"Sacred Way of Conscious Evolution" WTF????

The original title of this post was Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid, but then considering how close it is to Rapture Day, you might be expecting a post about Harold Camping. 

Noooo, this post is dedicated to a whole nother form of stupidity.  There are money-grubbing opportunists who are taking advantage of people who are disillusioned with traditional religion but still want something traditional and religious, or at least spiritual.  These people become victims of New Age prophets who mix everything good and wholesome and easily digestible into one flavorless yet satisfying stew that doesn't come cheaply despite not having any substance.

I have known many New Agers, and I dabbled myself (but not in witchcraft!!!) so I am not so much surprised that such baloney exists, or that people pay for it, or that it's not illegal.  I'm just surpised at the use of the sacred  and evolution together.  It HURTS!!

New Age nonsense used to be so much simpler.  They picked out one random ancient practice, threw around words like "chi" and "energy," sold you a gizmo, and then told you how centered you were.  there are many disparate threads of stupidity interwoven to create a patchwork (pardon the mixed metaphor) ideology to bilk their marks with.

This post is dedicated to the idiocy that is (or are) the Sacred Way of Conscious Evolution
Okay, let's start with the title:

• "Sacred" ohhhh this is a religious thing
• "Way"  ohhhh this is a Taoist thing how Eastern and cool!
• "Conscious"  ohhhh this is a psychological thing
• "Evolution"  ohhhh this is a sciencey thing

*facepalm*  Well that says it all, doesn't it?  Oh wait the presenter's bio might help clarify things:

She is a Fellow of The Club of Budapest, and has received an honorary PhD in Conscious Evolution from the Giordano Bruno GlobalShift University. She has established a Chair in Conscious Evolution at Wisdom University and is a co-founder of many progressive organizations, including Global New Thought (AGNT), as well as The World Future Society. 



She is currently the producer and narrator of an award-winning, on-going DVD series entitled “Humanity Ascending: A New Way through Together.” Part One: Our Story, translated into seven languages, has been selected for the prestigious Spiritual Cinema Circle. Part Two: Visions of a Universal Humanity, now brings together cutting-edge scientific, social and spiritual visionaries to create a positive vision of our future equal to our new capacities.

Ohhhh okay.   She has an honorary Ph.D. from Globalshift University.  That means she's smart!

And here's some happy news! You can learn this crap through self-study (for a price).  You don't get an honorary Ph.D. from working through these workbooks and DVDs but you'll be so blissfully happy you won't care.  Or maybe you'll make up your own crackpot uni and give her an honorary Ph.D.  So here are the details:


http://www.barbaramarxhubbard.com/con/Gateway  Normally this crap is $265 but you can get it for the special price of $199.  Wheeeeeee  You get a workbook and four DVDs.  That's worth what?  $60.00 max?  But wait!  You also get "Online access to Recorded Gateway Calls featuring Barbara Marx Hubbard and Teresa Collins."  You can listen to a podcast!  That's worth what?  uhhh nothing?

So what exactly is conscious evolution and why is there a sacred way?  If we can will ourselves to evolve (*brain explodes*  sorry for the blood and brains and gore on your computer screen, I had to type that) then why do we need a sacred way?  Why not a scientific way?

Oh yeah, nevermind.  As an example of their approach to "science," I offer the "NOW" watch: 

Our answer is right here on "Node 8:"  http://www.barbaramarxhubbard.com/con/node/8

In simple terms Conscious Evolution takes place when we intend to grow in consciousness and use our increasing awareness to guide our actions and achieve a positive future.

I'm not sure that "simple" would be the correct word to describe these "terms."  The sad thing is, there are probably noble ideas here that are being swallowed up by the jargon and the nonsense of New Agery. 

Bela H. Banathy, author of Guided Evolution of Society, offers this additional understanding of Conscious Evolution:It is a process by which we can individually and collectively take responsibility for our future.It is a process of giving direction to the evolution of human systems by purposeful action.

So basically it's teaching people not to be douchebags.  A noble goal.  Taking responsibility for our future is a great idea for everyone, and it would be especially appealing to atheists but then we get to this:

Conscious Evolution is at the core a spiritually-motivated endeavor. Its precepts reside at the heart of every great faith, affirming that humans have the potential of being cocreators with Spirit, with the deeper patterns of nature and universal design.

Okay, so is it "evolution" or isn't it?  Is it a natural process or a supernatural one?  And which "Spirit" is this, anyway?  Is this a Deist thing?  Taoist?  Christian?  What?

The promise of Conscious Evolution is nothing less than the emergence of a universal humanity capable of its guiding its own evolution into a future of unimaginable cocreativity

Well isn't this just ducky?  Universal humanity.  I'm guessing this woman doesn't watch The News.  Capable of guiding its own evolution?  Assuming such a thing were possible, shouldn't she start by convincing humanity that evolution is a scientific fact?  How can you get people to evolve when they don't believe evolution ever happened?  "Unimaginable cocreativity"  Maybe I shouldn't blog late at night, but this sounds positively orgasmic.  Who would turn down the chance to experience this for only $199 plus whatever it costs to buy all the other crap this site sells and go to workshops?

Oh and the cost of renting a woodchipper to toss your brain into, because that's the only way this stuff could possibly sound like a good idea.

Now, here's the kicker.  They sell all this crap and do workshops all over the country, and then they have the nerve to have a donations page.  And instead of having paypal like every other clever con artist, they set it up as part of their "store" and basically sell you NOTHING... and you're supposed to do this willingly!!!!

...so in conclusion, the STUPID WON'T GO AWAY!!!!  How could people who promote "self-evolution" be such morons?  *cries*  oh wait...

Nevermind

R.I.P. Bin Laden, 5/1/11 ... or 2002?

http://www.a-w-i-p.com/years-of-deceit-us-openly-accepts-bin-la.html

Conspiracy theorists have been claiming for years that ObL died of natural causes in 2002.  I can't wait to see how Prison Planet and other nuttery sites spin the news about yesterday's attack.

They dumped the body into the sea... how convenient.  I hope he doesn't rise from the dead and show up on beaches around the world.  Or perhaps he'll mate with a shark and his evil spawn will terrorize America's beaches.

Is a burial at sea really a good idea?  He could wash ashore and become a trophy collector's wet dream.  His bones would be sold off on ebay one by one, except for a few that would be enshrined somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan.

God Seeks Revenge on Republicans

After punishing Japan for not being Christian, God has turned his wrath to the American South, where his people have been voting for Republicans, often in his name.  Dozens of neighborhoods have been wiped off the map, and hundreds have died.

The following interview explains why:
Interviewer:"Why did you take the lives of so many who were well loved?"
God: "My ways are mysterious."

"What about those who escaped with only minor injuries or were spared altogether?"
"It's a warning.  Stop voting for Republicans, or you're next."

"You sent tornadoes, which could have killed innocent babies and fetuses.  Isn't that unfair?"
*shrug*  "Collateral damage happens."

"What message do you have for those who were severely injured and will go through their lives as amputees or paraplegics?  Should they be grateful to you that they survived, or angry about their life-altering injuries?"
"My ways are mysterious."

"No, seriously.  Half will be grateful and half will be angry.  Who's right?"
"Listen, singling out individuals for retribution is too much like work.  I sent tornadoes, not arrows!  I don't really care one way or another who gets kills, maimed or spared.  It was a message to all of the Republicans."

"That answers my next question: wouldn't some of the victims have been Democrats?"
"Probably.  But they're to blame, too.  Did they volunteer in voter registration drives?  Did they contribute enough money to the campaigns?  Probably not."

"You're not sure?  But you're God!"
*shrug*  "That's too much like work, too.  Listen, if I really wanted to make lists of who did what, would I make Heaven or Hell such a simple proposition?"

"And that is...?"
"If they believe in me, they're in.  If they don't, they go to Hell.  I don't give a crap about all those individual sins.  I wait until a critical mass of sinning pisses me off then I send a tornado or earthquake or plague to tell them all to straighten up."

"Or a Great Flood.  What did all those animals do to deserve drowning?"
"Hey, listen.  I'm God.  I make up the rules.  I spared a few of each species to kickstart the recovery."

"Some animals probably died in the tornadoes too."
"Yeah, probably.  Hey, I miss the days when they'd get barbecued for me at the Temple.  That was some good eatin'.  The ninnies thought that Jesus was supposed to substitute for that, but could I eat my own son?  THEY'RE not supposed to eat the sacrifice, the priests and I get it all.  But that's for another day."

"Another 'act of God' you mean?"
"I'm trying to decide.  I mean, tornadoes & earthquakes are getting old hat.  And you humans are getting too good at sanitation and vaccination for my plague trick."

"You're God, can't you overcome those minor obstacles?"
"heh heh  just keep overusing anti-bacterial soap and you'll see..."

"See what?"
"heh heh my ways are mysterious.  Well, gotta book it. A little kid just got hit by a car and his whole family are praying for him."

"You're going to cure him?"
"Hell no, I'm going to give him a raging infection that will slowly kill him after he 'miraculously' survives emergency surgery.  I love those switcheroos.  Gotta get my laughs somewhere since Seinfeld was cancelled."

Happy Zombie Jesus Day

If I had had doubts about the zombie Jesus sightings reported in the Bible when I was a teen, I don't remember.  The question of whether he rose from the dead didn't really figure into my doubts about the validity of Christianity.  If there was a God, Christianity might be valid.  If there were no god, then it didn't matter what the Bible said, even if some supernatural-seeming resurrection did indeed happen.

But then Elvis died.  Or maybe he didn't.  I was a fan but not a rabid fan.  I had other things on my mind, like boys I knew in person.  But some fans just couldn't accept his ignoble death.  How prosaic of a "king" to die from something as ordinary as a drug overdose.

It didn't take long for him to appear to people, or near people, or near people who knew people, who would then report that he was in fact alive.   I don't recall if the media reported on the similarity between Elvis sightings and Zombie Jebus sightings, but I certainly noticed it.  And I've never forgotten it.  It completely threw the Easter story into doubt for me. If people could imagine they see Elvis in our modern, rational times (heh, my thinking at the time), then certainly superstitious ancient peoples could have made the same mistake.

So now, every Easter, I think of Elvis.  A hunka hunka bloated drug-addicted zombie gobbling up the brains of the gullible.  I wish he hadn't died, but he did.

And then Jesus, like David Koresh, did indeed die from the inevitable backlash against possibly psychotic hubris.  Very sad in both cases.

So, for your Easter reading, I offer an article from one of my favorite organizations, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal: 

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/theres_no_debate_elvis_is_not_alive/

Book Review: The Belief Instinct, a.k.a. The God Instinct

Jesse Bering's book on the psychology of belief was titled "The God Instinct" in the U.K. but released as "The Belief Instinct" in the U.S.  I would love to hear the story of how they decided to change the title.

This is a rare book that cites verifiable research sources and yet reads like something you could pick up at Waldenbooks.  I'll link to some of these sources in this review.

The book starts off rather tedious, but I didn't know a lot of this stuff so I stuck with it.  The main point seems to be that "Theory of Mind" (i.e., theory that others have minds) is behind the need to believe in some intelligence in the universe. 

The next section talks about the concept of having a purpose in life.   I've heard this argument many times from theists:  If you don't believe in God, then your life has no purpose.  Their purpose?  If they're glassy-eyed fundamentalists, it's to glorify god, or perhaps just worship him.  But in reality their purpose is to stay on God's good side so they won't go to Hell.  Ask a Christian sometime if they would still worship God if they knew with 100% certainty they would be going to Hell anyway.  I bet they've never considered that.   If you've never encountered such a theist, I suggest having a listen to this caller (Clifton) on the Atheist Experience.  He demonstrates both of these first two psychological needs perfectly.  Note that it doesn't matter whether any of Christianity is true, only that it supposedly gives one a purpose. Believers don't cling to their religions because they really believe in everything in the ancient texts.  They cling to them because these religions fulfill an existential need and they can't imagine going through life with that need unmet.

The chapter that particularly intrigued me is called "When God Throws People off of Bridges."  There is a remarkable history of people plunging to their deaths from bridge collapses, and preachers afterward trying to defend God's decision to dump them into the drink.

The first of these happened in Britain in 1845.  A crowd of women and children gathered to watch a stunt on the river below.  The bridge collapsed and about sixty children and as many as forty adults lost their lives.  The local reverend urged the grieving townspeople to reflect on their sins, which he blamed for the disaster.  (A local inquest blamed the design of the bridge)

Piaget's theory of the moral development of children to the rescue!  We want JUSTICE!  We want things to make sense.  We want some parental surrogate to sort out the good from the bad and mete out the punishment to those who deserve it.  This is somehow tied to a concept called "intentionality."  Things happen for a reason, and someone intended things to be that way.  When good things happen, it's because we're good people and we deserve it.  When bad things happen we must be to blame, and some supernatural entity metes out the punishment.

So... the more you suffer, the more you believe in God.  If you live in Northern Europe, you're fairly comfortable and you don't need God.  If you're unhealthy and living in poverty in Mississippi you're likely to be part of the overwhelming majority in that state that believe in God.  This whole thing also explains what I considered a surprising denouement in PBS' Nova episode "The Bible's Buried Secrets," that I reviewed here.  When the Jews were defeated and dragged off to Babylon, they became more religious.  It also explains the (false) idea that "There are no atheists in foxholes."  If you believe in your own religion because it helps you deal with existential fears, the fear of death would be the ultimate.  Psychological projection takes it into the realm of the other's mind (theory of mind again).  It's hard to imagine another mind that isn't like our own.

I'm still only halfway through the book but I thought I'd post this half-book review, seeing as I keep digressing into my own ideas anyway!

I recommend it for anyone who is tired of the Science vs. Religion debate.  The scientific method plays into this because of the studies the author cites, but it's about the psychology of belief, which I think is at the root of religion.

While you wait for me to get around to the rest of the book for the second half of my review, check out The author's site

What is the Square Root of a Tomato?

PBS Nova: The Bible's Buried Secrets (a review)

This is must-see TV for Christians, not just because it's about the Bible, but because critical thinking and the scientific method and *gasp* evidence are weighed against the stories of the Bible.  Brilliantly, they take up leads that seem to confirm Biblical stories then look for further confirmation.  Often they find interesting disconfirmation.

Right off the bat, they dismiss Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers as myth.  They also point out that they are so full of discrepancies that they  couldn't have been written by one person (i.e., Moses), more likely five.  Not to mention, Moses couldn't have described his own death.  Incredibly, nobody pointed this out (publicly at least) until the eighteenth century.  They do get back to these books at the end, which I found to be a kind of cool denouement to the story.

They confirm what I've seen on atheist sites, that there's no evidence of Israelites being enslaved in Egypt.   They find that there were indeed people who had been enslaved in Egypt, but they were Canaanites, not Jews.  They returned to Canaan as refugees, and the theory is that these people hooked up with people who had escaped from  slavery in deteriorating city-states in Canaan, and together these cultures became Judaism.  The population in the few settlements in Canaan, ca. 1200, would have been from 3,000 - 5,000.  After the collapse of the city-states there are more sites and the population could have been as much as 45,000.  Sites now have "israelite" houses in egalitarian societies.

Interestingly, the Canaanite earth-mother goddess is Asherah, God's wife.  A gajillion statuettes of her are found in the area.  She has ginormous tits and sometimes is portrayed with a baby on her knee.  Kind of spooky after seeing so many Mary images with the baby Jesus on her knee.  Mary's tits have never been anywhere near as impressive as Asherah's.   She was one impressive fertility goddess.

The show goes to the digs that may have been Solomon's palace, and they theorize about the extent of the Jewish kingdom based on some six-chambered gates (as described in the bible).  Some of the virtual architecture is really impressive and well done.  I appreciate the imagination of it all.

Some things I take exception to:  A Babylonian king who bragged that he'd "killed the king of the House of David" is taken to be proof that David existed.  No, it proves that the expression "House of David" was in use by that time.  The discovery of that phrase would still be significant.  I don't know why they feel they have to take that leap.

In the end, the Babylonian captivity after a humiliating defeat is the catalyst for Judaism to take its final form.  Exiled communities figure out how to practice their religion without a temple to take burnt offerings to, resulting in synagogues.  And the writings that had been rescued from the destruction of the Temple were put together as the Bible by Josiah.

This is where the show takes a crazy turn:  the destruction of Israel and the Temple threw the people into an existential crisis.  Why had their god not protected them?  Rather than adopt the god of their captors (a tradition amongst captives-turned-slaves at the time) they decided to dump Asherah and obey the one-God rule.

Now comes the Torah, a.k.a. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy.  Other than a brief prayer found in a grave, there's no evidence of any of these texts until about this time.  If they were cobbled together from folk tales during captivity, that would explain the angry God of these books.   It would also explain the picky-picky god that has hundreds of rules to follow.

The result is a two-part bible:  The Torah, which is myth and morals, and the historical Bible, which starts with David (if he really existed).  This is the other reason I wish all Christians would watch this.  The stupid fundamentalists who want to believe in an six-day creation and a worldwide flood could take this division as evidence that it's not historical.  I don't see why they would find that so threatening.  If Josiah was as infallible as the Council of Nicea, then does it really matter if the Flood never happened?   Christians are powerful rationalizers.  They believe God's ways are mysterious, he has his reasons, blah blah blah.. why can't God have his mysterious unknowable reasons for putting fairy tales in his holy book?

The timeline of Judaism turns out to be much briefer than I would have expected.  The Canaanite settlements that may have marked the beginning of a Jewish identity dated to ca. 1200 B.C.  The Torah dates to 800-900 B.C. 

The show seems to go backward and forward in time, which makes it a little hard to put together a timeline.  It's based on a book, which makes me want to check out the book.  The book may lay things out in a more linear way.  The book won't have the cool interviews and virtual architecture, though.  So... it's the kind of thing that a book *and* a DVD would be necessary to fully comprehend.

My biggest problem with the whole thing is that the starting point is always the written word.  I wonder what they would conclude if there were no words leading them toward specific conclusions.  For example, they find a huge palatial building just where you'd expect to find Solomon's palace.  I don't think that makes Solomon real.  Imagine someone going to the ruins of Atlanta in 3,000 years, finding evidence of a fire, and then concluding that "Gone with the Wind" was a true historical document.  They would also find several mansions outside of Atlanta that could have been "Tara" too.   At least this shown seems to look at the Bible as the work of human hands rather than divine intervention, but I wish there had been a little more skepticism about the findings.

Except for that, it's fascinating and worth a look-see.  You can see it online here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-buried-secrets.html

PBS's "Nova" tonight: "The Bible's Buried Secrets"

It's a rerun from 2008 but I caught part of it and I'll DVR it to review here.  The part I caught traced the origins of the Jews to Canaanites enslaved by Egypt, who escaped and together with other refugees they created Judaism.  The first reference to a god with a name like "Yaweh" is an Egyptian reference to one that sounds like "Yahoo."  Cracked me up!

I like how PBS ignores religion until right before Easter and Christmas, when they feel obliged to air non-Christian shows for some reason.  Strange, but interesting.


You can get the DVD here:

http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=3333844&cp=&kw=bibles+buried+secrets&origkw=bible%27s+buried+secrets&sr=1

How many of the Old Testament Stories Really Happened?

Christians pick and choose what to believe based on whether the OT stuff conforms to their prejudices.  And then there are the nutters who want to believe the Bible is "history."  Using this timeline, let's see how the OT's Greatest Hits stand up to archaeology, textual criticism, and history:

Creation Story	Disproved
Adam and Eve	Disproved
Flood / Noah's Ark	Disproved
Sodom and Gomorrah	Cities possibly proved
... but the people? probably fables	No evidence
Slavery of the Israelites	Disputed
Job	Doubted by believers
The Plagues	Not true

Calling all Amputees!

You don't have to be a religious nutter to be a "faith" healer (though it helps).  You do have to be a "faith" heal-ee, though.

http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-braco-braco-to-bring-silent-gaze-healing-to-indy-20110329,0,989823.story

This wacky gazing fellow is coming to town.  Notice that the list of things he can "cure" doesn't include amputees?  So, if you know any amputees I can borrow to take to see this guy please send them my way!

I mean, if you can be healed by being stared at, shouldn't all burn victims be healed?  (come to think of it, send them my way too!)  Not to mention, there would be no breast cancer if staring worked!

How does this crap get a foothold?  I thought everyone was supposed to have sufficient health care to get, well... HEALTH CARE now!

Beware: The Elevens

Seen on Facebook:

Sept 11( NY) Jan 11( Haiti) march 11(Japan).. Luke21:10-11, Then Jesus said to his disiples; Nations will rise against nation & Kingdom against kingdom. There will be great earthquakes,famines & pestilinces in various places and great signs from Beacon.'Jesus says behold I come quikly'.(So ask yourself are you ready for his return)? So sad to many wont post!!!

I didn't post a reply.  There's just no room on FB to post all the reasons why this is wrong, conceited, self-centered, hard-hearted, stupid, a-historical and inapppropriate.

Not enough room here, either.  And anyway, I found a picture that says it all.

Okay, let's try anyway.

First, in order to find this "pattern" you have to ignore all sorts of horrible events that didn't happen on the 11th of their respective months.  The Indonesian tsunami happened on December 26.  Christchurch, NZ suffered a terrible earthquake on February 22.  Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Louisiana on August 29.  And of course God attempted to destroy the city of Nashville with a horrendous flood beginning May 1, 2010.  Apparently The Grand Ole Opry offended God.

If you put all those events into a list you see no pattern at all.

Second, if God was sending a message by making earthquakes, how does 9/11 figure into this?  It wasn't an earthquake, famine, or pestilence.  The terrorists weren't a nation or even citizens of the country they were living in, so you can't count that as "nation against nation," either. 

Third, all these things have been happening for all of history.  If you want to be a shyster prognosticator, it's a safe bet that there will be wars, earthquakes, famine and pestilence somewhere in the world most of the time.  It's like dousers finding aquifers (which are under virtually all land).

Fourth, as if we need more reasons to argue against this tripe, why would all this horrible stuff presage Jesus' return?  What kind of god does that?  Wouldn't a loving god say "In order to give you a last chance to repent, I'll give you a two-minute warning (remember, God isn't very good with time, so that would be like 20 years).  I'll send rainbows and cure everyone from their cancers and stop all the locusts from destroying any crops."

Fifth *sigh*  The "endtimes" have come and gone many many many times, most recently in 2007.

I don't de-friend people who post this stuff.  They're nice people and I see them as victims rather than morons.   Still...  I wish they would think a little harder and develop some critical skills.  It's rude of me to argue in a FB thread, and it has to be massively offensive for me to break the unwritten FB etiquette rules.  This one didn't rise to that level but it merited a post and a facepalm.

Godspam, and the Goddamngodspammers who Spam it

I think we've all (atheists and theists alike) received insipid life lesson godspam in our e-mail at one time or another. Some of my friends are so god-soaked (hat-tip to Human Ape for the adjective) that they hardly realize that the feel-good stories they send are religious. After all, a pithy religious note at the end of a long series of cute puppy photos doesn't make an e-mail religious, does it? *facepalm*

Recently, one of my atheist friends at work (yes, I found another one here in Indiana!!!) received the NASA spam claiming to validate two Biblical miracles. It claims that astrophysicists have proved a "lost day" during which the Sun "stood still" in the sky (Joshua 10:12-13) for 23 hours and 40 minutes, and another fable about Hezekiah demanding the Sun go backwards as proof that Isaiah was visiting him as a ghost, filling in the remaining 20 minutes.  *groan*  This is such utter nonsense it ought to make baby Jebus cry.

How can you tell it's nonsense if you're not an astronomer (which I'm not)? Here are some tips:

It's an e-mail that purports there is scientific proof supporting a Biblical miracle. Miracles by definition defy science so this would be big news indeed. And yet the only people who know are the lucky few who happen to be in the spammer's contacts list. Wouldn't this be common knowledge if it were really true?  Here are some clues:

The person sending it is a Christian. There. I said it. Christians are gullible. They are so eager to be right that they will believe anything, from Creationism to the Virgin Mary appearing in an office building window.

NASA scientists are supposedly wasting the taxpayers' money proving a religious myth. That would be unconstitutional, besides also being a waste of time. And anyway, why would NASA worry about something like that when they have bigger problems to solve?

The noble Christian character, who figures out The Truth thanks to his prior indoctrination as a Christian, is a classic trope.  He's the Christian Mulder. Doesn't every conspiracy theory have one? Crackpot loners always have the right answer against common sense and the scientific method. *rolls eyes*  Their colleagues suppress The Truth (tm) and he can only get the message out through spam.

Complete lack of detail, such as dates, references to written articles, etc. That's pretty much a trait of all urban legend type spam too.

...and then as I was getting ready to finish this post and publish it, I find this piece of shit in my e-mail account (sent as an e-mail).  WTF?  How did they get my e-mail address?  That's the most pathetic spam I've ever seen!  Although I have to admit, I am intrigued by the thought that the book teaches the fools how to spot logical fallacies!

WTF?????

I'm sorry, I couldn't think of a better title for this post.

I mean, how do you describe bullshit, complete and utter bullshit, being posted to the blog of a periodical that the general public trusts?

"Extraordinary" claims do not require extraordinary evidence, according to this writer on the Psychology Today blog.

In order to take him seriously you have to completely misunderstand what Sagan meant in the first place.

Extraordinary claims:  i.e., outside the realm of the normal or natural, i.e. supernatural

Extraordinary evidence:  pretty much the same thing

Apparently there's a brouhaha in the psychology field since the publication of an article claiming to prove precognition.  And this idiot is arguing against demanding "extraordinary" evidence in this manner:

The problem with the dictum is that there are no absolute criteria for what counts as “extraordinary claims.”  In particular, what counts as extraordinary depends entirely on what you know and believe.

Well, there's the natural world and the non-natural world.  If you want to claim that the supernatural is natural you do indeed need some damn good proof because you're not just filling in the gap in some huge field of knowledge; you'd be turning all knowledge about the world upside-down.

And apparently "science" is so trendy your a dinosaur if you don't go along with the latest gibberish:

Worse, what counts as extraordinary depends also on the scientific fads and fashion of the time.   The claims of race and sex differences in intelligence were not at all extraordinary a hundred years ago.  They are considered to be extremely extraordinary today, requiring extraordinary evidence.

 Bingo.  Just like religionists, pseudoscientists perform linguistic sleight-of-hand when it suits them:

The claims of race and sex differences in intelligence were not at all extraordinary a hundred years ago.  They are considered to be extremely extraordinary today, requiring extraordinary evidence.

So now we're speaking of "extraordinary" in the sense of unusual, not supernatural.    In Science, knowledge changes based on evidence, testing, and retesting.  That's not faddish, it's the way science is supposed to work.  It's entirely possible for an unusual phenomenon to change the way experts think.  That doesn't mean that supernatural claims shouldn't be held to a higher standard.

Further, this is a false equivalence.  There's nothing about bias in intelligence testing that's the equivalent to claiming precognition because intelligence had previously been established.  Precognition has not been established, unless this supposed study is indeed valid.  Presumably the author of the original study will accept Randi's million-dollar challenge, win, and have plenty of money to validate the earlier "evidence."

Meanwhile, only believers in precognition will believe this stuff.

The offending article is here if you have the stomach for it:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201103/do-extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence

Correlation or Causation?

The attack on Rep. Giffords brought many thoughts to mind, including the issue of women in politics. In the 1970s, when I was learning what my limitations would be in this world as a female, women were just starting to get a toehold in the big wide world outside of the kitchen. Women like Bella Abzug led the way, proving that it's okay to be ugly and smart as long as you're Jewish. (ditto, Joan Rivers, one of my heroes). You could have a public career if you were a female Christian, but it had to be something girly, like writing cookbooks or advice columns. Then of course Phyllis Schafley came along and made a living saying that women shouldn't work for a living. She's the one who really convinced me I didn't have to buy that Christian bullshit about women being Less-Than.

So... anyway... an asshole schizo male shoots a smart, successful female politician and I had to wonder... how many women are out there with targets on their backs? I found a MAP! And looky! Coincidentally, there are more women in state legislatures in "blue" states than in the red stripe up the middle. My current unfortunate geographic choice has about 20% females among the elected officials.

Correlation, causation, or coincidence?

The Power of Prayer?

People are praying for Representative Giffords, which is very nice of them. Meaningless but nice. She's in a medically-induced coma so she doesn't know they're praying. If she knew they were praying for her she might have a somewhat better outcome, but she doesn't so they're wasting their time.


Or are they?



They are the ones reaping any benefit. We all want to be able to help people in need, and that's a good thing. It's frustrating when there's nothing we can do, so prayer offers us that salve to our conscience.

By "us" I mean "they" of course.

Christians have claimed that any neuroscience that explains prayer or belief shows that God intended humans to be believers and made the brain that way. A better explanation is that evolution resulted in a species that survived by cooperation and community. The instinct to intervene when disaster happens, to care for the injured and sick, and to pull together in a crisis is an evolutionary advantage for us humans. We don't all have to be that way for the species to have arrived at our current state, but enough of us are for us to have survived well enough to populate the planet.

So it's only natural that when we can't help in a tangible way, our frustration is difficult to tolerate. Turning to a supernatural entity seems like the only resort. Then when the outcome is positive we credit the supernatural entity, which makes us even more likely to pray in the future.

A reporter asked one of the doctors who worked on Rep. Giffords about what he thought was the reason for her relatively good outcome so far. He ran down a list of all the people who helped her starting from the first moment after her injury, to the surgical staff. Then he added "And luck" for having a survivable wound.

He didn't credit any sky-daddy at all! I bet the reporters in the room heaved a disappointed sigh. TV news loves to report and repeat instances where God gets the credit for good news.

But then there's Judge Roll, who was killed ... right after praying at Mass... because he was "in the wrong place at the wrong time." He had been threatened in the past, and he wasn't the target when he was killed. His demise was an unfortunate instance of bad luck. Likewise, the other victims.

Any time there is a disaster in which there are both fatalities and survivors, the fallacy of counting only the "hits," or confirming instances, rears its head. This time the news that I've seen seems to be holding back on that, though survivors haven't been interviewed yet. I'm encouraged to hear "luck" mentioned. The people who died and the people who lived were both the target of random chance, dependent on the shooter's will and skill, not any sky-daddy's intervention.

We don't like luck. It evens the playing field, and we all want an advantage. But acknowledging the role of luck or chance and learning to cope with the frustration of not being able to influence it is part of growing up.

Deconversion is more than just deciding that certain beliefs are bogus. It's also a gradual process of learning to deal with frustrations such as this. Prayer won't help Rep. Giffords. She doesn't need our blood donation. Her doctors and family are caring for her. We're just bystanders watching the TV news. We can't do anything for her, though we would if we could.

Despite all Christian hoopla to the contrary, most people are nice to other people. Most people would help a person in need if possible. Most of us want to see the rest of us survive and prosper. And that includes atheists.

Science changes its mind again! oh noes!

This week we have another example of science being self-correcting. Andrew Wakefield's "data" blaming vaccination for autism turns out to have been fraudulent. The motive? He was paid by a legal team that planned use the data in lawsuits. How many thousands of children were denied a much-needed vaccine because their parents believed this study?

Of course there was controversy before and after this study. It wasn't "the last word" but it was cited by the anti-vaccination pseudo-science camp, because they needed some "reliable" data to back up their claims. Most responsible doctors and scientists didn't pay much attention to it because there was so much evidence on the other side. But the "believers" loved the bad news. Even if other scientists came up with different results, they had their guy and their study to point to. Most of the sheeple in the anti-vaccination movement won't look for contrary data, but even if they did, the leaders of this "religion" had a fall-back position of "If the experts disagree, then wouldn't it be better to err on the safe side?" It's a medical version of Pascal's wager.

Authority is the main issue dividing believers from skeptics/non-believers, in my opinion. Believers don't just trust their authority figures. They trust that authority itself means "unchanging," and so they won't admit contrary information even if it comes from "trustworthy" sources. This is true of religious people, New Agers, and conspiracy theorists alike. And they will cling to their authority figure even if dozens of authority figures argue contrary positions and back them up with good data.

Fortunately for the world's children, epidemiologists and pediatricians are scientists. They trust the process rather than authority. They know that "information" can change, and the good ones will keep up with the latest research in order to make the best decisions. We everyday non-scientists have put our trust in them though, so they become authority figures for us.

And we don't like change. We want what we learned in middle school science to stay the same. Absorbing new information is exhausting. There's so much of it, and even if we could find it and understand it, how do we know what is "right" when "even the experts disagree?" Medical "journalists" love reporting on the shifting sands of research. They are just as guilty as Wakefield, perhaps more.

We have to trust the judgment experts. And think of how many we trust! We may need a doctor, lawyer, auto mechanic, dentist, veterinarian, exterminator, elevator inspector, 747 pilot, etc. We can't possibly learn what we might need to know about all those fields. Heck, they can't know it all either. Good ones have a network of colleagues to confer with, and there are researchers behind all the people we meet who have been putting together the data to arrive at the conclusions that they pass along in their services.


The scientists behind our technological culture are supposed to be following a code of ethics, but even if they aren't, science will correct the lies because that's what science does. The stance of researchers could be summed up as "Trust but verify." They know that results can be ambiguous, accidental, erroneous or fabricated. The first scientist puts out the preliminary results and accompanying theory, then others set about testing whether the results were valid. So what happened this week is exactly what's supposed to happen: after repeated testing without replication of results, the original study is discredited. The motives of the original researcher really don't matter. Wrong is wrong. Science moves on.

Religion is the opposite. God is the ultimate authority, not data. The people who become the "authorities" on God have hallucinations (like Moses) or suffered a psychotic break (like Paul), or have simply read enough and thought enough about the subject to be smarter than the average person. Priests, pastors, rabbis, imams... they are the auto mechanics of the soul. They study the manual and work things out so you don't have to.

Christians are in a funny bind that way. They accept the authority of Moses, but not of Muhammed. They trust their pastor/minister/priest to discern the truth of the Bible but not an outsider. They even cling to the King James Bible because it has that ring of authority that only outdated grammar can achieve.

New evidence from archaeology, astronomy, biology, and psychology falls on deaf ears amongst a huge segment of Christians (and some other religionists too). They cling to discredited "facts" because to question any of them would be to question their authority figures, right up the chain to God. They also don't want to modify their beliefs because they never put much thought into them in the first place. If they question one tenet that they had blindly accepted as children, then how many others could be up for debate? Religion was taught to them in stories and songs, not in academic journals. They just had to learn the basic points and memorize some words, and they were all set. And deep down they worry that they are living in a house of cards.

Andrew Wakefield's license has been revoked, but I predict his believers won't be deterred. Just like Christians, Jews, Christian Scientists, New Agers, and all the rest, they will continue to point to his "research" as "proof" in shoddy books and websites, and ignore the overwhelming research that contradicts it.

ahhh I can already hear the voice of the Christian internet troll "But you atheists have made up your minds and you won't be convinced no matter what proof is offered!"

• Reminder #1: Most of us were brought up as believers, just as you were
• Reminder #2: Most of us would accept definitive proof of the supernatural. It just doesn't exist.
• Reminder #3: Most of the "proof" offered by Christians has either been debunked thoroughly or is of a nebulous nature in a difficult to research area, such as neurobiology.
• Reminder #4: The ad hominem is the last resort of the losing debater. The "tu quoque" (Oh yeah? You too!) is the weakest of the ad homs.

Jesus vs Shirley MacLaine

Christians have no trouble dismissing Shirley MacLaine's hokum, but they seem completely blind to the thinness of the claims for Christianity.



Let's see how well they compare:

• Jesus (supposedly) claimed to fulfill the historic prophesy of the Hebrews.
• MacLaine's website points to the writings of known historical figures, and these people supposedly back up her claims. Unlike Jesus' prophets, MacLaine's list of luminaries includes people from various epochs, cultures, and walks of life. (Though, strangely, none of them was one of her prior selves)
• Jesus' exploits are written down in four books called "The Gospels," which were most likely written 60-100 years after his death/resurrection.
• Shirley MacLaine wrote eight books about herself (herselves?), and a few other people have written about her. She's also been interviewed dozens of times, and she wrote her own biography for her site. In fact, it's hard to shut her up. So she's much better documented than Jesus.
• The Bible gives us rules to live by, and guidance for everyday decisions. Shirley MacLaine's website includes a daily horoscope, which is much more specific and useful.
• Christianity gives its adherents a community for mutual support.
• Shirley MacLaine's community includes a forum, a chat room, and an e-mail newsletter. You don't have to dress up on Sunday morning, just log on and chat in your jammies.
• Jesus Christ rose on the third day and he lives in the souls of Christians.
• Shirley MacLaine is alive today, and judging by the number of times she's been reincarnated, is likely to be reincarnated again, though three days might be a little fast.
• Christ spent 40 days in "the wilderness."
• Shirley MacLaine went on the pilgrimmage to Santiago. It took her 30 days. A pretty long time considering she was twice the age Jesus was when he went camping.
• Christians, on the whole, are pretty nice people, because they fear going to Hell and hope to go to Heaven.
• People who believe in reincarnation tend to be pretty nice people, because they fear returning as cockroaches or meth heads, and hope to return as Shirley MacLaine.
• Jesus said (supposedly) "I am the way, the truth, and the light."
• Shirley said "I'm a Taurus."
• Jesus has inspired miraculous conversions, including Paul's conversion.
• Christians can persuade God to heal them through prayer, and really popular Christians can get prayed for in prayer circles.
• Shirley's forum has a "Healing Circle" section where people can put in requests for "healing energy."
• Christianity must be valid, because so many people believe in it.
• Shirley MacLaine's books have sold millions of copies, and her website is popular.

Well? I think Shirleyism has just as much claim as Christianity for the souls of humanity. How about you?

How much science does an atheist need to know?

Over and over I see people claiming that the antidote (or antipode?) to religion is science, or perhaps the scientific method. For some of the Big Questions that religion is supposed to answer, that is indeed true. It's sad that so many religionists refuse to accept evolution as the answer to how humans became what we are, but if history is any guide they'll come around. Eventually they decided that the Earth does indeed revolve around the Sun.

The problem for theists, and especially Christians, is that even if they can accept advances in the "hard" sciences and biology, they cling to theology for the other Big Questions. And here they assume that because science threw out parts of Genesis that it will eventually displace everything else the Bible provides.

I think this science issue is why there seem to be so few female athiests. My generation was discouraged from studying science. In my case it was so extreme that my mother refused to give me permission to take AP physics & calculus because "what do you need to learn that stuff for? you're just going to get married and have kids." I also remember receiving such lovely gifts for holidays and birthdays as a Ouija Board, ESP cards, and other nonsense.

When I read blogs and books written by atheists the subject of Science vs Belief comes up quite often. I think you could easily throw out all the sciences and reject belief on your own, though the scientific method and a little logic would help get you there.

For instance, there are many religions in the world. Can they all be true? If you believe they're all true, then you are polytheistic, but most people reject at least some of the other religions as untrue.

If you want to take the position that some religions are true but not others, you need a basis for judgment. From the comments I've seen from theists posting to blogs, the most popular basis is the ad populum. Religions are valid if enough people believe in them. A billion Muslims can't be wrong, can they? So you could draw the line at 1% of the population or more being "right." Christians would of course make an exception for Jews because they are kissing cousins of Christians. They could dismiss Scientologists, Satanists, and Neo-Pagans without regret or further justification this way.

But the Judeo-Christian commandment to "have no other god before me" has been interpreted as "have no other god." So here we say to the Jew, Christian, or Muslim, of all the religions in the world, only one can be right. How do you know that yours is right? If you can't tell for sure which is right, shouldn't the default position be to believe they're all equally wrong?

Reading Randal Rauser's blog I found out that when pushed into this corner the academic wing of Christianity has resorted to calling belief (in their own version of religion of course) "properly basic." This means it requires no justification, just explanation. The everyday Christian resorts to the feeling they get when they worship or think about God as their justification.

While I respect their feelings, their position basically validates all other religions as well, since the adherents of those religions also "feel the spirit." It's not a big leap from "I feel the spirit" to "I feel something which I interpret as a spirit." So unless you're going to validate all other spirits and all other religions, there needs to be some justification for why only one spiritual experience is valid.

Some adherents get around this by acknowledging that other spiritis exist, but calling them "devils" or some such scary opposite of the spirit they like. This isn't quite like acknowledging other gods, since these devils' greatest power would be to drag the soul away from the preferred spirit. But it still doesn't say why one spirit that appears to be warm and fuzzy is superior to other warm & fuzzy spirits.

Coincidentally, the religious right a.k.a. evangelicals, rebel against religious "diversity," don't like having someone with the middle name "Hussein" running the government, and don't want their kids going to public schools. When faced with other religions, and seeing that the adherents of those other religions aren't trying to kill them, they have to admit that their belief is just one of many and not all that special.

Hassidic Jews and some Muslims also put their heads in the sand. In Brooklyn there are religious schools for all three traditions. The children never meet each other except in passing, and are instructed to not to talk to outsiders.

Religion can't exist without either a strong indoctrination program or cultural hegemony. It's a product of the human imagination, and the original stories are equal in validity to fairy tales or fables.

See? No science. One can conclude that religion is based on comforting fairy tales and promoted through cultural means, and that therefore one's own religion and those of others are all false, without any scientific background.

If you do decide that you have burning questions about the nature of the universe, you can read up on the best current thinking, bearing in mind that new information does sometimes change the "facts" as you learn them. There are books and wiki articles that aren't hard to absorb. You might need a dictionary for some of it, but that's part of learning and growing. But it's not necessary for non-belief.

"I don't believe" is all that atheism says about a person. There is no catechism, no reading list, no authority figure, no pithy quotations, and no sacred text. Being a "free thinker" is challenging, but it's also liberating. You can remain ignorant of some things if you want to. Christianity has its default position of "The Lord works in mysterious ways" to respond to the Unknown. My default position is "there's probably a good scientific explanation for this, but I don't have time to figure it out." Knowing that I could figure it out if I applied myself and had the inclination is much more comforting than imagining some fickle supreme being has decided not to reveal it for his own reasons.

It's *not* a Wonderful Life!

Well, it might be or it might not be. I love the sentiment of generosity in that movie but the rest of the message, well...

Let's summarize the plot: George Bailey gets whacked upside the head, loses his hearing, and can't join the army. Fortunately, the whack didn't destroy his ambition; love did that. So instead of going to the big city to be a little fish, he stays "home" and works at the family's savings & loan, then has a few kids and fixes up This Old House.

Being a little soft-hearted (or -headed) he lets his "special" employee take cash to the big bank and the retard loses it to the mean old crippled guy. Yes, Tiny Tim has grown up to be a selfish, mean-spirited MoneyBags who wants nothing less than to destroy all competition and be King of Bedford Falls. Bwahahahahaaaa!!!!!! And we all know that when you put two people with disabilities in the same room together hilarity ensues!

This is Mr. Potter's moment! He calls in feckless George's loan, and now George, Mr. Ambition, contemplates suicide. Because of course we all know that when you have a wife & kids the best thing you can do for them is jump off a bridge. Naturally they'd rather have money than a husband and father.

Oh wait! Here comes an Angel straight from HEAVEN to convince George he shouldn't jump. Why? Because George is popular and lots of people are praying for him. Now we know that all those people who jumped from the Twin Towers on 9/11 were unpopular anyway, since nobody could have been praying for them or else they'd have been rescued.

So this angel, instead of saying "it's only money and there are worse things than being in debt," grants George the wish to know what Bedford Falls would have been like without him. Oh my it's terrible. Mr. Potter is rolling all over everyone, his wife is *gasp* an old maid and *BIG GASP* a LIBRARIAN! *faint* He regrets his wish, his life is restored, and he finds out that he's POPULAR! How does he know he's popular? People shower him with cash to bail him out of a tough spot.

The moral of the story: what goes around comes around? If you're popular God will intervene? Money is the most important sign of love?

Here's what this atheist would like to see:
George Bailey doesn't even know the money's missing yet. God is pissed by what Mr. Potter did, and of course he saw the whole thing. He doesn't have to wait to hear about it on the prayer party line. He smites Mr. Potter, perhaps with a good smack upside the head, and the wad of cash falls to the ground in full view of everybody. The retard who misplaced it is suddenly cured of his affliction, grabs the money and tells everyone exactly how much money it was to prove it belonged to the Baileys. Mr. Potter goes to jail, the retard is now qualified to take over the business, and George moves to TheBigCity with his family after scoring a hostile takeover of Mr. Potter's bank.

That's how a powerful, omniscient, loving, just god would handle the situation. Clarence would get his wings upon arrival in Heaven just for being a nice guy, because that's what God really wants to see -- nice people getting their reward.

Instead, we have a God who needs to be implored for mercy, and is so powerless he has to employ trickery to save a life. He runs heaven like the army, with ranks and seemingly impossible tasks to complete to get promoted.

Theologians probably don't like this movie much, either, but it resonates with people even decades after its release because it fulfills the fantasy role that religion has in so many lives: prayer works, God works in mysterious ways, the "reality" one person experiences is really true no matter how bizarre, and even though money doesn't matter, in the end it really does.

Of course this could never happen today. Banks have security cameras now so they don't need God looking in on them.

What is a "miracle?"

I've been reading John Loftus' Why I Became an Atheist lately, and had just started on the chapter discussing theories of miracles when I broke one of my own rules: not to debate religion with FB friends.

Well, I didn't really debate religion so much as dispute the assertion that the safe rescue of the trapped Chilean miners was a "miracle." Instead of biting my internet tongue, I asked whether the engineers didn't deserve some credit. My friend responded, and I just pointed out that her post seemed to give God 100% of the credit. She agreed that the engineers had done a great job and all is happy again in Facebookland. *whew*

But then... I had CNN on while making dinner and one of their interviewers was saying what a "miracle" it was. So apparently, "miracle" is synonymous with "happy ending" since this guy wasn't invoking God particularly. A search of the CNN website yields several hits for the word "miracle" relating to the miners' situation, but not this particular broadcast. I wonder now just how often it was used.

So what is wrong with simply having a 'happy ending?' CNN is the worst for obsessing on one topic and overdramatizing it, yet they did show the planning and logistics of the rescue in great time-filling detail. They had diagrams, experts, people on the scene, and every resource they needed to tell this very human and natural story. And yet they called it a "miracle," not a "triumph of engineering."

Perhaps the lack of serious supernatural claims in our time has watered down the concept to the point that any good thing that happens in the presence of Christians can be termed a miracle. We haven't seen Moses parting the waters, eight days of light from a one-day supply of oil, or dead people walking around (unless you count Elvis). So Christians have to take their "miracles" where they can find them, or invent them.

I have CNN on now, and they're reliving the whole thing. Can't waste all that good video! One commentator says it reminds him of watching Neil Armstrong landing on the moon. I remember the moon landings too. I don't remember calling them "miracles" though. Our heroes were computers, dorky men in white shirts, and the brave men who volunteered to make the trip. I credit these same heroes for the safety of the Chilean miners too.

What would a real, supernatural, old-fashioned Old Testament miracle have looked like in Chile?

For starters, perhaps the mine wouldn't have collapsed in the first place. If God is so great, why did he endanger all those Christians?

Another good one would be opening a crack in the earth, without dropping any rocks on the noggins of the miners of course, then having the miners fly upwards and land on a soft bed of uncharacteristic fluffy white snow that had fallen just at the same moment.

Or how about this? The miners die, and then their bodies be brought back to the surface in body bags, and then one by one you hear "hola" coming from under the zippers. That would be chilling, and it would make great video too, as the frantic relatives unzipped the zombie body bags and hugged their resurrected loved ones.

Or maybe a mudslide opens up a crack in the earth and pushes the miners out through an unknown fissure in the earth, and the earth poops them out in a geologic diarrhea of Biblical proportions? It would be even cooler if they came out at a nesting ground for penguins, and the penguins lie on their bodies to warm them up. An all-powerful all-knowing compassionate loving God could do that. A side benefit would be convincing the heathens of his existence. Might prevent another 9/11 as a side benefit. Wouldn't that be cool?

No, all this omnipotent being does is make sure that all the equipment works properly and that the engineers don't do something stupid like calculate in meters and engineer in inches.

whoop-de-doodly-doo

I'm very impressed

...NOT!

"I'll Pray For You" -- Gee, thanks. Knock Yourself Out

Last week a friend's prayer circle prayed for someone who'd been in a car wreck, and the person got better. Too bad they didn't pray for her not to get into a car wreck! Well, maybe God wanted her to suffer so his believers would say a lot of prayers. Or maybe he sent a bunch of cars crashing into each other that day and whoever got the most prayers gets to live another day. They suffer more than the ones who die, but hey it's a small price to pay for being God's next American Idol.

Meanwhile, my little doggie has cancer, and was doing very poorly last week. I took her to her oncologist, who diagnosed the problem (not the cancer, but the cancer made it worse), took appropriate treatment, and now doggie feels better. Nobody prayed for her. I wasn't optimistic about the outcome, and I bawled like a baby. I know this doggie will die soon, and I thought this was "it." There's no chance that "wishful thinking" even played a role in exerting some magic woo toward the outcome.

"His eye is on the sparrow," and apparently also little doggies. Yet he lets people get into near-fatal car wrecks just to see if people will pray over them? What the heck?

It seems to me (not a scientific study!) that women are quicker to call up a prayer circle, offer to pray for you, or to credit the divine for the good outcome of their fervent mentations. I've never had to deal with the prayer business with men the way I do with women. When they blather on about how God saved so-and-so I don't point out the fallacy of confirmation bias or the fact that people die every day despite fervent prayers. I just nod and say "that was lucky" or something equally lame yet polite.

We atheists don't have the equal and opposite power to annoy. If I tell a believer that doggie got IV fluids and a different chemo, they won't think "oh that had nothing to do with it -- it was God!" And they probably don't get this uncomfortable feeling of wondering what's the right thing to say. I suppose some bite their tongue and refrain from saying "Praise God," but I wish more of them would do that!

Well, off to ebay to look for a divining rod. Perhaps I can influence doggie's fluids and save some money.