need to get over it. Can you even show that the rapist priests we know about now are gay? Any of them? Can you then show the only reason they did what they did was because of their homosexuality and nothing else?

No, of course you can't. You know what a claim without evidence is Beatrice? It's a guess.

I prefer the term bullshit myself, but I'm not going to split hairs this late in the game.

I have another theory, one completely supported by the evidence. Do you know what all of those child rapist priests were, for definite? They were all of them, 100%, every single one, Catholic. Homosexuality doesn't seem to be the one thing they have in common, does it? Catholicism is the one thing they have in common. Now, if I were to play this game the way the Church does I could claim that being Catholic seems to turn some people into child abusers and you have absolutely nothing you can say that disputes this. The evidence supports me 100%.

But I don't play the Churches way. I'm not that kind of scum.

After all, as bad as this sounds, a straight individual isn't going to molest a boy.

Wrong. You know, in the days of Google, this type of ignorance is unforgiveable. Let me give you the money quote from the report I cited:

The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes...

Try reading what is written and then understanding it, before commenting on it. "Straight" pedophiles can, and do, molest children of their own sex Beatrice.

But that doesn't really describe the whole picture here. What is really at question is the chilidsh notion that whilst adult heterosexuals are considered only to want to have sex with adult members of the opposite sex, it is assumed that homosexual adults must want to have sex with anyone of the same sex, regardless of age. Why is this? I'll tell you. It isn't evidence based, it is naked prejudice, pure and simple.

Homosexuality isn't the cause of pedophilia, pedophilia is the cause of pedophilia. Adult homosexuals want to have sex with consenting adult homosexuals just like adult heterosexuals want to have sex with consenting adult heterosexuals. Pedophiles want to have sex with children. Some pedophiles are homosexual. Many more pedophiles are heterosexual. Only ignorant half wits confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and conflate the two. I also don't hear heterosexuality being blamed for instances of child abuse by priests. You should think long and hard about what that says about your prejudices.

But, there's even more. And it is the logical gaping hole in your allegedly rational argument. If these priests were just gay, why didn't they simply do what other gay men do and seek out other gay men to have sex with? Why didn't they just not have sex with anybody instead of raping children? Is there something about being a priest that makes gay men attack children? Then the problem is with the priesthood, surely? Especially since we know straight priests have raped children as well. Why, it seems the common factor here is once again the Catholic priesthood and not sexuality at all. Being gay doesn't seem to be the problem at all, when you look at it rationally.

For the simpleminded who still don't get it I'll spell it out:

Homosexuality does not equal pedophilia.
Pedophilia does not equal homosexuality.
There is no evidence that all, or even most, or even many, of the abusers were homosexual, but that is given by many Catholics as the reason for much of the abuse.
The one thing the abusers did all have in common was being Catholic, for which there is evidence, but no-one blames that for the abuse like they do homosexuality, for which there is no evidence. Why?
How does blaming homosexuality excuse and explain the comprehensive attempt to cover the abuse up, protect the abusers and ignore the victims? The people who did that were Catholic too. Spotting a connection yet?

So, here I am going to stick my neck out. Is the problem actually pedophilia and the fact that these men know that they will be safe in the priesthood and have a ready supply of victims?

I think for any rational person, the answer is obvious.

Health and prayer, and why God can't lose

2011-01-08T16:13:00.000-07:00

The job I started last year takes me into a lot of hospitals, and a large percentage of them are actually religious institutions - and all of these religious facilities are Christian. I find these latter hospitals strangely contradictory places that, without knowing it, are particularly damning of the idea that prayer works. I've been going to these places for a few months now and had the vague feeling I wanted to blog about them but wasn't sure how and why, until recently when a number of things intersected and gave me a direction to take. One day I saw a picture in one facility that, in equal measures, creeped me out, made me laugh out loud and certainly cemented my decision never to have surgery there. Just before I saw the picture and afterwards, there were then a number of medical scares to close family members (one of my children and my dad) and finally I've been reading "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" Which I've linked to before and flicked through but never taken the time, until now, to read in its entirety.

In all honesty, if you've ever taken the time to read "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" then none of this should be new to you. But it is my take on some of the ideas presented there with a couple of new bits thrown in. If you haven't read it then why the hell not? It is much better than anything I've ever written on the topic!

How do people get sick anyway?

When the health scares hit it occurred to me that the religious in my family would no doubt be urging prayer and praying themselves, and I did get one "God bless" sent my way. And all I could think was, "If prayer worked, then these people wouldn't be sick, would they?" After all, people don't ask for health scares or medical emergencies in their prayers do they? People don't pray along the lines of "Dear God, please send me or a family member a stroke." Do they? No, of course not. What they pray for is good health for themselves and their loved ones. The fact that people get sick shows, in my opinion, that at best God isn't always listening to prayers or that a great many self proclaimed religious people only pray when they think they really need to, and then usually out of fear or greed. At worst (at least for those who believe prayer works) the fact that people get sick is further proof that prayer doesn't work.

If God answers prayers, if prayer actually does work, if God can actually grant prayers, then why do people get sick? Nobody prays for themselves or a loved one to develop an illness, so how is it that people get sick? Shouldn't the only sick people be the atheist, agnostic or non-practising?

Not that old Chestnut...

This leads to another old chestnut that skeptics and atheists have long talked about: How God can't lose.

People pray for others to get better when they are ill. When they do so, and the person gets better, more often than not people will grant the recovery to God and prayer, to either a great or a small extent. But, if God has the power to cure an illness, doesn't he have the power to prevent one? But do you ever hear someone saying that a loved ones cancer is God's fault? Apart from scum like Fred Phelps and the truly fanatical gloating over the deaths of people who don't hold to the same superstitions, do you ever hear people blaming bad things on God? No, you don't. Because bad things are not God's fault, apparently. If there are 1,000 people on a sinking ship and 1 of them survives, some people will inevitably call it a miracle and attribute it to God. That 999 died is ignored. Miracles are God's work apparently, tragedies not so much. The thing that is ignored is that if God can save 1 person, he can save the other 999 and yet didn't. But no-one blames God for 999 deaths. They praise him for 1 life saved. In other words, no matter what, God can't lose. Bad things aren't his doing, but good things are.

A good recent example of this is the so called "Miracle on the Hudson". Of course, some people immediately gave the credit for this remarkable and extraordinary piece of flying to God - people immediately started calling it a miracle. Some even got upset when the pilot didn't himself attribute the landing to God. But, if this one triumph of skill and preparation was God's work and not the crew of flight 1549, then he is very hit and miss. But does anyone ever blame God for not doing anything? For allowing these other accidents to happen?

Mulling over these sorts of questions recently prompted me to post this on my Facebook status:

Dear God,

Instead of letting people get sick and then apparently curing them after a harrowing experience for all involved, how about not letting them get sick in the first place?

Regards
Jim

...PS. And why do you always wait until after the medical attention from dedicated professionals, what's that about? Makes it look like maybe it wasn't you at all...

The same could be said for almost any bad experience that a person goes through where a successful outcome is subsequently attributed to God. If God can cure the sickness, then God let them get sick in the first place. Wouldn't it be much more loving to not let them get sick anyway? At the very least it is a lot less showy. It's kind of like setting a building alight so you can impress people with your firefighting skills, isn't it? If God has the power to improve people's lives by curing them then how about he just stops them getting sick in the first place? Everyone's time is saved and no-one has to go through any horrific or traumatic or painful illnesses.

In fact, if you are a believer in Intelligent Design or creationism then you readily accept that illness is God's doing. In fact, if you are a Biblical literalist, you readily accept that illness and death are God's doing. So, how come no-one blames God for getting people sick, but they do praise him for curing people, even when the Bible specifically says sickness and death are God's doing?

Would you praise and thank a person for deliberately breaking someones arm because they then applied a splint and/or sling? Or would you call them a sociopath and lock them up?

At the end of the day, if you believe in God, then you'd have to say that the very least God can do is make people better because GOD caused them to get sick in the first place. The fact that he makes you grovel before he does it should really cause any right thinking person to pause for thought.

Instead of saving 1 person from the sinking ship, why not save everyone by not letting the ship sink? Instead of taking credit for a breathtaking feat of airmanship, how about you don't let the plane crash in the first place? And why do it so rarely? Why save flight 1549 but not the hundreds of others?

Think about it - does anyone pray "Dear God, please wake my wife from this coma, but it is OK if you give her severe brain damage and make her quadriplegic." People wake up from a coma and it is called a miracle and thanks is given to God - the fact that they have other major health problems as a result is ignored.

So God can't lose. If it is good, it's God. If it's bad well then it is bad luck, human error, free will, the arbitrary horror of nature, an unfortunate set of coincidences etc etc. Why does God get all the credit and none of the blame?

For instance, someone I know through work underwent very aggressive chemo and surgery for some very serious cancer problems last year. When the cancer appeared to be beaten an e-mail went around that finished with "See, prayer really works." - God got the credit. Since the cancer now appears to be back and the illness possibly terminal, do you think God will get the blame? Do you think the person claiming that prayer beat the illness will now re-examine that belief and retract it? Of course not, because God can't lose.

Health, medicine and prayer

OK. Let's assume that through some hand waving, post hoc rationalisations, openly honest avoidance or by just plain ignoring them, these questions are answered or ignored by the believer in the power of prayer. A person is sick and they, being a believer and having health insurance that allows, are taken to a religious hospital. There, because of the healing power of prayer, they are greeted by a member of the clergy, or a preacher, or some religious representative. From there they are taken into a special chapel where a group of devout believers will pray to their god and a cure is miraculously received. Oh wait no that isn't what happens, is it?

No, what happens is they receive science based medical treatment, surgical interventions, drug therapies, physical therapy and a great deal of attention from trained medical professionals who may or may not be religious.

But doesn't that strike you as odd?

If healing prayers work, why do religious hospitals need medical staff and treatment facilities? Why does a religious hospital need any of the trappings of modern medicine if prayer works? Why does a religious hospital need an ER, OR, ICU, PACU, NICU, IMCU, rehab unit? Why does a religious hospital need a pharmacy, ventilators, heart rate monitors, IVs, X-Ray machines, needles, scalpels, sutures, wound vacuums, suction pumps, pulmonary bypass units, wound therapy mattresses?

If prayer really works, and God does exist, then why does he/she need so much help? How come God only cures people after they have received all that other conventional medical treatment and why is it he/she who gets to claim the cure and not the medical team? And why do these miracle cures often take so long instead of being instant? Are people really praying "Dear Lord, please cure this cancer. But not for six months."

Shouldn't a religious hospital merely consist of enough amenities to keep a person comfortable and then a quiet room on each floor filled with devout hospital employees who pray for each patient? I mean, they do believe in the healing power of prayer don't they? Don't they?

They must do. Taking just the religious facilities I know, they are all Christian. So yes they do believe that prayer works and miracles happen. Indeed, inside each facility are devotional messages, Bible passages and pictures that imply that yes, prayer works and God exists. But then, what are all the doctors, nurses, therapists, MAs, unit secretaries, kitchen staff, cleaning staff, facilities staff, materials and supply staff etc doing there? They aren't really necessary are they? Well, not if prayer works at least.

If on the other hand prayer doesn't work, then we'd expect religious hospitals to need all those people and facilities just like non religious ones, wouldn't we? And lo and behold it seems that religious hospitals need all the things that non-religious ones do in order to treat patients. How curious.

Do you need a more damning indictment of the power of prayer? Even Christian hospitals don't trust it.

Where would Jesus make the first incision (WWJMTFI)?

So, here's an image I saw in a religiously affiliated hospital I was working at one day:

And after laughing out loud my next reaction was a mixture of horror, disbelief and fear. Is that really what modern science based medicine passes for in a religious hospital in the 21st century, hoping that Jesus (allegedly a carpenter from 2,000 years ago) is guiding your surgeon's hands? I resolved right there and then to never go to a religious hospital for treatment of any kind as long as I was able to make the choice.

Here are some questions for you - if you think that Jesus is guiding a surgeon's hands then does the surgeon need to go to medical school? If he or she does, why? Surely with faith, prayer and the Son of God on their side anyone can perform surgery? If not, why not? Why do people who work in religious hospitals need medical training?

And here are some other questions. If prayer works, why does Jesus need to use surgery to make someone better? Why does he need to act through a surgeon? Doesn't he do miracles anymore?

Oh, and more importantly - if Jesus is guiding a surgeons hands, who is to blame when surgery goes wrong? Do surgeries go 'wrong', or are they going exactly according to God's plan? Are surgeries in religious hospitals always 100% successful? If not, why not, since Jesus was aiding them? Does Jesus let some surgeries fail and not others? Why? Does Jesus deliberately misguide surgeons who screw up? Who do you sue for malpractice in that case? Should you even sue for malpractice since God was involved?

Do these medical professionals really believe that Jesus is guiding their hand? If so, then isn't that just terrifying? "Doesn't matter what I do or how good I am, Jesus is here with me."

What the hell does a carpenter from the year 33AD know about triple bypass surgery?

If that picture isn't filling you with dread at the thought of treatment in a religious institute that takes that kind of image seriously then you really aren't thinking it through. Or, on the other hand, maybe it is yet another indictment of what people at religious institutes really know about the healing power of faith and prayer.

Now, in trying to answer some of the questions above the religious don't get to redefine what a miracle is. You don't get to claim that modern surgical skills and techniques are miracles, they aren't. To the medically and scientifically illiterate they might look like magic but they are nothing of the sort - they are the product of thousands of years of science, medical experimentation, education and dedication whose origins and justifications can be traced and documented. They have an explanation. Calling them a miracle makes a mockery of the term. It makes the term 'miracle' meaningless.

The religious don't get to co-opt modern medicine for their own purposes.

A statistical case for the non healing power of prayer

So, we have a lot of questions that arise from the idea that prayer and faith can actually physically and/or mentally heal a person. The questions may or may not make people think about the claims that prayer and faith heal. Questions can be ignored or rationalised away. How about cold hard facts?

Well OK, they can be ignored as well, but let's look at some anyway.

First, let's re-state the hypothesis we're examining: Prayer and faith can heal people physically and mentally because God exists and he performs miracles.

If we accept this hypothesis, then there should be some evidence we can look at that supports this. For instance - shouldn't countries with large populations of devout people have healthier populations? Shouldn't countries with more devout people in them have better health and longer lifespans than those with less devout people in them - shouldn't it be healthier to live in a religious nation when compared to a secular one?

Let's take a look.

I started here to try and identify which countries have the most devout populations, and found that religiosity is highest amongst developing nations. Here's the Gallup table showing their results (you can see it better on the Gallup page but click on the table to enlarge):

Pay particular attention to the countries that identify themselves as the most religious and those that identify themselves as the least religious with respect to the hypothesis we are examining. What are your immediate first impressions?

Now, take a look at this table of international life expectancy (note: below I do use a different set of life expectancy figures when comparing developed countries to each other). Notice anything yet? The lowest life expectancy is in Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia, the highest in Japan, Andorra and San Marino. Unfortunately there is no religiosity data on Mozambique, but Malawi has a life expectancy of 37.6 years and 99% of adults claimed religion is an important part of daily life. Zambia has a life expectancy of 37.2 years and a religiosity of 95%. There is no religiosity data for San Marino or Andorra but the life expectancy of Japan is 80.7 years and there just 24% of people say religion is an important part of their daily lives. All three of the least religious countries on the Gallup poll have a higher life expectancy than the three most religious (in the cases of Denmark and Sweden, much higher).

Which doesn't seem to support the hypothesis that religious faith and prayer can work miracles for public health, does it? Wouldn't we expect that the more devout a population the more healthy it would be, if we accept that prayer and faith actually work to improve health or treat disease?

The obvious objection to this is that there are many other factors involved in the health of a population and this is no doubt borne out by closely examining the data I've so far provided, and my response is: Yes, exactly. Anyone who raises that objection is simply proving my point. If prayer and faith truly had an impact on health, then nothing else matters and the more religious countries should have better health - but overall they clearly don't. In fact, the data suggests that economics, sanitation, infrastructure and a great many other things have a far greater impact than prayer. Clean water has a bigger impact than prayer ever could. And that is my point.

But, let's be fairer to the hypothesis than it seems to deserve, let's compare countries that have more similarities than those at the extremes of developed states versus developing or failed states (even though prayer working or not shouldn't depend on the developmental state of the nation in which the prayee resides, only how devout they are, and nobody who says prayer works qualifies it with "Unless you live in the third world" anyway). And lets add another variable to judging how well prayer and faith work in respect to health care - the average per capita expenditure on health care. Shouldn't we expect more religious states to have to spend less on health care if prayer and faith work in treating medical problems or improving health? So let's include health expenditure as well.

Here are a few pages of data comparing countries with more similarities in terms of their developmental status, including data on states belonging to the OECD.

Starting with the UC Atlas website we see a comparison of life expectancy with per capita expenditure on healthcare in dollars. Taking the 5 countries with the longest life expectancy here (excluding San Marino, Monaco, Australia and Andorra because I didn't have religiosity data for them) we see that, with these figures and highest first, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Canada and France all have life expectancies between 82 and 79 years. Respectively, they have a religiosity of 24%, 41%, 17%, 42% and 30% (so an average of 30.8%).

The 5 countries (excluding Portugal and Cuba because there was no religiosity data) with the lowest lifespans are (lowest first) Ireland, Cyprus, USA, Denmark and the UK with a life expectancy between 76 and 78. Respectively they have a religiosity of 54%, 75%, 65%, 19% and 27% (so an average of 48%).

Far from conclusive in favour of the hypothesis that prayer and faith somehow improve health one way or the other. Significantly the USA, with its 65% religiosity, has a low life expectancy compared to other developed nations yet spends roughly twice as much per capita on healthcare than most other developed nations. Why would a country with such a large devout population need to spend so much on healthcare if prayer worked, and for such a relatively small gain?

In fact, the second graph on the UC Atlas page suggests that, up to a point, life expectancy has far more in common with money spent on healthcare than religiosity. Why would money have more of an effect than the devout appealing to the Almighty? Unless, of course, prayer doesn't work. The second website, Seeking Alpha shows that the USA spends almost double the average OECD percentage of GDP on healthcare. Why would that be if prayer worked?

Indeed, if prayer doesn't work then the data we have looked at makes perfect sense. However, if you believe prayer does work then the data presents you with a problem - what is going on? How do you explain what we are seeing in the data if prayer works?

If prayer works, then how do you explain the data on the Visual Economics page that shows that the US infant mortality rate (6.8 per 1,000 live births) is almost triple that of Japan (2.8) - 65% religiosity compared to 24% remember? People don't pray for children? God ignores those prayers?

Or maybe, just maybe, prayer doesn't work?

The fact remains that no matter how you look at the data, prayer seems to have no discernible effect on health. The most devout nations are amongst the least healthy and shortest lived in the world when we should expect the exact opposite if prayer worked. Some of the most devout developed nations spend the most on healthcare and still have relatively low lifespans when compared to less devout developed nations, when we should see the exact opposite if prayer works.

Even just within the USA we can see evidence that being devout doesn't significantly help you live longer or healthier - as a group black people are more likely to frequently attend church than white people, yet they still have a lower life expectancy than white people.

The Plan

As pointed out on Why Won't God Heal Amputees one of the common responses to the questioning of prayer and its effectiveness is that if what was prayed for doesn't happen then it not happening was part of God's Plan. I think it is worth re-iterating the answer to this given over at WWGHA.

If God has a plan for everyone and everything, and has done since the dawn of time, then prayer is pointless. In fact, it is more than pointless, it is asking God to change his plans. Who are you to ask the creator of the Universe to change what he has set in motion? What kind of arrogance is that? If a loved one is sick, if a loved one is dying, then that is what God wanted and the outcome is already determined - it is in the plan remember. Praying is therefore a waste of time and will change nothing. It will accomplish nothing. The way it is is the way God wants it and therefore prayer still does not work because the way it is going to be is also the way God wants it to be.

If God exists, and he has a plan for everyone and everything, prayer does nothing.

And yet the Bible says that prayer does work. How confusing. Either God has a plan and that explains the seemingly inexplicable and arbitrary nature of the success of prayer, which also means prayer is ineffective because outcomes have already been decided by God. Or, the Bible is wrong and if you ask for something in prayer you still might not get it.

How would a believer in the power of prayer explain that?

Conclusion

Prayer simply does not work.

Claiming that prayer works leaves you with so many unanswered questions that your position becomes unsustainable. The evidence presented here and elsewhere shows that prayer doesn't have any discernible or even demonstrable effect on healthcare or medical treatment and it is apparent that, whether they consciously recognise it or not, religiously affiliated medical facilities are, by the simple virtue of their existence, an acknowledgement that prayer doesn't do anything.

Prayer doesn't work. Let's stop pretending it does and do something useful with our time instead.

Syvlia Browne fans - why so quiet?

2010-12-19T12:47:00.000-07:00

A quick look at my Sitemeter statistics at the foot of the page tells me that by far the overwhelming number of visitors to my blog are people who search for some variation of "Sylvia Browne 2010 predictions". And I mean overwhelming. In fact, almost every visitor to the blog comes from someone searching for Sylvia Browne's 2010 predictions. Yet none of them seem to stay very long once they get to my page talking about Sylvia Browne's 2010 "predictions" and only one person has ever left a comment that tried to defend her.

Why is that? No-one wants to defend the indefensible? They don't like having their delusions shattered so disappear in a huff? They think I'm wrong? They have absolute proof of Browne's powers so ignore the ranting of a know nothing skeptic? Or are they scared? Are they scared that the house of cards they built and called their belief system will come tumbling down if just for one moment they actually have to think about what they believe? Is it because deep down they know I am right about Browne and people like her?

Are these people so scared of having to think that they run away every time they are challenged?

Why are Sylvia Browne's fans so quiet?

Here's what I think - Browne's fans don't have an answer to what skeptics say about her, so they just ignore the criticisms and hope they go away because they can't handle the truth. Reality is just to scary for them.

Browne fans: prove me wrong. Have the guts to actually say something that isn't a childish insult or unthinking devotion.

I dare you.

How well do you really think accommadationism works?

2010-12-01T20:29:00.001-07:00

Today is the 55th anniversary of Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her bus seat in Montgomery, Alabama - a pivotal event in the civil rights movement that sparked the Montgomery bus boycott. So, whilst I was sitting in traffic listening to NPR on the subject I started to think about the blogging topic that's been on my mind lately - accommadationism and the whole "You're doing it wrong, don't be a dick" crowd.

And it occurred to me: where would most successful social reform movements be if they had listened to their own versions of the "Be nice, not pushy. Don't be rude. Couldn't you just talk to the more moderate of our opponents." people?

I can just imagine people saying to the leaders of the civil rights movement. "Look, don't you think calling them racist is a bit, well, rude? And calling people rude names is a bit, dickish, after all. Couldn't we tone it down a little bit so that the less racist ones (the moderates) might be able to help us with some tiny aspect of the whole picture? We're scaring off potential allies by being so strident. Do you really have to be so, militant?"

Can you imagine the civil rights movement toning it down a bit, not causing such a fuss, not making a scene? Was the literature of the civil rights movement less strident than the books of Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens? Certainly not, in fact in many cases it was far more extreme. Worthy of the description "militant" far more than "God is not Great" certainly.

Can you imagine the civil rights movement if they'd listened to the "Don't be so confrontational" crowd?

No. I don't imagine that would have been that successful either.

And if you think that the struggle against religion is not a civil rights issue, then you haven't been paying attention and you have no business being involved.

The truth of all successful reform movements is that they need the militants, the pushy, the dicks, in order to shake things up. To make people pay attention. To give them a metaphorical slap in the face. Just putting your case politely, eloquently and forcefully - yes, even passionately - is not enough, and has never been enough in any reform movement.

Why do people expect it to be different this time? What good would it have done if the civil rights movement had failed but participants could at least say "Hey, at least we didn't call anyone names or upset anybody. I would have hated to have to make a scene. But we gave it a good shot."

I don't think so. You can keep polite and safe. In fact, you can stick it up your arse. Sideways.

How can you call yourself a skeptic if...

2010-11-28T21:42:00.000-07:00

... you accept things on faith or believe in the supernatural? The answer is, I believe, you can't. And you don't get to call yourself a critical thinker either. What you would be is a hypocrite. Or, maybe a little more charitably, a part timer. At best, you'd be someone capable of fooling yourself.

Thinking about writing this post is what prompted me to write yesterday's post as well, and its all about getting my thoughts down on this whole silly shit about accommadationism and people trying to exclude atheism from skepticism, and those people trying to define who the real skeptics are and who gets to join in and how they should do it (this last I covered yesterday). So here goes.

Atheism isn't skepticism - say what now?

Via PZ Myers I found out about a ridiculous blog post by Jeff Wagg, who used to work for the JREF. I was going to leave it alone until I read the always excellent Tom Foss writing on a somewhat related note. As usual, Tom said just about everything I would want to on the topic before I had even thought about it and better than I would have done anyway. Git. But that's not going to stop me adding my own not so humble opinions anyway, oh no.

The gist of what Jeff Wagg is saying is that skepticism deals with science so has very little to say on religion except where a testable claim is made and that whilst atheism and skepticism overlap in places they are distinct and should be kept so. On top of this he is claiming that skepticism doesn't lead inevitably to atheism.

Almost all of what he says is absolute bollocks.

I'll put it simply to start with. If skepticism and critical thinking don't lead you to, as JT Eberhard wrote to Jeff Wagg "some brand of atheism/metaphysical naturalism" then you really aren't doing it very well. If I'm being generous I could say you've learned to switch your critical thinking on and off when it suits you. What you are doing is applying bits of skepticism and critical thinking to the things you want to and ignoring it when you want to ignore it in regards to the things you don't want to apply your skepticism or critical thinking to - like the existence of gods. Exactly what kind of skeptic or critical thinker accepts a truth claim on faith alone? Exactly what kind of skeptic or critical thinker believes in the supernatural? Exactly what kind of skeptic believes in the unscientific, untestable or unprovable?

In other words, what kind of skeptic or critical thinker still believes in gods?

Now, you might say "Jimmy, aren't you being a tad hypocritical here? You have a problem with people who say you can't be a real skeptic because of something, and you are saying these people can't be real skeptics because of something." I would reply - "If I was using my own definition of skepticism you'd have a point."

But I'm not.

In fact, I'm using Jeff Wagg's definitions of skepticism. The problem is people defining skepticism how they want to in order to include or exclude what or who they want to, but I'm not doing that. Wagg and people like him are though, and in this case failing miserably. Wagg writes:

I believe that if you equate skepticism with anything other than science, you’ve missed the point.

Followed later by:

Skepticism is about drawing conclusions that are proportioned to the available evidence.

How exactly, given these definitions of skepticism, is religion and the existence or not of gods excluded? How do you exclude the supernatural claims of religion from skepticism but include the supernatural claims of those who believe in ghosts? A supernatural claim is a supernatural claim - it doesn't matter if the ghost in question is Abraham Lincoln or the Holy Spirit, for example. Science has plenty to say about the claims of religion. Are there turtles all the way down? Did giants once roam the earth? Did the Universe begin 6000 years ago? Was the earth covered by a giant flood? Pose a religious question, science will almost certainly have something to say on the matter. That includes the existence of God, since religious claims are inextricably linked with their deities. To claim the existence of something, even gods, is to make a scientific claim.

I'm using the skepticism that Wagg endorsed when he was at the JREF - faith is not enough to validate a claim, you need evidence. Claiming God exists is a claim that needs evidence in the same way that claiming Bigfoot exists needs evidence. Wagg would not accept faith as evidence in favour of Bigfoot, why is God different? Why is questioning one skepticism but not the other? Why can I say "I don't believe in Bigfoot" and be a skeptic according to Wagg, but not "I don't believe in God"?

More importantly though: how can you say you believe in God and claim to be a skeptic? You wouldn't call someone who believed in Bigfoot a skeptic. What, exactly, is the difference that makes one skepticism and the other 'only' atheism?

What definition of skepticism or critical thinking are you using where you can include people who accept supernatural claims on faith alone, with no evidence and in defiance of logic and reason? Really, I would love to know the answer to this.

You don't get to call yourself a skeptic or a critical thinker if you accept even one supernatural claim, or even one claim for which there is no supporting evidence. You wouldn't call someone who rejected all woo except astrology a skeptic, so why make an exception for someone who rejects all woo except the existence of a god?

If you accept even one bit of woo, you're a woo. It's that simple.

Skepticism of the existence of gods leads to atheism if the principles and tools of skepticism and critical thinking are rigorously and completely applied to the question. The only way that skepticism and critical thinking don't lead to atheism, or at least agnosticism, is if you don't ever apply your skepticism or critical thinking to the question of the existence of gods in the first place. And if you only apply those tools and principles where and when you feel like it, you aren't really a skeptic or a critical thinker, you're a part timer.

Atheism is merely the name for the result we get when we fully apply skepticism and critical thinking to the claim "Gods exist".

Atheism, skepticism and critical thinking are inextricably linked. Atheism is the result of applying skepticism to the most popular bit of woo in the world - religion.

Wagg and a silly strawman

Not only does Wagg make the baffling argument that atheism isn't part of skepticism and indeed is something completely separate since skepticism has nothing much to say about the existence of gods unless it is a testable claim, he throws in a silly strawmen that seems to lie at the root of this while he is at it.

Wagg writes:

The e-mail is an admission that the organizers of Skepticon believe that Skepticism = Atheism

Wrong. What JT Eberhard said was:

it is the opinion of most of our organizers that skepticism leads directly to some brand of atheism/metaphysical naturalism

The organisers of Skepticon believe skepticism leads to atheism. Not that skepticism is atheism, or skepticism = atheism. This mistake I think lies at the route of the problem Wagg seems to have, and probably prompted his silly post.

Nailing my colours to the mast

Otherwise known as "Fuck accommodationism, I don't want you in my gang anyway."

Wagg, and a great many other people in the recent past, are complaining about assertive atheism driving people away from the skeptical and critical thinking movements as well as the many movements to prevent things like the teaching of creationism in classrooms, the politicisation of science and the desecularisation of the country here in the USA.

Wagg, for instance, writes:

I see a lot of good people leaving the skeptical community because they’re uncomfortable with the tone and disappointed with, frankly, the lack of skepticism presented by many people.

....

I’m convinced that a litmus test over who’s a skeptic and who isn’t based on religious belief is harmful to both movements.

To this I say:

Good. Fuck 'em. Lightweights scared off by naughty words. I call into question your use of the term 'good' in this context. And anyway, no such litmus test exists. The only 'test' that exists for this gang is that you consistently and rigorously apply skepticism and critical thinking.

If these people don't apply their skepticism to the question of the existence of gods it is not the assertive or vocal atheists (the so called New Atheists - a term I despise) who are displaying a lack of skepticism. I don't want these half arsed skeptics clogging up the skeptical movement with their "Oh, skepticism and critical thinking applies here and here, but not there or there." They are the people holding the skeptical movement back and damaging it.

You don't destroy ignorance by allowing some versions of it to go on existing. And that is what this is all about, isn't it? We're here to destroy ignorance, they want their favourite bits of it to remain.

Or are we really going to say that we are happy to include any kind of half arsed 'skeptic' in the movement just for the sake of not upsetting someones sensibilities? Just where do we draw the line for what we can count as a skeptic? As long as they don't believe in astrology and homeopathy should Holocaust Deniers be called skeptics? Where exactly is this list of things you can or can't believe in for you to qualify for the skeptics club and who made it and with what authority and how was it determined?

Or, is the only real litmus test that you rigorously and comprehensively subject ALL your beliefs and those of others, as you encounter or develop them, to the tools and principles of skepticism and critical thinking?

And yes, that would mean religious belief. That would mean that if you believe in gods, you aren't really a skeptic. What you are is someone who applies skepticism and critical thinking when it suits them. When it isn't something they are personally invested in. When it is easy. You can't call me a professional footballer if I only played five a side once a week for two years.

I am tired of people telling me I'm not a real skeptic when they pick and choose what skepticism applies to or doesn't. They are the problem, not those of us who insist that the tools can be applied to any claim. All I am saying is that if you want to be a skeptic then you have to do it all the time and include your own beliefs in there.

So I am glad that these wishy washy lightweights are leaving the skeptical gang - I don't want someone calling themselves a skeptic when they accept that "God did it" might one day be the answer to a question. I don't want someone who might one day attempt to explain an as yet unexplained occurrence with "It was a miracle." I don't want someone who believes a guy rose from the dead and ascended into the sky arguing alongside me that ghosts don't exist. I don't want someone who believes in Heaven telling me that such and such a psychic can't really speak to people in the afterlife.

I don't want my skepticism to be associated with such confused hypocrisy.

I don't think any woo should be able to call themselves a skeptic. I don't think anyone who believes in the supernatural should be able to call themselves a skeptic. I don't think anyone who accepts something on faith should be able to call themselves a skeptic. I'm glad that the people who get so upset by tone they leave are gone, they don't have the stomach for the struggle ahead and clearly weren't that committed - they're just words.

As JT Eberhard says in his reply to Jeff Wagg, it is horseshit to say that skepticism applies to some truth claims but not others. The people who claim that skepticism doesn't apply to their cherished belief are the problem.

And they shouldn't get to call themselves skeptics.

Fuck you. And other thoughts on being 'a dick'

2010-11-27T14:46:00.000-07:00

Not for the first time I am late to the party on this.

For quite some time there's been an argument raging around the skeptical blogosphere that comes down to, as Dr. Phil Plait (the Bad Astronomer) describes it, "Don't be a dick." You can find the talk he gave on the subject on YouTube, in three parts. Basically, it's an argument about tone - why do we have to be mean? Why are we insulting? Why do we use bad words? Your demeanour gets in the way, why can't you be nice when shattering people's ignorance and delusions?

Not surprisingly, I don't entirely agree with Dr. Plait and other people who make the same argument. Whilst I agree that you should focus on your goal, I don't agree that the only way to reach it is by being nice. This post is about why I really don't like the tone argument. In fact, I think it is bullshit.

First I'll start with the obvious irony that has been pointed out already I'm sure. The tonesters make an argument against calling people names by... calling people a name. Nice. Did that just pass the tonesters by or was it part of a cunning plan to prove their point? If, as the tonesters say, people are not convinced by calling them names then what did they think their argument that my tone makes me a dick would do? Convince me? Because, if they as a tonester believe what they say is true, then they knew it wouldn't convince me, didn't they? So they were just being insulting. In fact, they were being a dick. In the words of Phil Plait - what was their goal?

What the tone argument comes down to is this - we (skeptics, scientists, critical thinkers, atheists) have a hard message to sell and being rude, or using naughty words, just makes it harder. No-one will listen to us if we are mean. We won't achieve our goal of debunking nonsense if we aren't polite.

I have one thing to say to this:

Bollocks.

And here is why it is bollocks: no matter how polite we are, no matter how careful we are to avoid using naughty words or even the appearance of being insulting or rude, somebody somewhere will think we are being a dick. We are criticising cherished beliefs that people have invested their lives in. We are criticising things that form the foundations of peoples whole belief systems and even their way of life. We are criticising things that make people money. It doesn't matter how nice you are about it - they are going to think you are being a dick. Even if you have all the facts on your side. Even if you phrase your argument in as friendly and neutral a way as you can, somebody will think you are being mean. Someones feelings will be hurt. You're already being a dick before your tone is even considered.

This being the case, who defines what being a dick is? Is it something more than just telling people they are wrong about something? Who gets to decide and why?

Is it the tonesters? Because as far as I can see their definition is "A dick is anyone who doesn't argue as politely as I do." So they can just fuck off.

Is it the people who we are arguing against? Surely everyone can see the problem with that. Dissent can be utterly silenced because all anyone has to do is say "I think you are being a dick." And that's the end of that, isn't it? So they can just fuck off too.

Are the tonesters so naive and sheltered that they think nobody anywhere will ever get upset by even the most carefully worded and polite criticism?

But then, if they accept that yes someone might be offended no matter what, how then do they take their tone argument as anything other than a capitulation? As self censorship? If I can't be a dick, but someone somewhere will undoubtedly think I am being one no matter what I do or say, then where are we? The answer is, we are left unable to say anything lest we tread on someones toes or hurt someones feelings. And our goal, to light the flame of critical thinking, is extinguished from the beginning.

And I know that not wanting to be a dick has resulted in censorship of skepticism because I've self censored myself (hey, that type of anecdote was good enough in Phil Plait's speech, why not here?). How many of you who consider yourselves to be skeptics have knowingly not made a skeptical argument to someone because you just knew that they were going to think you were being mean? That you were being a dick? I've refrained from saying stuff to lots of my friends, even just politely pointing out that they were wrong about something factual or pseudo scientific, because I knew they would think I was being a bit of a dick. A killjoy. A bit arrogant. A bit rude even. How many skeptics have been called mean, rude or angry because they politely pointed out some point of inaccuracy or nonsense? On Facebook I wrote a little thing about some of the horrors contained in the Bible and was called mean and angry. Was it because I used the words "fuck" and "bloody" or because I pointed out that the Bible contains all manner of things that no-one likes to talk about? In other words, was someone who themselves used plenty of those gosh darned naughty words offended by my tone, or the substance? I also remember once very politely and calmly (yes, I can do it) pointing out the problems with The Secret to a group of friends - you should have heard the names I was called just for doing so.

And so, if it was the substance rather than the tone that made me a dick then, well, what are we supposed to do if we can't be a dick?

Furthermore - who says that a polite tone or demeanour stops you from being a dick? When the Pope makes a well written and calm speech that equates atheism and Nazism, is he being a dick? I sure as shit think he is, and I don't think the only correct answer is "I respectfully disagree sir, but I respect your right to compare me to Heinrich Himmler just because I don't believe in the existence of gods." This version: "Fuck you, you child rapist protecting dress wearer. And by the way, here's why you are wrong..." is just as good. Sometimes we need to shake people up. Sometimes we need to show people how angry we are. Because that might help them understand.

Or how about this. My in-laws have tried to teach my children Christianity, basically to convert them to good little god botherers. Without my consent. Behind my back. Despite my express wishes, which they are well aware of. I found out only by accident. They were, I am sure, polite about it. I am sure that, as far as they are concerned, it was done with the best of intentions. Were they being dicks or not, as the tonesters would see it? There was nothing wrong with their tone or demeanour, after all.

Calling homosexuals sinners - are you being a dick or not? Telling me I am going to hell for not believing - being a dick or not? The tone isn't offensive to me. There are no naughty words. But I still think anyone who holds and expresses those sentiments is being a dick even though they didn't insult me.

The point is that tone on its own doesn't necessarily make you a dick - they're just words. Substance on its own can, and if we have to censor the substance then we've lost before we even begin.

On top of this - what is wrong with calling something as you see it anyway? The fear of calling religion what it is, is the very reason it has the privileged position in society that it does. Politeness is the worst enemy of criticism. If someone is being an idiot, why shouldn't I say so? If something is bullshit, why shouldn't I say so? Sarah Palin is a moron, why pretend otherwise? Sylvia Brown is a lying old hag, why shouldn't I point that out? The Law of Attraction is a crock of shit.

Which leads nicely to my own position on this - if people are going to think I am a dick because of what I say anyway, then I am sure as hell going to have fun with how I say it, and I am going to express myself honestly and openly. And that means I am going to be a dick sometimes. Alright, most times. And if you think I'm doing it wrong and your way is better I have one thing to say to you:

Fuck you. With bells on.

Mockery of religion and pseudoscience, in other words people being dicks, is what helped me start to question those things - and I know of others. As PZ Myers and others have written on the subject - we need both approaches, the polite and the not so polite. To use a few of the analogies that Phil Plait uses in his talk: Yes, sometimes small well aimed taps of the hammer will do and are the best approach, but sometimes we need a fucking great big wrecking ball. Or: Yes, I might be scoring cheap points, but even cheap points can win the game if it means you score more than the other guys.

But here is the real kicker - I, and nearly all of the skeptics (and the rest) that I read, generally adopt the tone of the person I am responding to. So if I am being a dick, guess what... ?

They might not think they are being a dick, but that is how I interpret it.

And that is why the tone argument is so fucking stupid.

Really America? I mean, really?

2010-11-03T20:06:00.003-06:00

The 2010 midterm elections in the USA have, at different times and with varying measure, filled me with despair, disgust and disillusionment. I've also been reminded of three quotes from two great men:

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
-- Albert Einstein

And:

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
-- Winston Churchill

And finally:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
-- Winston Churchill

Unfortunately, I don't see much of the right thing happening, plenty of the same thinking that got us into this mess and then democracy in all its horrendous glory.

One bunch of right wing nuts spent eight years fucking everything up, and then a large portion of the voting population of the USA gave the next bunch of slightly less right wing nuts just 2 years to turn absolutely everything around, and when that didn't happen instantly they went for a bunch of extremely right wing nuts as if that would fix things. Hence the ridiculous corporate entity referred to as the Tea Party, brought to you by the Koch brothers. Grassroots political movement my arse. Like everything else in this country, it's all about money. The Tea Party isn't fighting the establishment, it IS the establishment. Same shit, different name.

Trade deficit under Bush? Going up. Unemployment under Bush? Going up. Wall Street bailout that everyone was so angry about? Bush administration (although Obama added to it). The National Debt the Tea Baggers were so worried about? Doubled under Bush. Where was the outrage then? If it was the ideology of rampant free markets and relaxed regulation that contributed to the current economic disaster, how would a bunch of people even more fanatical about said ideology help? If all these economic woes are the cause for the backlash against Obama's administration then where were these champions of America when Bush fucked it all up in the first place?

If it looks like shit and smells like shit, it probably isn't chocolate.

How is it that problems that took 8 years to create under Bush and the Republicans are now being blamed on Obama and the Democrats after just 2?

The answer, it would seem, is that a large proportion of the American voting population is either irredeemably stupid or shamefully ignorant. Or possibly both. How else can politicians get away with campaign adverts that are blatant lies AND still have people vote for them? How else can people proclaiming their lack of experience make them seem like ideal candidates for the job? How else can a politician that doesn't know what the First Amendment is even get on the ballot anywhere, never mind be a serious contender? How else could a misogynist fascist prick like Ken Buck come a very close second in a race for a position in the Senate? OK, fascist might be an exaggeration, but not by much. How else can the people that caused this mess be exonerated and greeted like saviours?

But the Democrats have to accept some of the blame - they didn't vote or didn't engage their base and get them out. And of course, Obama couldn't ever live up to the hype, he's a politician. Business as usual. In the end what you had was old privileged white people voting for privileged white people. And privileged white people came out the winners. What a surprise. I thought a couple of weeks ago that the Democrats were being too soft but I was wrong. The Democrats basically just rolled over and died. If you don't vote, you get the government you deserve.

And as for it being about the economy? Fuck off. If it was, then shouldn't the $4 billion dollars spent on campaign ads be a source of shame? At a time when unemployment falls somewhere between 9 and 20%, depending on how it is measured, shouldn't that tell you that the political system here is broken? Politicians spend $4 billion dollars on TV ads packed with lies and slurs whilst also claiming to have the economic interests of Americans at heart? Never mind the secretive nature of the people behind most of the adverts - this campaign has all the hallmarks of being bought and paid for by big business. This was not democracy in action, it was the vested interests of big business and special interest groups doing what they do best. Buying people and buying votes.

As a non-voting resident I have one question: why do you put up with this? As a result of this election I have to ask:

What the fuck is wrong with this country, and how long will it take it to try everything else?

You know what else isn't in the Constitution, Christine?

2010-10-19T22:49:00.000-06:00

Carbine, Handgun, Rifle ('the right to bear arms' who could mistake that?), Abortion, God, Jesus, Christian, Gay, Lesbian, Homosexual, Marriage, Pornography, Torture, Lord appears only in the common contemporary usage as part of the date, the phrase "Death Penalty", the phrase "Don't ask, don't tell", the phrase "Special Rendition", the phrase "Patriot Act", the phrase "Intelligent Design", the phrase "Tax Cut", the phrase "Tea Party", the phrase "War on Terror", the phrase "Everyone has the right to own an automobile", the phrase "Everyone has the right to shop where they want to", the phrase "Everyone has the right to choose which doughnut is their favourite",

These exact phrases or words don't appear either, what was your point Christine? I confess, I don't really see what she was trying to get at other than trying to make herself look stupid and appealing to the sorts of people who are likewise ignorant of the Constitution.

Was she trying to say that since these exact words aren't in the Constitution it has nothing to say about the principle outlined by them? That since the exact words "seperation of church and state" are not present in the Constitution or the Amendments to it that there is nothing in them about that subject, that the Constitution does not guarantee the separation of church and state? As far as I can see that would rule out an awful lot, wouldn't it? It would rule out an awful lot of things that Republicans and Tea Baggers seem to hold dear, in fact.

Or was Christine O'Donnell really trying to imply that there is nothing regarding the separation of church and state in the Constitution at all, not just the specific words? Is she that, well, ignorant? Shouldn't someone who is going to take an oath to uphold the Constitution actually understand what is in it? Indeed, if you watch the video of the debate she does in fact seem surprised that the first amendment does guarantee the separation of church and state. She doesn't seem to know about one of the most important aspects of the first amendment. Wow.

Or was she simply making, as she is now trying to claim, the banal point that those words just don't appear in the Constitution? Yes we know, we can read to - why even make that point as if it was important? The word "buttock" doesn't appear either, what is the relevance? Saying those words don't appear is hardly a rebuttal to someone pointing out the nature of the establishment clause, so it just seems childish.

Here is a crazy idea. Could it be you actually have to read the Constitution and its Amendments in order to actually understand what is in them, rather than just believing what some people equally as ignorant have told you is in them (like Rush Limbaugh)? Let me explain it for you (and I've mentioned it in the past). Yes Christine, on the purely superficial and banal level you are right, those words don't appear, but the exact wording of the First Amendment establishes the principle of separation of church and state, and the framers of the Constitution were quite clear about it, as the MSNBC article points out.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" means that Congress stays out of religion. The state cannot interfere with the church. The two shall remain separate. The state can favour no particular religion. The state shall remain seperate from the church - it was a principle Jefferson and Madison held dear, and fully intended.

To say otherwise proves you ignorant and unfit for office.

Not that this is a surprise. Please tell me people see through all of this, that the right wing isn't going to make massive gains in the upcoming elections. PLEASE.

If only there was a deity to pray to....

Don't talk bollocks, cancer isn't 'man made' and did exist in the ancient world

2010-10-16T14:05:00.004-06:00

Every now and then when I'm looking for something to write about I come across or I'm sent something so spectacularly stupid that really a new word needs to be invented to describe it, and this article on a study published in Nature Review: Cancer is no exception. I am fairly certain that just by reading it a portion of my intelligence was sucked away, So thanks to my brother David and his friend Clare for making me stupiderer.

Now, in the interests of trying to be fair to the academics that wrote the study in question I'll add the disclaimer that this might just be an example of the usual crappy job that science reporting generally does, the media likes to take a small study with conservative conclusions and turn it into sensationalism along the lines of "Elvis lives with Lord Lucan and Satan in the Sun, study says". However, if the quotes are accurate, it looks like the actual authors of the study are indeed clueless buffoons as well.

It starts with the headline:

Cancer caused by modern man as it was virtually non-existent in ancient world

Boy that's dumb.

Self contradictory as well. Never mind not being entirely accurate as a summation of the study. Here's why: If cancer was caused by modern man then it MUST, by definition, have been completely non-existent in the ancient world, not virtually non-existent. If it was virtually non-existent then that means it was just a little bit existent in the ancient world. Which means modern man can't have caused it, because he's modern and the ancient world is, well, ancient. You know, ancient as in "not modern". Either cancer was caused by modern man and therefore didn't exist at all in the ancient world, or cancer did exist in the ancient world and therefore modern man can not have caused it.

So this article jumps right in with the ridiculously stupid right from the get go. Moving on:

Researchers looking at almost a thousand mummies from ancient Egypt and South America found only a handful suffered from cancer when now it accounts for nearly one in three deaths.

The findings suggest that it is modern lifestyles and pollution levels caused by industry that are the main cause of the disease and that it is not a naturally occurring condition.

Again, the first paragraph contradicts the headline - the researchers are said to have found cancer in ancient mummies that they studied. Therefore modern man didn't, couldn't have, caused cancer. If any cancer at all, no matter how rare, existed in ancient people then cancer cannot have been caused by modern man. It's really that simple.

The second paragraph is just shitty science reporting - the study does not suggest that it is modern lifestyles and pollution that are the main causes of the disease, it suggests that cancer was rare in the ancient mummies studied by the researchers who wrote the report. Any other conclusion is not supported by the study and is merely conjecture. Secondly, the report does not suggest that cancer is not a naturally occurring condition. Again, it suggests that cancer was rare amongst the mummies studied. Hardly the same thing. Both of the conclusions outlined in that paragraph are unsupported by the study. The second one is demonstrably false, as we'll see.

The study showed the disease rate has risen dramatically since the Industrial Revolution, in particular childhood cancer – proving that the rise is not simply due to people living longer.

Really, we need to invent a new word to describe this kind of absolute stupidity. Yes cancer rates have risen dramatically. I wonder why that might be? Could it be that cancer is man made and caused by the rapid industrialisation of the modern world? Or, and I am going to go out on a limb here, could it be that most cancers have only been correctly recognised and diagnosed since the start of the Industrial Revolution? If it wasn't recognised as cancer before then, and then it was, what do you think might happen to the rates of cancer? You know, Transformers weren't a very popular toy before they were invented, then they were invented and sales of them just went through the roof. Crazy.

Cancer didn't exist as a medical diagnosis until it was correctly identified and given its own name - what came to be diagnosed as the 200 or so different types of cancer used to be called something else or were lumped in with other illnesses. Once cancers started to receive their own names, lo and behold cancer rates increased dramatically. What a surprise. Where is the evidence that the rise in cancer rates is connected to industrialisation and not the increased awareness of cancer and its subsequent increased diagnosis by the medical profession? You know, improved sanitation and improved lifespans go hand in hand with industrialisation, you could just as easily claim that cleaner water is linked to a rise in cancer rates from the 'evidence' given in this study.

And what of the claim about the increase in childhood cancers? Well, as Dr Steven Novella points out, childhood cancers are often blood born, like leukemia, which first of all means evidence of them in mummies and fossilised remains doesn't exist. And then, when was leukemia first diagnosed? 1845. I bet leukemia rates just went through the ceiling after 1845. Before 1845, a 0 rate of leukemia, afterwards increasing rates of leukemia. What a surprise. Edgar Allen Poe first published "The Raven" in 1845. Coincidence? You be the judge. But by the standards of evidence this study and article seem to require, the two could easily be linked.

Now it is hoped that it could lead to better understanding of the origins of cancer and to new treatments for the disease which claims more than 150,000 lives a year in the UK alone.

Not if the better understanding consists of "Look, this thing happened and then this did, so the two must be linked." I got up this morning and the sun rose as well - I therefore cause the sun to rise. That is the standard of evidence and reasoning on display in this article and study.

“In industrialised societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death," said Professor Rosalie David, a biomedical Egyptologist at the University of Manchester.

"But in ancient times, it was extremely rare. There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.

"Cancer appears to be a modern disease created by modern life."

OK. Finally we get to something that is initially correct, cancer is indeed second only to cardiovascular diseases, at least in the USA. Nothing controversial there.

Professor David is one of the authors of the study. She appears to also be almost completely full of shit, as we'll see. David says, "But in ancient times, it [cancer] was extremely rare." No, in the small sample size of mummies that you studied it was rare. This conclusion is extremely unscientific given the small sample size and questionable methodology of the study. But that isn't the worst, then comes this truly breathtakingly, monumentally, spectacular piece of gargantuan stupidity; "There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer."

Just rereading that kills brain cells. It also confirms my opinion of Egyptologists, biomedical or not.

Tell me Professor David, what causes skin cancer? Is the Sun not natural? And what about HPV? Is that not natural? What about one of the common causes of stomach cancer? Is Helicobacter pylori not natural? How about the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are responsible for some cases of breast and ovarian cancer? Inherited genes aren't natural? Tobacco causes cancer doesn't it? I do believe that is a natural product, isn't it? How about aflatoxin? A fungus that grows on peanuts and also happens to be a carcinogen is not in the natural environment? There is really nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer? Even despite the fact that we do indeed know of things in our natural environment that cause cancer - saying there is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer is a wholly unscientific statement since we do not know all of the possible causes of cancer. The statement is personal opinion and is not supported either by her study or any other scientific study - in fact the evidence is overwhelmingly against Prof David. Just finding one natural cause of cancer proves her wrong and breathtakingly ignorant, I found several with just a few minutes on Google. Hell, one thing I read says even celery contains carcinogens! And it doesn't get better.

She then says; "So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle." This claim is not supported at all by her study - again, it is a personal opinion presented as fact. There is no evidence in her study to support this conclusion as far as I can tell (I can only view the abstract, not the full article). This statement just follows from the previous one - both are demonstrably false. Cancer is clearly not a man made disease and it is not entirely down to pollution, diet or lifestyle. And then she compounds it all with an even stupider statement.

David says "Cancer appears to be a modern disease created by modern life." Really? Because I thought your study did find cases of cancer in ancient people. Which is it? Cancer is modern and man made due to industrialisation, or cancer did occur in ancient people before industrialisation? Here's a history of cancer. Note that the Edwin Smith Papyrus dates to 1600BCE (or between 3000-2500BCE depending on who you read) and describes 8 cases of tumour or ulcers of the breast, reported to have no cure. Sounds ancient and cancerous to me. Hippocrates is said to be the originator of the word cancer since he used the words carcinos and carcinoma to describe tumours. Galen, a Roman physician used the word oncos to describe tumours. And what, by an incredible coincidence, do we call cancer specialists? Oh yes, that's right, Oncologists. No sir, no evidence of cancer in ancient times. It is wholly modern and man made, a product of modern life and modern life only.

For a professor, David is an idiot who appears to be straying a long way out of her field to spout what appear to be personal opinions as scientific facts. I suppose these quotes could have been taken completely out of context, but it is hard to see how.

To trace the origins of cancer, Prof David and colleague Professor Michael Zimmerman, looked for evidence of the disease in hundreds of mummified bodies dating back up to 3,000 years and also in fossils and ancient medical texts.

Despite tried and tested techniques of viewing rehydrated tissue under the microscope they found that only five cases of tumours, most of which were benign.

How many mummies, exactly? Small sample sizes do not support the conclusions they are making. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And only five cases despite scouring remains and texts - did they not read the Edwin Smith papyrus? And how do you tell if a tumour is benign from an ancient medical textbook?

Fossil evidence of cancer is also sparse, with scientific literature providing a few dozen, mostly disputed, examples in animal and Neanderthal bones, the study in journal Nature Reviews Cancer reports.

And now we're using Creationist arguments? Yes, I'll bet the fossil evidence is sparse - that's because fucking fossils are sparse AND cancers do not all affect bones - a great many cancers affect soft tissue, which doesn't fucking fossilize you genius. [CORRECTION 10/17/2010: In the interests of accuracy I'll amend this, soft tissue does, on extremely rare occassions, fossilize. So, in some rare circumstances of an already rare occurrence some soft tissue might be fossilzed. Pays to have a geologist in the family.] How much evidence of pancreatic, ovarian, cervical or stomach cancer do you think you'll find in a fucking fragment of a fossilised skull bone?

Quite.

They did find examples of other modern day aged related diseases such as hardening of the arteries and arthritis, which they said dismissed the argument that ancient humans did not live long enough to develop cancer.

The mummified bodies from both rich and poor backgrounds showed that the average life expectancy ranged from 25 to 50, depending on their background.

And the assault on my brain cells continues. What percentage of the mummies studied lived to be 50? Since when can anything below the age of 25 be considered old other than in ancient history? More tellingly though, shall we look at statistics about the probability of developing cancer amongst certain age groups? What do you think we are going to find? Well, in the USA between 2004 and 2006 your chances of developing cancer were 1 in 70 between the ages of birth and 39. Then 1 in 12 from the ages of 40 to 59. Then 1 in 6 between 60 and 69. Then 1 in 3 from age 70 onwards. And what is the average lifespan now in the USA? Why in 2008 it was 78.4 years. Significantly longer than the mummies studied. Do you see a problem with their data yet? Why, you are significantly more likely to develop cancer AFTER the age of 50. And what was the oldest age studied - 50. How many of the studied remains fell even close to the age of 50 - enough to make the chance of finding a cancer likely - or does the tiny sample size basically invalidate the results, and especially the conclusions being drawn? What percentage of the studied remains fell in the age range birth to 39, when you are very unlikely to develop cancer?

Sorry, there is nothing about this study that means they can dismiss the argument that their studied remains were old enough to be likely to have developed cancer. In fact, the age argument basically proves this study and its trumpeted conclusions are complete arse.

Evidence of cancer in ancient Egyptian texts is also "tenuous", the researchers claimed, with cancer-like problems more likely to have been caused by leprosy or even varicose veins.

Unlike their evidence for cancer being man made and modern, which is oppressive with its magnitude. Oh wait... They cannot prove that what is described as cancer was not cancer though, can they? They are just stating their opinion as fact, aren't they? This is an opinion based on their study - it is also circular reasoning. They conclude that these cases must have been something other than cancer because they have concluded that cancer did not really exist in ancient times, and they conclude this because they say there is no evidence of cancer in ancient times, and they say this because the evidence of cancer is not of cancer but something else... And round and round we go. Their conclusion is part of their premise.

The only diagnosis of cancer was a case in an unnamed mummy, an "ordinary" person who had lived around 200AD.

So cancer did exist before the modern world, and therefore isn't modern and man made. And therefore this one thing contradicts your entire conclusion.

Modern records show that the disease rate has risen massively since the Industrial Revolution, in particular childhood cancer.

Yes, we know. The problem is what these chumps conclude has caused it. They ignore the simple fact that the field of medical diagnosis, science and treatment has expanded vastly in the same period, as has the population and lifespans. They have somehow ignored everything else that has occurred in the same time period and put it all down to diet, lifestyle and pollution - based on their incredibly small and inconclusive study.

It is poor science and nothing less.

And now it is the turn of the second author of the study to put his foot in it. Professor Zimmerman says:

“In an ancient society lacking surgical intervention, evidence of cancer should remain in all cases.

"The virtual absence of malignancies in mummies must be interpreted as indicating their rarity in antiquity, indicating that cancer causing factors are limited to societies affected by modern industrialisation.”

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

What reason does he have to say their should be evidence in all cases? What kind of evidence? What if the cancer was blood born? Why should there be evidence of a soft tissue cancer in bone fragments or fossils? What evidence is there that tumours would have remained, and remained identifiable in all cases? Why does he discount the evidence that tumours may have been removed or operated on because we know there were primitive surgical interventions? The second statement is breathtaking arrogance not supported in any way by the science of the study, and shows that the authors had already concluded what they wanted to. The absence of malignancies proves nothing since the sample size was small, the age range did not include the age ranges when a person is most likely to develop cancer and there is PLENTY of evidence to show that cancer occurs naturally and DID occur in the ancient world. He is either knowingly lying or he is a shit scientist. We know that cancer can occur naturally and we know it occurred in people before modern industrialisation - his statement is just flat out wrong.

Dr. [sic] Zimmerman dismissed arguments that tumours may have disintegrated over time. His experimental studies indicated that if anything they are better preserved than normal tissues.

I'd like to see the evidence for this, given the tiny sample size and the fact that they already said the tumours they found were benign - what evidence is there that a non-benign tumour would be preserved as well?

As the team moved through the ages, it was not until the 17th century that they found descriptions of breast and other cancers.

Apparently they are enormously selective in their research then, as I've already pointed out. Biased and limited research, tiny sample size, unsupported assumptions, demonstrably false statements. It really isn't looking good for them.

Scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps occurred in 1775, nasal cancer in snuff users in 1761 and Hodgkin’s disease in 1832.

Huh, look at that. Want to bet that cases of these cancers increased after these dates. What a surprise. Let's see: The Second Continental Congress caused scrotal cancer. The issuing of the first life insurance policy in the USA caused nasal cancer and Hodgkin's disease was caused by the formation of the New England Anti-slavery Society.

Back to Professor David making a fool of herself:

Prof David said: “Where there are cases of cancer in ancient Egyptian remains, we are not sure what caused them.

"They did heat their homes with fires, which gave off smoke, and temples burned incense, but sometimes illnesses are just thrown up.”

“Yet again extensive ancient Egyptian data, along with other data from across the millennia, has given modern society a clear message – cancer is man-made and something that we can and should address.”

Does she even think before opening her mouth? “Where there are cases of cancer in ancient Egyptian remains, we are not sure what caused them." How about, the same thing that causes them now? Just a crazy idea. Of course, if you've already formed your conclusion by ignoring all the overwhelming evidence that you are wrong, I am sure cancer appearing in the ancient world is very confusing for you. If you aren't a complete tool however, the evidence that there was cancer in the ancient world is not a problem.

"They did heat their homes with fires, which gave off smoke, and temples burned incense, but sometimes illnesses are just thrown up.” - So cancer in ancient Egypt is just an illness that sometimes gets thrown up, but obviously that doesn't happen in the modern world, where cancer has to be caused by something we do. For fucks sake. Idiot.

“Yet again extensive ancient Egyptian data, along with other data from across the millennia, has given modern society a clear message – cancer is man-made and something that we can and should address.” Bollocks. The data clearly shows the exact opposite of what she is claiming, actually. I can't reiterate this enough - the evidence from everywhere else, apart from their silly study, clearly shows that cancer is NOT a man made disease that has existed only since industrialisation began.

OK. Now we get to the tiny bit of sanity at the end of the article:

Dr Rachel Thompson, of World Cancer Research Fund, said the research was "very interesting".

"About one in three people in the UK will get cancer so it is fairly commonplace in the modern world.

"Scientists now say a healthy diet, regular physical activity and maintaining a healthy weight can prevent about a third of the most common cancers so perhaps our ancestors’ lifestyle reduced their risk from cancer."

Yes - modern lifestyles and pollution and all kinds of other aspects of modern life have increased the risk factors for cancer. Yes, some cancers are the result of modern practises that didn't exist in ancient times (like exposure to asbestos - one of those naturally occurring causes of cancer that don't exist in the natural environment, by the way). However - none of these things mean that cancer is solely the result of modern life or industrialisation and that cancer did not exist in the ancient world. To suggest otherwise is just plain wrong.

David and Zimmerman are wrong.

But Jessica Harris, senior health information officer at Cancer Research UK, said it was wrong to suggest that cancer was purely man-made.

“It can be tempting to worry about our cancer risk from external things like pollution and chemicals more than from things we can control, like our lifestyles," she said.

And that's it, that is the only part of the article that offers criticism of David and Zimmerman.

Pathetic.

To sum up:

This study does none of the things claimed for it, offers no real substantive evidence for it's conclusions, and much of what is being said around it is either demonstrably false or just plain old stupid. It is poor science, poor history and poorly represented and reported. David and Zimmerman should be ashamed to call themselves professors and make the claims they are making.

And now that I have been overtaken with stupidity I plan on enjoying my day by strapping myself to the wall of a nuclear reactor and having someone fire a Phantom at me. Seems like the smart thing to do.

Smarter than this article and study at least.

Focusing on your goals - it is really not a new thing

2010-10-03T11:43:00.002-06:00

This is a long playing record for me:

Perhaps it is because I am not a cynical, greedy and uncaring author willing to make a quick buck off the desperate, lazy, uncritical or grief stricken but I really don't understand how it has been possible to take this very old idea:

Focus on your goals

And turn it into something that everyone seems to think is a brand new idea, whilst part of the selling point of your fake brand new idea is that it is indeed an old idea that has been around for ages.

If nothing else, I have to admire the sheer brass bollocksness of getting away with it.

Let's be clear - the idea that focusing on your goals and working towards them might help you achieve them is nothing new - it's as old as the first person in human history to come up with a goal for themselves to achieve, and it's basically good advice.

Setting sensible targets, working towards them, staying determined in the face of setbacks, hard work - all of this can get you where you want to be, most of the time. This is not something we didn't understand until Rhonda Byrne and her like came along. She didn't tell anybody anything they didn't already know.

But what happened when Rhonda Byrne came along?

Well, she just figured out a way to sell the fucking obvious to people and charge them for it, and the money printing industry known as The Secret was born.

Proof that Byrne is laughing at anyone who follows her is right there in the title of the book: The Secret. What fucking secret? Oh, you mean the one piece of advice that lots of people have been telling lots of other people for thousands of years? It's not a secret, and she knows it. But calling her book Stating the bleeding obvious wouldn't have made the idea nearly as popular, would it? And if it wasn't popular it wouldn't have made her money, would it?

If everyone knows it, it isn't a secret, it's common bloody knowledge.

"But that's not all she said." I hear you say. True. She dressed up the bleeding obvious in some mystic bullshit. In order to make it seem like she was saying something new and startling, Byrne had to come up with some new clothes to dress up the old idea and make her boat loads of cash. That doesn't mean that right at the heart of it all is the simple idea of focusing on your goals and working towards them. It wasn't hers, it isn't new, and it didn't need pointing out (for a price, of course) anyway.

The mystic bullshit

It's the Law of Attraction (which, again, is not a new idea, though it has always been bullshit) - the idea that if you desire something and completely focus on it then you attract the outcome to you, via some undetermined mechanism that the Universe has a hand in. Basically, the Universe grants you the stuff you really really wish for. Like draws like to it. Somehow.

This in fact removes some of the good advice present in the 'focus on your goals and work towards them' because now all you have to do is wish for them really really hard. It's the grown up equivalent of squeezing your eyes shut, crossing your fingers and saying "I really really really want that new toy." And then expecting the Universe to deliver. I have problems with every aspect of this.

Sorry, out here in reality things don't work that way. It has even been claimed that the Law of Attraction is a scientific law like other well known and tested physical laws. It isn't. Scientific laws can actually be tested, this can't. When it works it is the LoA, when it doesn't it is the LoA - there is no way to test it, which makes it psuedoscience (I prefer the term bullshit). There's no proof that it works other than anecdotes, and the human mind is a very fallible thing - people don't remember when it didn't work for them, only when it supposedly did.

Think about it

It should be pathetically obvious - if the Universe worked that way then everyone would have everything they wanted. There's a couple of obvious problems.

We don't all have everything we want. In fact, some people have an unbelievably shitty deal - for example, nearly 1 billion people (half of them children) in the world don't have access to clean drinking water. Do you really think that they don't want to have access to water that won't make them sick, or kill them, so they don't determinedly focus on clean drinking water? Do you think children forced into prostitution wish for their situation? Don't you find it interesting that the only people who believe in The Secret and the Law of Attraction are people living comfortably in the developed world? People who, by the standards of history and in relation to most of the present population of the planet, have everything they could need like to think that the Universe grants you what you really really want, and they just ignore the billions of people who live far away and get nothing but indifference from the Universe. Think about that.
People want contradictory things - how do they get sorted out by the Universe? If it comes down to who wants it more then what if I want people like Rhonda Byrne to drop dead because they are parasites, and they don't want to? What if the would be rapist really really wants to attack someone, but his intended victim only really doesn't want it? Think about that.

In short

Focusing on goals and working towards them - sound advice, not new, not startling, not a cast iron guarantee of success, not a secret.

The Secret and The Law of Attraction - bullshit dressed up to look like chocolate. Not a scientific law, not true, not real, not new.

Why do people fall for this shit?

Nazis, atheists and a Pope

2010-09-27T22:41:00.000-06:00

With a title like that, you know this one has got to be interesting. Right? OK, maybe not. But this post will put me in the schizophrenic position of kicking the Pope in the arse and then picking him up and fetching him a cup of tea afterwards.

It may or may not have escaped your notice that the Pope recently visited the UK, an event that had the BBC falling all over itself to cover favourably. Anyway, whilst the child rape covering up pontiff was there he made a statement that was guaranteed to set off both the atheist and the historian in me.

So, what happened?

Here's the key part of his speech:

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.

I also recall the regime's attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives.

As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a 'reductive vision of the person and his destiny' (Caritas in Veritate, 29).

I'm sorry, what now? Coming from a man who was actually there in Germany during the Nazi period this seems a remarkable piece of ahistorical dumbfuckery. There are three choices here as far as I can tell:

Ratzinger is knowingly lying.
Ratzinger is a senile old fool who can't remember what happened and therefore should keep his mouth shut.
Ratzinger has never read a history book on the period and doesn't have a clue what went on.

None paint a very flattering picture - and since he grew up there, was consripted into the Hitler Youth and the German armed forces and his father was an opponent of the Nazis it is hard to believe he didn't understand what went on, and he doesn't seem to have lost his marbles yet. So let's face it, he is knowingly lying.

So, what's the problem?

Well, here's just a sample of what Ratzinger got wrong, missed out or doesn't seem to understand:

The Nazis did not try to eradicate God from society. Note footnote 63, which cites Hitler claiming in a speech to have stamped out the 'atheistic movement'. Odd for an atheist to claim that, don't you think?
The Nazis punished anyone who resisted them, not just pastors and priests, as Ratzinger implies.
The Catholic church in the Third Reich and occupied territories worked alongside/supported the Nazis on a great many things, as well as opposing them.
Hitler claimed to be doing God's work a great many times, in private, in speeches and in Mein Kampf.
The Nazis executed Max Sievers in 1944, he was head of the German Freethinkers League. (who, it must be noted, was also a communist)
Almost all of the people who worked for or with the Third Reich were Christians. That includes those slaugthering their way around Europe and ensuring the industrialised genocide of millions went smoothly.
There is no such thing as atheist extremism.
Nazism was Nazism, not atheism (room for misquoting/quote mining in that article).
God and religion have many times in the past also led to, as he puts it, "a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a 'reductive vision of the person and his destiny' " The Bible has, throughout history and more often than not with the blessing of the Church, been used to justify slavery and genocide after all.
The Wehrmacht belt buckle carried the phrase "Gott mit uns" on it. In case you were wondering, it means "God with us". Seems strange for the armed forces of an extremist atheist regime to carry that on its uniform, doesn't it? Since Ratzinger was actually in the Wehrmacht it seems strange he never noticed this.
The Nazis did what they did not because of atheism, but because of NAZISM. Duh...

Cor blimey, what a tosser

Quite.

There is ample evidence out there that Hitler and the Nazis were not even remotely an atheist regime - that in fact they called on God or exploited Christian religion quite openly and regularly and that the relationship with the Catholic Church was complex at best. German anti semitism was fueled by Martin Luther (a leading figure in the foundation of Protestantism) after all and goes back further than that. The Nazis actually banned books that ridiculed the Christian religion or faith in God. If they were atheists, then they were really really shit at it.

However...

It is also abundantly obvious that a great many atheists have, in response to this, jumped in the opposite direction and done their level best to try and pin it all on religion, particularly Christianity. It should be obvious that, not surprisingly, this is an exercise in dumb no better than Ratzinger's claims. I'll give an example that annoyed me later.

Sorry, history doesn't neatly fit into personal bias.

A great deal of resistance did come from Christian churches, based on their Christian theology, throughout occupied Europe and the Nazis certainly had no intention of letting the Christian churches exist without toeing the party line - they were to become a tool of the state once final victory was won. Many of the articles I've cited here make it quite clear that the reality is much more complicated than a few quotes and photographs show - the point is that if either 'side' wants to blame it all or almost all on the other guys, then both are wrong.

The Nazis didn't do what they did because they were Christian. They didn't do what they did because they were atheists. They did what they did because they were Nazis. Anyone who can't understand this has no bloody business talking or writing about it.

However however...

In the long run, the Pope was 'being more wronger', to coin a phrase. Germany was a Christian nation. As one of the Holocuast Memorial Museum links states:

A religious census taken in 1925 revealed that of an overall German population of 65 million, 40 million belonged to the main Protestant (Evangelical Lutheran) church, 21 million to the Roman Catholic church, and 620,000 to various smaller, mostly Protestant denominations.

Does Ratzinger think they all deconverted in 1933 and immediately became atheist?

Likewise, Austria was a Christian nation. Italy, whilst not a Nazi state, was an Axis power and almost entirely Catholic. France was a Catholic nation, the Netherlands Protestant, Poland Catholic. The list goes on - in general, the inhabitants of the Axis powers and of the occupied nations cannot be called truly atheist (with the exception, not unarguable, of areas of the USSR). Yet, it was these Christians that formed the armed and paramilitary forces of the Third Reich and its allies. It was these Christians that collaborated as well as resisted. It was these Christians from occupied nations that joined the Wehrmacht to fight for Nazi Germany (about 2,000,000 of them by the end of the war). It was these Christians that rounded up millions of Jews, Roma, homosexuals, communists, Slavs and political opponents and systematically worked them to death, shot them enmass, gassed them and attempted complete industrial genocide.

Certainly there were atheists amongst them - but they were a tiny minority so small as to be almost unidentifiable, and the atheism of the Nazis leaders is far from established and clear. The horrors of the Second World War were not the result of 'athiest extremism' since they were perpetrated almost exclusively by Christians.

Clearly, a lack of a belief in God is not the reason for the atrocities committed by the Third Reich and its allies during the Second World War since, just to make sure everyone understands this point, the atrocities were committed by people who, almost entirely, identified themselves as Christians.

Anyone who would claim otherwise would be a moron or a liar. Or both.

That misused term: Nazi

And whilst we are on the topic, I'm going to get someting off my chest. Something that really really bugs the shit out of me:

People abusing the term Nazi.

As far as I can tell there are roughly 4 versions of this term in common and not so common use:

The childish insult - "You're a Nazi" - generally applied to someone the idiot using the insult thinks is a big meany head. Usually someone restricting the activities of the idiot or generally being authoritarian. This one annoys me.
The general stereotype - basically applied to anyone who was German in the Second World War, or anyone serving the Axis powers who committed an atrocity during the Second World War. Holy fuck this one annoys me.
The literal narrow (and more accurate) one - Technically the most accurate usage, but also the most narrowly applicable one, it refers only to someone who was at some point a member of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei - the National Socialist German Workers' Party, more commonly called the Nazi Party.
The more usable and harder to define one - This is the one I feel is most commonly used in academic work, and its the one I use and prefer - it includes number 3, but is broadened to include those who were not necessarily party members but who certainly acted in accordance with Nazi ideology and practise, and believed what members of the party did, and at the sametime narrowed to exclude those who joined the party but left it (and may subsequently haveve resisted it) when they saw what it was.

I despise the first two but in the interest of fairness have to admit I used them in my younger days, and I despise anyone who uses them now. To me they trivialise the nature of the Nazis and as we move further away from the actual events trivialising them is a dangerous direction to take. The second one I also dislike on the grounds that it is just wrong - not every German was a Nazi, not every Nazi was a German (Hitler was Austrian, for one). I also think it is the most insidious because it attempts, in a strange way, to excuse humanity of the atrocities committed.

Using 'Nazi' as a label for anyone who took part in the Holocaust is an attempt to dehumanise those participants - they were 'Nazis', they weren't like us. Wrong. They were exactly like us, they just believed different things - most of them were not even Nazis (by the time of its dissolution the Nazi Party had only 8.5 million members). Even the ones who were Nazis were still human. Hitler was a flirt and good with children - he wasn't some strange kind of demon or different species called a 'Nazi'. He was a human. When people use the term Nazi in this way they are trying to make the person somehow not human or substantially different, which is dangerous. If we forget that normal humans can do these things then we have learned nothing from history. By labelling everyone a Nazi we cover up the true nature of the Third Reich and what it did, and the term becomes meaningless. The fact is that a great many of the people involved in what the Third Reich did were not Nazis in the sense of either definitions 3 or 4 above - they were only following orders, remember? (Note for the reading impaired, that last bit was sarcasm).

Definition 3 is the most accurate for usage, but it leaves us with no term for those who acted as Nazis but didn't join the party, and it leaves us in the strange position of having to call people who ended up leaving the party and resisting the Third Reich, Nazis. And it would include people who joined the party because of coercion, fear or simple ambition, rather than a devotion to Nazi ideology. So whilst it is the more technically accurate, it is too restrictive for anything but scholarly works and can be misleading.

Definition 4 is the most useful and the one I tend to use, but the hardest to pin down since it is is both broader than 3 and in a way more restrictive - simply being a party member is not enough to be termed a Nazi, you have to act like one. Whatever that means.

Why was this important?

Because a few atheists, in response to his comments, have tried to imply or argue that the current Pope was a Nazi. The evidence they use makes this a laughable claim.

The argument goes something like this:

"I found this picture:

And he was in the Hitler Youth and then the Wehrmacht, therefore he must have been a Nazi or at least supported them."

When I first saw this picture I immediately thought something was fishy, so I Googled "Ratzinger Nazi salute" and clicked on the first link that was returned to find that sure enough the image was a cropped hoax, the full image is this:

Note - that first link is to the website of a full on nutter, but that hasn't stopped a well known Science Blogger using him as a source, as we'll see.

As for the argument - Bollocks. Being in the Hitler Youth doesn't make Ratzinger a Nazi. Unless you want to also call Hans Scholl a Nazi. Being in the Wehrmacht does not make Ratzinger a Nazi - the enlisted ranks of the Heer were even resistant to Nazi ideology - unless you are one of those annoying wankers who misuses the term 'Nazi'. A faked picture does not make Ratzinger a Nazi, especially since it was probably taken six years after the war, at his ordination.

Of course, since Ratzinger was also conscripted into the Hitler Youth and the Wehrmacht it is doubly stupid to argue that makes him a Nazi. By that absurd logic that makes me still a Catholic and Ayaan Hirsi Ali still a Muslim. He had no choice, he was 14. How many policed states involved in a world war did you resist on your own at age 14?

But it gets worse. Greg Laden was apparently making something similar to this argument, but when someone pointed out that the first picture was wrong he used another one to try and claim/show that Ratzinger supported the Nazis (actually his post title says that the Pope was a Nazi). He used this one, taken from that nutters site:

Laden specifically stated " But then, it turns out that he WAS giving a real lie Nazi salute in a different picture." and then links to this picture on the head cases website! Yes that's right, proof that Ratzinger was a Nazi is a low quality version of a 70+ year old black and white photo of a bloke with his hand in front of his face that some random whack-a-loon has written 'Ratzinger' on. All that's missing is some wax crayons.

WHAT.THE.FUCK.

And he calls himself any of critical thinker/skeptic/scientist/scholar/at least half intelligent? He's an archeologist apparently. Is that the standard of evidence that applies in archeology?

It isn't hard to find better quality versions of this photograph, here's one (halfway down the page):

Now correct me if I am wrong, but that bloke labelled as Ratzinger is clearly a fat middle aged guy. Ratzinger was 6 when the Nazis came to power, 12 when war broke out, 14 when conscripted into the Hitler Youth, 16 when drafted into the Wehrmacht and 18 when the war ended. So at what point was he photographed in his middle age, at a Nazi rally, with Joseph Goebbels (thats him on the right), who died when Ratzinger was 18? In this Secular Humanism article the caption for this photo states it was taken when the Third Reich reoccupied the Saarland, which occurred in 1935. When Ratzinger was 8.

Seriously. WHAT.THE.FUCK.

Are some atheists so soft skinned that when someone says something stupid about them they have to respond with something even more stupid to try and 'win'? Five minutes on Google was all it took to disprove the claim that Ratzinger was in these two photos making a Nazi salute - one was fake and the other doesn't include him - the other couldn't include him.

The excuses that Laden and his followers come up with have to be seen to be believed (including denying that anyone had proven the photo wasn't Ratzinger and implying therefore it might still be him). And they say our side is the one able to admit they are wrong when shown new evidence. Shit, they say we are the ones who are supposed to be good at evaluating the evidence in the first place. Not here apparently.

Knee jerk reactionism, personal bias and a willingness to believe whatever you think agrees with you without checking it - not the traits we should be exhibiting. If we are going to combat Ratzinger's accusations we shouldn't do it by acting just like him.

Sometimes I just feel like giving up.

So to sum up:

Holocaust definitely not the fault of atheism.
Nazis did what they did because of Nazism, not atheism.
Christians perpetrated most if not all of the atrocities of the Second World War - but not because they were Christian.
Christian churches far from having clean hands in the events of 1933 to 1945.
Pope probably not a Nazi. Just a senile old fool or lying bastard.
Some prominent atheists talk out of their arse too, and should know better.

There. That should just about piss everybody off.

Coexistence won't help as much as you think it will

2010-08-28T15:02:00.011-06:00

Well OK, maybe not you, exactly, but certainly the people who sport those silly 'coexist' stickers on their cars.

Here's the culprit, in case you have no idea what I am talking about:

Now I know what you're thinking, "How can he possibly be against a bumper sticker that promotes religious tolerance and encouraging people of different faiths to understand rather than kill each other?" So let me answer you.

Easily.

Now some of my objections may seem superficial or facetious at first, but bear with me.

First, the stickers themselves seem to me to be intolerant to start with - how many religions are there and how many are represented in the sticker? If the idea was to promote religious understanding then why pick the three usual suspects to the exclusion of all others? Why not include Sikhism? Zoroastrianism? Jainism? Is the sticker saying that only the three big ones don't get along? Is it saying other religions don't matter, or was it being lazy for the sake of brevity? The latter being the case then wouldn't picking more obscure symbols from more obscure religions that people actually had to research have served better for furthering the intended message? Are the religions represented in the different versions of the sticker the only ones that have to coexist? How does that promote religious tolerance of all religions?

Second, is it just me that thinks that the idea that religions coexisting will make everything better is hopelessly naive and deluded? Different religions not getting along is not really the problem, the problem is religion itself. As Voltaire said:

As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.

Different faiths coexisting and understanding each other does not get rid of the oppression of women, the suppression of science and learning, the mutilation of children's genitals, the oppression of homosexuality, the suppression of human rights, institutionalized child abuse, the denigration and suppression of sexuality, the state torture and punishment of criminals as advocated by different religions, religiously supported apartheid, religiously supported slavery, religiously mandated 'honour' killings, etc etc.

I don't want to tolerate religion and neither should any other sane person, I want religion in its entirety to fuck off and die a quick and final death.

Just imagine how much more oppressive and interfering religions could be if they could concentrate more on enforcing their own tenets rather than attempting to butcher or convert the other lot. And all along, instead of fighting it tooth and nail with all our strength, we are expected to tolerate and understand it. To coexist with it.

Bollocks to that.

Religion is the root of the problem, tolerating religions does not fix it. Tolerating religions allows the problem to continue to exist and attempts to suppress the criticism for the sake of touchy feelly "Why can't we all just get along?" happiness. That's a delusion that solves nothing.

Just to emphasise my point of how silly this call for coexistence is, I have some questions for those who support the idea of religious tolerance and the coexistence stance.

Just exactly how far does your tolerance of the tenets of religion go? Just exactly how much are you willing to allow for the sake of religious tolerance and freedom? For the sake of coexistence?

If there is just one aspect of one religion you won't allow, then how are you being tolerant of religion? How are you allowing religious freedom?

How do you coexist with something you are fundamentally opposed to?

How do you coexist with something you are morally obliged to stand against?

People should be allowed to believe what they wish, but like all other stupid, repugnant or immoral beliefs, religion should not be tolerated. Instead, it should be fought until, like other superstitions and outmoded beliefs, it dies in the minds of every person and humanity shakes of the shackles imposed upon it by imaginary gods.

Coexistence is not the answer. Tolerance does not solve the problem.

Tolerance is the problem.

The call for tolerance silences dissent, suppresses criticism and gives religion a status it does not deserve. Religion is no more deserving of tolerance than Nazism, but you won't see swastikas on a coexist sticker anytime soon.

Beliefs do not need to be tolerated, people do. Beliefs do not have to coexist, people do. That's what calls for religious tolerance miss.

Voltaire never did quite finish the thought for me, when he wrote that now well worn phrase:

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

For me this should read something along the lines of:

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. And I'll continue to mercilessly point out how utterly ridiculous what you say is until it finally gets through and you give it all up for something more thoughtful and productive.

Looking for an excuse to be a psychopath or a sociopath? Try "The Secret".

2010-07-18T12:35:00.002-06:00

It's no secret (see what I did there) that skeptics don't like the Law of Attraction or "The Secret". That's because it is complete and total bollocks invented by charlatans to fleece money out of people who don't bother to stop and really think about it, but who do like its feel good message.

But it is more than that as well. It's the type of attitudes it promotes and the implications of its claims. It also attracts a lot of complete wankers to it. Take this recent anonymous commenter who showed up on a previous Secret post I'd made.

This is what they had to say, the quote lifted right from Wikipedia:

"In a letter written shortly before his escape from the Glenwood Springs jail, Bundy said "I have known people who...radiate vulnerability. Their facial expressions say 'I am afraid of you.' These people invite abuse... By expecting to be hurt, do they subtly encourage it?""

Yea it is the victim's fault. Shut the fuck up.

Yes that's right folks - this defender of "The Secret" uses a quote from Ted Bundy to defend it. Ted Fucking Bundy. Unless this is a Poe, you really couldn't make this shit up.

Originally I just thought I'd leave it at pointing out this attitude showed the commenter thought like Bundy, which must be a comfort to them, and that I hoped that something as unpleasant as they think others deserve happened to them. I still think that, but I'm also going to point out just how fucked up they and their attitude are, and highlight yet more of the disturbing implications of "The Secret".

I still reserve the right to call Poe though.

From here on in, our anonymous commenter will be known as Heidi.

First, thinking like Bundy

Bundy, in this quote, is trying to make excuses for his own behaviour - he wants his victims to share the blame for the things he did to them. It's classic "She was asking for it" behaviour.

Heidi apparently agrees with this. Heidi is the sort of person who thinks that women who dress provocatively either deserve to be raped, or are inviting rape so it is OK if someone decides to assault them. There's a word for people like that: Psychopath (some would say sociopath, some think there is no difference between the two).

a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct, masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.

Does Heidi fit the bill? Let's see:

Abnormal lack of empathy for others? Check
Amoral conduct? Check
Ability to appear outwardly normal? Well as far as I know, that's a check.

How do I know Heidi has an abnormal lack of empathy for others? Well, they agree with Ted Bundy that Bundy's victims had it coming, they invited it. They desevered it. Sounds like an abnormal lack of empathy to me, especially if you know what Bundy did to his victims. Heidi thinks that vulnerable people invite what happens to them. I'd say there's an abnormal lack of empathy there.

Amoral conduct? Yes, if Heidi practises "The Secret" they are almost certainly amoral. For instance, here they are, online, promoting the idea that it is the victims fault. But look more closely at "The Secret" and its central idea that people get what they deserve and you'll see that at the heart of it is the notion that it is OK to be an amoral jack ass. If you take something from someone else, you invited it and so did they. They deserve to lose it, you deserve to have it. If that wasn't the case, the Universe or the LoA wouldn't let you have it. If it wasn't supposed to be, then the LoA wouldn't let it happen, would it? Victims invite what happens to them, you attract what you deserve. Its OK to take something that belongs to others, because if it wasn't, it wouldn't happen.

Basically, "The Secret" is nothing but an attempt to justify greed, theft and selfishness. And, if you think about it, libertarianism. "The Secret" encourages people to take advantage of the vulnerable, on that Heidi and Bundy apparently agree.

Heidi doesn't appear to know right from wrong - they're amoral.

I'd say Heidi fits the bill - they're a psychopath/sociopath. Just like Bundy. No wonder they share the same view on victims.

Second: Well, that's "The Secret"

And that's the problem with "The Secret" - it's not like Heidi's view is an extreme or twisted version of it, it is the view held by Rhonda Byrne, the woman who dreamed it up.

Victims are to blame for what happens to them - Byrne agrees. Heidi agrees. Proctor agrees. Ted Bundy agrees.

Think about that.

I have a confession to make...

2010-07-01T19:52:00.001-06:00

... I'm an atheist and skeptic and I'm happy. I know that this may come as a shock to some. I know that some will simply find their brains oozing out of their ears at their simple inability to process this fact. I know that some may find it just heart breaking that someone who doesn't buy into their beliefs (of whatever stripe) could function as a well rounded and happy individual.

Tough.

I don't need to believe in capricious, conceited, spiteful, angry, hateful, divisive, unimaginative invisible and/or unknowable imaginary sky fairies of any kind to find my life fulfilling. Or to live it morally. Or to have fun living it. Or to find meaning and purpose in living it.

I don't need to believe in your particular brand of idiotic anti science, anti medicine, touchy feely, woo woo gibberish to be happy, or to feel loved, or to find meaning or purpose. Or to be healthy.

I don't need to believe what YOU believe to find meaning, happiness, purpose or peace for ME.

Is that really so hard to understand?

I mean really, get over yourself. Because that is really what it is about isn't it? You. You think that you have got it all right and so the key to being awesome is basically to be you. No thanks, I'll pass.

I'm happy that you go all dewy eyed at the thought of a god, just don't assume that I must be a pent up ball of rage, hate and immorality because I like to point and laugh at you for doing so. First, its insulting. Second, its patronising. Third, I'll be fucked if I'll take crap from anyone who takes seriously the idea of an invisible super being who created the entire Universe in seven days, or that they can cure illness by covering your body in needles and sending positive thoughts your way.

Bollocks to that.

What prompted me to write this was a Facebook update I'd made:

For the record - why the fuck would I want to raise my kids in any format based on this bloody book:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Scientific and historical inaccuracy, genocide, rape, incest, every kind of bigotry you can imagine and swearing allegiance to an imaginary invisible sky fairy who demands it all and... laps it up, or the promise of eternal pain and torture - to just scratch the surface. If I suggested this now as a way to live your life I'd be locked up as a complete nutter, so why should we trust it because it's a few thousand years old, exactly?

Someone I know quickly responded with "Have fun going through life with that kind of mean and angry point of view."

I'm sorry what now? Pointing out facts means I have a mean and angry viewpoint? I guess it must be mean and angry because I am one of those gosh darned uppity atheists. I mean, it's fine when I am rejecting other people's gods but how dare I reject theirs? Right?

Good grief. I'm under no illusions that if I had been speaking about the Qu'ran I wouldn't have upset anyone - but point out something wrong with the Bible and suddenly I must be mean and angry. Oh, and right.

And that is really the problem she had, isn't it.

The Lord gives us a sign

2010-06-16T10:38:00.000-06:00

And that sign reveals to us all a message, and that message is:

"American Football - bag of shite".

In this, the time of the 2010 World Cup, the Lord has sent us all a sign to follow. A sign that tells us all what the one True Sport is - football (real football, the one played with your feet).

For one day the unbelievers did create an idolatrous calamity. A monument to corruption and moral turpitude. And 45 minute sports that last 4 hours. They came forth and constructed their monument of steel and foam and threw their weight behind the NFL, implying falsely that the Lord favoured that game of "Rugby for nancy boys in body armour".

Behold their foolish works:

For the heathens did raise up a statue that proclaimed "Touchdown!" And this did anger the Lord greatly.

So he sent his opinion down to us in the form of a lightning bolt, which did destroy the Touchdown Jesus. Hallelujah!

And so the Lord has spoken, hear it for yourself, understand this, the Lord's message - "American Football is shite. Look, I'll even burn down this statue of Jesus signalling a touchdown just to prove it." Cast down your idols and turn to the One True and Beautiful Game before it is too late.

Alternatively, God didn't much care for Platoon:

You be the judge.

Libertarianism - that's some dumb shit right there

2010-06-13T16:23:00.003-06:00

I'm going to nail my colours to the mast right from the start on this one - libertarianism is one of the dumbest political ideologies/philosophies I've ever had the misfortune to come across. It's some dumb shit. Which is why it still surprises me that so many skeptics and critical thinkers cling to it so desperately and react so vehemently to criticism of it.

Now, it could be that I think it is some dumb shit because the only proponents of it I've argued with have been clueless half wits acting under the guise of intelligent critical thinkers and skeptics, after all my main exposure to it and its disciples was the idiots commenting and blogging on Goosing the Antithesis a couple of years ago (Francois Tremblay is an unbelievably arrogant first class arsehole, just in case you were wondering). But hanging around the skeptical blogosphere I regularly come across libertarians and they are almost without fail patronising arrogant wankers convinced of the absolute superiority of their own beliefs who utterly fail to convince me or any other nonbelievers that what they cling to is worth more than a leaky bucket of sheeps' piss.

Now, I've been meaning to write about libertarianism for sometime but it was actually an article that Techskeptic wrote that prompted me to finally get around to it. First, let me add a disclaimer to preempt some of the inevitable reactions:

I know that there are different strands of libertarianism that vary significantly in their claims and beliefs - I know that some of the criticisms I am about to make may not apply to all of the different strands of libertarianism or its followers. I am quite sure there are individual aspects of libertarianism that I would find no fault with. The particular brand of libertarianism that I am taking aim at here is the hard core kind that proposes the removal of all forms of government, the removal of taxation and the provision of everything by private corporate entities and 'regulation' by market forces. That doesn't mean that all the other kinds are immune to the things I'm going to say, just that not everything I will say applies to every particular brand of libertarianism an individual clings to. And yes, there are people who do believe in this brand of libertarianism, if my experience with Goosing the Antithesis is anything to go by, since these are the exact arguments those chumps were making. If you don't believe me, go read that linked blog entry for yourself.

Is every one sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.

I don't think Techskeptic is hard enough on the libertarians - state's rights is tame libertarianism - hell it isn't necessarily or by definition something limited to libertarianism. But he definitely has a point - some of the fundamental aspects of libertarianism could very easily lead to a restriction of rights or lead to a deterioration in basic services provided by the state.

But even that isn't the most damaging aspect of libertarianism to me. The worst part is something that libertarianism shares in common with Communism - the complete subjugation of human nature. In fact, it is not even that libertarianism needs human nature to be subjugated - libertarianism ignores human nature completely. In fact, libertarianism basically just ignores reality and thinks that it can be implemented in Far Far Away, or some other version of a fairy tale land where people are perfect.

Humans are stupid, greedy and hateful - that's the lesson that history continually teaches us. If someone were to ask me what is the one constant of history I'd almost certainly answer "Human incompetence." And what is it that modern democracies are at least marginally successful at? It's regulating, preventing or compensating for individual stupidity, greed and hate. That is basically what governments do - they enable us to live together without destroying each other through stupidity, greed or hate. Societies as a whole agree on what rights individuals have and what they give up in order to enjoy the benefits of living in that society - governments are appointed to try and manage those rights and protect the society as a whole. Governments are intended to protect individuals from more powerful groups or organisations. They don't always do it very well, and certain forms of government are even the problem, but generally and simplistically speaking democracies are intended to protect individuals and the societies they form from other individuals, groups and societies. Almost inevitably and without fail, where there are no governments people are unbelievably shitty to each other.

So I'm with Churchill on this one:

"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
(from a speech made in the House of Commons on Nov. 11, 1947)

So, what's the problem?

So what is it that libertarianism proposes? Well, at best it is a limit on the rights and powers of governments and at worst it is the complete removal of governments altogether and their functional replacement by private entities regulated by the market. Within reason, it is hard to disagree with aspects of the former - but it is hardly something that is the exclusive preserve of libertarianism. With the latter we have the descent into complete and total stupidity. There's a sliding scale of belief in libertarianism that moves between the two extremes, with believers all along the spectrum.

Now, think of your society today. In the three modern and progressive democracies that I have lived in there is a significant amount of regulation on both individuals and corporations/businesses - private entities. Now ask yourself this - do these regulations prevent greedy, stupid or hateful behaviour by these kinds of entities? Of course not - anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring reality. And what is it that enforces these regulations? It's government and its various branches. So, even with the limited regulation we have, and even with their legal enforcement by powerful governmental organisations, private entities behave stupidly, greedily or hatefully.

Now, imagine your society with government regulation and enforcement removed completely. Every branch or aspect of government and governmental enforcement is gone. Do you think people will now behave less stupidly, greedily or hatefully? Of course not. In fact, everything we know about human nature and human history clearly demonstrates that these types of behaviour would get worse. We do know, and have clear present day examples of it, that even with all the instruments of government in place, people, groups and organisations act like dicks to each other. People are willing to exploit or harm each other even when we have powerful governmental means intended to prevent this. If people are willing to ignore human rights or societal laws or prescriptions when there is enforcement via government how can we expect it to get better (or at least not get worse) when there is none?

The answer, according to libertarianism

"Ah, but..." says the libertarian, "the market." And smiles smugly as if that answered everything.

The libertarian answer to this is that private entities - be they individuals, groups, organisations, small businesses or corporations - would take the place of governments and do a better job of it to boot. These private entities would have to be good - they'd have to protect human rights and provide beneficial services or products, because if they didn't people wouldn't buy from them or pay for their services. Hence, private entities would be forced by market forces to protect human rights and provide only great products and services - the market takes the place of government regulations and protections. And not only that, but these private entities would have to provide great benefits to their employees, they'd have to provide safe and clean working environments, they'd have to pay well and compensate well otherwise these employees would go to places or other private entities that did these things instead. So, to the libertarian, the market also takes the place of government regulation of health and safety at work.

The market is the answer to everything. There isn't a problem that libertarians think can't be solved by private entities and the market. It's the one thing they cling to with absolute certainty.

And they're wrong.

How so?

Well, take the global financial crisis that began in 2007 - how exactly did the loosely regulated US financial markets do then? So how would it have been better with NO regulation at all, exactly? And how did the heavily regulated European markets do? And who exactly would have done the bailing out? Oh wait, the libertarian answer is that if an economic entity can't remain viable it should go under and damn the costs - so, in fact, under a libertarian system the global crisis would have been even worse, wouldn't it? Imagine the global situation now if all the major US car manufacturers also went under along with the financial institutions that the US government had to bail out.

Where else would that money have come from? Would it have even come from anywhere, under a libertarian system?

And what happens to all those people who are unemployed and need assistance in a crisis like that? Does the market provide for them? How and why? How do people get access to healthcare when they have no income and there are no government funded programs? Who gives out food stamps or welfare benefit cheques when there is no government? In this government run country of the USA, exactly how many Walmart workers get health benefits out of the total number of employees there? So do you really think that businesses would give people they don't employ and get anything from healthcare?

Do you really think that the market gives a toss about individual people and their welfare, beliefs or rights?

Businesses now, under heavy regulation, still cut corners on things like worker safety or environmental protection - why would this get better with less oversight and regulation?

And what about human rights? How, exactly, do private entities governed by market forces protect individual rights? For example, it is clear that a majority of people within the USA are religious, and of a particular variety. What market forces prevent the persecution and oppression of anyone not belonging to the dominant group and why? Would it not make economic sense for private entities to actually side with the dominant group and ensure their markets? Sure they might lose a few customers but they guarantee many more, don't they? What about a similar circumstance in somewhere like Iran - what prevents religious pogroms and oppression?

So how does the market ensure human rights? What, exactly, prevents corporations refusing to sell or provide services to gay people for instance? Enough people are homophobic to ensure a steady stream of customers and enough people don't give a crap about the ethics of where they shop that there would be no market imperative to prevent this kind of discrimination, and who would be able to stop these large homophobic entities from buying up smaller non-homophobic ones and producing a monopoly that excludes gays, or any other minorities, for that matter?

Libertarianism doesn't preserve and promote human rights, it positively encourages conditions which would destroy them.

What prevents corporate abuse? People cannot always simply quit their job, or move a thousand miles away, or not buy from the only grocery store around or afford the only healthcare in town. What about the markets prevents this?

How is law enforced equally and fairly? Can the rich pay for better protection and equality under the law? They more or less can now with government and regulation so how does this get better with neither of them? Who sets the law anyway? Can different private entities enforce different laws? How does the market regulate this?

How does the market prevent the greedy and powerful from doing what they want with the poor and helpless?

Who exactly would have been around to make BP clean up the Gulf oil spill? How would market forces alone have forced BP to clean this spill up or cap the well without governments to ensure it? In fact, since worker safety and environmental protection measures are expensive and yet everyone needs oil, what market forces prevent abuse by any oil company? What market forces pressure them into dealing with something like this?

Or imagine this. Say some charismatic leader manages to patch together a powerful empire in Central Europe with a large and powerful armed forces behind it. This leader convinces all his followers that it is their destiny to conquer the rest of Europe. Who stops him if everywhere else there are no governments and states to oppose him? What market forces prevent private entities from siding with this large empire and ensuring a large customer base? Wouldn't market forces actually encourage private entities to side with and aid this leader and his empire? Say the whole of Europe is captured and this leader decides that anyone who is black, or Jewish, or gay needs to be exterminated - how is this prevented by the market? Wouldn't the market imperative be to do business with this large empire? Individual private security organisations can't stop an entire empire on their own can they? So how would this leader be defeated?

It would be easy to go on but the most important question is this:
How does libertarianism account for and prevent human nature, exactly?

The answer is, it doesn't. It just ignores it. Human nature doesn't exist, only market forces.

That's why it is some dumb shit.

And the hypocrisy, don't forget the hypocrisy

Libertarians also like to complain about taxes - they're taken by force they wail.

Well, yes and no. Sure you could go to jail or be punished by other means for not paying taxes but guess what - tough. You drive on the roads don't you? You live in a country protected by the government's armed forces, don't you? You've flown in aircraft that use the government funded and controlled GPS haven't you?

That shit isn't free idiot, it has to be paid for, and private corporations sure wouldn't do it for what you pay in taxes, I guarantee that. And anyway, if you use a service or product you have to pay for it. I believe that is how the market is supposed to work, isn't it? Don't want to pay taxes? Fuck off somewhere else then - that is, after all, basically the libertarian argument isn't it?

If you don't want to pay someone for a service take your business elsewhere, right? You don't want to pay taxes, fine. You also don't get to enjoy what those taxes pay for then - piss off somewhere else where you won't have to pay taxes. Somalia, Rwanda - I'm sure there are more. If you DO want to enjoy those services, pay up and shut up. Your words.

Actually stand by your principles rather than pretending you do. You might look just a teeny bit hypocritical otherwise.

It's worth thinking about this though. Under a libertarian system if I want police protection I HAVE to pay a private entity to provide it - and who wouldn't given there would be no other form of protection. That sounds a lot like being forced to pay something, doesn't it? If I want to live in the USA because of the protections that brings I HAVE to pay taxes. If I want to be protected in a libertarian system I HAVE to pay for it. Then, under the libertarian system, if I go on vacation to another area of the USA I HAVE to pay again in that area if I still want protection unless I happen to go somewhere that happens to have the same private protection entity I've already paid for. Why, now I'm paying twice as much 'tax'.

What's the difference? In both versions if I want the benefits of the system I HAVE to pay for it - again, what's the difference? Why is the libertarian one supposedly better or more moral or acceptable?

One might not be called taxes, but is there any real difference? Won't I end up paying more than I would under the government?

So that's it

Libertarianism - anything that ignores completely what we know about human nature has no right to be taken seriously as a political philosophy.

Libertarianism - that's some dumb hypocritical shit right there.

And I never did get any good answers to all those questions I asked on Goosing the Antithesis.

Jimmy Blue gets email too, believe it or not

2010-06-13T12:17:00.003-06:00

I know I know, how could I possibly compete with PZ on this one? Well I don't hope to, but this email did tickle me.

One word before I continue - if you email my gmail account I may take a while to reply because I keep forgetting to check it - it isn't because I don't like you, it's because I have a memory like a sieve and the attention span of a 2 year old at times. So bear with me and I will one day discover I've been an ignorant arse and I'll get around to responding to you. Unless I don't like you.

Anyway, when I got around to checking my gmail account today I found this waiting for me from Journey Within:

Hi..
I found your blog,,or I hope its yours, with this address..
Do you have a facebook acct?
I just wanted to let you know how much I am enjoying your info...
Blessings..

Enhance Your Life With Alternative Therapies
Journey Within * 513 Second Street * Portsmouth, OH 45662
http://www.yourjourneywithin.com

I'm fairly sure that the sender didn't really read the blog, but I could be mistaken.

Journey Within is apparently "More than just a metaphysical shop...", they offer "many unique gifts and services including Psychic readings, Reiki, EFT, Ionic Foot Detox, Mediumship sessions and Reflexology." In other words, its a home for cranks, quacks, woos and the gullible or scientifically illiterate and uncritical. So I'm not really sure how exactly they can find my info enjoyable, unless they know the stuff they are pedalling is bullshit and they are lying about it. Or lying to me. Either way they are liars, not a good first impression.

Unfortunately I can't find on their website what exactly they mean by "Ionic Foot Detox" but from the picture it looks like it has something to do with putting your feet in a bucket of watery cow shit, so I think I'll pass.

Their list of services is nothing more than the usual shite you see woos peddling: acupuncture that can cure everything, talking to the dead, psychic readings and healing by touch.

It's all bullshit, it's all been debunked many times before and I am at a loss as to why these people would think I would react favourably to them. If you want to marvel at the fact that people really do buy any old shit, go look at their webpage. If you have something more important to do, like extracting your own toenails, don't waste your time.

Same shit, different website. Did amuse me for a short period though.

Believers - Why so threatened?

2010-06-06T13:51:00.002-06:00

After a conversation with a colleague at work I've been asking myself this question - why are believers so threatened by atheist non-belief? I think I know many of the possible answers anyway, so this is more rhetorical than anything else, but just exactly why do theists or believers of so many different stripes immediately begin the "Convert the non-believer" sub routine upon finding out that we don't hold to the same superstitions that they do?

Yesterday I was working with a colleague who is very heavily into the newage and the spiritual. He's an admirer of Deepak Chopra and spouts the usual nonsense about eastern mysticism and philosophy that you would expect - but strangely he's also a very intelligent guy and as long as we avoid topics where his newage or spiritual views come up I get on really well with him and don't find any real bones of contention. In the course of shooting the shit as you do through the work day I made the following comment:

"All Catholic school ever did for me was turn me into an atheist."

You know that feeling you get when you say something and then instantly wish you'd kept your mouth shut? Yeah, me to.

This prompted a response along the lines of this (unfortunately I don't remember the exact wording):

"So what do you think atheism is? I've met a lot of atheists but none of them can really explain what it is."

My first thought, which I didn't vocalise, was:

"Just exactly what kind of half arsed idiot atheists have you met?"

My actual response, which I'm so used to giving I didn't even have to think about it, was the standard:

"Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods."

To my surprise he seemed surprised that I was able to give an answer so quickly and coherently. This just reinforced my view that a lot of woos and believers don't really expose themselves to the opposite viewpoints to any great depth, apart from with a few mates who claim to be skeptical/atheist but don't give it any thought.

Of course, all this did was initiate the "Convert the non-believer" sub routine for the rest of the day. Throw in the "Spout the bits of eastern religions I picked up whilst travelling" sub routine and that was my day gone, unfortunately.

The first approach was the "Redefine what God is so that as far as I am concerned you can't possibly not believe in it." This extended attempt, which took a while to get across, amounted to this:

"I read about a yogi who said his aim was to give truth an identity. We give names to things to give them an identity. God is the name we give to ultimate truth to give it an identity. Ultimate truth is God. Spirituality and science are both about the search for truth."

I wasn't impressed either.

I guess the point of this was that how could I not believe in truth, particularly ultimate truth? Therefore, how could I really claim to be an atheist. The problem with this is obvious, calling God or gods Ultimate Truth doesn't change anything, the same problems still exist, just in different forms. It just happens that this particular believer was absolutely certain that Ultimate Truth exists, and since Ultimate Truth is God, God exists. However:

What is Ultimate Truth - how is it defined?
How do you know Ultimate Truth exists?
Why should I accept that Ultimate Truth exists?
Why should I accept your definition of God as Ultimate Truth?
What is truth, never mind what is ultimate truth?

You haven't really altered or answered anything by defining God as Ultimate Truth- all you've done is switch your terms. God is now Ultimate Truth, but the problems the atheist has with the former don't go away because you've changed its name to the latter. This believers certainty in ultimate truth is nothing more than an assumption that Ultimate Truth exists and can be defined as God. There's no real evidence for either.

The second major problem with this, and I pointed this out, is that this definition of God is at odds with most conventional views of what God is. Christians and Muslims don't think God is some kind of esoteric philosophical or spiritual concept, they think he is an actual being that has an actual impact on the physical world. He was coming from some personal interpretation of the Hindu concept of God, but it is not the only conception of God and it contradicts a great many other versions - not necessarily an indication that it is wrong, but also not a crushing blow to atheism.

The fact that god can be defined in so many different and even contradictory ways is not a problem for atheism, it's a problem for theism.

The second attempt at proving I can't possibly be an atheist was merely a reworking of the No True Scotsman fallacy. It amounted to this, and again this is as near to the exact wording as I can remember:

"People raised in very strict/oppressive religious families don't really understand/know what God is."

Clearly there's a lot wrong with this. First it assumes there is a single definition of what God is, and this single definition is the absolute one. Want to bet that this absolute definition of what God is just happens to be the definition of God that this individual uses? Therefore, in the mind of this believer, anyone who doesn't use this definition is not really not believing in God, they are not believing in something that isn't God and therefore they aren't really an atheist.

The second major problem is this: Who said my religious upbringing was strict? I said I had been to a Catholic school, I didn't say I was raised in a strict Catholic family. In fact, my religious upbringing was not very strict, my dad isn't even Catholic and never goes to church, and religious observance was more habit than anything else. On top of that, I'm fairly sure that A Catholic school is going to be pretty on top of teaching what the Catholic God is. Since my upbringing was not strict and that Catholic schools, nuns and priests almost certainly know what they are talking about when it comes to their God, I guess I do know what God is. And I still have a lack of belief in it. This objection to atheism also doesn't answer how people with liberal religious backgrounds become atheist, or how people with no religious background can be atheists. I can have a lack of belief in gods without even knowing what they are. I am sure there are lots of things I don't believe in by the simple fact that I have no bloody clue what they are - I've never heard of them.

Third problem - this objection makes no sense. Surely people who have a strict religious upbringing understand what God is more than anybody else? If you have God shoved down your throat every day, I'm fairly sure you know what God is. What the strictly religious understand God to be might not be the same as this particular believers absolute certainty that God is Ultimate Truth, but that is not a problem for atheism or atheists - that's a problem for theists and theism. And, after all, this particular believer might be the one who doesn't understand what God is. His absolute conviction and certainty that he was right because of what some yogi said doesn't make him right. Just because someones understanding of God is different to yours does not mean theirs is wrong - it means there's a problem with gods and religion as a whole.

Despite the silly objections to atheism what interested me most was this believers need to immediately prove that either atheism is wrong or that I wasn't really an atheist - it was like he couldn't accept that I was OK and an atheist. Yes, I have no belief in gods and I am still a well adjusted, content, moral and normal person. I'm just like a great many believers, but I have no belief in gods. I even made the point to him that he was an atheist just like me, but I go one god further. You should have seen his face when that sank in. That's when he really had to ramp up the efforts to convince me I was not an atheist or that atheism doesn't really exist.

And then I pulled out one of my favourites:

"Some people like to claim that atheism is a belief system but I like this answer to that. 'Atheism is a belief system like not collecting stamps is a hobby.'"

I think that this genuinely had an impact on him - it was like he finally understood what atheism is, he just didn't seem able to understand that people can be fine without a belief in gods however they're defined and seemed determined to convince me that I couldn't really be an atheist or that atheism doesn't really exist except by mistake. I find this attitude very curious.

What seemed to really surprise him however was just how much I did know about religion - which merely reinforces the idea that a great many believers think atheists are only non believers because they don't understand what gods and religions are. Sorry, I understand very well. It is that understanding that drove me to conclude there are no gods, it helped inform and form my lack of belief in gods. My conclusion was that the person who didn't really understand was actually this believer - he didn't understand that there are a great many atheists who understand gods and religion very well and still don't believe - that in fact it is this understanding that enables them not to believe. He was so utterly convinced that all his conclusions about spirituality and religion were correct that all he had to do was tell them to me and I would suddenly believe.

He was wrong. Heard its like before, still not impressed, still don't believe.

Why is this so threatening to them?

Blogging downtime

2010-06-03T19:57:00.000-06:00

Yes I know, haven't written for a while, but no I am not going away. Visit from my folks, started a second job, busy time at the first job and the World Cup is just around the corner - don't expect anything for a little while longer.

Although the recent shootings in Cumbria did get me back on to gun control, so hopefully I'll summon the fortitude to finish replying to old posts from last year on that subject.

So back to the internet equivalent of a deserted town and blowing tumbleweed.

Andrew Wakefield - Dishonest lying assbag

2010-05-20T10:56:00.000-06:00

Via Orac I saw this great summation of the Andrew Wakefield MMR controversy, and I also found out something about Wakefield I didn't know before.

Apparently, before his paper was published in the Lancet, he had filed a patent for a single measles vaccine. And what did Wakefield recommend after his paper came out? Why, that parents should not use MMR but single vaccines for measles and mumps.

Mother fucker. And the anti-vaccine morons have the cheek to call "Big Pharma" (and by that they mean real science and medicine) dishonest?

This just highlights one point I always try to make to woos and their like when they claim you can't trust a source I or other skeptics give out but you can trust the ones they use:

What makes your source completely trustworthy and reliable when ours aren't and why?

I have never had an answer yet. This is a good example of why.

Jimmy's rants: Automobile design

2010-05-14T10:18:00.003-06:00

Before I begin this rant I should add a disclaimer just to make sure nobody takes my Man Card away (ooh starting with gender stereotypes, very controversial). I like cars. Sports cars are cool. I enjoy watching Top Gear. I have nothing against people who like fast cars and who own fast cars. Pimping your ride out is just super with me - I don't care. I don't wear tight jeans and a sports jacket. I don't whiten my teeth. I may have some things in common with Captain Slow. The target for my venom is luxury cars, their designers and owners.

However, with that said I have a rant about cars and their designers.

Why the fuck are people obsessed with designing cars for use on public roads that can go 200+ miles an hour. YOU CAN'T FUCKING DRIVE THAT FAST ON A PUBLIC ROAD. Unless you like having videos of you narrated by Sheriff John Bunnell and sharing small gaol cells with hairy guys called Bubba.

Honestly, a car whose main features are a top speed of 250mph and an 800bhp engine is absolutely completely fucking useless to me. I don't care how well the chassis is balanced or how well the power is transferred to the road because I couldn't care less about that when I'm driving to work on roads where speed is limited to 45mph and there's a set of traffic lights every 200 yards.

Here are the things (in no partcular order) that are actually useful in cars for the 99% of the small percentage of the worlds total population that can even afford to own a car:

Interior space
Internal safety
External safety
Fuel economy
Good all round visibility
Reliability in every aspect of the car
Low purchase price
Vehicle handling
Comfort
Extras like OnStar and GPS
Power when needed - for emergency situations or towing, for example
Longevity
A fuel source with waste products that don't slowly kill me and little baby rabbits

The ability to go from 0 to 60 in less time than it takes to say "What the fuck is that guy compensating for?" is utterly useless on a public road except in emergencies - and even then a top speed just shy of that of the X-15 is not exactly going to benefit anybody but Chuck Yeager or Automan.

And who exactly can afford a car that costs $250,000? Twatting sports stars and people who pretend to be other people for a living. Let's face it - unless you like living in debt for most of your life the average person can't really afford a car that costs more than $10,000, and the ones that cost less than this are basically just grown up equivalents of those little pedal cars you buy for 3 year olds or they're being held together by the power of positive thinking. Sure I have a choice when buying a car - I can sell a kidney or I can drive around in a powered Fisher Price toy.

Why oh why do car manufacturers spend so much time and resources designing cars that less than half a percent of the world's population can actually buy? I tell you what - stop charging so much for the shit entry level saloon model so you can afford to research new materials for the latest lightweight dick extension for Greedy McFatCat and instead direct your resources to something worthwhile and I guarantee you that your business will do just as well if not better - more people will be able to buy your cheaper cars and they will want to do so because they might finally be half decent.

I want a car that is safe for me to drive - that protects the occupants from harm in a crash and that helps reduce the injuries to any pedestrian that may be hit in an accident.

I want a car that uses fuel that doesn't produce harmful waste products and that doesn't need to be refilled whenever I go down to the shops.

I want a car that tells the emergency services when I've been in an accident and exactly where that accident is.

I want a car that helps prevent accidents by monitoring how alert I am and taking over if I fall asleep at the wheel.

I want a car that prevents me from driving like a moron and endangering other road users (boy would that be unpopular in the US). I know this may be a surprise to some but driving badly is not a right or freedom.

I want a car I can afford.

I want a car that starts because it should, not because the planets are aligned correctly or the day begins with the letter T.

Maybe if car manufacturers stopped wasting time on the worthless shit, this wouldn't be so hard to come by.

My two pence worth of advice for the automobile industry:

Stop making engines BIGGER, try making them BETTER.
Stop making cars FASTER, try making them SAFER.
Stop making the best models more EXPENSIVE, try making the decent ones CHEAPER.

Perhaps then you might not need the taxpayer to keep bailing you out of trouble since the car might then be something people want and can afford rather than something they need but can't.

Oh please

And for the people who may inevitably respond "Well they can/are doing both so you're just upset you can't afford the fancy cars."

Fuck off.

How far has the car industry really come in 100 years? So how is that business model doing at improving cars and making them more affordable globally, exactly?

100 years and we're still looking at average mpgs in the 20s. 100 years and we still have unreliable and unsafe cars. 100 years and we still don't have decent entry level models that most people can afford.

Oh yeah, the automobile industry is really pushing the boundaries of possibility.

No. Sorry, my mistake. What I meant to say is that the automobile industry is still catering to a tiny group of men with small penises who think going fast and having a big bonnet makes them important. 100 years and they still don't get it.

Sylvia Browne's 2010 predictions

2010-05-13T16:24:00.001-06:00

Back from a couple of weeks off hanging with my folks I thought I would start off with a nice juicy topic - tearing Sylvia Browne's 2010 predictions into little tiny pieces. Alright, it wouldn't be that juicy since it would be easier than breathing, but it would have been fun.

Of course I soon stumbled into a problem with this - you can't actually read Browne's 2010 predictions in full unless you are a member of her inner circle. And I'll be fucked with a rusty Buick before I give that charlatan any money, even if it is just so I can have the pleasure of showing her to be the useless fraud that she is.

Anyway, you can view her 2009 predictions over on that link and you'll see a few categories of prediction:

the repeated stating of the bleeding obvious
the likely to happen but didn't
the flat out hopelessly wrong but you could have taken a wild stab at it happening at some point

The simple fact is that her predictions are anything but startling or indicative of something supernatural or psychic happening. Instead, Browne's predictions are pathetically obvious as nothing but hopeful guesses and stating stuff that would be clear to a worm living in a cave at the bottom of the sea.

Go ahead, read the list - most are just flat out wrong and the ones that are right or come close to being right were basically obvious anyway. In fact, looking at the list it is hard to see any predictions she could claim to have been right about without being very generous to her.

Anyway, it is possible to find some details of predictions that Browne makes for 2010 online - no great details and clearly abridged versions of whatever she is hiding from the general public and just for her inner circle (and I am sure hiding the predictions has nothing to do with her then being able to re-write them after the fact this time round).

So, I will take a look at what I can find for her 2010 predictions. What I was really interested in was whether or not Browne was going to claim that she had predicted the Haiti earthquake, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the Eyjafjallajöekull volcano eruptions. Because, and let's be frank, any predictions claimed for 2010 would be as worthless as one of my pubic hairs if they didn't mention these events, wouldn't they?

Browne's 2010 predictions

First I found some details she wrote back in 2008, here.

She writes:

Around 2009 to 2010, I predict Americans will start working on what I like to call our "buts."

A lesser man than me would make some crack about obesity in the USA based on a play on words now, but I won't. I'm above that sort of thing. I don't think there is much to a prediction that American's are going to be working on their butts though.

Damn.

Browne then lists some problems that most societys face - poverty, injustice and corruption. She then 'predicts' that the US will:

develop strong resolve and resources to address these problems and come up with some good solutions.

Oh well. She isn't very good at this is she?

But then she gets more specific:

I predict a great rise in skin cancer in children until 2010.

Wow, it doesn't get more specific than that does it? And that should be easily verifiable shouldn't it? Of course, even back in 2008 everyone was aware that skin cancer rates were increasing dramatically and that children were at great risk. So this is less of a prediction and more of a re-stating of what everyone knew anyway. If everyone knows it is already happening, it really isn't a prediction Sylvia. Unfortunately the CDC figures I found for skin cancer rates only went up to 2006 so I can't verify accurately whether or not Browne's "prediction" was born out by the figures. I would be surprised if the figures didn't show a rise in skin cancer in children since that has been the trend for some time - but Browne actually said a "great rise" so you also have to question what precisely she means by this. Does she mean a rise that would be over the expected one given the trends? What does "great" mean in this case?

And Browne wouldn't be a fraudulent psychic if she didn't give herself an out from a specific prediction, would she? So she goes on to say:

Then again, people could pay attention - and reverse this prediction right out from under me.

So, in other words, if the "predicted" rise in skin cancer rates in children is born out Browne will claim she predicted it, but if it isn't she will say she predicted that to - so this prediction can never be wrong! How typically convenient.

I predict that it will rain sometime in the next week. But of course it might not. There, psychic prediction 101 for ya. I can claim I was right either way and I can't be wrong.

I predict the President elected sometime between 2008 and 2020 will die in office from a heart attack.

And from the specific to the apparently specfic but not really. Sure it is specific to pick the President as the victim of a heart attack, but if this was written when it looked like McCain might still win, not exactly a shot in the dark is it? Everyone was worried he might pop his clogs while in office - that's why Palin was so terrifying. High stress job and heart attack sometime in a 12 year period. No, not impressed. But we'll be watching Sylvia.

The Vice President who will finish their term will have an unpopular and mistaken intention to declare war on North Korea. By that time, North Korea will have weapons of mass destruction. In the middle of efforts to declare war, I predict the Vice President will be assassinated.

And this just sounds like the plot of a Tom Clancy novel. Of course, since this could happen any time in the next ten years I'm sure Browne's intention was that people when they read this were impressed by how specific it was but once 2021 comes round and none of this happened no one will remember it anyway and her reputation marches on undamaged.

That's another key to psychic predictions - make them so far in the future everyone forgets what you said so it doesn't matter if you were wrong.

Continuing with the Clancy plot Browne says there will be an investigation into the Vice Presidents death (no, really? What a surprise.) and that there will be surprises (gosh, astounding). And there will be accusations of the misuse of funds in politics? Surely not?

I predict we can truly say "goodbye" to the common cold in 2009 or 2010.

Oh dear, almost three quarters of the way through this prediction and not even close to having an end in sight for the common cold. And why is goodbye in quotes? Sure you can't literally say goodbye to the common cold, but does she mean it will be gone by the end of this year or not? Or are the quotes her get out clause - so she can say she didn't really mean the common cold would be gone? We'll be watching Sylvia. She goes on:

The solution to the common cold involves heat.

Oh good grief - cold must be cured by heat in the simpletons mind - what century are we in? Idiot.

Keep in mind that the body's first response when we develop a cold is to come down with a fever. Many doctors today no longer rush to push patients to take temperature reducing medications when they come down with a fever, unless the fever is dangerous.

OK. One, she isn't correct with her first statement, two she is merely stating the obvious as if it backs up her case, classic woo.

So as the immune system fights a cold with heat, the cure for the common cold certainly may lie in this first signal to heal.

Wow, you mean the clue to fighting the common cold may be in how the body fights the common cold? Nothing gets past this girl. Genius. I'm convinced.

I predict that a small cubicle will become available in doctor's offices sometime in 2009 and it will be heated to a very precise temperature. There may be a special vapor placed into the cubicle. Patients will stand in the cubicle for approximately five minutes and the rhinitis germ will be destroyed.

And a fail. Thanks for playing. Nothing of the sort happened in 2009.

But the fail doesn't end there, and brace yourself for this because I am sure that it will be a huge surprise that Browne is so far off the mark she isn't even in this reality:

The common cold is not usually associated with a fever.

But don't take my word for it.

Money quote:

Usually there is no fever -- in fact, fever and more severe symptoms may indicate that you have the flu and not a cold.

Epic fail Sylvia. Just epic.

The cubicle will become available in 2009 or 2010.

Wait, I thought it was 2009 that the cubicle would become available? Perhaps she was afraid she had been to specific, push the date back and suddenly we are into the realms of people forgetting what she said again. What a surprise.

I predict hypnotic past-life regression will become available through a group of trained psychologists on both the east and west coasts of the U.S.A. in 2009. It will prove to be quite a success and will be widely practiced by 2011.

And this one is a mess isn't it? Past life regression is of course "available" (in the sense that it isn't real but some people pretend to do it), but usually from woos and quacks. No doubt some trained psychologists may even use it or believe in it. And to predict it will be available on both coasts allows her to extend her claim to basically anywhere in the continental United States, very convenient. So this prediction amounts to past life regression will be used by some trained psychologists somewhere in the US between 2009 and 2011 and it will be widely practised. No signs of that last happening yet thankfully.

So, not very impressive so far. But there are more up to date predictions available to. Browne has a YouTube video up that includes a couple of vague 2010 predictions as well. That voice is still scary.

Anyway, what does she predict in this video? Well, not much. First thing I had to laugh at was her stating how hard the last couple of years have been for everyone. Really? Because it doesn't look like she has been suffering that much to me. She is really going to compare herself to someone living hand to mouth in Detroit? Fuck off.

But the predictions, which the video claims were written in November 2009:

President Obama is doing a good job, and we will see when the dust settles, health care will be better for everyone.

Wow. Earth shattering. Who would have been able to predict at the height of the healthcare debate that health care was going to change for everyone? Certainly not me. Go Sylvia. "Everyone is going to be under some kind of really good health care." Gosh, it is almost like she read the bill that said everyone needed to be under some kind of health care. "Really good" would certainly be open to question no doubt. Why is it that rich people assume everyone gets the same health care they do?

Weather is going to be more unpredictable than it has in 25 years.

Weather, unpredictable? What, really? Well I never. And you'd have to ask, does she mean weather or does she mean climate? Of course it is hardly news that weather might be getting more unpredictable since scientists have been saying that global warming will change weather patterns for a while. Nothing earth shattering here.

She also says that this unpredictable weather has to do with the polar tilt. She doesn't say what she means by this of course. And of course we already know what effect polar tilt has on weather - and it ain't changing anytime soon. No doubt she threw this in so she could sound all 'sciency'.

And oh phew - Sylvia says we don't have to worry about 2012. That's a relief, because that had been a real nail biter for me. Then Browne makes some comment about the Maya running out of ink, that's it. Not quite sure why the Maya running out of ink would be relevant since we know they also used inscription on tablets of stone. Idiot. Apparently Browne and her cohorts can't even use something simple like Wikipedia to find out about the Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar, Mayan Calendar, or Mayan Script.

Good grief.

Then she throws in some Bible quotes about no-one being able to predict the end of the world. Then she says we aren't going to have the end of the world. Then she says the Bible says the end of the world will come like a thief in the night.

I'm not an expert, but I am pretty sure that somewhere in all that you may, just may, find some contradictions.

"It won't be someone that has written something from thousands of years ago" says Browne. She even includes Nostradamus in this. Again, I'm no expert, but when was the Bible written by someone?

Of course, it is interesting that Browne brings up Bible quotes in relation to predictions, given what the Bible says about people who make predictions. About people who claim to be mediums. After all in Deuteronomy 18:9-12 we find:

When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist, or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD...

I guess Browne is not an Old Testament person.

Now Browne gets on to accidents and terrorist activity. It sure would be nice to know about these things, wouldn't it? Terrorist activity hey? So no doubt we can expect a mention of the recent attempted bombing of Times Square. Right? I mean, even an abridged version would warn people about that, wouldn't it?

Oh Jimmy, you are silly. Here's what Browne has to say:

I'm still worried about train travel and now buses as well.

And this in November 2009. Because I am quite sure there has never been any precedent anywhere before for accidents or terrorist attacks involving trains and buses. Like for instance July 2005. Or maybe March 2004. Or pick a year for a bus bombing in Israel. Pick a country and a year for a train accident. But hey, Browne has been saying this for three years (that means she started predicting this AFTER the London and Madrid attacks by the way) and it happens every year. Must be true then. Because I am quite sure that train wrecks and terrorist attacks on public transport are so hard to predict. I would certainly never guess that kind of thing - solid proof she is psychic.

The reason for all these train wrecks? Wobbly tracks apparently. Very serious problem. But never fear Europeans because Sylvia points out the train system is a lot safer in Europe.

Now here's where Sylvia's predictions get really uncanny, and remember this is written in November 2009.

There will be new x-ray equipment at most major airports that is very innovative.

Wow. I can't imagine where she heard about something like that in October 2009 at Manchester International Airport. I mean, it isn't like the TSA has been using backscatter machines at airports in the US since before April 2009 or anything.

Sylvia - it isn't a prediction if it has already fucking happened.

Maybe she doesn't mean these machines that were already in use all over the US the year before she predicts them being used. But no, she describes them as like the ones from 'Total Recall' - so it is these machines that have been around since at least 2006 that she is talking about. Idiot.

Wow, Sylvia thinks we're going to see something that might take a whole body image of you, some time in 2010. So, she's only 4 years behind with her predictions.

And there you have it. No volcano. No oil spill. No earthquake. Of course, I have no doubt that if the 2010 predictions came out for free we'd see these things included after the fact, but the little we do have of Browne's 2010 predictions are laughable or already shown to be wrong.

Psychic powers my arse.

The United States of America - a Christian nation

2010-04-26T11:06:00.000-06:00

Tell that to Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax.

The irony of the title the BBC chose for the article really makes you wonder if it was intentional or not. I guess if you aren't middle class or American that New York spirit they talked about after the 9/11 attacks doesn't apply.

But hey, at least someone stopped long enough to take a picture.

Now, I appreciate that people might not want to get directly involved in a rough neighbourhood - but at least call the police and give the correct address - the final call of three was the only one that got the police to the correct area, and by then an hour and a half had passed since Tale-Yax had been stabbed.

The USA - truly a nation based on the teachings of Jesus.

The 'right' wing, big government and hypocrisy

2010-04-25T11:50:00.001-06:00

It will come as no surprise to you that I find many instances of hypocrisy or stupidity in the 'right' wing positions on a great many things, but whilst sinking a couple of beers with a few friends last night something occurred to me that I hadn't considered in any great detail before. We got on to politics, as you inevitably do when shooting the shit with friends, and the subject of gay marriage came up. And it occurred to me that this is perhaps one of the best examples of just how hypocritical the 'right' wing can be.

The traditional conservative or 'right' wing political position is the less government the better. Government should stay out of people's lives as much as it possibly can, there should be minimal interference - there should be no "Big government." Another position that is taken for granted by political conservatives or the 'right' wing is a ban on gay marriage.

If you can't see the problem here then you are probably a 'right' wing nut.

It doesn't get much more big government than the government telling you who you can and can't marry. The last 'modern' government I can think of that deliberately made marriage laws a matter of state policy was Nazi Germany (I'm sure there are more modern and less emotive examples, I did say that's the one I can think of right now), you sure you want to take a lead from them?

It doesn't get much more intrusive than the government formally approving your choice of marriage partner, does it? Oh, apart from maybe telling you what you should do with your pregnancy.

Just exactly what kind of mental gymnastics do these fools have to go through to justify these two completely opposed positions and repeat them with a straight face and sincerity?

"I don't want the government interfering in people's lives. Well, unless they're gay of course. Or a woman. I absolutely don't want the government telling people how to live their lives. Unless they want to marry someone who has the same naughty bits as them, obviously. Then government should be all over their homo arses."

Fucking hypocrites, I doubt they even see a contradiction because they've never given it a moments thought.

The true delicious irony of this is that even as one of those damn pesky lefty liberal types I agree completly with the conservatives that government should stay out of peoples lives - but for me that includes who they want to marry as well - it is none of the governments business when consenting adults want to marry.

What conservatives want is not 'small government', it's their government. If you really think conservatives here in the USA are no fans of 'big government' you should try reading the Patriot Act sometime.

Mike Adams and like minded woos - Liars or ignorant fools?

2010-04-23T11:08:00.001-06:00

So, via Orac over at Respectful Insolence, I saw that Mike Adams is still a clueless buffoon when it comes to discussing medicine and health care. I don't have much to add to what Orac has said or what has been said about Mike Adams and his need to lie about skeptics and health care.

But I do want to mention something that I find repeatedly when woos start to talk about science based medicine - it seems they have never experienced it. One of the most common lies that woos like to spread about science based medicine is that doctors ignore things like exercise and nutrition and just want to pump pills down your throat because they are, after all, just tools of Big Pharma. Adams is a good example of this, as you'll see if you read Orac's takedown.

Not surprisingly, woos who push this line are actually lying through their teeth or don't seem to have ever experienced that which they are criticising. Or maybe they are just completely ignorant of the subject they are talking about. None of these options really paints them in a flattering light, but at least the latter means they are not being actively dishonest, just stupid.

Anyway, here's just my own little example of why I know with absolute certainty that this woo argument is nothing but a big fat lie with all the trimmings.

I have bad cholesterol. My first health check with Kaiser Permanente was a little over two years ago now and my numbers were all wrong. I need to get HDL up and LDL down. If what the woos say is true, my doctor should have immediately tried to prescribe me a regimen of drugs, correct? Their position is that doctors don't know about nutrition - Adams specifically says (please do not drink any liquids before reading this for fear of explosive nose explusion):

Doctors don't even study health; they study disease. Modern doctors are taught virtually nothing about nutrition, wellness or disease prevention.

So, doctors don't know about nutrition or wellness. Adams flat out says this, no wiggle room. No room for misinterpretation here.

So which pills did my doctor prescribe me? None. So what did my doctor do? Well, she set up an appointment with her nutritionist colleague and recommended I increase my exercise levels and gave me some information about how to decrease my stress levels. But wait. How can this be? Doctors know nothing about nutrition or wellness, right?

Don't be so bloody stupid - do people really buy this crap? Silly question, of course they do. Adams is either lying with the full knowledge he is lying, or he is arguing from a position of total ignorance and stupidity, which makes him dangerously irresponsible. Which do you think it is - dishonest or as thick as two short planks?

But it gets better. A few months ago my current employer also began a new health care / wellness system for its employees, first came a checkup of some important numbers, then steps to correcting them. I had my cholesterol done. Still not good, but heading in the right direction. Back to the doctor I went, for an unrelated matter, and she asked about my cholesterol again because she saw it had been a while since my last check up. I told her the numbers. Surely with her second chance to force pills down my throat this shill for Big Pharma would do so? She works for Kaiser for pity's sake!

Wrong again you lying ignorant woo buffalo turds.

She was pleased that my numbers were going down. She asked what steps I was taking. I told her I was now living like a saint and following all the advice I had about nutrition from various sources. And what were those sources? Why, the Mayo Clinic and WebMD and the information I still had from Kaiser. You know, those doctors who know nothing about nutrition and wellness. She thought I was doing all the right things and once again failed to force pills down my throat. In fact, the only thing she recommended was that I come back later in the year to see how things were going and to continue what I was doing, and asked if I wanted another meeting with her nutritionist colleague. I got none of my information from a single woo source - only from sources that use science based medicine. I might drop the 'science based medicine' term for just simply 'real medicine' from now on.

Bad pharma shill. Bad bad bad. Forcing all those evil drugs down my throat for something that can be fixed by those brave woos and the nutrition and wellness only they know about. Oh wait...

So, let me just reiterate. Two visits to a doctor who apparently should know nothing about wellness and nutrition and only knows about disease and drugs - not one drug prescribed and only nutrition and wellness recommended. Research done using material from doctors who know nothing about nutrition and wellness and only nutrition and wellness measures recommended. No drugs. Not one.

Adams and his like - liars or ignorant fools? Or maybe both? I know where my money is going.

Jimmy's Rants: woos, at least try to say something new

2010-04-21T12:50:00.001-06:00

OK I lied, there is one blog post I wanted to do.

Why is it that woos (and here I include almost all, if not absolutely all, religious believers in the definition of 'woos') never seem to have a new argument when defending whatever it is they are trying to defend?

After all, it is the constant repetitions of the same arguments over and over again that means Bronze Dog is still going with the Doggerel Index, there are so many arguments that we hear again and again from woos that they make the index. It isn't that they are new and so must be added, it is that they meet a critical mass of repetition that prompts people to tag them as doggerel and beseech Bronze Dog for their inclusion.

I've been around the skeptical blogosphere for a few years now and I really don't remember the last time I heard a genuinely new argument from a woo that wasn't also just laughably stupid. So maybe I should correct the title - woos, at least try to say something new that isn't bloody ridiculous as well. I know I am asking a lot but really, if you want to open your mouth on a topic you could at least do the rest of us the courtesy of trying to think about it first.

And by 'think about it', I don't mean:

"go and find a website that reinforces your already made up tiny little mind and then cut and paste it in its entirety like it is devastating, and if you're a complete tool pass it off as your own work as well"

I mean something along the lines of:

"go and research a topic from all angles, weigh up the pros and cons, consider whether or not it makes sense and then communicate your conclusions in a logical manner"

Now, is that really too much to ask? (OK, don't answer this. I know from experience that I can take a pretty good guess at the real answer anyway).

And why do so many woos (particularly the drive by kind) act as if they have an argument we have never heard before? We can tell from the way they phrase their comments that they think what they have said is something we've never considered or never heard before and is obviously therefore devastating to our case, when in fact it is probably the seventh or eighth time that hour we've read it and will need to write yet another dismissal of. Woos want to know why we get so snarky sometimes - because this behaviour shows a complete lack of respect for us as well as a complete failure on their part to even bother trying to get to grips with the topic under discussion. If they had bothered to understand the topic, if they had any intellectual respect for their opponent, they would not repeat the same arguments because they would have read the counter arguments. Instead of repeating the originals they would, if they had the slightest hint of intellectual courage and capacity, be presenting revised versions that take into account the counters or they wouldn't be repeating the originals at all.

Just because the people you woos usually spend your time with are slack jawed buffoons doesn't mean the person whose blog you are commenting on is, if you pretend and act like you are the only person who has this knowledge and you've deemed us worthy to have it imparted to us you are going to get some snark, and you deserve it for being a conceited twat with blancmange where their brain should be.

And another thing:

If you find yourself repeating an argument that has remained the same for hundreds, if not thousands, of years maybe you should stop and really think about that. Just exactly how far has human knowledge and thought, in every field of knowledge and thought, progressed in the last 100 years never mind two thousand?

Yet you're repeating something that has remained unchanged through all that. That doesn't take into account any of the things we've learned in that time? Your argument is so completely airtight and independent that it isn't affected at all by any of the advances in thought or knowledge from the last hundreds if not thousands of years in any area? Really?

Piss off.

No, the stars can't tell us who we are and where we are going. No, sticking solid needles in my feet isn't going to cure my infertility problems. No, pleading with something in the sky won't make things alright. No, water won't cure me. No, I don't run by means of an undetectable vital force. No, the Universe wasn't created by the being invented by some uneducated and illiterate tribes who thought there was nothing above the sky and that women should be treated like property. No, medical systems invented before we knew what blood does are not equally valid ways of looking at medical treatment. No, the cosmology of people who didn't even know what a telescope was is not as valid as that of modern astrophysicists. No, the creation stories of people who didn't even know what a cell was is not as valid as modern biology. Etc etc.

This is the twenty first century, do try and catch up with the rest of us.

And one other other thing:

We can read. We also know what insults are, even if they are dressed up in flowery language or prefaced with "No offence ... "

The term "No offence" doesn't stop something from being offensive, only a child or a moron thinks it does. If you want to say something offensive, be a grown up about it instead of pretending you aren't really doing so.

Here's some advice, you're welcome:

Don't repeat it like we've never heard it before and it must be a revelation. Show everyone a little respect and see if a counter argument already exists and if it does, take that ito account.
If your argument is old and has remained unchanged since its inception, it isn't because it has passed the test of time, it is because it is almost certainly utter bollocks with bells on. Try updating it and take into account what we know now that the original proponents didn't.
Read the Doggerel Index - if what you were going to say is on there, don't say it.
If you do say something that is on the index, don't complain about your subsequent treatment, you deserve it.
Don't complain about being insulted if you started it. No matter how dressed up an insult is it is still an insult and we can read, even if at times you struggle over the big words.
Address the actual arguments put to you - don't try and pretend that by insulting someone you have countered their arguments. See 5 when taking this into account.
Sometimes an insult isn't just an insult, it can be a statement of fact. If someone calls you an idiot, you probably are an idiot and they're almost certainly able to say why. If you can't say why then you are just insulting. See 6.
You really aren't as funny as you think you are or as funny as the slack jawed yokels in your group repeatedly tell you that you are. Be prepared to have your delusions of wit and charm shattered.
Oscar Wilde you are not. I'm sure that you think you are being clever and witty. You aren't. Get ready to be mocked if you continue to act like you are a literary genius.
You really aren't as clever as you think you are, or as clever as the slow witted laggards you are used to talking to say you are. Don't be offended if we can prove it.
Learn from your mistakes and move on, don't continue to imply or claim you are still right when you blantantly aren't.
Respect is earnt. Try earning some.
Nothing is sacred, so don't hold anything to be so.
Yes, we do say things on the Internet that we wouldn't say in person - this is a good thing. We can really tell you how stupid you are without fear of censorship through violence, and then other people can see how stupid what you say and believe are and we grow as a whole. The anonymity of the Internet increases the flow of opinion and ideas and promotes the ridicule of the obscenely stupid or offensive without fear of persecution or repression - embrace it.
You aren't a martyr, stop acting like one because we can show how silly you are.
Know your limits. Part of arguing intelligently is knowing what you don't know. I guarantee you don't know a lot stuff - I know I don't. That's why if I don't know about something I either don't talk about it or go and research it. Please don't pretend you know about a subject like quantam mechanics because of something you read on an acupuncture or Secret website.

Keep these things in mind and there might just be a chance for you.

Ignore all this, as most of you seem to, and you'll get treated as you deserve to be treated.

Feeling lazy, so go read Yakaru instead

2010-04-21T10:33:00.001-06:00

Alright, I have a week to myself thanks to erupting volcanoes pushing back my parents travel plans so I'm stuck with youngest mini-Jimmy Blue at home and with no express desire to blog, only the strange compulsion to play video games and basically arse about. So instead of not reading new material by me, go read Yakaru comprehensively tearing Dana Ullman a new one.

Awesome.

Vatican's latest stupidity

2010-04-14T09:40:00.001-06:00

Ah the Vatican, truly the largest shit stain in the underpants of humanity.

Of course, now the Vatican is seeking to 'clarify' these comments. When did 'clarify' become a euphemism for 'hurriedly back pedal from the blatantly stupid, outrageously bigoted or utterly offensive by lying, obfuscating or just flat out pretending they didn't say what they did'?

What a bunch of fucking ignorant ass monkeys. Just to review the current list of Vatican stupidity, here's where they stand on the child sex abuse scandals:

First they covered them up, for decades.

Then they pretended they were nothing but petty gossip.

Then they compared the criticism of the Church to the Holocaust and by extension the critics to the Nazis.

Then they went back to claiming it was nothing but petty gossip.

Now they are claiming that there is no problem in the Church or with the priesthood, it was all done because people are gay and gay people molest children.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said:

Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and paedophilia but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia.

That is true. I have the documents of the psychologists. That is the problem.

Really? No. Don't be so fucking stupid.

But hey, the good cardinal was told so recently, so it must be true. I mean, we know from their having spent decades covering up child abuse that Catholic priests don't lie, don't we? And hearsay is definitely a good reason for condemning an entire group of people in public when you hold one of the most powerful positions of authority in the world.

Now, I admit I am not as important as the Cardinal, but I was told recently that Catholic priests eat babies and shag goats while drinking horse vomit, all as part of their ordination rites. You can take that to the bank.

But I digress, let me go back to the topic under discussion here. The Vatican, in its clarification, wants to make absolutely clear that it doesn't actually distance itself from the Cardinal's remarks, indeed it has the facts and figures to prove them. Allow me to quote the BBC article:

According to the satistical data collected by the Congregation for the Doctrine the Faith, "about 10% of cases were paedophilia in the strict sense, while 90% were cases of ephebophilia [i.e towards adolescents]", he added [Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi].

"Of these approximately 60% referred to individuals of the same sex and 30% of heterosexual character."

So, statistics gathered by the Vatican organisation responsible for helping cover up child abuse in the first place prove that the Church isn't the problem. Well, you could have knocked me down with a feather. With impartial data like that there is nothing left to argue about, right?

Wrong.

So, and just bear with me here, if not all of the cases of abuse can be classed as homosexual then homsexuality can't be the reason for these cases of abuse, can it? I mean, if homosexuality was the problem and if homosexuality and pedophilia were linked, wouldn't all the cases be homosexual and wouldn't they all be pedophilia? But they aren't, are they? In fact, the Vatican's own figures quite obviously disagree with the conclusion they are trying to make.

So what is the common factor here? Oh yes, that's right - being a fucking priest. So, given the data that we have available we can safely say that 100% of the children abused in these cases were abused by someone connected closely to the Catholic church. Therefore, I was told recently, people connected with the Catholic church are more likely to abuse children than people not connected with it. The problem is not being gay, but being Catholic.

This is true, I have the documents to prove it. Being Catholic, that is the problem.

And I'm also forced to wonder what the other 10% were, according to the Vatican, since 60% + 30% != 100%

And just in case you need it spelling out, here are some quotes from the study I linked to:

Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members...

In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children...

In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters...

It has also been raised in connection with scandals about the Catholic church's attempts to cover up the abuse of young males by priests. Indeed, the Vatican's early response to the 2002 revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests was to declare that gay men should not be ordained...

The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes...

For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women...

Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation...

The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994)...

The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989)...

However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents...

Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children.

So the sleazy lying bastards in the Vatican can go and fuck themselves with rusty pickaxes. Here's a free piece of advice for the Vatican:

If you don't recognise the problem, you are never going to fix it - stop blaming everyone else and accept your responsibility.

How to link directly to a comment in Blogger

2010-04-08T22:18:00.043-06:00

OK, this will almost certainly not be news to a great many people but I just figured it out for myself so I'm posting it here.

Since I've started commenting on blogs I've often struggled when trying to link directly to a Blogger comment in long threads (I tried for instance to link directly to some comments in the Gun Control thread on this blog in a new blogpost but it didn't work). You can get the url for a comment by clicking on the timestamp and then copying and pasting this from the address bar into the 'A href...' html tags - but previously when someone had clicked on the link expecting to go directly to the comment in question they would find themselves merely staring at the top of the blog post the comment was made on and they would still have to scroll down to find the comment in question - which completely missed the point.

However, the Recent Comments widget I use from Beautiful Beta and Hackosphere manages to do it with no problems (probably edits the text string to remove unwanted characters) - click on the author's name and it takes you directly to the comment, but in the other similar widgets I've experimented with you still end up at the top of the blog post, not the actual comment (for instance, look at the recent comments widget on the Bronze Blog). Checking a couple of other blogs you'll see the same thing happens - but the urls are different from the ones generated in the recent comments widget I use, they're longer.

So, click on a timestamp for a particular comment and you get a url that looks like this:

http://terribletruth-beautifullie.blogspot.com/2010/01/psychics-real-fake-or-just-fucking.html?showComment=1270777714974#c1252609637139529788

Which you can now use to link directly to a Blogger comment using the 'A HREF=' html tag, but it didn't used to work.

Click on the author name in the recent comments widget I use and it looks like this:

http://terribletruth-beautifullie.blogspot.com/2010/01/psychics-real-fake-or-just-fucking.html#c1252609637139529788

and it goes directly to the required comment.

But if I use some of the other recent comment widgets the urls generated look something like this:

http://terribletruth-beautifullie.blogspot.com/2010/01/psychics-real-fake-or-just-fucking.html?showComment=1270777714974#comment-c1252609637139529788

Yet they are all for the same comment. The first will now take you to the comment but didn't used to, the second to the actual comment and the third just to the top of the blogpost - most recent comment widgets I've found use the third format - the one I use chops the text string to get what is needed.

The timestamp url now seems to work, otherwise you can chop out the 'comment-' part of the third url, or chop out everything from the first url from and including the '?' up to, but not including, the '#' when creating a link to a specific comment in a blogger discussion.

Not earth shattering and no doubt most already know this, I just thought it was weird because this didn't work six months ago and not being able to link to a comment directly was a pain in the arse!

Arrogance on display - religious license plate frames

2010-04-08T17:01:00.000-06:00

It's not that I think having a license plate frame with a religious message on necessarily makes a person arrogant, it's the type of message they choose to display. So two days ago whilst driving to work I saw one that read:

WARNING: IN CASE OF RAPTURE THIS CAR WILL BE UNMANNED

And my first thought was "What an arrogant prick." Well, actually, my first thought was probably "Wish I didn't have to go to work today, I'd rather be doing something else and getting paid for that instead, like being a virgin converter or something cool like that." But it was probably soon after my first thought upon seeing that particular license plate frame.

Anyway. Let's face it, this message is really saying that the person who bought and displayed it thinks they are so unbelievably perfect that, were God to pick and choose who they wanted to take to their kingdom if the Rapture were to actually occur, then Religious Tool Who Displays Their Belief On Bits Of Plastic Attached To Car (RTWDTBOBOPATC, for short) would be one of those God chose. You can't get much more arrogant than assuming that God thinks you're great, can you? You're basically saying "Oh yeah, the supreme being and creator and master of all existence would totally pick me over all the other billions of candidates."

Or are they just claiming to be a perfect Christian? Really? Always turned the other cheek? Always loved thy neighbour as thyself? Never judged others? Ever? Rendered unto Caesar? They've absolutely lived a life completely and utterly according to the Bible? Really? Abandoned uncircumcised boys? Stoned disobedient children?

What this license plate frame says to me is either: "Yes the owner of this vehicle is so monumentally egotistical and arrogant they think God favours them massively" or "Yes the owner of this vehicle really has no place amongst a modern society since they are possibly a child killing, misogynistic bigot with genocidal tendencies and a complete inability to function in the 21st Century."

Neither of which are things anyone should be bragging about, surely?

And another thing...

But, even disregarding that, I also had another thought at some point after the thought that probably wasn't the first thought after seeing this particular license plate holder. And boy do I wish I wasn't typing this next to an open window through which the smell of flame grilled burgers is now wafting. But I digress.

My other thought was this: If you think that at any point you might suddenly disappear off the face of the Earth isn't it highly, massively, irresponsible of you to be driving any type of vehicle or to be a part of any crew operating a vehicle or other form of transport - especially aircraft? Should you in fact not be operating any form of dangerous machinery? Should you in fact not have any kind of job which requires constant vigilance for safety reasons - did you even admit to your employer that you might disappear at any point whilst on the job?

"Well, I think that concludes the interview for the position of Person Who Stops The Reactor From Going Into Meltdown. Do you have any questions or comments for us Mr Fanatically Religious Tit?"
"Erm, well, yes actually. I lead such a virtuous life that it is highly likely I may be Raptured up to the Kingdom of God at any point. I hope the very real chance of me suddenly disappearing whilst on the job doesn't knock me out of the running. I'll be with the Almighty, but obviously not able to perform my duties as contracted. Do you have a Rapture clause in your contracts? What are your procedures in case of Rapture?"

Or (and this scene works best if you imagine Michael Palin sitting in a white coat and dark pin-stripe suit opposite Graham Chapman and John Cleese in similar attire but behind a big wooden desk in a wood paneled boardroom).

"Well, I think we are ready to make our decision about who will be appointed Chief of Cardiology, do you have anything else you would like to add Dr. Condescending Big Head?"
"Er. Well, there is the delicate matter of my impending Rapture."
"I'm sorry. Your what?"
"My Rapture."
"Your rapture?"
"Yes."
"So, am I to understand that you think that at some point you may be Raptured up into the kingdom of Heaven? At any time?"
"Yes."
"Even during surgery?"
"Yes."
"A triple bypass?"
"Yes. I won't even know when."
"Well yes. Thank you doctor. Next."

In fact, shouldn't the rest of us (unbelievers, theists of a different stripe and the not quite so unbelievably fucking arrogant) be petitioning governments and employers the world over to prevent people like those who believe they will be Raptured from basically doing anything but staying at home, on the sofa, in their Sunday best, and not touching anything? Wouldn't it be hugely irresponsible for an airline or hospital to hire a pilot or surgeon who thought they could at any point just be Raptured away?

Shouldn't we all stay at home to avoid the dangers of a society where people can at any time disappear no matter what they were doing?

Or, is the fact that we don't do this and don't encourage governments or employers to take this into account basically just an admission that we all understand that the whole Rapture idea is REALLY BLOODY SILLY?

Self confessed murderer jailed for life - so why am I surprised?

2010-04-04T14:55:00.000-06:00

Ordinarily this really shouldn't be news or of interest - a case of someone who confessed openly in court and elsewhere that they deliberately planned and prepared to murder someone before finally carrying out the act seems to be open and shut, the conviction just a formality. Right?

Unfortunately, no.

The Legal bit

Scott Roeder was recently sentenced to a term of life imprisonment for the murder of Doctor George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas. Judge Warren Wilbert even enforced the maximum penalty, Roeder will not be eligible for parole for 50 years. Roeder was also sentenced to a further two years for threatening two ushers at the church where he shot Dr. Tiller.

Roeder had been planning the murder of Dr. Tiller for some ten years and finally carried out the act on May 31, 2009 whilst Dr. Tiller attended church with his family. Roeder fled the scene but was arrested and made no secret of the fact that yes, he had killed the doctor.

All this seems to make Roeder's conviction a formality surely? Not so. Roeder attempted to plead 'necessity'. Roeder's attempted defence was that he killed Dr. Tiller because the lives of children were in immediate danger since Dr. Tiller's clinic was one that carried out late term abortions, something which Kansas state laws allow. If Roeder had been successful then the charge he would have been facing would have been manslaughter instead of first degree murder. Initially Judge Wilbert appeared open to allowing this even though Kansas state law does not recognise the necessity defence - he said he needed more evidence to rule on the matter. Eventually, Judge Wilbert decided that Roeder could not use the necessity defence because Dr. Tiller was performing an action that was constitutional and legal and that Roeder had broken the law. Apparently it needs to be pointed out to some people that gunning someone down in cold blood is against the law and that planning to do so for ten years makes it pre-meditated.

Judge Wilbert very nearly opened a legal Pandora's box that would have been very difficult to close, as the Albany Government Law Review article I've linked to points out. At the time that Judge Wilbert first appeared prepared to allow the necessity defence I felt a creeping sense of dread, for reasons very close to home - the obstetrics clinic my wife works at referred people to Dr. Tiller's clinic.

If the necessity defence was allowed, and if Roeder had been successful in using it, then where would this end I thought? Who, exactly, becomes a legitimate target for those who think themselves to be saving the lives of unborn children in immediate danger and with the now established legal defence of necessity? Would it be just the doctors? Would it be the nurse practitioners as well? How about the medical assistants? The receptionists? The cleaners at the clinic that enable it to function? People who delivered medical supplies to the clinic? People who built the equipment that the clinic used? People who worked for the utility companies that supplied the clinic? People who built the buildings that these clinics operated in? Any of these people who worked elsewhere that referred patients to the clinic that performed the abortion - like my wife?

Where would the defence of necessity stop if it were ever allowed in a case like this? Judge Wilbert closed the door on using the necessity defence in this case - but what if, as the law review article argues, abortion were to be declared illegal by a conservative judge or state legislature?

Who, exactly, then becomes a legitimate target for fanatical anti-abortionists? Judge Wilbert very nearly declared it open season on anyone connected in any way to a clinic or doctor that performs abortions.

The fact that anyone anywhere actually considers that it was alright for Roeder to argue that it was ok for him to murder Dr. Tiller should send shivers up the spine of anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

Thankfully Judge Wilbert weighed up the facts and discarded the necessity defence, but really on a legal technicality that could be open to change or reinterpretation in the future. The necessity defence is something anti-abortionist terrorists have tried to use in the past and there is no guarantee that one day something might change with either the status of abortion or the legal position on necessity.

I'm certainly going to be keeping an eye on it.

What people like Roeder don't want you to know

Here's the part that people like Roeder, and even the less psychotic anti-abortionists, don't want you to know.

Dr. Tiller didn't carry out late term abortions lightly - Kansas state law is very strict on the procedure for a start. It can only be performed if there is a risk of death or serious harm to the mother, and where two independent doctors have agreed that health is at risk. Late term abortion is also performed if the foetus has a severe or fatal defect - for instance, my wife's clinic deals with high risk pregnancies and referred patients to Dr. Tiller's clinic when the mother was at risk or when the foetus had defects that would be fatal or cause suffering in utero or would cause severe and eventually fatal quality of life and health issues after birth.

Late term abortions are not performed for convenience, they aren't the fast food of medical procedures, but where the health of the mother is at risk or where there are severe medical problems with the foetus. But anti-abortionists portray late term abortions, and want everyone else to think this, as if they are done because people just don't want the inconvenience of a pregnancy carried to term. They don't want people to understand the actual medical issues, because they themselves don't. Ignorance is their friend, and they guard it with all their might.

No-one really points this out. The media don't really mention it. Anti-abortionists deliberately ignore it - abortion is abortion is abortion, to them. Women are just birthing machines and damn the risks, to your average anti-abortionist. Every foetus is always 100% healthy and viable to them. Under no circumstances is abortion ever necessary or medically correct. It's black and white. Don't think about it, take their word for it.

Dr. Tiller was no murderer, he was a medical professional performing necessary and legal medical procedures in the face of extreme violence, intimidation and abuse. On the other hand Roeder, who through killing Dr. Tiller forced the doctor's clinic to close, has condemned hundreds if not thousands of women to death or severe health problems. He has caused the continued suffering of unviable unborn children. He has caused incalculable mental anguish to women and their partners at the most difficult times of their lives. He was a murderer, and his actions will ensure the deaths of other pregnant women. He will continue to be a murderer for years to come, but the deaths will never be correctly attributed to him. Many will go unremarked by any but the affected families. Anti-abortionists will never spare them a moments thought, sympathy or compassion. Because of the physical damage done to women who would otherwise have gone on to have healthy full term pregnancies, many children will never be born that otherwise would have been.

There was nothing pro-life about what Roeder did.

Yet Roeder is proud of himself, and so are his supporters. They don't want you to think of the consequences of his actions - they want everyone to continue thinking that abortion is a black and white issue and that women have no rights when it comes to pregnancy. The collection of unborn cells outweighs everything else, no matter what. There are, according to these people, no conditions where abortion might be justified or necessary. No matter who dies or who suffers and how.

There is nothing pro-life about any of them or their beliefs.

Good grief - just shut up

2010-04-04T10:32:00.000-06:00

They really just don't get it do they? Now we are back to the whole scandal being nothing but "petty gossip of the moment". I guess they had to go somewhere when comparing it to the Holocaust didn't work for them, so backwards is natural for an outdated and archaic organisation that has defied the modern world for most of its existence. Go with what you know.

Why don't these clueless idiots do us and themselves a favour and just shut up? Everytime they open their mouths they make themselves seem even more morally bankrupt and out of touch. Actually, on second thoughts, maybe they should keep talking and eventually everyone might begin to understand just how corrupt the Catholic Church is, in almost every sense of the word.

I mean really, the Pope has the nerve to claim that humanity needs a "moral conversion". Sorry, but the last person I am going to take advice on morality from is a Catholic priest. Any claim to moral authority the Catholic Church or any representative of it could make became laughable a long time ago.

Here's one tiny example of how moral the Catholic Church is. The Pope's personal preacher claims the criticism of the Church is akin to "the most shameful aspects of anti-Semitism" in a sermon delivered before the Pope (although predictably the Vatican claims the Pope knew nothing of the content of the sermon before it was given - which if true would make him at least utterly incompetent given the current position of his Church) - then the Vatican claims that this isn't actually the official position of the Vatican - and then L'Osservatore Romano (the official Vatican newspaper) prints the full text of the 'criticism = The Holocaust' sermon on its front page! Lying is meant to be a sin, isn't it?

Of course, now Cantalamessa is scrambling to pretend he didn't really mean what he said and he is engaging in the current round of half-arsed Catholic apologies. He even says that of course you can't compare the current attacks on the Church with anti-Semitism.

Even though that is exactly what he said in his sermon.

How confusing.

Apparently you can't really take a Catholic priest at his word for anything. Don't take my word for what this parasite said though, go read a Catholic's annotated translation (and this guy is full of shit too). Cantalamessa claims that he only meant to point to the use of stereotype and passing from personal responsibility to collective guilt. Of course, he could quite easily have done that without once comparing this to the most shameful aspects of anti-Semitism, couldn't he? Do they really think people are that stupid?

"Oh, when I said what I said I didn't really mean what I said or actually believe what I said either, obviously. My apology for not meaning what I said when I said it can be taken absolutely seriously though. Gospel, even. God's honest truth, I absolutely mean it this time."

Why won't they all just fuck off?

Ryan's back! Go read him

2010-04-03T11:48:00.000-06:00

Ryan's back after a break from blogging - go check his blog out, I guarantee it will be interesting.

Un-fucking-believable

2010-04-02T23:00:00.001-06:00

Just when I thought the Catholic Church and/or those representing it couldn't possibly sink any lower, they come back to surprise me.

Pope's precher compares abuse row to anti-Semitism.

It's almost beyond words. Almost.

Just say it aloud to yourself and think about it for a minute:

The Pope's personal preacher says that the criticism of rapists and the systematic cover up of their crimes, along with the valid enquiries into who knew what and when and what they did about it are the same as "the most shameful aspects of anti-Semitism", in the eyes of the Vatican. And what are the most shameful aspects of anti-Semitism? The Holocaust, surely? Criticising the church for covering up rape is the same as the Holocaust.

Two weeks ago I started writing about this, specifically I was writing about how I felt Cardinal Sean Brady's apology for helping cover up child abuse was almost certainly bull shit. An apologist showed up and reacted as if they couldn't quite understand why I might not think Brady was sincere. Then we had more revelations about Brady and his baffling reception from his congregation in Armagh. Then the Pope claimed that the criticism coming the Vatican's way was nothing but "petty gossip". Now the Pope's personal preacher thinks it is ok to compare criticism of the Church with anti-Semitism.

And people want to ask me why I don't think the Church and its mouthpieces are being sincere when they apologise?

Here's why - one week ago the criticism being levelled at the Church for systematically covering up the very large and very real problem of child rape committed by priests was dismissed by the Pope as nothing but "petty gossip". Now, on Good Friday, the Church wants us to believe it is so serious it is equivalent to centuries of oppression, discrimination, genocide and hostility.

No, I can't imagine why I might not be taking any Church or Church official's apology seriously.

Of course there's so much wrong with this comparison it isn't even fucked up. I'd have to invent a new word to describe just exactly how wrong this comparison is. Here's the main problem:

Anti-semitism is directed against Jews because of WHO THEY ARE. The current criticism of the Catholic church is because of what it and a great many of its officials DID.

They are not even close to being similar, and if you can't understand why then there is really no point in trying to explain it to you - you're a clueless fuckwit with the intellectual capacity of a small wood splinter who probably thinks the Jews had it coming anyway, what with them killing Jesus and all.

For the simple minded and dull witted I'll spell it out though.

1. The criticism is not aimed at all Catholics in the way that anti-Semitism is aimed at all Jews. The criticism is aimed at the rapists, those who enabled them to continue raping, those who helped cover up the crimes and those who are now making excuses for all of the above. It is not directed at all Catholics - comparison fail.

2. The criticism is just that, criticism. They're just words. Many of them, including my own, are vitriolic and harsh, but it is nonsense to compare even abusive words with centuries of physical violence, genocide and oppression - as the idiot preacher and his letter writing 'friend' do. There have been no state sponsored or widely spread and co-ordinated physical acts of violence, oppression or discrimination against Catholics over this - comparison fail.

3. The mysterious letter writing Jewish friend (I'm sure the Pope's preacher would say he isn't racist either, I'm sure he would reassure us he has black friends too) compares the criticism of the Church with the "more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism". And what are the more shameful acts of anti-Semitism? You'd have to say the Holocaust, wouldn't you? Does any of the verbal criticism directed at the Catholic church remind you of the state sanctioned industrialised slaughter of millions? No, didn't think so - comparison fail.

And what does this comparison really say? That raping children and getting caught covering it up are the same as being Jewish? Is that really the message the Vatican wants to spread? Is it saying that Catholic's are about to be subjected to pogroms? Is it saying that Catholics are about to be herded onto cattle cars and transported to industrialised death camps? Is it saying that the critics are somehow comparable to the Nazis or those who carry out anti-Semitic attacks? Is it saying that the poor victimised rapists and those who enabled their actions, covered them up or made excuses for them are just like the victims of the Holocaust?

If it is, then it is so far beyond ridiculous as to be beneath contempt and worthy only of ridicule, derision and scorn.

Still believe the Catholic church is officially sorry for this?

From apology to 'valid if sometimes extremely rude criticism is petty gossip' to 'valid if sometimes extremely rude criticism is as bad as the worst aspects of anti-Semitism,' in less than a week. From pretending to feel sorrow for its actions to comparing itself to victims of the Holocaust? If the Church truly felt sorry it would not now be trying to portray itself as a poor victimised and oh, billion strong fantastically rich organisation exposed for what it really is, would it? It wouldn't be trying to compare its critics to the Nazis (who else do you think of when you think of the worst anti-Semites?), would it?

And do you really think this wasn't run by the Pope and his advisors first? Seriously? And do you think this attempted portrayal of the Church as marytred victim comes on today as just coincidence (you know, the day when Jesus was supposed to have been crucified)? Is anyone really that naïve?

And let's face it, this is still about the Church not quite believing that people are ready to defy it, stand up to it and expose it for what it is. It can't believe people didn't keep their mouths shut. It wants people to think that those victims and their supporters are the ones in the wrong. The Church can't quite believe that it isn't 900AD anymore. This is a vile attempt to strike out and portray the Church as a weakened victim being set upon from the outside, it is a pathetic attempt to rally supporters.

I didn't think Catholic officials could possibly sink any lower than a great many had already. Boy was I wrong.

I predict some hurried back tracking from the Vatican - its been taken out of context, it's a mistranslation. I'm sure there will be plenty of excuses, and more than a few apologists.

Let us all hope that this is the beginning of the end of the Catholic Church.

Edited to add:

Of course, you could have predicted the outrage - and the Vatican's response. "Oh, well that isn't our official view." Fine, fire or censure the preacher then - prove it.

Highlighting repeated cover ups of child rape = "petty gossip"

2010-03-29T08:41:00.000-06:00

At least, if you're the Pope anyway.

So, a little over a week ago now the Vatican issued a more than belated apology for the growing number of cases of child abuse by priests and their cover up by the Church (more of the former, less of the latter, in the letter). He did at least manage to actually use the word 'sorry', which appears to be a step forward for these people who don't really think they've done anything wrong.

Now though the Pope has managed to undo even the little bit of good the apology did. The very public anger and horror, the questioning of the Vatican's versions of events, the calling for people to be punished for what they did and are doing, the continued insistence on honesty and the truth - this is not 'petty gossip' as Ratzinger would have you believe. The Pope apparently knows that God leads "towards the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion."

Yes, the Pope won't be intimidated by people pointing out his and his churches involvement in the covering up of child abuse because doing so is 'the petty gossip of dominant opinion' and nothing more. Ironically he also pointed out that man sometimes falls to "the lowest, vulgar levels" and sank "into the swamp of sin and dishonesty." Which, of course, perfectly sums up his and the Catholic churches actions over this and the Catholics doing the abusing.

As PZ said, could he have possibly trivialised this anymore? I mean, we know that is what he wants to do, make all these scandals go away by pretending they are not that big of a deal because they are just gossip after all, but really. What a cock.

You couldn't make this shit up, and if you did Catholics would be outraged at the offence you'd caused them.

Where's their outrage over the reality however?

The anthropic principle and Intelligent Design. And some other stuff

2010-03-23T22:52:00.000-06:00

Careful - put the kettle on and get a brew, this is going to be a big one!

So, recently an anonymous commenter (that had better change - pick a name and use that to post with) has come by to defend Intelligent Design and offer up their evidence for it.

Nothing new or that hasn't been seen before, and the usual tactics employed I'm afraid. Since there is a lot to reply though I thought I'd write a new post dealing with it rather than spread a response over several comments on the original thread - and I'll probably use this tactic from now on whenever someone suggests some evidence in the ID post - I'll separate it into a post purely dealing with that evidence and link to it from the ID post.

Since our anonymous commenter didn't give themselves a name I'll pick one.

Gertrude's Opening Gambits

Here's how Gertrude opened their comments:

For me, the single most important feature of polemics is raising awareness.

OK, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

I don’t believe one should aim for victory for its own sake: For this is something that happens only when one’s identity is overly attached to a particular point of view.

Who said anything about victory for its own sake? How about victory because you're right and the other guy is wrong? Nothing about the arguments around Intelligent Design are about gaining victory for its own sake, failure to grasp this is one thing that separates the people who argue against ID and those who show up to argue in favour of it.

People kill and die for their cherished beliefs. They hold on to and justify them at magnificent lengths.

On this Gertrude and I agree - it is one of the reasons I despise religion so much after all. The problem is that Gertrude seems to be implying this applies to all beliefs, particularly those in question here. How many people have killed for their belief in speciation or abiogenesis or platetechtonics or the Big Bang though?

A recent study on American’s that still believed Iraq was responsible for 911 in spite of the evidence to the contrary, showed to what lengths people will go to keep their beliefs intact.

This really doesn't help Gertrude's cause at all when you consider what is at question here - the evidence for Intelligent Design compared to the evidence for the theory of Evolution (and on a related note the evidence for the Big Bang). Think of all the evidence we have from a multitude of different disciplines with respect to the diversity of life and origins of the Universe, and yet people still cling to the version given in a 2000 year old religious book that is full of things that are demonstrably wrong and have tied themselves in all kinds of knots to justify that belief.

Now Gertrude is making my point for me.

The rules of debate are useful for systematizing argument and for avoiding typical pitfalls, but I wish they included an understanding of recognized social psychological tendencies as well. Like groupthink, reverse reasoning and “us” and “them” pitfalls.

Here Gertrude implies that none of those things have been taken into account here - yet these are things that critical thinkers and skeptics are always taking into account when arguing with people - logical fallacies and the cognitive and psychological reasons behind beliefs are always at the forefront of skeptical thinking. Of course, Gertrude also implies here that the ID post and comments have fallen into those things they list - group think, reverse reasoning and "us" versus "them" pitfalls, but they give no evidence for this.

Using labels is practical for categorization; but can, and usually does, limit one’s scope of comprehension.

Really? Amateur psychobabble.

The brain is like a computer that way. A category represents “x” and leaves out the possibility of “y” and “z”. Therein lays the danger of stereotyping of course.

Of course a good stereotype also has an element of truth in it. Of course, if you also have categories for "y" and "z" what is the problem? What if you have categories that include a little of "x" and a little of one or more of the others? Gertrude implies black and white thinking, yet once again has no evidence to support it.

My belief is that the three opposing camps in this blog are actually different aspects of the same coin. I don’t mind if that earns me the label, Accomodationist.

Nope. No label for you, just what you say. And this can be labeled "bollocks". You are of course entitled to your belief's Gertrude but unless you offer your evidence and explanations for them, they'll be treated with disdain and contempt.

Consider the idea that at a quantum mechanical level all of creation is for lack of a better term, Energy

Get a better term, one that doesn't already have a specific scientific definition and meaning different to the one you are going to apply to it.

Creative Energy that has purposeful directional properties – properties for growth, for life and death, expansion and contraction, for tragedy and humor and so on.

This is nonsense. How do you assign purpose and direction to growth, life and death? Expansion and contraction of what? What energy has tragedy and humour and how are they considered 'purposeful directional properties'?

It’s also possible, that like us, this energy has personal and impersonal aspects to its nature.

What energy? Gertrude hasn't even come close to demonstrating that it exists or defining precisely what it is and now makes the assumption that this undefined entity could have personal and impersonal aspects like a human being.

The body is impersonal.

Only if you use some definition of the word 'impersonal' that no-one else does. Presumably Gerturde is some sort of dualist who thinks that the mind and body are separate. I have one question (at least for now) for Gertrude - how many minds have you come across that have no body? Alright two. What evidence do you have that the body is impersonal? OK, three. Define 'impersonal' as you are using it in this context.

But there must also be a personality considering how the energy is expressed in us at every moment of our lives. I’m only postulating at this point.

No kidding. This is just pure woo nonsense. What energy are we talking about here and what evidence does Gertrude have that it is expressed in us "at every moment of our lives"? How does personality connect to this or how is it related? Where's the evidence for any of this?

That the energy has a sense of humor can be seen in the folks that argue about the nature of existence.

What, the energy that you've made up and can't prove the existence of, Gertrude? Who is arguing over the nature of existence here though? Certainly not me. I'm arguing about the evidence for or the lack of evidence for an Intelligent Designer. The nature of existence is something else entirely.

The creative intelligence in one person expresses itself as an ardent atheist, while in another as an intractable Creationist.

What is the evidence for the existence of this creative intelligence? Gertrude has to show it actually exists before they can start making claims about what it does. Being an atheist also has nothing to do with the nature of existence. Atheist and creationist are also not equal terms, you could quite easily (according to what IDers would have you believe) be an atheist and a creationist - you don't have to believe that the creator is a god of some kind. Conversely, you can be a theist and not be a creationist, and indeed there are many of these. Gertrude seems hopelessly confused about what is up for discussion here and the nature of the people discussing it.

No one is absolutely wrong on a particular issue and often when both sides play out the best of their arguments, everyone grows.

This is just touchy feelly relativist nonsense and no-one grows from arguments based on lies, legends and pseudoscience. There are clearly arguments where people can be absolutely wrong on the issue in question.

My standpoint on Creationism is that Genesis was never meant to be taken literally; that the real evidence of intelligent design lies in direct experience, something that can be had only by exploring the deeper realms of one’s own consciousness; and that evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive.

The first bit I almost agree with, the second bit is nonsensical, the third bit pure woo and the last bit flat out wrong. Genesis shouldn't be taken literally, but Gertrude has no idea whether or not that was how it was meant - maybe the authors did want it to be taken literally. Experience makes for terrible evidence because you can be deceived intentionally or unintentionally in any number of ways - evidence derived from unfettered direct experience is next to worthless in a scientific sense. Then, how does one directly experience intelligent design (in the sense under discussion here) anyway? How do you explore the deeper realms of one's own consciousness and experience, directly, intelligent design in a way that is not entirely unreliable and subjective? How would my experience prove intelligent design to everyone else?

And as for evolution and ID not being mutually exclusive I'm afraid Gertrude couldn't be more wrong, many of the arguments made for irreducible complexity absolutely exclude any possibility of evolution by natural selection. If something evolved by natural selection via intermittent forms, it can't have been intelligently designed in the exact form it is currently in - they are absolutely mutually exclusive.

So, those were Gertrude's opening words and they are nothing that hasn't been seen before. There's fudging of definitions, assertions with no evidence, plenty of woo philosophy and a significant amount of confusion over the issues. Now let's get to the evidence they are offering: the anthropic principle. Gertrude lifts their evidence from here:

Design and the Anthropic Principle

Can't say that I'm that impressed, but then the argument from design and the anthropic principle have never been that impressive.

Cosmic Connection

It is impossible to imagine a universe containing life in which any one of the fundamental constants of physics or any one of the fundamental parameters of the universe is different, even slightly so, in one way or another.

Oh dear.

Where to begin? OK. First, it is very very very easy to imagine a universe containing life in which any one of the fundamental constants of physics or any of the fundamental parameters of the universe is different. Try it. First, imagine a universe that is different to ours. Then imagine some life in it. There. See how easy that was? What this first statement really means is that it is difficult to see how a universe containing life as we know it right now could exist if anything fundamental had changed in the past. No shit.

This is basically a statement of the unremarkable that people have been fooled into believing is a devastating insight. All it says, and this is at the very heart of what is wrong with the anthropic principle as IDers use it, is that if things were different then things would be different and it is difficult to picture that. It is not remarkable. It does not prove the Universe was designed to be the way it is. It merely states that if the Universe wasn't as it is some people would find it hard to imagine any form of life in it. It's an admission of a failure of imagination.

From this recognition arises the anthropic principle—everything about the universe tends toward man, toward making life possible and sustaining it. The first popularizer of the principle American physicist John Wheeler, describes it in this way, “A life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.

From this flawed first position, some people have then inferred that since the Universe is the way it is then it must have been designed to be the way it is. It isn't evidence for Intelligent Design, it is a restatement of the principles of Intelligent Design based on the same flawed assumptions and human conceit.

Look at the wording "everything about the universe tends toward man, toward making life possible and sustaining it." Really, the whole of the universe is about man is it? Leaving aside the astonishing arrogance that this displays one is forced to ask a number of questions:

Then why is man such an infinitesimally small part of the Universe? Why isn't man spread throughout the Universe if it tended towards us?
If the Universe is all about us, why would it be so easy for the Universe to wipe us out? Why is our existence so utterly tenuous and perilous?
If the Universe tends towards making and sustaining life then why is almost all of it COMPLETELY UNINHABITABLE?

As for the John Wheeler quote it proves nothing, least of all that the Universe was put here for us. That quote says to me that this planet we inhabit happens to be one that can sustain our form of life, which makes it completely unremarkable that it does indeed support our form of life unless you're the sort of half wit who constantly sees purpose where there is none.

The Earth as a fit Habitat

This whole following argument is based on the premises that will be familiar to those who know the anthropic principle - that there are certain properties of the Universe and our solar system that make life more likely or that if varied by even a tiny amount make life unlikely or impossible on the Earth. Nothing new is added.

1. number of star companions

if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits
if less than one: not enough heat produced for life

Neither of these rule out life completely - they may rule out a form of life similar to ours, but that does not mean that no life could have evolved under those circumstances. This is based on the assumption that the only possible life is life as we experience it on the planet now.

2. parent star birth date

if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase
if less recent: stellar system would not yet contain enough heavy elements

So life would have evolved later and may or may not have been like us. How does this prove that the Universe was designed with us in mind? The answer: it doesn't. Again this is more of the completely obvious "If things were different then things would be different" tripe that runs throughout the anthropic principle.

3. parent star age

if older: luminosity of star would not be sufficiently stable
if younger: luminosity of star would not be sufficiently stable

Basically the same as number 2 since they both rely on the age of the Sun. This also ignores the fact that the Sun's luminosity changes over time, it used to be darker and it will get brighter. What points 2 and 3 also seem to ignore is the eventual death of the Sun as well (you know, when it is older)- at some point the Sun will be older and we won't be able to live on the Earth any more - no more humans precisely because of the way the Universe is (estimates are about another 1 billion years before the sun's surface temperature increases so much that all water on the earth would be burned away). Are they arguing the designer built in a timer that will destroy us when it runs out after creating an entire Universe for just one tiny piss ant planet? Points 2 and 3 actually help prove that the Universe really isn't here for our benefit.

4. parent star distance from center of galaxy

if greater: not enough heavy elements to make rocky planets
if less: stellar density and radiation would he [sic] too great

How does galactic geography prove that the Universe was designed for our benefit? This shows that we are very lucky, and that we may or may not find life on planets closer to the centre of the galaxy, but what exactly proves that the Universe was designed with us in mind in this point?

5. parent star mass

if greater: luminosity output from the star would not be sufficiently stable
if less: range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the right distance

Yet another "Things would be different if things were different" point. This merely suggests that we wouldn't be here if the mass of the Sun were different - where or how does it prove the Universe was designed for us?

6. parent star color

if redder: insufficient photosynthetic response
if bluer: insufficient photosynthetic response

Which suggests (not proves) only that life would have to take a different form, not that it would not exist at all.

7. surface gravity

if stronger: planet’s atmosphere would retain huge amounts of ammonia and methane
if weaker: planet’s atmosphere would lose too much water

Which, again, only suggests life would have to be very different if things were different. Specifically though one has to ask: How does this prove that the Universe was intelligently designed?

8. distance from parent star

if farther away: too cool for a stable water cycle
if closer: too warm for a stable water cycle

And at some point in the distant future we will be closer to the sun as it expands in its red giant phase. Oh dear. There's another one of those pesky science bits that they keep ignoring. If humanity somehow survived that long (remember, there would be no water on the planet long before), this would finish us off. Not really a very good design if it is all about us.

9. thickness of crust

if thicker: too much oxygen would he transferred from the atmosphere to the crust
if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great

Look, we get it. If things were different they would be different. Humans probably wouldn't exist. How does that prove that the Universe was designed, and more specifically, designed just for us? Please try not to assume your conclusion in the premises of your answer.

10. rotation period

if longer: diurnal temperature differences would he too great
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would he too great

So life on Earth might not exist or it would be very different to what we know now. How does this prove the Universe was designed specifically for us? Anyone spotting a pattern yet?

11. gravitational interaction with a moon

if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would he [sic] too severe
if less: earth’s orbital obliquity would change too much causing climatic instabilities

Apparently they've never heard of lunar recession. The Moon is receding from the Earth. Gravitational interaction with the moon has changed over time and will change in the future.

12. magnetic field

if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe
if weaker: no protection from solar wind particles

OK. So? Time to ask the by now familiar question - how does this prove that the Universe was designed with us in mind? All it really suggests (not proves) is that if things were different then things would be different. There is no evidence here that the Universe was designed, just that it happens to be right for us.

13. axial tilt

if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great
if less: surface temperature differences would he too great

So things would be very different. How does this prove the Universe was designed?

14. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)

if greater: runaway ice age would develop
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop

Sounds like an admission of the reality of anthropegenic global warming if you ask me. Sounds like a designer designed the planet so we were able to kill ourselves. Doesn't sound very intelligent. This suggests to me more that the Universe is a dangerous place for humans and our penchant for producing gasses that reduce the amount of EM radiation reflected back into space.

15. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere

if larger: life functions would proceed too quickly
if smaller: life functions would proceed too slowly

So life would have to be very different to the forms we know now if things were very different. So what? How, exactly, does this prove the Universe was designed for us specifically?

16. carbon dioxide and water vapor levels in atmosphere

if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: insufficient greenhouse effect

Ha, another admission of AGW. Yes, greater levels is exactly what is happening right now and may very well irrevocably damage all life on the planet. What a shit design. How does this prove that the Universe was designed?

17. ozone level in atmosphere

if greater: surface temperatures would become too low
if less: surface temperatures would he too high; too much uv radiation at surface

Yes that whole CFC thing was touch and go wasn't it? How does this prove the Universe was designed for us though?

18. atmospheric electric discharge rate

if greater: too much fire destruction
if less: too little nitrogen fixing in the soil

Wow, things really would be different if things were different, wouldn't they? How does this prove the Universe was designed with us in mind?

19. seismic activity

if greater: destruction of too many life-forms
if less: nutrients on ocean floors would not be uplifted

So, and I'm just guessing here, are you saying that if things were different then, things would be different?

Er. OK. So what?

Well, so far you might be seeing a pattern. The IDers point out a physical or cosmological variable in the make up of the Earth or our solar system or Sun and then leave it at that. You are supposed to fill in the blanks. The implication the IDers are shooting for is that things must be the way they are because they were designed that way, and they must have been designed that way because otherwise things wouldn't be that way, and they are. They of course don't actually offer evidence for this however. You're supposed to use your own preconceptions to jump to the unsupported conclusion that, because it is dressed up in science's clothing, is supposed to look like the real thing. But there's a problem:

None of the things listed are actually evidence of design.

They are evidence that the Universe is finely balanced from the point of view of our existence.

They are evidence that things could have been very different.

They are evidence that, for humans at least, it is a good job things aren't different.

At no point are they evidence of design however, because they don't show that the things in question were designed to be that way. They are in fact that way, but that doesn't mean that they were meant to be that way. It is an unwarranted assumption, a vain and quite human conceit, that things are the way they are for our benefit. It's a good job things are that way, but that doesn't prove that they should be or were meant to be.

As evidence for intelligent design, the anthropic principle makes a good teapot. As evidence of human arrogance and a biased human-centric view of the Universe, the anthropic principle remains supreme.

For those IDers who still don't get why none of the 19 points listed are evidence for intelligent design, I have some questions/requests:

Explain without reference to your conclusion (I.E. without begging the question) how the 19 points listed so far prove intelligent design.
Further to this, explain on what basis you can assume that since we are here we are meant to be.
Explain how the anthropic principle shows we must or should be here rather than just that things could be very different.
On a related note, please explain how the anthropic principle is something more than just a human conceit.

All the anthropic principle shows is that conditions in the Universe are just right for us to exist, not that the Universe was designed for us to exist. To conclude otherwise is just begging the question - you are saying that the evidence there is an intelligent designer is that the Universe is intelligently designed. If you don't understand why this is a problem then that explains why you think ID is legitimate science.

The anthropic principle cannot and does not demonstrate that the way things are are the way things should be, only that this is the way they are and the way they are allows us to exist.

But there's more, lots more

Well, yes there is. Gertrude pasted a lot more from that website under some different headings, the 'Universe Fit for Habitat' and the 'Insufficient Universe' sections, but I don't have all day so I'm just going to pick through the highlights, you'll have to go to the website to view the details because I am not going to cut and paste each individual point.

I'm also not going to delve into the science - for all I know some of these points could be made up or just plain bollocks, all I am interested in is if they show evidence of design.

The Universe as a Fit Habitat

This section starts off with a bold and unsupported assertion for which there is no evidence:

In recent years these and other parameters for the universe have been more sharply defined and analyzed. Now, nearly two dozen coincidences evincing design have been acknowledged

Really? Acknowledged by who, exactly? Other IDers doesn't count. How do these things evince design exactly? Let's take a look.

1. Gravitational coupling constant - yes it could be different. If it was then things would be different. So what? The fact that it isn't different is evidence only for the fact that it isn't different, not that it was designed to be that way. Unsurprisingly no evidence is offered that the constant is designed, only the implication that it must be or things would be different. Nothing new here. No evidence for design present.

2. Strong nuclear force coupling constant - yes it could be different. If it was, things would indeed be very different. Hydrogen would be rare. Life as we know it may very well have been impossible. No evidence is offered that shows this was designed to be that way, only the implication that because it is a certain way it was designed to be that way. No evidence is offered to show that life would be impossible in such a Universe. Nothing new here. No evidence for design present.

3. Weak nuclear force coupling constant - yep, once again, things would be very different. But where is the evidence that it was designed to be this way? Nothing new here. No evidence for design present.

4. Electromagnetic coupling constant - no evidence it was designed to be this way is offered. Once again only the implication that it must have been designed to be that way. Nothing new here. No evidence for design present.

5. The ratio of electron to proton mass - things would be different if blah blah blah. Nothing new here. No evidence of design present.

6. The age of the Universe - no evidence for design present, just an assertion that the window for life is relatively narrow in the Universe. So, how does this prove design? Nothing new here.

7. Expansion rate of the Universe - no evidence that shows design in this, merely the assertion that the Universe has to expand at a certain rate for it to be the way it is. This does not prove that it was designed to be this way, just that it is this way. Nothing new here.

8. The entropy level of the Universe affects the condensation of massive systems - come on, you knew there had to be something about entropy in here! No evidence for design is offered, just some assertions about the effect of entropy on the formation of star systems. You have to show that it was designed to be that way, not simply that it is that way. Nothing new here.

9. Mass of the Universe - yes, the Universe would be very different now if it had a different mass. This does not prove that the Universe was designed to have this mass, only that the Universe is the way it is because it does have this mass. Fuck me, it's getting boring pointing that out. If you can show it was designed to be that way I am listening, otherwise it is just an interesting fact. Nothing new here. No evidence of design present.

10. Uniformity of the Universe - go on, have a guess.

11. Stability of the proton - no evidence of design offered. Nothing new here.

12. The fine structure constants - all very interesting, but not a single attempt to explain why this must be designed or is proof of design. Nothing new here. No evidence of design present.

13. Velocity of light as it relates to fine structure constants and other physical forces - not even the slightest attempt to explain why this is evidence of design, we are I suppose just expected to take their word for it. Nothing new here. No evidence of design is presented.

14. The 8Be,12C, and 16O nuclear energy levels - just a little bit of emphasis on some coincidences, no attempt to explain why this is evidence of design is made. Nothing new here. There is an argument from authority made by throwing in a Fred Hoyle quote though. Must be true then.

15. Distance between stars - same old same old, no attempt to explain why or how this is evidence for design, just a simple statement of the facts and that's it. Nothing new here. No evidence presented.

16. The rate of luminosity increase for stars - ignores the fact that the increase means that eventually life would not be able to live on the Earth to focus on the fact that the current rate means life can exist. Doesn't explain why or how this proves design. Nothing new here other than ignoring the full implications of the highlighted point. No evidence for design presented.

So, all this amounted to was a list of interesting scientific facts (at least as far as I know, some or all may in fact be wrong) but there is not one which contains an actual attempt to explain how these are evidence of design in the Universe - we are simply supposed to take the authors word for it that these do indeed show evidence of design. Absolutely no evidence is given to show that any of these 16 points actually prove design in the Universe. It's that simple.

Insufficient Universe

Starts with:

It is clear that man is too limited to have created the universe.

Wow, what an insight. Of course this is completely irrelevant, who said that man did? This is followed up with:

But, it is also evident that the universe is too limited to have created man.

Oooh, sorry, thanks for playing. Evident to who? Certainly not modern biologists.

The bottom line is that the universe is at least ten billion orders of magnitude (a factor of 1010,000,000,000times) too small or too young for life to have assembled itself by natural processes.

How was this worked out, exactly?

Even if this were true it isn't evidence for design, it would only be evidence that there was something wrong with the theory of evolution - ruling out evolution does not prove design. On top of that, I'd love to see how this calculation was worked out because I can bet it is fudged in some way. Exactly what accurate variables were plugged into this and how were they calculated? I am always wary of these kinds of calculations because the variables thrown in are usually so arbitrary and prejudicial. How do you calculate the likelihood of life evolving anywhere in the Universe? Was it worked out as the likelihood of just Earth evolving life, or somewhere in the Universe evolving life?

The only explanation left to us to tell how living organisms received their highly complex and ordered configurations is that an intelligent, transcendent Creator personally infused this information.

Really? This is the logical fallacy known as the false dilemma. Both evolution and Intelligent Design could be wrong, disproving one does not prove the other. There could be any number of other possible explanations for the origins of life on Earth, none of them need include a transcendent intelligent designer, there may even be an explanation that we haven't even thought of yet.

Conclusion

I am very decidedly unimpressed with the anthropic principle as evidence of Intelligent Design - primarily because it doesn't actually offer any evidence of Intelligent Design. All it offers is a list of things that if changed would mean the Universe would be a very different place - this does not constitute evidence that the way things are is the way they were designed to be, merely that the way things are are the way things are. Some people have chosen to infer design from this, but that does not constitute evidence for design.

I'm also amused by the fact that much of what has been argued as evidence for Intelligent Design above has been taken from modern physics. You know, the modern physics that shows the Universe was created by a Big Bang and that a Designer is an unnecessary postulation. All that stuff about formation of star systems, hydrogen and helium. All the bits about rates of expansion and smoothing. All of that is related to Big Bang theory. Big Bang theory is in direct competition with Intelligent Design. These guys really like cherry picking their science, don't they?

To tie up I'll move on to the remainder of Gertrude's other stuff.

The other stuff

In reply to Yakaru asking what energy Gertrude was talking about we had the reply: "Chi".

Oh good, another claim for which there is no proof. Gertrude, there is no reliable scientific evidence for the existence of 'chi', as such bringing it up here is not going to do your case any favours at all.

Gertrude went on in a further reply:

Chemical reactions and human thoughts have common ground...one can find commonality in chemical reactions, human thoughts and the mole on my grandmother’s nose

If you look hard enough with as loosely defined terms as you can then you can find commonality between anything. Doesn't mean anything however. Doesn't prove significance.

I’m going with the point of view that the universe is quantum mechanical. From that standpoint, a person’s humor can be traced to the same source that expresses itself as a rock on my windowsill.

What does this even mean? It's just nonsense talk from someone who appears to be victim of that Feynman saying, "Nobody understands quantum physics." Gertrude, I do not think quantum mechanics means what you think it means.

Gertrude then made a joke in the process of answering Yakaru's point that clearly there are absolute wrongs in arguments, like people who argue the world is flat:

If you look outside, you’ll immediately see that they are not absolutely wrong.

This does nothing but really illustrate how limited Intelligent Design is. Yes, from a limited viewpoint something can look to be the way you believe. The world from a limited ground based viewpoint looks to be flat - the fact remains that it isn't, the curve is just so slight that it gives the illusion of being flat. The same is true of Intelligent Design. If you come from a faith based limited viewpoint then yes, things can bear the illusion of design, but if you examine them from the expansive viewpoint of science, design doesn't look to be the answer at all.

Sorry Gertrude, I'll give you props for having a go, but the anthropic principle is not even bad evidence for Intelligent Design, it is no evidence at all. It's just a list of points at which or from which the Universe could have gone in a different direction.

Things possibly being different only means that things could possibly be different, not that the way they really are is the way they were designed to be.

Next.

Comment Policy change warning - no more anonymous comments

2010-03-22T13:17:00.002-06:00

~~Alright, I'm going to be switching off anonymous commenting because I am getting tired of trying to keep track of just which anonymous IDer has said what.~~

~~If you don't have the guts or the time to put even a made up pseudonym with your comments, maybe you shouldn't be making them.~~

This will go into effect by the end of today (22nd March).

EDIT: OK so I had a change of heart, I would rather people didn't have to register somewhere just to post a comment so here's the deal, if you want to post then pick a user name and post under that - I will give one warning to anonymous commenters and if a name isn't attached to the next comment then I will delete it and subsequent ones.

If you don't have the conviction to identify yourself, even anonymously over the internet, with comments you've made you should probably not be making them.

Cardinal Sean Brady: liar, hypocrite, coward

2010-03-19T10:06:00.000-06:00

Up until yesterday I had left the scandals surrounding the Catholic church in Ireland alone because they had plenty of coverage elsewhere that I wasn't going to add anything too by blogging myself, but the case of the cowardly Cardinal Sean Brady has left me with plenty to say, and the more I look into it the more I have to say.

So whilst re-reading this BBC article, the one that got me started on this, I noticed a quote from Brady that highlights just exactly why his half arsed apology was so utterly and shamefully worthless, insulting and meaningless.

You see, back in December 2009, Brady apparently told a reporter that:

he would feel obliged to resign if any act or omission on his part "had allowed or meant that other children were abused".

So did his morally bankrupt actions (or lack thereof) allow further children to be abused? Yes. However now Brady insists that he will resign only if asked to by the Pope. I do like a man of conviction.

Brady is a disgrace to humanity. He is a coward lacking any moral courage or character. The only morally acceptable action he could have taken was back in 1975, and he did not. He allowed a serial child rapist, who it has emerged had been abusing chilrden since the 1940s (in three countries no less) and had first come to light as a rapist in 1968, to continue to rape children. Brady apparently said that if that was the case, he would feel obliged to resign. The only morally acceptable action he could take now would be to resign, and he won't. Spotting a pattern of moral cowardice and hypocrisy yet?

In his apology Brady said he was sorry that in the past he had not upheld the values he proclaimed, yet he isn't doing so now either. That makes his apology utterly worthless and insulting to the victims of abuse that he allowed to continue through 35 years of inaction, incompetence and immorality. He clearly didn't mean a word of it, as I sarcastically predicted myself yesterday.

The 'decent people of Armagh' should be ashamed of themselves. Brady should be ashamed of himself. Of course, thanks to his actions in 1975 and his actions now, we know that isn't the case. Shame, ironically for a Catholic, appears to be something Brady is incapable of.

His actions allowed a known child rapist to continue to prey on children for 20 years, and he won't even resign from his job. Can you imagine what the outcry would be if this was any institution other than the Catholic church? A congregation APPLAUDED him for letting a child rapist get away with it for 20 more years and then pretending he was sorry for it.

Cunts.

Acupuncture and infection

2010-03-19T07:08:00.001-06:00

Remember how all those alternative medicine advocates like to complain about the side effects and dangers of modern medicine? Remember how they either imply or flat out claim that there are no such dangers from alternative medicine? Well, not surprisingly, it turns out that when people look at this kind of claim critically and scientifically the alties are not exactly correct.

Check out this study from the British Medical Journal I found via the BBC: Acupuncture Infection 'link'. The BMJ editorial can be found here: Acupuncture Transmitted Infections.

Now, some caution should be applied when viewing the results - sample sizes and case studies are small and relatively rare respectively, but the article does point out that the results may be the tip of the iceberg, these are only reported cases after all and acupuncture in the UK, for instance, is unregulated. And how much acucpunture treatment in China, for example, is closely followed and monitored by science based medicine and reporting?

Anyway, to throw back in the face of the "What's the harm even if it doesn't work" and the "It does work and it isn't dangerous like your western medicine" people here's some sobering quotes from the BMJ editorial:

So far, more than 50 cases have been described globally.... In localised infections, meridian specific and acupuncture point specific lesions were typical. About 70% of patients had musculoskeletal or skin infections, usually in the form of abscesses or septic arthritis, corresponding to the site of insertion of the acupuncture needles. A minority had infective endocarditis, meningitis, endophthalmitis, cervical spondylitis, retroperitoneal abscess, intra-abdominal abscess, or thoracic empyema.

As in other musculoskeletal or skin infections, Staphylococcus aureus was the most common bacterium responsible, accounting for more than half of the reported cases. Although most patients recovered, 5-10% died of the infections and at least another 10% had serious consequences such as joint destruction, paraplegia, necrotising fasciitis, and multiorgan failure.

The study in the BMJ also cites risks of Hepatitis B and C infection as well as the potential for infection with HIV.

Now I'm sure the alties will shoot back with hospital infection rates and surgery death rates and if they do they are merely reinforcing one of the points raised in the BMJ editorial. We know the rates for science based medicine because it is heavily regulated and monitored, but we don't have the same monitoring and regulation for acupuncture so they aren't comparing like with like - and what we do know suggests they really don't have much to shout about since the little information we do have suggests there is a problem, and one that isn't being monitored closely enough and might therefore be worse than it appears.

And yet, and here's the kicker, the alternative medicine industry doesn't want regulation, they don't want to be closely monitored, they regularly resist efforts to introduce regulation, they harp on and on about their own standards and training and how they don't need outside interference. Lo and behold, that is basically the line taken by those interviewed in the BBC article.

I think we begin to understand why they resist now, don't we?

Catholic clergy, ashamed? Fuck off

2010-03-18T15:46:00.000-06:00

Cardinal Sean Brady recently made some mealy mouthed apologies for his role in the institutionalised and state protected rape and physical abuse of children by the Catholic church in Ireland. If you haven't seen what he said, here's a quote from the BBC:

"I have listened to reaction from people to my role in events 35 years ago.
"I want to say to anyone who has been hurt by any failure on my part that I apologise to you with all my heart.
"I also apologise to all those who feel I have let them down.
"Looking back I am ashamed that I have not always upheld the values that I profess and believe in."

For those of you who don't speak Catholic, allow this reformed one to translate for you:

"Unfortunately those children whose abuse I helped enable wouldn't keep their bloody mouths shut and now everyone knows what a complete cunt I was 35 years ago when I helped force some children who had been raped to keep quiet about it.
"I want to say to anyone who has been hurt by my complete lack of integrity, moral courage, honesty or compassion that I now have to pay lip service to contrition. Because, after all, if I was really sorry about any of this I could have done something about it at any point in the previous 35 years, couldn't I? Instead though, since what I thought would remain hidden has come out now I have to at least make it look like I feel sorry for it. After all, we all know that if this had stayed secret I would never have a said a fucking thing about any of this to anyone before I died or done a damn thing about any of it. I mean really, is anyone going to buy this apology since it was only forced out of me by the fact that I actually got caught? Do you really think I would be 'fessing up to this shit if it was still a well kept church secret? Fuck off! And you've only seen the parts that have come to light, boy if you only knew what other shit I've gotten away with.
Anyway, in order to try and take the heat off the Pope I now have to pretend that all along I have felt sorry for this and just never done anything about it up until now, when it became public.
I apologise to all those who feel I have let them down. And by that I mean the Vatican and for me not helping to bury this shit so deep it would never have come to light.
Looking back I would have done everything all over again, only this time made sure I didn't get caught because if I had ever at any point felt real shame or horror, if I was ever at any point anything even approaching a man, I would have done something long before I was caught, wouldn't I?"

Clearly morality is the purview of the religious. Why is this pathetic excuse for a human being not being prosecuted for witholding this from the police? Oh yes I forget, he's a religious man and he didn't actually do the abusing. He just knew who was. And kept that information from the police (who it seems may not have acted on it anyway). And then enabled the abusers to keep abusing.And helped keep it a secret for 35 years.

Cunt.

Sub Command: Missile Test mission

2010-03-15T20:56:00.002-06:00

Something almost completely unrelated to my usual stuff today, but it is the reason I haven't posted for a while. If you aren't even remotely interested in program debugging or computer games you might as well stop reading here and go do something far more interesting instead, life is too short to read stuff you don't care about!

I recently took up playing/learning the subsim game Sub Command by Sonalysts Combat Simulations but only got three missions into the campaign when I hit a snag, I couldn't finish a mission successfully even though I had fulfilled all the mission criteria. So I did a Google search for the same problem and found there were a lot of other players with the same problem. Unfortunately there didn't appear to be a fix even though patch 1.05 was supposed to have addressed the problem. I even found a forum entry from one of the developers who said there was a problem with the goals system on this mission and that was what had caused Sonalysts to adopt scripting for the missions in their next game Dangerous Waters.

Anyway, the most up to date information I had was from 2007 (the game came out in 2001) and the bug was still not fixed as far as I could tell. So I decided to see if I could fix it - I used to do software support for a living but had never poked around a video game before and here was the perfect opportunity since Sub Command comes with a mission editor.

If you've come across this whilst searching for a solution to the same problem then you'll probably know some of the basics and you can skip to the solution at the end, for the rest of you I will wax lyrical about what to do and why - and the reason I'm posting it here is just as an example of applying some basic critical thinking and scientific methods to a pretty simple case. You don't have to be solving one of the great issues of our time to think logically and clearly!

The problem

OK, mission three of the Seawolf (and all of what follows also applies to the 688i campaign as well I think, although the mission design is somewhat different and I haven't tested it yet) campaign in Sub Command is to sneak up on a Russian Udaloy which is going to test fire a new SAM at a remotely controlled target drone (an Airbus A300 in the game). Close to within three miles by 11:28am, raise the periscope, watch the missile launch, take a photo, wait two minutes, mission complete. Only the mission complete bit wasn't happening for everybody. Well, almost everybody. I came across a couple of people who said that they had finished the mission, and a couple who had said that success seemed to be when the missile hit first time. Every time I had played it so far the Russian ship had launched two.

My first thought was that this was time related since the first missile appeared to be firing at 11:27 game time. So I figured I had to alter the time in the mission goal and then it would work. Only I couldn't load the campaign game into the Mission Editor. Looking at the scenario folder in the Sub Command directory I noticed that the user edited missions had a file extension of '.mu' and what I assumed to be the campaign missions had a file extension of '.mc'. So I took a copy of the file MissileTestSW.mc and renamed it to MissileTestSW.mu and sure enough I could now load it in the mission editor. If I had read more of the forums on mission editing more carefully during my research I would have been saved some time since this is apparently well known in the modding community for this game. Doh. Always do your research carefully!

Then I played around with the mission editor until I got the hang of editing goals and finding the edited mission. The goals in question are goals 13 and 14 for this mission, both labelled Observe Missile Test (which one you have to complete depends on whether or not you were detected in campaign mission 2). I wasn't detected so figured out after running some debugging missions (I added some messages to goals to say which ones were being completed so I could find out which enemy ships I was facing, so I could find out which goal I had to play around with to get the mission to complete). Goal 14 was the one that wasn't completing for me. So I changed the start time of the goal to before 11:27 and figured I'd be good.

Tested the edited mission. Still didn't work.

Maybe it was the radius around the mission goal. Nope.

Maybe the goal precedence? Nope.

Max/min depth or speed? Nope.

After many frustrating test missions where I played around with all sorts of settings I finally remembered the fact that some people said it worked when the first missile hit. So I focused on that - why wasn't it hitting? Eventually I figured out that the first missile was out of range of the target when fired. The first missile was being fired when the A300 first enters the Udaloys radar coverage (I think) but well outside the range of the SAM, so it ran out of fuel almost everytime it was fired and didn't hit the target. I concluded that maybe the goal was somehow tied to the first missile in programming I didn't have access to through the mission editor. So I figured that if I altered speeds on all the elements concerned I could arrange it so that the Airbus would be hit by the first missile. It wasn't easy to do but I did it.

And it still didn't work.

I was almost at the point of giving up and was looking for a database editor I could use to fudge the range of the SAM so that it would hit the A300 when I came across the Doctrine Language - this is the language the developers use to fine tune the dynamic campaign missions in Sub Command. As mission editing software goes it is pretty powerful. But you don't have access to it by default, which is why it took me so long to find it. Anyway, for those of you who don't know this is how you get access to the Doctrine Language (which I found out about through fan site subguru.com):

In the SubCommand folder of the installation there will be a file called editor.ini provided you have made and saved at least one user created mission in the mission editor - just create something with one ship, save it and the file will be present. Open editor.ini and it will look something like this:

[FILE] "Test timingSW.mu"
[FILE] "Copy of MissileTestSW.mu"
[FILE] "testing doctrine MissileTestSW.mc"
[FILE] "fixed doctrine MissileTestSW.mu"
[FILE] "testing doctrine MissileTestSW.mu"

Now add a new line after the last one that reads:

[FULLOPTIONS] 1

There is a space between the 1 and the last square bracket. Save the file and go back into mission editor, you will have access to the doctrine language AND you will now be able to load and edit campaign missions without having to go through the process of changing the file extensions.

Stay with me, almost there.

Revelations

So now you could look at the fine detail of goals in the missions, and here is where I found what was wrong. To view the Doctrine Langauge for a particular goal select the goal, then go to page 2 of its properties. Select the Tick Box that reads Use Doctrine Language then go to page 3, you'll see the doctrines set for that particular goal. It is basically a crude macro system that allows you to set conditions to be met before the goal you are editing can be completed. For goal 14 this read as:

IF (CompletedGoal MissileTestSW.mc Goal 5: Start Collecting Data)
AND (CompletedGoal MissileTestSW.mc Goal 15: Kill Airbus 1)
AND (TimeSinceGoalTriggered MissileTestSW.mc Goal 15: Kill Airbus 1 > 00:00:02)
THEN GoalTriggered

All of which is macro speak for if goals 5 and 15 have been completed, and two minutes has passed since goal 15 was completed, then goal 14 can be completed if all the conditions associated with goal 14 have also been met.

And here's the problem:

You approach with your sub within 3 miles of the Udaloy satisfying mission goal 5 by about 11:22 let's say.
Raise your periscope at 11:26ish and observe the Udaloy.
First missile fires at 11:27 and approx 30 seconds.
It flies for a bit and misses.
Time is now roughly 11:28.
Some time passes and second missile is fired, this time hitting the airbus and killing it, satisfiying goal 15.
Time is now approaching 11:29
Two minutes pass since goal 15 is satisfied, time is now 11:31 and goal 14 can be triggered.
The end time set for goal 14 on page 2 of its parameters is 11:30.

The mission parameters mean that unless the first missile hits the A300 goal 14 cannot be triggered successfully. But the first missile won't hit the A300 9.5 times out of 10.

The Solution

I changed the end time of goal 14 to 11:32, saved it as the campaign mission and played through it and lo and behold the bloody thing worked. Only took me a week.

So there it is, the solution to the well infamous (in certain circles) Sub Command Missile Test mission problem.

And the slightly relevant to this blog bit is...?

Work up a hypothesis that you think explains your observations, test it. If it doesn't work refine it and throw out what failed. Test again. Repeat until successful. Then test it again. Then open it up for peer review and have others test it. If they can't replicate, find out why and then go back to the start. Well, go on then.

Let me know if this works/doesn't work for you.

"Don't hate." say haters.

2010-02-26T19:58:00.001-07:00

I know, sounds like an 'Onion' headline. Indeed at some point I am sure it probably has been an 'Onion' headline. Unfortunately it isn't though, which goes to show exactly how brilliant 'The Onion' is as satire.

Now, before proceeding, please switch off any irony meters you may still possess in working order, I don't want to be responsible for any injuries caused by resulting overloads.

Done?

Good, then check out these four Denver Post articles.

So, two schools in Wheatland, Wyoming decide to support a campaign called "No Place for Hate" whose aim is:

to organize schools to work together and develop projects that enhance the appreciation of diversity and foster harmony amongst diverse groups. The campaign empowers schools to promote respect for individual and group differences while challenging prejudice and bigotry

And the local communities response is? Prejudice and bigotry. Perfect. Wonderfully highlighted by a board trustee from one of the schools, as quoted in one of the Denver Post articles:

"We're a conservative community. We don't need extremist organizations coming in propagating their liberal views,"

Yes that's right folks, encouraging people not to be ignorant fucking redneck douchebags like this ignorant fucking redneck douchebag is apparently purely a liberal view, and the Gay and Lesbian Fund for Colorado is an extremist organisation. But remember, the school board has no problem with the banner's message - you know, "No Place for Hate" - no, the problem was the involvement of a group connected with people they just really really really really don't like in a sort of angry manner.

I confess my ability to withstand the ironic has been overloaded to the point of desensitization now. It is no longer clear to me if I am living in a world without gods, or a world where the gods are actually the copy writers for 'The Onion.'

Our depressingly ironic and/or oblivious hater doesn't stop there though, he hates Jews as well as gay people to. He's a good old fashioned hater, and he can't have the education system telling people that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't hate each other. Those pesky liberal educators.

"We have a different moral standard here ... We don't need people coming in promoting premarital sex, extramarital sex and all other kinds of belief systems."

Let's just hope that if you happen to be near Wheatland, Wyoming, you happen to be of the right belief system. Whichever one of the thousands that exist the right kind happens to be, of course.

Now, quite rightly the articles point out that this is not the fault of every resident of Wheatland and that not everyone feels that way - fortunately it appears the younger generations are not as blissfully ignorant as the trustee quoted in the Denver Post - but we know that Wyoming has a pattern of homophobia because Wheatland is basically a stones throw from where Matthew Shepard was killed, for daring to be gay.

No doubt the school board members responsible for the latest round of hate think he got what he deserved and are hoping to uphold a fine tradition of hating 'them thar queers'.

So many people to hate, so little time for your average ignorant conservative ass monkey.

Christopher Maloney is a quack

2010-02-17T22:16:00.000-07:00

Well heck, who am I to argue with PZ Myers?

Christopher Maloney is a quack.

I mean seriously, what kind of addle brained fuckwit claims black elderberries can block the H1N1 virus? Block it how? And where? And when?

Christopher Maloney is a quack.

Did I mention that Christopher Maloney is a quack?

Yakaru has their own blog, go read it

2010-02-17T14:13:00.000-07:00

Some link love to Yakaru, since I have belatedly realised that they've got their own blog now.

Spirituality is no excuse.

Goodies on The Secret and I'm sure there's plenty more to come.

Blogging the Bible part 12

2010-02-17T14:01:00.000-07:00

Genesis chapters 12 and 13 today, not a great deal to talk about in either of them though. Oh, apart from the fact that Abraham was a pimp.

Chapter 12 The Call of Abram

The Lord tells Abram he has to leave his country, his people and the household of his father and go to a land that he will show Abram. The Lord promises to make the nation Abram founds into a great one, promises to make Abram's name great, to bless Abram and those who like him and to curse those who don't. The Lord also promises that all peoples on earth will be blessed through Abram. (GEN 12:1-3) So Abram does as he is told and ups sticks and takes Lot with him. Abram is, we are told, 75 at this point. He takes his wife Sarai, Lot, all his possessions and the people he 'acquired in Haran' (GEN 12:5). Are we to take 'acquired' literally and presume that the Lord approves of slavery then?

So Abram and his group arrive in Canaan by a tree that is for some reason 'great'. The Canaanites are already there, but that doesn't trouble the Lord, since he gives it all to Abram's offspring (or possibly seed - which could give an entirely different literal meaning - which is it literalists?). Apparently in the eyes of God possession isn't nine tenths of the law. To be honest I'm glad I rent, who wants to own a house if the Lord can come along and just give it to someone else? Not surprisingly Abram is dead chuffed and builds an altar right there.

From here Abram continues on to the hills around Bethel and pitches his tent (can't help but wonder if that is a euphemism for something) with Bethel to the west and Ai to the east. Here he throws up another altar. Clearly planning permission and housing associations weren't a problem back then. Then he continues on to Negev.

Unfortunately for Abram (although as we're about to see the real loser here is Abram's wife) there's a famine and so Abram decides to head on over to Egypt instead. At the border though, Abram shows what a snivelling coward he is. Because Sarai is a bit of a looker Abram thinks people might kill him so they can cozy up with her - apparently ancient Egyptians like to kill anyone married to a beautiful woman - so he tells Sarai to tell everyone that she is actually his sister. Here's the exact quote from GEN 12:13.

Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you.

What a proud example of Biblical manhood. Don't want to stand up for the woman you love and your marriage? That's ok, the Bible tells you it is ok to hide behind the skirt tales of your loved one. What a ponce. Notice how the snivelling toad also tries to portray it as if he is only doing it for Sarai. Tosser.

So they go to Egypt and man's man that he is Abram lets the Egyptians take his wife to Pharoah, who obviously has an eye for the ladies and let's face it, he doesn't know that Sarai is already someone's wife so why wouldn't he? Abram then lets Pharoah treat him well while he is knobbing Sarai. So Abram is basically an early pimp and the Bible says it is ok. Abram gets sheep, cattle, donkeys, man and maid servants as well as camels. So clearly Sarai had some skills. But Abram is quite clearly nothing but a cowardly pimp.

Of course this being the Bible it is now time for some twisted and fucked up morality and justice from the Lord. Abram pimps out his wife to the oblivious and innocent Egyptian Pharoah to save his own skin, so clearly God punishes Abram, right? I mean, he is the douchebag here isn't here?

Wrong, apparently.

God inflicts serious disease on Pharoah and his household. (GEN 12:17) I mean, come on. God and his followers really are a massive bunch of knobheads. Not surprisingly Pharoah summons Abram and asks "Dude, what the fuck? How come you God botherers can never tell the truth, particularly when it comes to covering your own ass? Take your old lady and do one." (GEN 12:18-20) Pharoah, showing he is clearly a bigger man than Abram or God could ever be, sends Abram on his way with his wife (who, let's face it, should have told Abram to go fuck himself with the spikey end of a garden rake) and all their stuff, and tells his men not to chop Abram into little bits. Which, in all honesty, would have been to good for the prick anyway.

For fucks sake, people actually argue that God and this bollocks are the source of morality - where's the fucking morality here? This is so messed up it isn't even 'Screwed" it's off the chart. Sure, compared to some of the nutfuckerry that has gone before in Genesis this is tame, but come on. Do you seriously want me or anyone else to get my morals from this book? I think this clearly gives us an insight into the people who claim that God and the Bible are our true sources of morality. Disturbed and fucked in the head and clearly of the opinion that women rank somewhere between lawnmowers and cups of sugar - it's ok for your neighbour to borrow them to. This is Abram we are talking about, Abraham. Father of the Israelites. He of the Abrahamic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam. He was a fucking cowardly pimp! This is the revered father of the worlds largest religions?

Anyway, chapter 13, Abram and Lot seperate.

So Abram the Pimp takes his possessions (which according to the Bible it seems his wife is) and Lot goes with him, back to the Negev. Abram, and the Bible makes a big deal of this, is very wealthy in livestock, silver and gold. Because, and let's be clear about this, he pimped his wife out to the Pharoah to save his own skin. (GEN 13:2)

Abram moves around a bit until settling back near Bethel where he had built his second altar. There he called on the name of the Lord. Presumably to see if he fancies a go with Sarai. Lot also has some herds and flocks and tents, possibly from pimping out his women too, the Bible doesn't say. The land couldn't support both of them however since they had acquired so much stuff (thereby sticking two fingers up at all that later stuff about rich men, heaven and the eyes of needles). Abram's herders start arguing with Lot's herders and on top of this there are also Canaanites and Perizzites living in the neighbourhood. Probably hanging around in the hope that they'll get lucky with Sarai. Abram says to Lot "I hate it when we fight, you go one way and I'll go the other." (GEN 13:8-9) Lot looks around and sees that the plain of the Jordan is well watered so sets off that way. Abram stays in Canaan whilst Lot lives among the cities of the plain and pitches his tent near Sodom. The men of Sodom were apprently wicked and were sinning against the Lord. Now, for these guys to be called wicked you have to wonder just exactly how depraved they were because Abram pimped out his own wife to save his own skin and God seems to have approved of this behaviour, so I am guessing that Sodom was one fucked up place.

The Lord then reminds Abram just how much land he has given to Abram and his offspring, therefore further proving that God has no problem with prostitution. (GEN 13:14-15) God also promises that he will make Abram's offspring good and fertile, like rabbits really. So Abram goes a wandering through his domain before finally settling near Hebron. Where he builds another altar. Presumably as a thank you to God for letting him get away with being a colossal douche to his wife.

This shit is just messed up.

Jimmy's rants: Cherie Booth fail

2010-02-11T08:44:00.000-07:00

Via Pharyngula I came across this takedown of Cherie Booth's recent idiotic and discriminatory judgement passed down on a man for violent assault.

A C Grayling on why being religious shouldn't mean you get away with shit.

Apparently punching a man inside a bank and then following him outside to punch him again and break his jaw is really bad, unless you are a religious man, in which case it is only slightly naughty and your punishment can be suspended. This man is so clearly religious that he thought it was acceptable to break someones jaw over an argument about who was next in line. Deeply religious fella.

So, whilst I agree with Booth that this kind of behaviour is clearly indicative that Miah was a religious man (Islam, a peaceful religion) it is utter bollocks that Booth's subjective opinion about religion and what it is and does is used to let him get away with what he did.

The Crusaders were religious men too, after all. Oh wait, Booth is a Catholic, bad example. How about the Aztecs?

No, I can't think of a good reason to seperate church and state.

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

2010-01-29T13:56:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-01-29T11:38:00.004-07:00

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?

Consider this: psychic powers just might be one of the greatest and most important developments in the evolution of the human race, and the ability to talk to people who have died is something that should be of incalculable benefit to the human race. But what we have instead are little more than circus entertainers appearing on Montel and Larry King to talk to housewives who watch drek like "The View" about dead relatives and predictions that no-one ever follows up on. Really, all the dead have is meaningless platitudes and the predictably and sickly sentimental?

Where are the psychic conference calls that link Curie, Darwin, Pasteur, Fleming, Gould, Sagan, Archimedes, Galileo, Copernicus, Boyle, Newton, Einstein, Edison, Bell, Ampère, Faraday, Maxwell, Poincaré, Planck, Schrödinger, Abū Alī Sīnā, Hubble and Rutherford (to name but a few of thousands) with modern scientists and modern discoveries and technology? What might some of the giants of science past be able to achieve now with technology and advances they never even dreamed of?

Think about why psychics never speak to these long dead scientists for just a little while and it should be obvious why they don't.

Why aren't long dead classical composers finishing symphonies or writing new ones through their psychic proxies?

Why aren't there philosophical discussions between Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Voltaire, Hume, Russell and Wittgenstein, hosted through their psychic proxies?

Why aren't the great inventors, innovators and engineers of our past suggesting solutions to our energy and climate problems through our erstwhile 'talkers to the dead'?

Why aren't historians talking to the players of history and finding out what really happened and why, perhaps solving many of the disputes that plague us to this day?

Why aren't murder victims naming their killer or providing in depth descriptions of them and what happened?

Why aren't Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Martin Luther King Jr, Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Lloyd George, Marcus Aurelius, Alexander the Great, Wellington, Nelson advising our current leaders?

Why aren't psychics talking to people who we really need?

With all the challanges which we face today, with all the problems humanity has to deal with, why aren't psychics actually speaking to people who could help us advance human civilisation, thought and science further and faster than it has ever gone before? Why is it that the best they can bring from their incredible ability is to talk to dead relatives of everyday people who have nothing useful to offer?

Why is it that when the dead just happen to get in touch with one of the tiny minority of people who can speak to them, at the exact time that the person they want to speak to is there, they have nothing useful to say? "I love you and I'm happy here." is all my dead relative wants to tell me? Nothing a bit more, well, important?

I'll be impressed when a psychic can tell someone something specific that only the dead person can know. I'll be impressed when a psychic can tell me my grandad's service number, or what happened the last time I saw him when only the two of us were there. I'm not impressed with "An older male relative, whose name begins with an E, or R, or maybe T who died from lack of oxygen to the brain."

Why aren't psychics talking to people who can help us right now?

In the end should we be more concerned with whether or not psychics are real or whether or not they can actually contribute anything worthwhile and meaningful? Doesn't the fact that psychics aren't doing the things highlighted suggest something else? Do they have this gift only to use it for personal gain rather than benefitting all of us? Why is it that they charge so much for their 'skills'? What does that say about psychics if their claimed abilities really exist?

Why aren't psychics using their skills to benefit all of humanity? If they can but won't, then they are unimaginably selfish. If they can't because their abilities are limited or don't exist, they're irrelevant at best and fradulent hucksters at worst.

If their abilities are real, then why aren't psychics doing more for the human race? The answer seems to me to be one of a few possibilities:

Psychics are lying and can't do any of the supernatural things they claim.
Psychics are selfish bastards who use their abilities for personal gain rather than to help all of humanity.
Psychic skills are real but basically useless.

The evidence points me to option 1 - psychics are fake - but I'm still open to evidence that shows either of the other two. The absolute best that I could be willing to say about psychics, assuming that their abilities are real, is that they are fucking useless.

A musical interlude

2010-01-18T15:56:00.001-07:00

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.

Jesus He Knows Me

got to love mainstream ragging on televangelists and Phil Collins predicting the downfall of Ted Haggard 19 years ago!

Tell Me Why

Not a great recording unfortunately but not a bad song either - and raises the question if there is a God why all the suffering?

And just one more from my favourite band. Here's where I got the name of the blog from:

There Goes God

All three of these helped lead me to where I am today. Feel free to add your own in the comments.