The Thinking Man

The Thinking Man has moved.

2008-04-14T10:01:00.001-04:00

-
Hello,

I am officially closing down "The Thinking Man" blog and moving over to Wordpress, with the new blog "Skepdude" of which I had informed you earlier. Please go to Skepdude to continue reading my entries. Thank you very much.

Skeptologists teaser trailer

2008-04-11T11:31:00.001-04:00

-
Ok, Ok it's not much, but I am intrigued either way.

Please support "The Skeptologists"

2008-04-11T10:23:00.000-04:00

-
A new skeptical show is in the making. The pilot for "The Skeptologists" is being wrapped up as we speak. The show is the brainchild of Brian Dunning of the "Skeptoid" podcast fame. The cast includes among others, Steven Novella, Michael Shermer, Phil Plait of Bad Astronomer fame etc. With such a cast it has got to be something great.

But, they need our help. Once they wrap up the pilot, they will start pitching it around to TV execs. That's where you and I come in. We can help by sending an e-mail to skeptologists@newrule.com and explain why we would see a skeptical, critical thinking show. For more details please visit The Skeptologists Facebook page.

I already send my e-mail. The main body of my e-mail follows below. Please take a few minutes and do the same.

I am writing to support the pilot of "The Skeptologist" and the idea of a skeptical show in general.

Personally, I think that a show about skepticism, critical thinking and science is much needed now a day. Only a few days ago we read the news about the little girl who died when her parents refused to take her to the hospital and relied on prayers instead. Currently, horrible details about the Texas cult are coming out, and it's nothing nice to hear. Could the little girl have been saved if her parents had had the chance to see a critical thinking show? Probably not.Her parents were too indoctrinated. They would have simply switched the channel. But, what about the people that are on the fence? What about the ones that can still be saved? That alone is reason enough to pick up the show.

Furthermore, I am tired of seeing shows about a bunch of losers going around abandoned buildings, flicking their flashlights on and off and proclaim they just "proved" the existence of a ghost. I am tired of seeing frauds claim they are contacting dead people on TV. I am tired of seeing shows about mediums helping the police solve cases.TV is a very important medium to disperse information. And now a days, misinformation is attacking us on TV from all sides. With a few exceptions, we are passively allowing this to happen.

Furthermore, there are millions of freethinkers, and critical thinkers in America. The audience for such a show is huge, assuming it is alloted a favorable slot in the weekly programs.

I hope my words are helpful, and I really hope to see "The Skeptologist" on prime-time TV very, very soon.

Richard Dawkins Atheism Interview

2008-04-10T22:48:00.002-04:00

Discovery Institute Summer Seminars

2008-04-10T16:44:00.001-04:00

-
The Discovery Institute is organizing "intensive" summer seminars on :"intelligent design, science, and culture from July 11-20, 2008 in Seattle. The first seminar is for students in the natural sciences and philosophy of science; the second seminar is for students in the social sciences and humanities (including politics, law, journalism, and theology). Both seminars are designed for highly-motivated college students who seek a deeper understanding of science and its implications for society".

Wow, a science seminar organized by the DI. That's akin to the bank robbers giving a seminar on bank security, while wearing their ski masks.

I guess they will not be talking about ID the whole 9 days. All you need is 9 seconds to sum up ID. I am too lazy/stupid/indoctrinated to do any real work. Therefore I prescribe everything to an Intelligent Daddy. Puff, done! Now give me equal time in the classroom...it's only fair. I really don't understand why I'm being Expelled.

No Intelligence Allowed huh? No shit!

Priceless!

2008-04-08T11:24:00.002-04:00

-Remember, keep an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out.

You shall layeth the smack down on creationism!

2008-04-02T15:54:00.001-04:00

Center for Inquiry Press Release

2008-04-02T14:06:00.002-04:00

I apologize for the prolonged inactivity in this blog. It was due to personal and professional issues that took up all of my time. I am still feeling the effects but I am trying hard to get back to some sort of semi-regular schedule.

I recently got an e-mail from the Center for Inquiry. I will reproduce the e-mail in it's entirety since I think it is very important and there is no need for me to comment.

Greetings,

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Austin Dacey
Phone: (212) 504-2945 ext. 3
E-mail: ADacey@centerforinquiry.net

U.S. Must Embrace Obligations of Global Citizenship and Ratify and Apply International Treaties, Says Leading Humanist Organization

Amherst, New York (March 31, 2008)—The recent United States Supreme Court decision in Medellin v. Texas, allowing the State of Texas to ignore a judgment of the International Court of Justice, highlights the country’s shameful failure to live up to its obligations as a global citizen, according to the Center for Inquiry, a leading humanist organization.

The Center for Inquiry's representative to the United Nations, Dr. Austin Dacey, commented, “If the United States has made a unique contribution to the world, it is the foundational American idea that the power of nation-states is shaped by norms that come before and go beyond the nation-state.”

The International Court of Justice had ruled that the convictions of José Medellin and other Mexican nationals be reviewed because they had been denied their rights under the Vienna Convention—a treaty to which the United States is a party. The Vienna Convention requires foreign consulates to be informed when one of their citizens is arrested.

The Supreme Court’s decision forms part of a disturbing pattern in recent years in which the United States has either repudiated or refused to honor its international commitments and obligations. Since 2000, United Nations members have committed themselves to 929 new treaty actions. In that same period, the United State reversed its support for at least five major treaties, including the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty and the International Criminal Court.

In a recent editorial in Free Inquiry magazine, Center for Inquiry chairman Dr. Paul Kurtz observes that this stance represents a betrayal of America’s commitments. “Following World War II, there was great support in the United States for a new kind of world order based on cooperation among nations,” Kurtz said. “This country was in the vanguard of those proclaiming and defending explicit visions of human rights. By contrast, U.S. foreign policy in recent years has been unilateral and preemptive, costing us friends worldwide.”

Refusal to honor our obligations to the global community squanders this country’s moral capital around the world.

As an expositor of humanist values that transcend boundaries of state, ethnicity, and sect, the Center for Inquiry calls on the United States to honor our international commitments and implement fully the provisions of the Vienna Convention and all other international treaties and covenants to which the United States is a party.

The Center for Inquiry also calls upon Congress and the leadership of both major parties to work to ratify other important treaties that have been accepted by the vast majority of the international community.

The Center for Inquiry/Transnational, a nonprofit, educational, advocacy, and scientific-research think tank based in Amherst, New York, is also home to the Council for Secular Humanism, founded in 1980; the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP), founded in 1976; and the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health. The Center for Inquiry’s research and educational projects focus on three broad areas: religion, ethics, and society; paranormal and fringe-science claims; and medicine and health. The Center’s Web site is www.centerforinquiry.net .

Parental Consent for Sex Education?

2008-03-17T15:56:00.007-04:00

-
The Oklahoma House voted 51-50 on Wednesday to:

reject a bill (HB 2628) that would have required parental consent before children could receive sex education in public schools, the AP/Muskogee Phoenix reports. Currently, Oklahoma school districts send "opt out" forms to parents of children enrolled in classes that provide sex education.

Rep. George Faught (R), sponsor of the bill, said he wanted an "opt in" provision so that parents would know in advance that their children would be enrolled in sex education classes and would not receive instruction the parents did not approve of.

Opponents of the bill said the measure would make it more difficult for children to receive sex education in the state, which has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the U.S. Oklahoma also has the 12th highest percentage for repeat births to teenage mothers in the country, according to a study conducted by the research organization Child Trends.

I kind of understand the thinking behind this law, however I am glad it did not pass. As a parent you want to ensure that your kids are not exposed to certain things, and for most parents sex is taboo. However, this is not simply an issue of what the parent wants for their children. This is about the safety of the children. It is one of those cases where you must ask yourself "How much rights can parents be allowed over their children?".

Of course parents have the right to choose what they think is best for their kids. But I do believe there are limits, that there are certain areas where those rights should be curbed, such as sex education, vaccinations, schooling etc. The reason is simple, we cannot allow parents ideological views to handicap our youth. A staunch anti-vaccination parent cannot, and should not, be allowed to withhold potentially life saving vaccines from their children simply because they themselves have fallen for that faulty logic.

A strict religious parent cannot and should not be allowed to intentionally keep their kids in the dark when it comes to sex education, especially if that has a high probability of resulting in unwanted pregnancies and unsafe sexual practices.

It seems clear that Oklahoma has a problem with teenage pregnancies. I never understood the logic behind the "keep 'em in the dark" camp. Somehow these people think that by not mentioning it, kids will steer away from it, when in fact it is the complete opposite. They will only learn from it in the streets without a counterbalancing point of view. They will miss out on the real scientific facts and fall for the popular myths, such as the "you can't get HIV from oral sex" variety. To me this sounds the same as sending soldiers in Iraq and not tell them about the war and how to use the gun, even though it is sure they will have to face some enemies and must fight.

The focus of these parents and these lawmakers is misplaced. The problem they are having with teenage sex and pregnancies does not stem from the knowledge. In fact it is ridiculous to think that they can block out all knowledge. You cannot censor this kind of thing away. Magazines, movies, books, the internet are all around and finding information, especially bad one is not hard at all. You cannot fight misinformation with censorship. Only information can fight misinformation. And what do these people want to do? Legislate away information. Does that make sense to you?

Hilarious Parody of Christianity! Must See!

2008-03-13T19:45:00.003-04:00

-
Thanks to Evolved and Rational for posting this video originally in their blog.

Just legalize it already!

2008-03-12T14:38:00.003-04:00

-
Why is prostitution still illegal in the US? It is the 21st century for God's sake and we're supposed to be a democratic country. Why is sex for money such a taboo? Why do people work so hard, spend so much time and energy to forbid something which, quite frankly, is none of their business? The NY Times in a recent article speaks about NY Governor Eliot Spitzer's "war on prostitution":

Prosecuting an international sex tourism business based in Queens, he listened to the entreaties of women’s advocates long frustrated by state laws that fell short of dealing with a sex trade expanding rapidly across borders.

And with his typical zeal, he embraced their push for new legislation, including a novel idea at its heart: Go after the men who seek out prostitutes.

Now the human rights groups, which credit him with what they call the toughest and most comprehensive anti-sex-trade law in the nation, are in shock. Mr. Spitzer stands accused of being one of the very men his law was designed to catch and punish.

The law, which went into effect Nov. 1, mainly deals with redefining and prosecuting forms of human trafficking, which Governor Spitzer called “modern-day slavery.”

Modern day slavery? Yes, but only because criminalizing it has pushed it into the hands of criminals. Instead of businessmen you have pimps running it. Workplace protections laws do not apply to prostitutes. There is no minimum wage, no paid holidays, no workers compensation, unemployment benefits, medical benefits, time off etc. etc.

Prostitution is dangerous to the women engaged in it, not because of any inherent property of the thing itself, but simply because of who is running it. And who is running it depends largely on the laws criminalizing it. It is the laws that are meant to protect the women that at the end of the day end up hurting them more.

We all wear sneakers. There still are factories in the third world where children are exploited and forced to work long hours under unacceptable conditions, and we wear the product they produce. Does that mean that sneakers should be illegal? That's a form of modern day slavery as well, but just like prostitution it is not the fault of the product, it is the fault of who's in charge of running the business. You can't fix that problem by going after the people buying sneakers. And you cannot fix the prostitution problem by going after the people buying prostitution.

If someone was really interested in the health and well being of these women, they would decriminalize prostitution. They would make it a business just like anything else. The laws would apply. It would be regulated, controlled. There would be protection and security for the women. No more sex romps in back alleys, cars, or obscure motels. Certain standards would be reinforced. You take the business out of the shadows, out of the hands of criminals, and you take away all the risks that people today use to excuse this stupid law.

At the end of the day, prostitution is a moral issue. Some people find it immoral. Others don't. Every one has the right to refuse to partake in such activities if they so choose. Every one should also have the right to participate. Morality cannot be legislated. It is immoral to force your moral beliefs on another human being. I want a strong government, but I want it to butt out of my bedroom. What I do with another, consenting, adult human being is no one else's business.

Why is sex for money different from sex for jewels, for a promotion? Why is the exchange of money so problematic? There is no reason, no logical reason, for prostitution to be illegal. None whatsoever. I challenge anyone to come up with one good logical reason in the comments to this post. Why are one night stands ok, but a paid one night stand is not?

It is time we as a society stop being so judgmental. It is time for us to say enough is enough. I do not want the government to stick its nose where it don't belong. I want it out of my personal life. I don't want it wasting my money on anti-prostitution laws, anti gay marriage laws or any such stupid endeavors. It has more important things to worry about.

It is time we legalize prostitution.

Pimpin' Eliot!

2008-03-10T22:37:00.008-04:00

-
It's all over the news. NY Governor, Eliot Spitzer, aka "client #9" has been caught with his pants down, so to speak. Mr. Spitzer was caught on a federal wiretap discussing payments and arranging to meet a prostitute in a Washington hotel room. According to the NY Times, Mr. Spitzer had used the service before, but it is not clear how many times.

“I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family and violates my, or any, sense of right or wrong,” the governor said. “I apologize first and most importantly to my family. I apologize to the public to whom I promised better.”
“I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family.”

So how should we loot at this? Is this a purely personal matter? Should this affect his post as the governor of NY State? Should we care at all?

Well, I have mixed feelings about this one. There are three facts that should be taken into consideration when considering this story:

1-He used prostitution services.

2-He did this while married.

3-He was involved in an illegal activity.

Now as far as #1 is concerned, I don't see a problem with it. Frankly, I do not see why prostitution is illegal in the US. There are no logical reasons for it. It is simply a relic, a leftover piece of stupid legislation whose sole purpose is to legalize someone's own moral tenets. There is no reason why sex for money should be illegal. That's what 50% of relationships out there amount to (I just made up that statistic. I do not know the real number.). People use sex as a means for attaining all kinds of favors, money being only one of them. Some use it to advance in their jobs and careers. Others use it to attain power over others. Some use it for money. Why we have to outlaw this last activity beats me! Some say that legalized prostitution increases the number of STD infections. I say that a regulated profession decreases this by requiring use of condoms, and/or quick blood test of clients and workers, and enforcing such requirements. Some say it is dangerous for the women involved in the business. I say it is only dangerous while it is illegal. The prostitutes today have no protection, not from their employer not from the police. A regulated, legalized system would actually be much safer for the prostitutes than the system in place today. Others say it is immoral. I say it is none of their business. Morality cannot be legislated, and we don't all share the same moral values anyway.

#2 is where we start getting in trouble. While it is not illegal to seek the services of a prostitute while married, it certainly is not an action that a trustworthy person will undertake. I personally find it immoral, even though I understand that someone else may not. At the end of the day it is a personal issue that Gov. Spitzer needs to work out with his own family. He certainly does not owe us an apology for it. What it does do for his public persona, however, is that it takes away the trust the public may have had in him. If he is not faithful to his own family, it kind of makes you wonder how faithful he will be to our interest, you know the job we elected him to do.

#3 is where things get bad. Even though, as I already said, I am against criminalizing prostitution, nevertheless it is the law of the land. He is the highest elected official in NY state. You cannot get any higher than Governor in NY State. He must set an example for the rest of us. He cannot go around breaking the law, or promoting illegal activities. If he does not like the law, then it is in his power to, if not change it, at least make a big effort to change it. Either way, as the governor, his behavior is inexcusable. He has lost all credibility, especially given how he came to power, as the tough prosecutor who was taking on the sort of behavior he now is exhibiting himself, i.e. drunk with power and thinking that he is above the law and the rules. That is why, I think he should resign. Not because he used prostitutes, not because he cheated on his wife, but because he engaged and promoted a clearly illegal activity. Bill Clinton cheated on his wife too, but he did not break any laws while doing it.

Mr. Spitzer, goodbye and good luck to you in your personal life. I truly hope you can in fact gain back the trust of your family. Please hand over your badge and gun and go take care of your personal issues. I no longer want you to be my governor.

How not to argue - Argument from popularity

2008-03-07T17:37:00.004-05:00

-
There's one way to argue properly and about a thousand ways to argue improperly. Logical fallacies are so common, and tend to get so intricate, that even the most skilled skeptic can fall for a bad argument. So without further ado let's go on to our first fallacy.

Ad Populum - Argument from Popularity

The Argument from Popularity, also known as popular appeal or appeal to majority, has to be one of my favorite logical fallacies, simply because it is so simple, so intuitive (although wrong) that you can't go a few days or hours without running into it. In simple terms the argument from Popularity rest on the assumption that if a large number of people engage in some activity, then it must be the right thing to do.

The premise is that large numbers of people are not likely to be wrong. So if large numbers of people think A is right and B is wrong, then A must be right.

Of course the problem with this sort of argument lies with the premise. There is no reason to believe that large numbers of people who believe the same thing are right, simply by virtue of the large number. What happens if equally large numbers of people believe two contradictory things?

In general the fallacy goes like this:

Everybody likes/does/thinks/agree on A. Therefore A must be right.

However, we must be careful. IF the majority are experts in the field or subject that the argument applies to than it is not a fallacy to point out that all, or a majority of the experts agree on something. For example if we say "Most people floss, therefore flossing must be good for you" we are committing the ad populum fallacy (regardless if the conclusion is right or not. As long as the argument rest solely on the number of (non-expert) people that do something, it is a fallacy!) However, if we say "Most dentist recommend flossing, therefore flossing is good for you" we would not be committing a fallacy. Dentist are experts in dental care, therefore it is highly unlikely that a majority of the experts would be wrong (although not impossible). Even though it is possible for most experts to be wrong, it is not fallacious to present the fact that most of them agree on A, to support your claim that A is right.

This is why Science WORKS!

2008-03-07T10:27:00.004-05:00

-
To all those who maintain that science is just another faith-based system, that it is just as dogmatic as your local variety of nonsense, I say shut the hell up. Science works, and the reason why it works was demonstrated when, as reported by the NY Times:

A team of scientists including Linda B. Buck, who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, has retracted a scientific paper after the scientists could not reproduce their original findings.

In the retraction, published by Nature on Thursday, the researchers said, “Moreover, we have found inconsistencies between some of the figures and data published in the paper and the original data. We have therefore lost confidence in the reported conclusions..

“It’s disappointing,” Dr. Buck, who is now at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, told the journal Nature in a news article about the retraction. “The important thing is to correct the literature.”

All the retards who maintain that science is dogmatic, that it is not open minded, that it clings to it's theories in the face of contradictory evidence, need to pay special attention to that last sentence. The important thing is to correct the literature. Even if it means admitting you were wrong. Even if it means you must take back what you said before. That is what a real scientist does. This is science in action. Aren't we all proud of it?

Now when was the last time that a religion, or other real dogmatic system, took something back voluntarily? When was the last time a religion said that it was more important to find out the truth than to stick by its, not so holy book? Never!

Deplorable!

2008-03-06T11:27:00.001-05:00

FBI nabs perverts!

2008-03-06T10:56:00.006-05:00

-
This bit of news does not have anything to do with skepticality. However,this kind of thing gets me so worked up that I have to vent somehow!

The FBI has nabbed 14 Perverts who were part of a:

vast child exploitation enterprise" that included graphic images, such as ones showing toddlers engaged in various sexual and sadistic acts.

It may take years for authorities to find the victims, Tidwell told the AP, adding that 20 of the children seen in the images have been identified and rescued so far.

Now, as a skeptical humanist,I am generally against the death sentence, but I got to tell you it is cases like this one that really make you think twice about your convictions. I get so emotionally worked up that, for a moment, I support the death sentence. However, I still maintain that the right to life is an inalienable right and no one should have it taken away, not even these monsters.

So here is my suggestion. Take these bastards, find some remote, barren island in the middle of the ocean, neuter them so they can't have kids and let them live the rest of their pathetic, miserable lives in isolation.

I believe that some crimes are so horrendous that the perpetrator effectively renounces his rights to be part of a civilized society and as such should be removed. Sexual exploitation of children is at the top of the list of such crimes. Anyone who perpetrates this sort of crime should be permanently removed from society. Since I cannot advocate the death penalty, I am proposing the "remote Island" penalty. Let them die in squalor, devoid of anything society has offered them so far. Let them have no TV, no Internet, no running water, no cars, no radio, no telephone. Let them die like the animals that they really are.

I am quite a libertarian myself, but I do draw the line somewhere. I dare any intelligent person to make a case for their rights, in light of the severity of their sick actions. They are savages and deserve to be treated as such.

Introducing Skepdude

2008-03-06T10:07:00.003-05:00

-
I am starting the "Skepdude" blog over at Wordpress. The content will mirror the content of The Thinking Man. The reason I am doing this is to tap into that traffic that goes through Wordpress in order to increase readership. You can feel free to check it out. However, at least in the near future, the content will be the same, just the look and feel will be different.

Nothing but air!

2008-03-06T09:57:00.002-05:00

-
A recent study showed what most of us already knew, aromatherapy does not work, except for making a room smell different. Well to be fair the verdict applies only to lemon and lavender, so I can only say for sure that smelling lemon, or lavender, in the hopes of curing your ills is stupid. I guess you can continue smelling one of the thousand other "all natural" oils and potions. I would not have the science behind me to call that stupid....ah what the hell I'll do it anyway. It's stupid!

What I always found interesting is that only nice smells seem to be beneficial. You never see someone smelling their own feces to treat their headache, now do you? Here's a statement: I claim that smelling feces will produce more of a physical reaction than any other aromatherapy product. They haven't done any studies on this, but I predict these forthcoming studies will support my claim.

Disclaimer: I am being a bit unfair. After all this is only one study, and as any good scientist one study does not prove or disprove anything. However, on the other hand that is not a reason for proponents of pseudo-scientific theories to go on making their claims because "science has not disproved" them. It is up to those who make the claims to provide evidence to support these claims. Since no evidence has been provided so far, and since this first study, that I am aware of, shows nothing is there, I am inclined to make and stick by my original statement that "Aromatherapy is STUPID".

Religious Immorality - Vol 1 Part 2

2008-03-04T12:38:00.001-05:00

-
Story 1- Shi'ite pilgrims slain in new attack

A roadside bomb killed four Shiite pilgrims and wounded 15 south of Baghdad Monday in at least the third fatal attack on people traveling to one of their sect's most sacred gatherings, officials said.

The death toll rose from 40 to 56 from a suicide bombing Sunday — one of Iraq's deadliest attacks this year.

Extremists had attacked another group of pilgrims with guns and grenades hours earlier in the predominantly Sunni Baghdad neighborhood of Dora, killing three and wounding 49.

Story 2 - Afghan reporter's 4 min trial

An Afghan reporter sentenced to death after downloading an article from the internet on women's rights has said his trial lasted just four minutes. Pervez Kambaksh, 23, told the UK's Independent newspaper from his prison cell he was denied access to a lawyer and not allowed to defend himself.

Students claimed he had written a blasphemous article. Mr Kambaksh says he merely downloaded from an Iranian website an article which questioned why polygamy was all right for men but not women.

Story 3 - Death for giving up Islam-Iran Penal Code

The European Union has criticised the new penal code being drafted in Iran, particularly a section that imposes the death penalty for giving up Islam.

Death for apostasy already exists in Iran under Sharia - or Islamic - law.

In the past, Iranian courts have handed down the death penalty in such cases, but have done so relying on Sharia law.

Story 4 - Polygamist "prophet" in Arizona to face charges

Polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs was handed over to Arizona authorities Tuesday to face sex charges stemming from the arranged marriages of two teenage girls to older relatives.

He already has been convicted in Utah in connection with one of those cases, involving a 14-year-old girl.

Jeffs, 52, is charged as an accomplice with four counts of incest and four counts of sexual contact with a minor in an indictment.

The Arizona charges stem from the arranged marriage of a man in his early 50s to a 17-year-old relative and another between a 19-year-old man and his 14-year-old cousin.

In summation, on Vol 1 Part 2 we have more killings, death sentences for printing articles of the web while not allowing one to defend himself in a court of law, death sentences for giving up a religion you don't believe in anymore, incestuous marriages of underage girls and statutory rape . Wow, religion is really a beacon for immorality!

Evangelist Challenge Update

2008-03-04T10:09:00.004-05:00

-
Well, I'll be damned but this guy actually replied. Last time we had left of with the following :

And our little friend came back with:

Ok, I take it your not a Christian, first by not understand Just a little of it, and second, by your language.

I will remove you.

So defensive....................

Your in my prayers....

evangelist gary

So I just send Gary another e-mail:

Well what kind of language do you expect when you send someone you don't know that kind of e-mail?

Yet you have not answered my question, in nicer terms, what does it mean?

I take it you're not a native English speaking person. It's "you're" not "your"! And saying "So Defensive" makes you a bit defensive. I think "what the hell does this mean" is not defensive, but challenging. You're up to the challenge?

This is the e-mail I got from him in response:

Have no desire to talk to you.

I don't entertain the enemy, Satan.

You have a dirt mouth, and yes I'm American if it makes a difference.

Native speaking American, what a joker you are.

Seek the Lord, he will be there for you if you really want the truth, doesn't sound like you want anything but self.

Your not challenging anyone, you are Just trying to play games.

I hope you don't respond to everyone like this.

And I just finished sending him this reply:

Well I am sorry you think this way. I am not your Enemy, but I like to think of myself as your Savior. I am offering you an opportunity to save yourself from the intellectual slavery you're obviously a victim off.

I have sought your Lord high and low, on mountains and valleys, and beaches. I've looked for him in America and Europe, Asia and the North Pole. He is nowhere to be seen. I regret to inform you that you, my friend have been lied to. Take my offer to Salvation. Earn back your dignity.

By the way it's a "dirty" mouth not a "dirt" mouth, and it still is "you're" not "your". That is not a joke.

Step one to intellectual freedom: Editing. Step two to intellectual freedom: Don't go around making wild, unsupported assumptions. I am not your enemy, my name is not Satan (although you can call me that if it makes you feel better, I am not offended), I am not a joker, I am not "just about self". As a matter of fact I seem to be more worried about you than you about me. I thought you were supposed to care about me, not shut me out like you're trying to do. What a moral Christian you are huh? Doesn't the Bible say to turn the other cheek? I don't think it says anything about turning your back. Oh, I am sorry is that one of the parts you choose to ignore? Shouldn't you be trying to save me from eternal damnation? Or you simply don't care, which would at best make you a hypocrite.

So which one are you more like, the vengeful God of the Old Testament or the peaceful Jesus of the New Testament? The first one could care less about me. The second one would try to save me, even die for my sins. So which one are you?

He called me Satan. Can you believe that. This nut calls me an enemy, and Satan, because I dared to ask him to explain what his lengthy e-mail meant. Go figure!

Evangelist Challenge

2008-02-29T10:36:00.003-05:00

-
Recently, I received an e-mail at my thoushallthink@gmail.com account. The e-mail was unsolicited, it came from some Christian evangelist nut. Below is the full text of the e-mail.

This is a 2 part lesson, last one tomorrow.

FINAL EXAM, PART ONE
by Charles R. Swindoll

Read Genesis 44:1--16

The sons of Jacob were not far from the city when they looked back and saw the prime minister's steward overtaking them. Once he caught up, he accused them of stealing from the Egyptian leader. "How could you do such a deceitful deed, after having been treated so well?"

They did not hesitate to let the steward examine their sacks of food, beginning with Reuben, the oldest. But lo and behold, when the steward got all the way down to the youngest, he found the silver cup in Benjamin's sack!

They had to return to the city with the steward, of course, where they were immediately ushered into the prime minister's presence. There, Judah did the talking.

This confession from Judah's mouth was amazing. But this was precisely what Joseph had been waiting for; this was why he had given the final exam. They passed. In fact all the brothers made straight A's on the first part of the test.

In speaking for his brothers, Judah did not attempt to justify himself or the others, nor does he try to pass the blame off onto Benjamin. Unlike before, they didn't turn on Benjamin and reject him as they had Joseph so many years ago. Judah says, in no uncertain terms, they were all guilty.

Given their history, this is an amazing admission. A real change had begun in their attitude. Think about the fact that these words were coming from the mouth and heart of Judah!

Joseph wanted to know whether his brothers were able to read the hand of God into daily life, even in things that seemed unfair. Even in misfortune and death. He wanted to see if their vertical scope was clear. And now he heard this confession coming out of Judah's mouth, who laid the guilt on all their shoulders. "Before God we have been found out. We are guilty! Our iniquity has been discovered."

I believe that in his confession Judah was actually going back over twenty years earlier and was referring to those days when they not only hated their brother Joseph but turned against him and sold him into slavery. Had it not been for Reuben, they would have murdered him. This now haunted these men. Judah had begun to realize that God did not overlook an unrepented offense.

To which I, obviously replied:

What the hell does all of this mean?

And our little friend came back with:

Ok, I take it your not a Christian, first by not understand Just a little of it, and second, by your language.

I will remove you.

So defensive....................

Your in my prayers....

evangelist gary

So I just send Gary another e-mail:

Well what kind of language do you expect when you send someone you don't know that kind of e-mail?

Yet you have not answered my question, in nicer terms, what does it mean?

I take it you're not a native English speaking person. It's "you're" not "your"! And saying "So Defensive" makes you a bit defensive. I think "what the hell does this mean" is not defensive, but challenging. You're up to the challenge?

I wanted to be a little more direct, but I did not want to scare him away. He's trying to pull the old "you're mean" routine, you know the one when they do something bothersome, like send an unsolicited, long e-mail preaching their kind of bullshit, and cry foul when you reply in unfavorable terms. Like he hasn't heard the word "hell" before. His kind invented it for God's sake (pun intended).

But, I kept these thoughts to myself for the moment. I really would like to engage in some sort of e-mail discussion with this guy. Something interesting may come out of it. I will keep reporting on the blog how this goes, for anyone who may be interested.

How not to argue-Improperly constructed arguments

2008-02-27T12:36:00.011-05:00

-
People make lots of claims. In order to support their claims (statements) they offer arguments, which are supposed to be a logical line of reasoning. If the argument is constructed properly it supports the validity of the statement. More likely than not though we are faced with bad arguments which are offered to support some claim. It is our duty as skeptics to destroy as many bad arguments as we possibly can, whenever, wherever! This first entry in the "How not to argue" series will go over arguments and their structure. Later entries will deal with popular fallacies, and how to dispose of them.

A claim/statement is a proposition which has a truth value. It is either true or not.

Example : It is 5:00 PM.
I am a human being.

Example of non-claims: Think about what I just said above.
Close the door when you leave please.
Don't let bullshit go past you unquestioned.

An argument has various parts.

1-One or more premises. These are claims whose truth value is assumed to be known (either true of false)

2-A conclusion. This is reached by some sort of logical analysis of the premises. You could say that the logical analysis itself is a separate part of the argument's structure.

That is really all there is to arguments.

Argument = Premises -->Logical Analysis --> Conclusion

So the first step when presenting an argument is to ensure that all the necessary ingredients are there. You can't leave any out. For example without premises, you can't apply logical analysis, therefore you can't reach a conclusion. You also cannot jump from a premise to a conclusion without offering a logical reason, why that specific conclusion would flow from the premise. And obviously, you must have a conclusion. Without it all you are doing is making claims and claiming them to be true or not. That is not an argument. That is generally known as dogma.

So if someone walks up to you and says "There is a God, because in my heart I KNOW that he exists", that person may think he's giving you a convincing argument why you as well should believe in God. However, after today's short entry you should be able to see that he is only making a statement or a claim, and assuming it to be true, and stopping there. There is no logical analysis to support the conclusion ( There is a God) . He "knows there is a God" (premise) therefore "there is a God" (conclusion). That is not an argument. It is sometimes referred to as circular reasoning or assuming the conclusion, or begging the question. Basically you assume something is true, then you use this assumption to prove it is in fact true. But we'll get into more detail in later posts. For now, this should suffice.

Links of interest

The Structure of Arguments

How not to argue-Introduction

2008-02-27T12:33:00.001-05:00

-
We skeptics, constantly find ourselves locked in some pretty fierce debates with believers of various flavors of bullshit. Invariably, we come across the same old bad arguments. Time and time again we are called upon to destroy bad arguments, also known as logical fallacies. Unfortunately, in order to see through the fallacious lines of reasoning we have to deal with, common sense is not enough. We need to learn what an argument is, how to spot and destroy a bad argument and how to construct valid arguments ourselves. This takes time, it takes research and it takes commitment. I once took a logical thinking class, a few years back during my undergraduate years. That class went over the basic structure of an argument, and over the most common logical fallacies. If I had know then how important that class was, I would have paid much more attention than I did.

So, in an effort, to refresh my memory and strengthen my bullshit detector, I am starting a new series, called "How not to argue" which will cover most things that class covered, condensed in short (comparatively) entries. I hope that in the process of my self learning, this will help some of the readers as well. And since some of the readers will probably be more learned than me in this area, please do point out if I make mistakes in what I say, which is bound to happen. Either leave a comment or drop me an e-mail (especially for topic suggestions and online resources) at thoushallthink@gmail.com.

The Chronicles of Bible-ia!

2008-02-27T09:34:00.010-05:00

-
As a kid I loved reading Greek mythology, Hercules' legends especially. Lately, after "The Lord of the Rings" movies, my interest in fables and legends was resurrected. After reading the books of "The Lord of the Rings", I turned my attention to other stories. Just yesterday, I finished reading "The Chronicles of Narnia" books. There are 7 of them, short books less than 250 pages each. They are a quick read, quite entertaining, although of a lower quality than the "Lord of the Rings" books, as far as story telling and imagination are concerned.

As I was reading the Narnia books, I had come across a few comments in the skeptics community about their supposed "religious" undertones. I was done with about 6 and a half of the books, and I was starting to wonder if this wasn't being blown out of proportion. There didn't seem to be anything overly wrong with these books, just another fable.

That was before I hit the last few chapters of book 7 (The Last Battle), and man oh man was I in for a surprise! All of a sudden this so far innocent enough book morphed into the Bible itself. It was all there. You have Aslan, the son of the Emperor-beyond-the-sea (Jesus), the dark god Tash (The Devil), Aslan comes, Narnia is completely destroyed and all creatures are divided in two groups(Rapture and Apocalypse). The good creatures go through a gate (gates of Heaven) that Aslan created. They all have to look into Aslan's eyes before they go in. The bad creatures forever vanish in his dark shadow (they went to Hell). Then everybody is dead, they go to the "real" Narnia which is of course much better than it's copy where all the story has unfolded so far. Obviously, the real Narnia is nothing else but Heaven, and they meet with all the dead creatures from all worlds, from all the previous books.

Hewwww! I tell you that took the rug from under my feet. I just did not see it going there as I was reading the books. I was completely taken back by this sudden turn of events. And it was so obvious, C.S. Lewis didn't even try to hide it. Aslan is taking to the humans and referring to them as "children" and all of a sudden there is an increase in the usage of words such as "Thou" and "Shall" and the like. I guess that teaches me for wanting to read fairy tales, doesn't it?

Well, I was not traumatized or anything like it, just a bit surprised. I still would recommend the books, they are an interesting read. But I did want to give people the heads up so they know what's coming.

Next on my reading list, "The Golden Compass". I hear this one is not quite so biblically correct as this last one.

Vatican to "toughen" up sainthood process

2008-02-25T12:45:00.001-05:00

-
The Vatican is trying to make the sainthood process stricter and more stringent. Apparently, a once dependable process may have gotten a little soft as of late. According to the NY Times article there are about 2,200 saints in-waiting. That's 2,200 too many if you ask me, but that's just my blasphemous opinion. I don't know what exactly they're gonna do to. Maybe they'll require 3 fictitious miracles as opposed to 2.... who knows! They can do whatever they want and they'll still be left with a moronic, stone age thing in their hands anyway. Why can't they just do away with this stupid sainthood thing anyway? Isn't it a little arrogant for mere humans to decide who is going to be a saint? Who is going to have the power to answer prayers? Isn't that God's job?

I find some of these articles' funny. Newsday proclaims that "Vatican tightens standards for sainthood". the LA Times says "Vatican toughens rules on sainthood" As if it wasn't bad enough already. You only have to DIE to become a saint. How much more freaking tighter can a standard be? The new procedure will require more "rigor" and "sobriety" according to Newsday. What were they doing before? Giving out sainthood diplomas in a fit of drunken rage?

Will this stupidity ever end?

Religious Immorality-Vol 1 Part 1

2008-02-24T09:51:00.000-05:00

-
Without Religion there can be no morality! This claim is repeated mindlessly, stupidly by so many people, that it really makes you wonder on the sanity of our species. This view is held so dogmatically by those making the claim, that nothing you say or do will change their mind. Talk about sheep! Therefore, instead of trying to theoretically challenge their argument I decided to take another route. I figured maybe it will be easier to make my point if I simply collect and report on immoral behavior engaged in by religious people, or people connected to religion (for it is impossible for us to know if a person really is religious or is merely pretending to be one). Of course, our dear religious nuts will latch onto what I just said and claim that every single person that I will mention, was not really religious. How could they if they acted immorally? They must have been irreligious since they acted immorally, because everybody knows religion is the basis of morality. Don't they?

Story 1 - Ex-Church official sentenced for possessing child pornography.

A former music director at a prominent church in Greenwich, Conn., has been sentenced to 5.5 years in federal prison for possessing child pornography.

Mr. Tate was choir director for 34 years at Christ Church, creating a music program that gained an international reputation. Former President George H. W. Bush attended the church while growing up, and funeral services for his parents were held there.

Story 2 - Same guy from Story 1 hired a pedophile and

failed to tell the authorities when that man sexually assaulted a choirboy, prosecutors disclosed on Tuesday. Prosecutors said Mr. Tate permitted two sexual predators to remain in the church’s choir at various times. They also said that he rehired an assistant organist who had been dismissed for sexually assaulting a choirboy and that he failed to tell the authorities when the organist assaulted another choirboy.

Story 3 - Retired Priest sentenced for embezzling money

A retired Roman Catholic priest was sentenced Thursday to more than five years in prison for bilking two churches out of hundreds of thousands of dollars while he led a double life as a husband and father.

According to court documents, from September 2002 to August 2006, Mr. Rodis embezzled an estimated $600,000 to $700,000 from St. Jude Catholic Church and Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, both in central Virginia, by instructing parishioners to mail contributions to a post office box that he controlled. He then transferred the money to a personal bank account.

He used the money, the authorities said, to support his wife and three daughters — with whom he lived about 50 miles from his churches — and to help relatives in his native Philippines and to buy property there.

Story 4 - Saudi men arrested for flirting

Prosecutors in Saudi Arabia have begun investigating 57 young men who were arrested on Thursday for flirting with girls at shopping centers in Mecca.
The men are accused of wearing indecent clothes, playing loud music and dancing in order to attract the attention of girls, the Saudi Gazette reported.
Earlier in the month, the authorities enforced a ban on the sale of red roses and other symbols used in many countries to mark Valentine's Day.

Story 5 - Suicide bomber kills 25 near Baghdad

A suicide bomber struck Shiite pilgrims as they were resting Sunday during a days-long walk to a Shiite shrine, killing at least 25 people and wounding 35.

Earlier, extremists attacked another group of pilgrims in the predominantly Sunni Baghdad neighborhood of Dora, killing three and wounding 36, police said.

Earlier in the day, a steady stream of pilgrims -- some carrying green, black or red banners -- walked along a highway out of Baghdad en route to the shrine. Among them were many families, including black-robed women and children.

Let's see, so far we got child pornography, hiring and protecting child rapists, financial fraud, being arrested for flirting with girls, and mass murder (get used to this one, it will be coming for a long time over and over and over again!). And this is only the beginning, I assure you. There are more appalling stories to come. Hopefully this exercise in brute force will shut up some of those people who still claim that religion is the root of morality. If you come across any similar stories please e-mail me the links at thoushallthink@gmail.com as I would like to make this a recurring post.

Breaking News-Jews not immune to Stupidity!

2008-02-22T15:58:00.016-05:00

-
Israeli MP, Shlomo Benizri, told parliament that the recent seismic activity in Israel is due to the continued positive attitude towards homosexuals in Israel. Speaking of the earthquakes, Shlomo said:

"We are looking for earthly solutions, how to prevent them," Mr Benizri said.

"I have another way to prevent earthquakes. The Gemara says that one of the reasons earthquakes happen, which the Knesset (parliament) legitimizes, is homosexuality."

"God says you shake your genitals where you are not supposed to and I will shake my world in order to wake you up."
Stopping "passing legislation on how to encourage homosexual activity in the state of Israel, which anyway brings about earthquakes," would represent a cost-effective method of preventing future earthquakes, he continued.

That "shake the genitals" bit is hilarious, don't you think? Way to go, Shlomo! Anyway, we have heard such crazy talk back when the Tsunami hit Asia. Just Google the terms "tsunami punishment" and you will be inundated with stupidity upon stupidity, and it's all of a religious nature I may add. It's only a matter of how much you can take before your eyes and ears start bleeding, how long you can hang on before the seizures set in.

So I guess it is safe to say the Jewish religion is just as crazy, stupid, bigoted and blind as any of the other big ones. So far I'd say it's a statistical "dead heat" (although in the recent years I think Islam has taken a slight advantage in the race to stupid town! Red, red blooood!)

Bottom Line- Believing in a sky-daddy makes you say stupid shit!

Links of Interest

DIGG ME!

Can we respect religious senistivities and still have free speech?

2008-02-21T09:23:00.010-05:00

-
Freedom of expression should be exercised responsibly and in a way that respects all religious beliefs! This is what the spokeswoman of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told reporters. This statement apparently is in line with the previous Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, who said that "freedom of the press should always be exercised in a way that fully respects the religious beliefs and tenets of all religions". I believe it is my right under the tenets of free speech, to reply: What a load of crap!

We hear this kind of statement being repeated blindly, mindlessly by learned men and women who should really know better. These are the people we have entrusted with such herculean tasks such as global warming and genocide. And this is what we get for all the trust we have given them? A dogmatic statement without one valid reason, besides "I tell you so"? What a bunch of hypocrites!

Why on earth should free speech be shacked and mutilated for religion? And what does it mean to exercise free speech in a way that respects the religious beliefs and tenets of ALL RELIGIONS! Does that apply to the ones whose Gods require human sacrifice? Religious terrorism? Religious polygamy? The sodomizing and raping of little kids by priests? Should we not criticize and ridicule Mormons for their belief in magic underwear? Should we not speak about religious sects in which you are required to marry and procreate with your cousins or sisters in order to keep the blood line "pure"? Should we not talk against genital mutilation of little girls in Islamic countries?

Why should religion be off limits? On what basis is someone going to say: don't speak bad about my religion? Does this mean that Mr. Ki-moon accepts and respects, the right of countries where sharia law is the norm, to kill anyone who tries to convert to Christianity? He must! He obviously can't speak against it, since that would amount to not respecting the religious beliefs of those people. Does he respect the right of Christians to stone an adulterer or a homosexual to death?

But most importantly would he speak against these horrible crimes, if they were committed under any other pretext than religion? He sure would, that's the job he was entrusted to do. So then why extend such privilege to religion? There is no reason. Ban Ki-moon and Kofi Annan before him were simply being hypocritical and dogmatic.

I could care less about religious sensitivities. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED. Freedom of speech is too precious for us to start curbing it when it steps on someone's toes, for it is then no longer free speech. Limited speech cannot be free speech. To maintain that position is illogical and stupid, and quite cowardly. I would have more respect for the Secretary-General if he came out and said that he does not like free speech period. At least that way he would have the guts to say what he means and not hide behind some arrogant, illogical demand, which only makes me want to trash religious stupidity even harder. So thank you Mr. Ki-moon for inspiring me to write this post!

DIGG ME!

Computer Scientist thinks he's a GOD!

2008-02-14T23:35:00.008-05:00

-
Well I've known people who were full of crap before, but this guy takes the crown. Look through his online powerpoint-like slides. He is basically saying that God exists, because humans can create a virtual reality with some rules in which virtual beings (yellow cells) live, die and multiply. We can do this, therefore someone must have done it with us. Ta daaaah! By extension, he must then think of himself as some sort of God. Creepy if you ask me!

Putting aside the ridiculousness of the analogy, why would this analogy even imply God? Why not any other Intelligent Designer? Why not a technologically advanced alien species? Furthermore, our computer "scientist" appears to overlook the major issue with his analogy. He is working with PREEXISTING stuff (the computer, the programming laws and techniques etc.). However, a God as defined by the major monotheistic religions, is omnipotent. He is responsible for creating it all, thus he wouldn't be allowed the luxury of using preexisting stuff to create his universe, unlike our computer "scientist" friend.

And the ridiculousness doesn't stop there. Since a computer scientist can't enter the virtual world he's created, he must use an intermediary. So does God, thus Abraham, Jesus, Moses, Mohammad and the rest of them. No word on how you tell a nut case from a real intermediary though. And you'd think that a scientist would find that very important. Not this guy. Apparently he's willing to accept ANYONE who claims to be speaking God's word. What the hell are they teaching these kids at MIT anyway (he appears to be at MIT from his first slide info).

Just like the cells in the virtual world can't say anything about us, their creator, we can't say anything about God (he is unknowable, in this nut case's words). The implication is this: don't even try, be happy to be ignorant and revel in your ignorance! But, he kind of weasels his way out of this one by saying that even God's powers are limited. According to this guy, all powerful DOES NOT mean the ability to do anything! Of course that is not what the intermediaries have been saying for millenniums, but conveniently enough that does not matter to our "scientist" at the moment. Hmmm, so they are his intermediaries, but they don't speak truth. What the hell!

So in summary (Slide 29) he concludes the following:

God is unknowable
Cannot be fully comprehended
Cannot be directly interacted with
Communication requires an intermediary (now how the hell are you gonna have an intermediary, when by virtue of 3 the intermediary, who is of our world, cannot directly interact with GOD? Won't he need an intermediary of his own, and so on , at infinity? And if God can somehow directly interact with the intermediary, why not directly interact with all of us?)
The intermediaries are the Founders of the World Religions. They are not God but are directed by God (according to them! By the way did you pay tithe to the Church this weekend?)

His Conclusion- We must be thankful to GOD.

My Conclusion-This guy is a lunatic. I guess going to MIT does not necessarily mean you're a bright person. Thank God for public education!

What's the fuss about Valentine's Day?

2008-02-14T14:28:00.011-05:00

According to the trustworthy (LOL) Wikipedia:

Valentine's Day is a holiday celebrated on February 14. In North America and Europe, it is the traditional day on which lovers express their love for each other by sending Valentine's cards, presenting flowers, or offering confectionery. The holiday is named after two early Christian martyrs named Valentine. The day became associated with romantic love in the circle of Geoffrey Chaucer in High Middle Ages, when the tradition of courtly love flourished.

Well, the simple fact that it is named after Christian martyrs alone makes me want to boycott this day altogether. But that is not a major thing anyway. I don't have to hate (and I don't ) everything that is remotely connected to Christianity.

But I outright reject to celebrate Valentine's Day anyway. Why? While the original idea of celebrating one's love is commendable, I can't help but feel that Valentine's has been hijacked by money hungry people, who only care about selling you stuff. And the holiday itself has become about giving stuff, not celebrating love. It has been commercialized almost as much as Christmas, who is now nothing more than an occasion to exchange gifts for millions of people (not that I have a problem with that, actually I support it). Everywhere you look there are flowers, little white bears and chocolates being delivered. Sales of diamonds and jewelry must skyrocket on 02/14.

I can't help it but wonder: Is that the way to celebrate love? Here you have possibly the most important thing in your life, the best thing that ever happened to you and what do we do? Like a bunch of sheep following a shepherd, we all go out and by roses, we all go out and buy chocolates and teddy bears. What is romantic about that? Where is the originality? How can this gesture make the recipient feel special, if they're getting the same thing, that just about millions of other people are getting, on the same day? What is so special about being REMINDED to do something nice for your loved one? Where is the surprise factor? Where is the originality? Where is the romance?

And who the hell decided that 02/14 is the day that we should celebrate our love anyway? 02/14 has no meaning for me, nor my wife. When we first met, it wasn't 02/14. When we had our first date, it wasn't 02/14. When we first consumed our love (sexually), when we got married, when we went to honeymoon, when we learned she was pregnant, when our daughter was born, IT WAS NOT 02/14. Those are the days I care about. Those are the days that have meaning. Those are the days that I should remember on my own, that no one can remind me about on TV while I'm watching "House". Those are the days I WANT to celebrate, not some arbitrary day, when every couple out there is doing the same thing. Why would I want to do the same thing that hundreds of thousands of couples that will never survive to see another Valentine's day are doing? Why would I want to share something so special, so private, so meaningful with the whole world, thus stripping it of it's meaning! There is no real reason, besides the social pressures to perform the ritual. And I for one would like to stand up and walk out of the room, in a sign of protest to herd mentality. Instead I choose to buy my wife flowers on some day when she wouldn't expect it. Just like that, for no reason, on a day that has no special meaning. It will be a surprise, and she will love it. And I bet you anything that she'll find that gesture more romantic than receiving flowers at her job, from a delivery person, on 02/14.

Waterboarding Update

2008-02-14T11:58:00.005-05:00

The US Senate has voted to ban waterboarding as an interrogation technique. The bill now will go to President Bush, who has threatened to veto the bill ( I cannot believe I'm on his side on this one!). The legislation bars the CIA from using waterboarding, sensory deprivation or other harsh coercive methods to break a prisoner who refuses to answer questions. I have previously made my feelings known about the torture/waterboarding issue, so I will not elaborate on this point too much. The only thing I want to add is that rules that completely ban, or allow a practice, without taking into account various complications, generally will leave some bases uncovered. This law, if signed by the President, will mostly accomplish it's purpose, that of protecting people from unwarranted harsh interrogation techniques (a.k.a torture). But God forbid (it's just an expression folks!) we were to face a situation like the one I had previously outlined, we'll find ourselves having this conversation all over again, but the tone and attitudes would have shifted in an other direction.

Happy Darwin Day

2008-02-12T10:53:00.000-05:00

-
I would like to take this opportunity to wish happy Darwin Day to every human being out there (even the ones that haven't quite finished evolving from our common ancestor). There is a website dedicated to this day out there for those of you who are interested.

I would like to suggest all skeptics out there to do one simple thing: WISH EVERYONE YOU KNOW HAPPY DARWIN DAY. Send out an e-mail to your contacts, post a message to all your friends on Facebook or some similar website. I got a couple of weird looks from some of my co-workers, and it don't bother me a bit.

PS: I wonder if someone at the Discovery Institute can call in sick today and still be employed tomorrow. Hmmmm.... mystery!

Waterboarding-Torture and Morality

2008-02-10T17:53:00.001-05:00

When it comes to issues of Morality gray areas are inevitable, as any student of philosophy can attest. Regardless of which theory of morality you adhere to, one can always imagine situations in which the general rules of the system cannot, and should not, apply, lest we be ready to accept immoral consequences. Theoretical matters and practical matters are usually at odds with each other. Someone once said that moral actions should be judged by their consequences! Such is the case with waterboarding.

Waterboarding has been on the news quite a bit lately. Attorney General Mukasey has been under attack regarding this issue. Waterboarding is a form of torture. No sensible person can argue with that. However, I am a little on the fence on this one, when it comes to the real question: " Is torture an allowable interrogation technique, under specific circumstances?" I do not know exactly, but I am inclined to say yes in very limited circumstances, even though all my human senses revolt at the very idea. Nevertheless, I would not want to be the person responsible for deciding what those limited circumstances would be.

Torture is undoubtedly a horrible violation of human rights. It is brutal and barbaric. I believe we as humans, have an innate moral sense, which doesn't come from the Bible by the way, which guides us in our lives. It is that moral sense that sends that shudder down my spine at the very mentioning of the word torture. That is true, and not being questioned in this post. But does that mean torture should never be used? I am afraid it does not!

Imagine the following situation:

A criminal has kidnapped a bus full of school children. He has been caught. You know that the children are locked up in some unknown location and that they only have 2 hours of air left. In 2 hours they will be dead. The criminal is not talking and every interrogation method has failed to get answers. You are running out of time. Would you torture this person if you had any hope at all that this may save the children?

I for one say without a shadow of a doubt. Of course, we would have to be almost certain that the person in question has possession of the info we need, and that is mighty hard. But that is a practical issue, which someone will have to address. At lease in theory, we were able to imagine a situation (not too far fetched) in which anyone with a sense of morals would judge torture necessary. We could come up with many more such scenarios. No matter how you look at it allowing the rights of lots of people to be violated in order to protect the rights of the one person doing the violating is immoral.

I would like to point out that my major unstated premise is that torture works as a means of extracting truthful information. I couldn't make any of the above arguments if I did not think that was the case. Obviously, if it were ineffective for purposes of extracting information, I would be all for banning it completely. There are people who argue that waterboarding is so scary that you cannot trust anything the tortured says. I simply take it at face value that this sort of psychological/physical pain will make one spill his stomachs contents out. The issue however remains, how do you know what you're being told is the truth? I do not know. All I am basing my post on is my own feeling, that if at some point a person breaks and tells everything.

I guess the bottom line is that some things are not black and white. Police must sometimes use fatal force and shoot people, and that is a bigger violation of human rights than waterboarding. But, we're not going to go around and take cop's guns away. The heart of the question is not if a practice is good, or if we'd like to have it performed on us. The real question is : Is it absolutely necessary? If everything else fails, are we justified to go to the next level? Now, the practical issues are enormous, and that is to be expected given the importance of the issue at hand. That is a portion I do not want to venture into. I do not think I have the knowledge or expertise to give an opinion on that. But one thing I can pretty much guarantee: If your kid was in that bus, you'd be the first one in line to pour water down this guy's face. It is a purely utilitarian view of morality, but who can argue with it. Now ask yourself one question:

Would you torture one criminal if it meant saving the lives of many children?

And that is a black and white issue. There are only two possible answers: YES and NO! I vote YES!

Links of Interest

More special treatment for the Church

2008-02-08T12:46:00.000-05:00

-
As if allowing it to get away with covering up child molestation wasn't enough, new legislation proposed by Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, would grant the church an "exemption" from copyright laws to allow houses of worship to show football games on big-screen televisions. I am not making this up! Apparently, the NFL has sought to enforce its copyright of the Super Bowl by sending letters to churches warning them that showing the game on big-screen sets violates the league's copyright. Copyrights are protected by law in this country. So what do our wise legislators do? Make the law Christianity's whore of course!

"Under Specter's legislation, religious organizations that wish to show professional football games would be declared exempt". That WISH! What a precedent! In other words, if churches wish to break some law (in this case copyright laws) they should be exempt. That is the logic behind that statement and it is not a slippery slope fallacy either. So why stop at copyrights, and child molestation. Let us make the church exempt from every known law, if it so wishes of course!

"The legislation simply provides churches with a limited yet justifiable exemption to allow them to bring their congregation together to watch the Super Bowl," Specter, R-Pa., said when he introduced the legislation Monday. "In a time when our country is divided by war and anxious about a fluctuating economy, these types of events give people a reason to come together in the spirit of camaraderie."

What a load of horse shit! Limited? In what sense is it limited? They want to give the church an exemption, BECAUSE THE CHURCH WISHES SO! It is only limited by the churches imagination as to what it wishes. Justifiable? Oh, yeah, they want to bring their congregation together, so hell yeah that's enough justification to break the law. What these people don't get together enough during their get togethers in honor of their common imaginary friend/daddy/heartless killer?

They'll never stop will they? Huckabee wants to change the Constitution to make it agree with God's word. That's the blueprint these people follow. The law applies to everybody, except the church. The church should be exempt from all laws. These guys must be the most hypocritical beings in the universe. They call atheists and scientist arrogant when we show them how ignorant they are. And on the other hand they demand to be exempt from society's laws. Talk about being full of shit!

Amazing Picture

2008-02-07T17:14:00.000-05:00

Original Link

-
Amazing picture of a dragonfly covered in dew (What you see here is the head in it's torso, if that is what they call it in a dragonfly) . This doesn't quite have anything to do with skepticism and rationality. I just thought it was a breathtaking picture that's all.

The Thinking Man Plug

2008-02-06T22:57:00.000-05:00

-
The Thinking Man has received a plug from a fellow skeptical blogger at Panhandle Faithless. Together with the recommendation, some criticism was also handed out (in true skeptical fashion, that is no sugar coating anything. We'll leave that to the self-deluded). Below I am reproducing a portion of the plug:

While not a major blog, the author seems to make a roughly daily post about some news bit that needs a more skeptical eye turned towards it. A little dry, perhaps. Maybe a bit predictable. But, what do you want! I mean, there are hundreds of ways to believe in gods and spirits; and only one way not to believe. So, for all his dryness, I want to recommend The Thinking Man as a blog to consider.

Ok, so I reproduced almost all of it, but hey it's the first plug I get and I'm enjoying it, even the criticism about being a bit dry and predictable. I apologize for any dryness, however I am not a professional writer (I wasn't that good at writing in school either). I try to make the post as interesting and fun to read as I can, but most of them are put together fairly quickly, spur of the moment kind of thing. There is not a lot of time to do any editing. But, I'll do my best to improve in that area.

I am happy that my main goal is achieved, which is that of bringing to the attention of anyone who takes the time to read my post, any interesting news items, which need to be looked at through the skeptical prism. I am not a scientist, so I will not try to dish out highly technical posts, just general observations that any rational person should be able to come up with on their own.

So please do read on, leave your comments and take the polls. All of that is very incouraging and helpful. Peace!

NY Times gaga over pet "psychic"

2008-02-05T12:48:00.000-05:00

-
On 01/21/08 the NY Times published an article titled "In Brooklyn, a Psychic for the Famous, or Rather, for Their Pets", a mish-mash of credulous, un-questioning, un-skeptical sentences of the sort that you would not expect to find in a reputable source such as the NYTimes. In the article, they talk about Christine Agro's "career as a pet psychic". They go on saying, with a straight face one might add how Agro is a "trained clairvoyant natural healer". I had no idea that you needed to be trained to be delusional, although some sort of training in stupidity is required in order to believe in her "powers".

As I was reading through the "article" I kept waiting for some sort of critique of Agro's work. I found none. The reporter was just too happy to report on such success story. Here is a sample of the ridiculousness of the article: "Part medium, part mediator, she began doing readings that gave voice to the needs of the Weber family's dogs. Kindly don't throw us in the car without telling us where we're going...." Well, maybe they should have let the dog know in advance as well, so it could call it's other dog friends and cancel their dinner tea party plans as well.

She is such a good psychic that she "doesn't need to see the pets to talk to them, just a land line"....and $100 per half hour. She "reasoned with the Weber family's dogs as she might her own 3-year-old son, explaining the basics of compromise, occasionally using her training to remove some negative energy along the way". She's teaching the basics of compromise...TO A GODDAMN DOG, FOR FUCK'S SAKE! And this bullshit is what gets reported in the NYTimes?

Of course, as usual with all charlatans, there is some anecdotal evidence to support her claims. Mr. Weber's wife, Nan Bush (well she didn't take his last name, maybe Mrs. Agro could have used her skill at teaching compromise to help him out a bit. Well I guess she's better with dogs than grown up humans!) coos that "She does see everything, I've recommended her to so many friends." Now how she knows that Agro does infact "see everything" is a mystery to me.

But that's not even the worst. Now read the following quote and be horrified just as I was : "Recently, says Ms. Agro, some of her clients have started asking if she’d consider working on behalf of those other creatures who can’t articulate their needs: babies and toddlers. Ms. Agro is now working on developing that business, under the name the Psychic Mom.....it seems likely that Psychic Mom will find some eager clients" This is the height of journalistic irresponsibility. It is one thing to promote a "pet psychic" which is, at worst, laughable, idiotic, moronic, stupid and any other derogatory term you can think off. However, to promote a "pet psychic" turned "baby psychic" is all the above and dangerous. It is the kind of reporting you'd expect on one of those weekly gossip magazines, or the kind of thing you'd see on Oprah.

I had always trusted the NYTimes to give me accurate, good journalism. After this article, I don't think I'll be able to read it so trustingly any longer.

Links of Interest

What peaceful Religion?

2008-02-04T16:28:00.000-05:00

-
Afghanistan's upper house of parliament has issued a statement backing a death sentence for a journalist for blasphemy in northern Afghanistan.Pervez Kambakhsh, 23, was convicted last week of downloading and distributing an article insulting Islam-reports the BBC.

Peaceful religion my ass! Politicians are quick to pay lip service to Islam, in an effort not to offend, I don't know who, since there's no bigger offense to Islam than declaring war on an Islamic country, ensuring that tens of thousand of muslims die, and keep troops stationed there for years, but that's another issue, that of the hypocrisy of American politics.

None of the Abrahamic religions are peaceful. The only difference is that Christianity has "cooled down" already while Islam has not. As long as people literally interpret the sacred writings there will be violence. Only when people start treating these books for what they are, works of fiction, will this kind of violence go away! I can think of only a few things stupider than sentencing one to death for reading/printing an article from the Internet, regardless of the contents.

And one of them is the idea that there is such thing as a "peaceful"Abrahamic religion!

Rev. John. H. Thomas should be Pope!

2008-02-02T17:04:00.000-05:00

-
In January 2008, Rev. John H. Thomas of the United Church of Christ wrote a letter titled "A New Voice Arising: A pastoral letter on faith engaging science and technology" which was, generally, a joy to read. It is exactly what we would expect Christianity to be like in the 21st Century (having given up the dream of it being completely gone that is!). In fact, I belive, this is but a glimpse of the future of Christianity. I believe Christianity will have to change its ways or perish.

It is no secret that Christianity, in general, is in a state of war with Science. It fights against abortion, stem cell research, evolution and so on. Mainly, I think, it does this because Science has been gradually stripping the Church of its self-awarded Earthly powers. No longer is the Church the authority on cosmology (the earth is not stationary, nor flat, the sun does not go around the earth, the earth is not the center of the universe etc.), origins ( creationism, largely disguised as Intelligent Design in today's America) and such. Obviously, their explanations of how the universe works is closely tied with their views on why it does. The Earth is the center of the Universe because God created it especially for humans. Unfortunately for them that turns out not to be true. We are but a pale blue dot, as the great Carl Sagan said. That casts a shadow fo a doubt on the whole "God created humans on his image", and as such any talk of common ancestry is ruthlessly attacked.

That is why Rev. Thomas' letter is a breath of fresh air. As he says: "Our faith has nothing to do with ancient misconceptions. Our faith is not in the worldviews of ancient theologians or the cosmologies of biblical texts, as majestic as these might have been" (last paragraph of section II). "For many people today, old answers to these questions are no longer credible" (Section I).He is not afraid of science. He embraces it wholeheartedly. He talks about the "gifts of science", and "ever-expanding vistas of cosmic beauty". Unlike me however, he sees God's guiding hand behind science. All the new discoveris do nothing to diminish his faith. That is where he and I part ways.

Probably, my favorite sentence of the whole letter is the following: "As we respond to the sciences and the technologies of today, we are aware that we will have to expand and modify our responses whenever we are met by new concepts and unexpected possibilitties"(section V). Wow, so un-chrisitian this willingness to change in the face of new evidence. I have never heard a more scientific sentence uttered from the lips of a christian. And mind you he's referring to his understanding of God, of God's word, when he's talking about modifying our respones. In fact, he already has. He accepts the current scientific views about the universe, embraces evolution, encourages exploration of the potential of stem cells, warns us about the dangers of global warming.

If only G.W. Bush was part of his church, as opossed to being a born-again christian.

On the other hand, Rev. Thomas sees everything science has to offer as signs of a "loving, personal, relational" God, but I am more than willing to accept that for the time being. Personally, I have no problem with people believing what they like. In fact, I believe everyone has the right to believe (or not) whatever pleases them. However, when one's personal beliefs become barriers to progress and advance, that's where people like me, and our words and pens, come in.

Can you imagine what world we'd be living in if someone like Rev. Thomas was Pope, especially given the current Pope's record? It is hard to immagine a world lacking a "Discovery" Institute, a world where scientific research is not choked by the radical ideologies of born-again (or as I prefer to refer to them, lost-again) christians? I can only hope that Christianity will move in the same direction that the United Church of Christ has. That is why I nominate Rev. John H. Thomas for Pope!

Exorcism Bad? No freakin' way!

2008-01-31T19:40:00.000-05:00

-
CNN recently reported that a priest in Romania was sentenced to 7 years in jail for murdering a nun, during an exorcism. The nun in question " Irina Cornici, 23, died from dehydration, exhaustion and suffocation" at the hands of the priest and 4 other nuns. Apparently, the nun, who by the way suffered from schizophrenia, believed she heard the devil speak to her. The Orthodox church that the priest belonged to "defrocked Corogeanu and excommunicated the four nuns" and condemned what had happened as deplorable.

Of course the church did not go so far as to condemn the practice of exorcism. Apparently, it was the priest and the nuns who somehow botched an otherwise safe and beneficial process. But what did they do?

The news item does not give a lot of details. All it says is that the unfortunate nun was tied to a cross (no mentioning if she was standing up or laying down) and she was denied food and water. She died of dehydration and suffocation. So some sort of physical force was used on her, hence the suffocation. But what is an exorcism? What are acceptable practices during an exorcism?

I searched the Vatican site and came across the following : "When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism. Jesus performed exorcisms and from him the Church has received the power and office of exorcising.¹⁷⁸ In a simple form, exorcism is performed at the celebration of Baptism. The solemn exorcism, called "a major exorcism," can be performed only by a priest and with the permission of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church. Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church. Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness.^179"Please pay special attention to the last sentence. It says that : "Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness." But how does a priest, or nun, or bishop, or whatever you have, tell the difference between a schizophrenic who thinks the Devil is talking to them, and a supposedly "honest" person to whom the Devil is in fact speaking to? Do they actually consult a mental health doctor? If they do, isn't it likely for the doctor to diagnose any person who thinks they're being spoken to by the Devil, with some sort of mental disorder? At some point, the exorcist then must disregard the medical advice, which defeats the purpose of this guidance.

I am really bestowing more respect than it deserves on it, by even taking the time to write about exorcism. This is what I think of exorcisms. An exorcism is a stupid chain of events, based on an even stupider set of beliefs. Such beliefs include the believe that demons are real, that they can and do take over human bodies, that reading poetry can force these demons out and such and such. Of course all this goes back to the even more idiotic set of beliefs, cumulatively known as Christianity. It is nothing more than fear mongering, another way the Church has devised to blackmail people to do its bidding. Why? Well we're all meat for grabs for all the demons out there, and only a priest has what it takes to cast them off and save us? Now if one really believes that do you think they'll stand up to the Church on any other issues? The church is nothing more than a big bully who uses fear to advance its ideology. Fear of the Devil, of eternal burning in Hell, fear of God. Fear and religion go hand in hand. But what do I know. For all I know it's probably the evil one who's speaking through me. Quick, someone hand me a phone. I got to call 1-800-EXORCIST.

Tom Cruise Video Parody

2008-01-24T23:06:00.000-05:00

-
Well you know this was coming. After the "leak" of TC's infamous Scientology video about which I blogged myself a few days ago, a parody staring Jerry O'Connell was posted at Funnyordie.com. I was not aware but many, many other parodies can be found at this website or at Youtube. Obviously I cannot link to all, that would be too much, so I choose two. As a reference I am including links to both the original video and the parodies, since you can't enjoy the latter unless you've seen the former.

Original Video

Parody Video

If that's not funny enough this other one is just hilarious

Want to SEE Evolution?

2008-01-24T22:43:00.001-05:00

-
Natural Selection? A bunch of baloney right? Watch the video below for a simple yet informative visual description of how evolution actually works. What should be learned from this video is that Natural Selection is not conscious selection, but that given certain circumstances some organisms will be better suited to survive, thus passing their genes on. That's all there is to natural selection. No one is choosing organisms because they're better suited to survive. They are surviving because they are better suited, and that's all there is to it. Simple right? Enjoy the video!

The studies that never were

2008-01-22T10:30:00.000-05:00

-
You ever seen a TV commercial about some miracle cure (let it be about weight loss, baldness, penis enlargement and what have you) which claimed that the amazing results have been shown in scientific studies? Well aparantely there is one such weight-loss product called Akavar 20/50. On their website the first thing you see is this great headline "Eat all you want and still loose weight (and we couldn't say it in print if it wasn't true)" (Well, we'll see about that second part of the claim) . Small print at the bottom of the page says:

Note: While the published clinical trial using the active Akävar-20/50 compound resulted in significant weight loss WITHOUT diet and exercise,
adding a sensible diet and exercise program to your weight-loss regimen should only enhance Akävar-20/50’s incredible weight-loss power.

Ok, so there was an actual clinical trial which showed it to be effective, or was there? Harriet Hall of the Science Based Medicine blog (an excellent blog from actual doctors who know what they're talking about) contacted the company and her trials and tribulations are recounted in her excellent blog titled "Akvar 20/50 and Truth in Advertising". Read for yourself and draw whatever conclusions you like. Myself I think I will not be buying the "eat all you want and still loose weight" product.

News Wrap-Week of 01/20/08

2008-01-21T12:44:00.000-05:00

-
Below are some of the most interesting news (to me at least). This section is meant just to aggregate the news, so I will try to abstain from long comments (although I predict I will not be successful all of the time).

Poor sanitation kills 5,000 children a day

A recent news item reported in various news sites including Scientific American, and Reuters, that 5,000 children die worldwide daily because they lack access to clean toilets. It is estimated that 40% of the worlds population do not have access to clean and safe toilets. According to WaterAid 1.8 million children die each year before they reach 5 years of age from diarrhea.

The Thinking Man says : If we took a portion of the money wasted in CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) and invest it in this area we could be saving 5,000 children a day. Can any CAM practitioner claim the alternative medicine saves that many lives a day? On the other hand, I am sure modern medicine can make such a claim, but I must say that is just my gut feeling, I do not have any hard numbers to back that up.

Expensive wine tastes better-regardless of actual taste!

A recent study, reported at News.com and other news outlets the more wine costs the more people enjoy it, regardless of how it actually tastes. According the the News.com article:

Researchers from the California Institute of Technology and Stanford's business school have directly seen that the sensation of pleasantness that people experience when tasting wine is linked directly to its price. And that's true even when, unbeknownst to the test subjects, it's exactly the same Cabernet Sauvignon with a dramatically different price tag.

Specifically, the researchers found that with the higher priced wines, more blood and oxygen is sent to a part of the brain called the medial orbitofrontal cortex, whose activity reflects pleasure. Brain scanning using a method called functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) showed evidence for the researchers' hypothesis that "changes in the price of a product can influence neural computations associated with experienced pleasantness," they said.

The Thinking Man says : I am not surprised. I am sure everybody has experienced this in their life. Given two items, of same quality (as far as we can detect) we have a tendency to think that the more expensive one must have something better. Somehow, thanks to ingenious marketing, we have been lead to associate high prices with quality. This study now shows that there actually is a physiological effect (increased blood/oxygen flow to the brain). That was what I find interesting. Up to today I just thought it was a purely psychological event.

Food from cloned animals seems safe for consumption

Within days from each other both the EU and the FDA have released statements saying that food from cloned animals seems to pose no special health risks. This news was reported by various websites, including Bloomberg.com, NYTimes.com and CNN.com among other.

According to the NYTimes article:

Meat and milk from cloned animals seem to pose no special health risks, said a draft report released Friday by the European Food Safety Agency. It was a first step toward the eventual sale of such products within the European Union.

“It is very unlikely that any difference exists in terms of food safety between food products originating from clones and their progeny compared with those derived from conventionally bred animals,” the report said.
It acknowledged that cloned animals were prone to more diseases than conventionally bred animals, but it added that humans would not suffer because unhealthy clones would be excluded from the food chain as is the case with conventionally bred animals.

Bloomberg reports as follows:

The EU food safety officials said studies of nutrition, toxicity, allergic reactions and environmental effects have turned up no cause for concern.

As long as unhealthy clones would be detected before reaching the market, ``the currently available data indicate that food products from clones of cattle and pigs and their progeny are as safe as food products of livestock derived by conventional breeding,'' according to the draft opinion that was requested last year by the European Commission.

CNN reports the following:

Food from healthy clones of cattle, swine and goats is as safe as food from non-cloned animals, the Food and Drug Administration said in a report released Tuesday.

"Extensive evaluation of the available data has not identified any subtle hazards that might indicate food-consumption risks in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats," the 968-page "final risk assessment" concluded.

"Thus, edible products from healthy clones that meet existing requirements for meat and milk in commerce pose no increased food consumption risk(s) relative to comparable products from sexually-derived animals."
But the FDA said it needs more information to determine the safety of meat and milk from cloned sheep. The FDA also concluded that food from newborn cattle clones "may pose some very limited human food consumption risk."

The Thinking Man says: A lot of people don't like what they hear. Unfortunately, there is a stigma tied into the word "clone" that goes beyond differences between "real" cattle meat and "cloned" cattle meat. There are people who are ethically opposed to any cloning. There are those who are afraid that successful animal cloning will one day lead to successful human cloning, thus they oppose it. There are those who think the creation of life is an act of God and man should not be so arrogant as to meddle in the affairs of God.

The fact of the matter is that none of us, at least in the developed countries, is consuming "natural" foods, let them be animal or plant foods. All foods have been modified endlessly through crossbreeding, fertilization and such. Cloning is simply a new way of doing business. In a day when thousands of people are dying of hunger around the world, can we really afford to cling to our childish ethical standards and oppose cloned or genetically engineered food? Furthermore, how ethical are these objections, when they are coming from someone with a full belly, who has never known what it means to have your loved ones die of hunger? I have not experienced that, but still I cannot put any moral objection I may have regarding cloning above saving (actual) human lives.

The one objection I have has to do with the decision (up to this point) that cloned foods will not need to be labeled as such. I believe that people have the right to choose if they want to consume cloned foods, regardless of their reasoning for doing so. Also, an objection to this idea has been brought that should there be a problem down the road, a recall becomes next to impossible. However, seller of non-cloned foods can choose to lable their foods as such. I suspect most of them will exercise their right, and increase the prices on the way (just like what is happening with the whole "organic" foods nonsense!)

Either way, it is kind of early to get too worked up one way or another. There will be many more studies and comments on the issue, before we have to actually worry if the canned meat we're having for dinner is a clone or not.

Dolphins playing with bubbles

2008-01-20T16:29:00.001-05:00

-
This does not have anything specifically to do with the mission of this blog, I just think it's a nice video.

- Funny blooper videos are here

Tom Cruise of the deep end

2008-01-17T22:24:00.000-05:00

-
Tom Cruise has lost it! And we now have video proof. In a video which has lately surfaced on the web, he goes off, maniacally about how he "knows" and how he can change reality and help people in a car accident. I will not comment too much on this ridiculous, embarrasing rant. You just need to watch for youself. However I cannot help but comment out on some of the most outrageous, idiotic comments he makes. If you've ever wondered what it means to be brainwashed into beliveing the stupidest shit there ever was, just watch the video.

Below are some quotations from his infamous video:

Tom- He, or she, has the ability to create new and better realities and improve conditions...
The Thinking Man says-Ok, not too bad so far. I can see how metaforically he can say that they can "create new and better realities".

Tom-Being a scientologist, when you drive past an accident, it's not like anyone else, as you drive past you know you have to do something about it, because you know you're the only one that can really help....
The Thinking Man says- Well, first of all I think most people know they are supposed to do something when they see an accident. I do not see how being a scientologist or not has anything to do with that. It is called having a conscience and being a moral human being. Secondly, what the hell does he mean "as you drive past"? As you drive PAST? That means you're not even stopping! How can you help if you don't even stop? Furthermore, "you're the only one that can really help". Really? Has this idiot ever heard of 911? EMTs? Doctors? Well I guess they don't really help!

Tom-The orgs are there to help, ok, but we as, you know, as also the public, we have a responsiblity, it's not just the orgs, .....it's not just me, it's you , it's everyone out there, kinda re-reading KSW and looking at what needs to be done and saying ok am I gonna do it or am I not gonna do it? Period!
The Thinking Man says-Yeah it can't be just the orgs! What about the alpha centurions, those lazy bums? What in God's name is an org? Is this guy for real?

Tom-'cause I won't hesitate to put ethics on someone else, you know cause I put it ruthlessly on myself, and I think that.. aaahhh, I respect that.
The Thinking Man says-Hmmm, he respects what exactly? The fact that he's willing to force his sick ethics on anyone and everyone that does not have the power to stand up to him? Sounds like a nazi!

Tom-We are the authorities on getting people off drugs, we are the authorities on the mind, we are the authorities on improving conditions...criminals... we can rehabilitate criminals...way to happiness, we can bring peace and unite cultures.....
The Thining Man says- Jesus Christ, pack him up and ship him off to the Middle East. Forget about the freagin' troop surge. He's gonna stop the war in Iraq, reconcile jews and palestinians, and rehabilitate some druggies as well. Pretty awsome I say!

Tom- Being a scientologist people are turning to you, so you better know it, you better know it, and if you don't...you know, go and learn it..you know hahaha, but don't pretend you know it and foo....whatever, it's like we're here to help.
The Thinking Man says-What the hell is he saying?

Tom- and if you're a scientologist you see life, you see things the way they are...in all it's glory, you know all of it's complexity, aahh
The Thinking Man says-Ah hell I thought I was seing things the way they are, in all IT'S complexity. Oh well, at least my grammar is better (and I'm not a native english speaker!)

Tom-I'd like to go on vacation and go and romp and play and just do that..you know what I mean? I mean that's what I want it to be ok? .......there's times I'd like to do that but I can't because I know...(pause)...I know, so ....but you know I have to do something about it, it's not....you know you can sit here and wish it was different and then you look at it and you go, ok this is it, alright, ok and there's that moment you go...you know I have to do something don't I? Yeah, I have to do it because I can't live with myself if I don't and that really is it.
The Thinking Man says-I'm amazed at this moron's ability not to come up with a coherent thought. What the hell is this? I still don't know why he can't go on vacation! Damn, this guy is way to deep for me!

Tom-I do what I can, and I do it the way I do everything..hahahahaha. There's nothing part of the way for me ..hahahahaha....it's just pheww..hahahaha
The Thinking Man says-well he couldn't keep a straight face through the whole thing, he woulnd't be human if he had. Sounds like even he can't stop laughing at the stupid shit coming out of his mouth.

Narrator-A scientologist can be defined by a single question: "Would you want others to achieve the knowledge you now have?"
The Thinking Man says- Oh my God I am a scientologist!!!!

The Imorality of gay-marriage denial

2008-01-09T12:33:00.000-05:00

On December 3rd, 2007 the Center for Inquiry (formerly CSICOP), publisher (I think) of Free Inquiry and the Skeptical Inquirer two fantastic magazines, released a position paper on same-sex marriage. The following quote sums up their stance on the issue :

LGBT people have the same hopes and desires and the same capabilities (and failings) as heterosexuals.Many of them want to take part in a stable, loving, committed relationship, and those who want children have proven that they are as fit parents as heterosexual couples. They are entitled to enjoy the same social and economic benefits and privileges that married couples possess. Anything less unmistakably brands them as second-class citizens. (page 32).

The paper itself deals in length with the usual arguments given to support not giving gays the right to marry. As such I will not repeat the effort. Anyone interested in a detailed rebuttal of these usual arguments can download and read the CFI position paper.

I would like to concentrate on one specific issue. I think that denying any human being the right to marry the person of their choosing is immoral if it be done in an effort to stop them from engaging in immoral, or sinful, behavior. It is of course acceptable when the idea is to protect the vulnerable (such as is the case with polygamy, not allowing children to get married until they have reached a certain age etc).

At this point I would like to draw a distinction between people who oppose the idea of gayness in general and the ones who not only oppose it but also believe they have the right to legislate it away. It is OK for someone to think that being gay is immoral and gay sex is immoral. Everyone has the right to adhere to whatever set of moral values pleases him. What is not OK is for someone to try to force his moral beliefs on other people. That is stepping over the line and that is what is currently happening. You cannot legislate morality!

I submit that any person who supports legislation that would make it illegal for same-sex partners to marry, does so solely from a dogmatically held set of moral values. It is only people who hold dogmatic views that believe they have the right to impose these views on other people, because they know that they are right and everyone else who opposes them is wrong. And it is not only religious dogma that I have in mind, even though in the USA that is the most vocal dogma opposing gay marriage,in the name of "family values". In fact, I know non-believers who dogmatically write off gay sex (this is really what this whole discussion boils down to isn't it?) as immoral. It is just that instead of saying that "God created man and woman to be together" they will invoke Nature, and how it is "unnatural" for people of the same sex to engage in intimate activities with each other. Dogma is a disease that everyone can catch, including yours only!

Whenever people think of gay marriage, they are really thinking about gay sex. That is the sacred cow, that is what they are really fighting. A lot of people find gay sex immoral, bestial, unnatural and they cannot get themselves to allow the idea of gay marriage, because that would mean that gay sex is OK, and they just can't accept that. So they oppose gay marriage. But let's think for a secon. What is it about gay sex that people find so unacceptable? Quite honestly, there is no single sex act performed by gays, in the privacy of their own bedrooms, that is not available, and being practiced, by countless heterosexual couples all over the world. So it is not the specific acts that are being carried out that bother some people. It is who is involved that bothers them. Just like interracial sex bothers some people, not because of the act but because of the people involved. But no one in their right state of mind would go out there trying to come up with a constitutional amendment to outlaw interracial marriages. So why should we do this for gays? We've been down this road once. It is the same game, just the players have changed.

A lot of other people simply cannot understand gay sex. I am part of this group. I cannot understand, or imagine, how a man could be sexually attracted to another man. Having never experienced it, I find it impossible to imagine. However, we must be aware that the set of experiences the average person goes through in life is quite limited as compared to the total set of experiences available. We cannot experience everything! We cannot understand everything! But we must not be afraid, or oppose that which we do not understand.

No one has the right not to be offended. No one has the right to impose his moral beliefs on other people. It is a fundamental human right to live a happy life, any which way the person sees fit, as long as that happiness does not cause harm to others (and "I am offended and shocked by your behavior" does not qualify as harm!). All people are equal in dignity and rights, as such creating a second-class citizenry, by withholding rights from some that others enjoy, violates this principle. It is immoral to try and impose one's own moral beliefs on other people. It is arrogant to try and legislate your beliefs into law. Eveyone has the inalienable right to live his life according to whatever moral system they favor, and that includes people that do not act like me or believe the same things I do. And that is moral!

Bill Maher on Religion

2008-01-08T21:58:00.000-05:00

Well, I don't think I need to say much. Two priceless videos from another man who likes to think for himself.

What is the worst that could happen ? Part 2

2008-01-08T14:07:00.002-05:00

: Unfortunately there are 2 more entries in the "What is the worst that could happen?" series.

The first news item can be found at the following link Sean Flannagan's story. Sean was suffering from late-stage bone cancer :; "His parents searched frantically for a way to ease his pain.; David and Laura Flanagan of suburban Denver believed they found that, and more, in the office of Dr. Brian O'Connell. O'Connell assured the Flanagans he could not only relieve 18-year-old Sean's suffering from late-stage bone cancer, he could cure Sean as he had others.; O'Connell's treatment of choice: photo luminescence, a form of "energy medicine" using light waves. O'Connell would take a vial of blood from Sean's body, expose it to ultraviolet light from a device, then inject the treated blood back in a hydrogen-peroxide solution. Although the treatment was unconventional, the Flanagans took comfort in O'Connell's charisma and in his impressive credentials as a naturopathic doctor....
Two days after Sean's treatment by O'Connell began, the young man was rushed to the hospital with an infection caused by the injection. Six days after that, as O'Connell administered another round of treatment, Sean begged, "Please, God, no more." The next day, Dec. 19, 2003, Sean died — about six months sooner than his medical doctors had predicted."

It causes me great anger every time I hear this sort of story of a charlatan, a fraud, taking advantage of people's pain and preying on their hopes to benefit financially and fatten his/her bank account, often causing great pain physical, emotional and financial. And this guy is not an isolated case. From John Edwards (not to be confused with the Democratic presidential hopeful) with his talking to the dead charade, to Sylvia Brown who told the parents of a missing boy that he was dead (on national television nevertheless!), they all are made up of the same substance, crap!. The boy turned out to be alive after all and they caught the perv. But can the emotional damage and pain this so-called psychic of national fame caused, be undone?

True, Sean Flanagan had an incurable disease. His short life was shortened even more by an unscrupulous, evil being, namely "Dr." Brian O'Connell, a.k.a the jerk!

The second news item can be found at the following link Antonio Campos' Story. The first few paragraphs of the story follow:; "A young mother in Los Angeles was desperate. A rare form of cancer was ravaging her 5-month-old son. Their doctor said chemotherapy offered the best hope for survival, a 1-in-4 chance.; Natalia Campos watched as her baby, Antonio, struggled in pain through the first few treatments. Then she learned of an alternative-therapy clinic that promised a cure, without pain, using a machine called a PAP-IMI.; Twice a day at the Bio-Energy Services clinic, Campos held Antonio while the 260-pound machine pulsed powerful electromagnetic waves into the tumor bulging from his neck. The treatments failed, and Antonio died — the victim not only of his cancer, but of what one health official later called a "major national health fraud."

Why are these jerks successful? Why is the public buying into their snake oil?
For two reasons. First, these jerks prey on people who are going through hard times, and are willing to grasp any ray of hope that goes their way. As a new parent, I can understand the urge to reduce your child's pain, even if that means trying the impossible and hoping against hope. It takes great will to distance yourselves from a supposed "cure" when your child has an incurable disease. I do not know if I myself would be able to do it; I could fall prey to these vultures under the same circumstances. My heart goes out completely to Antonio's mother; I understand what she was going through. She should not be blamed!
Second, we live in a society where "alternative" medicine is viewed with a positive eye, there is a certain fascination with "ancient" stuff. Non-tested claims abound and are accepted left and right. Chiropractic, homeopathy and most acupuncture claims come to mind immediately. All of them are based on some primitive philosophies of life having to do with life energy, chis and such nonsense. All of them claim to have one answer for all illnesses. How childish it is to accept that one thing is what causes every ill and that there is a simple way to manipulate this one thing, to cure everything! Psychics claim to tell the future for the right amount of money, or find missing people for absurd fees! At the very least they cause financial harm by exploiting people's pain. At the very worst they cause much , much more harm as the above two sad stories show.

We all need hope! Life without hope is very boring! Let us hope about love, family, a good life, winning the lottery even. But when we start hoping on things simply because we would like them to be true, that's when we open ourselves up to the quacks out there. At every corner there is someone willing to sell us whatever kind of hope we many need at the time, for the right price of course. DO NOT PUT REASON ASIDE! DO NOT ACCEPT SOMEONE'S FANTASTIC CLAIMS SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WOULD BE GREAT IF THEY WERE TRUE! DO NOT SAY "WHAT IS THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN?". Do seek out the worst that could happen. Do ask someone who makes fantastic claims to produce fantastic evidence. And whatever you do , do not accept anecdotal stories (there was this guy who did it and it worked for him!) as evidence. Do your research, seek out professional advice.

Sometimes life just doesn't work the way we want it to. Sometimes, things are just outside of our control. Those are the times when we get desperate. Do not let your desperation becomes someone else's golden pot. You only stand to loose.

The worm in the Apple

2008-01-08T14:07:00.001-05:00

: Who hasn't seen the ubiquitous Apple vs PC commercials, you know the ones where the Apple computer is a young, hip healthy guy whereas the PC is a middle aged, overweight, nerdy guy? They're funny as hell, especially the one where PC is sneezing (colds are caused by viruses! Subtle!) and the Apple guy makes some comments about the virus and such.

And that commercial is hitting the nail right on the head......but then it isn't. It is a fact of life that Windows users are plagued with viruses, Trojan horses, worms etc. Evey where you turn, there's another horror story of the PhD dissertation papers lost and people's private data corrupted. And it is also a fact of life that Mac users never seem to complain about such problems. Indeed they are always trying to "convert" Windows users to switch to Mac, and use the virus-free argument, among others.

Now most of the other arguments for choosing Mac over PC I am willing to accept. Macs look much cooler than PCs, and Apple leads the pack, I think, when it comes to user friendliness and innovation. But the virus free argument.....that doesn't sit well with me.

Just a few days ago, there was a news article on Yahoo News titled "Apple Releases Godzilla-Sized Security Patch". In the article it says that "Apple patched 41 vulnerabilities in Mac OS X and related software" . The patch was over 130MB in size and it was"...announced in the wake of the discovery of the first true financially motivated piece of malware to hit the Mac. The RSPlug Trojan".

Now, why would I talk about Macs and PCs one might ask? I thought you were a skeptic not a tech guru? Well, I am not a tech guru, in fact I am no guru in any field. What I find interesting is the wrong logic used in the "virus-free" argument. Basically the argument goes like this " Windows users are plagued by viruses and security worries. Mac users on the other hand are not. You should switch to Mac to escape the viruses".

In a certain way that argument holds, if you're the only one person switching. But the argument itself is self destructing. The reason Mac users did not have to worry about viruses, up 'til now, was not due to some superior, smarter, programming by the Apple programmers, but specifically because Macs are not popular, therefore it was not worth it for a hacker to write Mac viruses. So the arguments now looks like this : "Macs are not popular, therefore hackers don't bother to write viruses for them. So switch to Mac to escape viruses and live worry-free".
Basically it is saying, I am not popular and that is why I should be popular!!!

Unfortunately, if most of us were to follow that line of reasoning, Macs would become popular and hacking them would become profitable for hackers, and the viruses for Macs would increase to the same level you have for Windows. The above mentioned news article just goes to show that we are indeed headed that way. And you and I would be more likely to be victims, since if we switched to Mac we would also switch off the part of our brain that worries about computer viruses and security and thus not bother to have an anti virus software and update it periodically.

"There's a clear message here: No operating system is immune to vulnerabilities. Every computer user needs to keep on top of the patch mountain in order to defend their data.." says the article. Hmmm, with a bit of word tweaking that statement could be beautifully adapted to the human brain. That way bogus arguments like the one mentioned here would not be able to survive.

What is the worst that could happen?

2008-01-08T14:05:00.000-05:00

: Everyone, who's ever challenged someone else's dearly held dogmas, has inevitably come across the "Why can't you just let them enjoy their beliefs, even if you know they are false? What's the worst that could happen?" argument.

At first glance it seems like a fairly solid argument. After all what one chooses to believe is his or her personal business. What right does anyone else have to take those comforting beliefs away from them? If those beliefs make them happy then why should we take them away, even though they may be wrong? If we let them hold their beliefs, what's the worst that could happen?

Turns out lots could happen. There was an article a few weeks ago about the Jehovah's Witness mother who died after giving birth to twins and refusing a much needed, life saving, blood transfusion. Emma Gough was just 22 year's old. Her faith forbids blood transfusion. At the hospital, she signed a consent form in which she instructed doctors not to give her blood transfusion. "Staff at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital begged her husband Anthony, 24, who is also a Jehovah's Witness, and other relatives to allow the transfusion. But followers believe that blood transfusions are prohibited by the Bible and the family would not sanction the treatment." says the article. She died shortly after.

Now the Jehovah's Witnesses are not a violent bunch. They have a different interpretation of the Bible on certain issues, one of them being abstinence from blood, which they interpret to include blood transfusion. Of course, at the time the Bible was written, they did not know of transfusions, so it talks about not eating man's blood, but that's a whole other issue. Going back to the main point, as far as I can tell the Jehovah's Witnesses are a fairly peaceful group, exactly the kind of people in relation to which the "What's the worst that could happen" argument is used.

So what is the point of my ramblings? It is not to beat up on someone who's down. It is not a show of superiority ( I know more than you do kind!). The reason skeptics like me must challenge dogmatically held beliefs, is not to show off, or to derive pleasure for proving to ourselves that "we're so much smarter" than them. The only reason I engage in this kind of activity is because dogma begets dogma. If we are not taught to think on our own, but accept someone's words on authority, then we risk applying that way of (non)thinking to other aspects of our life, and that's when it gets dangerous, as the news item mentioned above unfortunately shows.

"Garbage in, garbage out" the expression goes. We must train our minds to sift through all the information that we are bombarded with and not let garbage in. Anyone who tells you to shut down your brain, forget reason and listen to your "heart and soul" is only preparing your brain to become the next landfill.

The Pope and Euthanasia

2008-01-08T14:01:00.000-05:00

On 10/29/07 a news article was published in which it was reported that the Pope "Pope Benedict XVI said Monday that pharmacists have a right to use conscientious objection to avoid dispensing emergency contraception or euthanasia drugs" and "Benedict said conscientious objector status would "enable them not to collaborate directly or indirectly in supplying products that have clearly immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia." For the full article, simply run a Google search with the terms "Pope, pharmacists".

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines euthanasia as follows " the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy"

FOR REASONS OF MERCY PEOPLE! Being merciful is immoral? Who owns our bodies? Our lives? Don't we all have the right to a dignified death? Why is it immoral to allow a cancer patient who is in great pain, with no prospect of recovery to end his life on his own terms? What gives an outsider, who has no stakes on this issue, besides his religious beliefs such as the pope, the right to feel morally outraged by such a choice?

Do we feel moral outrage when a soldier jumps on top of a grenade to save his fellow comrades? Isn't he prematurely ending his life? Is he not making a conscious choice to do so? Sure, the circumstances are in fact different, but the act remains the same. He is choosing death over life! Do we only allow euthanasia when someone else can benefit from this act without regard to the most interested party, the person choosing to end his/her life?

The practicality of it may be what bothers more people. When someone is depressed, they need help not the choice to die. But the heart of the issue is not the practicality. The pope is labeling euthanasia as immoral under all circumstances. He would rather let people suffer in pain endlessly, with no end in sight, then allow them the relief that they should be entitled to. Now that is what I consider morally outrageous!