... 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.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Fuck you. And other thoughts on being 'a dick'
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?
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?
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Really America? I mean, really?
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:
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?
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."And:
-- Albert Einstein
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."And finally:
-- Winston Churchill
"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?
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
You know what else isn't in the Constitution, Christine?
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;" 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....
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....
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Don't talk bollocks, cancer isn't 'man made' and did exist in the ancient world
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.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Focusing on your goals - it is really not a new thing
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:
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.
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.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Nazis, atheists and a Pope
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.
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.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Coexistence won't help as much as you think it will
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.
Here's the culprit, in case you have no idea what I am talking about:
Easily.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Looking for an excuse to be a psychopath or a sociopath? Try "The Secret".
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:
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.
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.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
I have a confession to make...
... 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:
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)