The Week in Women

Lately, there have been so many stories that are really about women & girls that I decided to do a link round-up just of stories about women this week:

Drop in NYC teen pregnancy rate proves that sex education and availability of contraceptives 1) reduces unwanted pregnancy and 2) does not increase sexual activity.

Mary Ingalls, one of the real-life girls in the Little House series, did not go blind from scarlet fever, but most likely from "brain fever," a.k.a. viral meningoencephalitis.

Serial flashers in Houston spend little time in jail.  Creepy!

 Al-qaeda goons rape the women of Timbuktu.  Jihad is just a cover for men behaving badly.

Poor women in India receiving unnecessary hysterectomies for the insurance money.

Ministry reaches out to strippers to help them get out of the biz.  Now this is a cause secularists should take on!  Instead of asking "what does God want you to do?" we should reach out to these women and say "imagine your income if you earn a scientific or engineering degree!"  Of course, there are a lot of women stripping for their tuition money (I knew one personally in Texas), so it would be tough to top that money.

In Egypt, women protesters have been raped at protests.  Now they have even more to protest about.

Women and young people in Saudi Arabia are working against extremism.   Women can't even drive a car there.  They have a long way to go.

Biblical justification for women in combat.  Let's hope this trend doesn't slide down the slippery slope to justifying slavery, genocide, and capital punishment for minor offenses.

The best news, Malala goes home after successful surgery.  I wish she hadn't credited prayer for her recovery, but from the point of view of her cause that's the best thing she could have said.  Women have much greater chances of equality if it can be presented as compatible with religion.  Religion is just a tool for weak men to suppress women.  Strong men don't feel threatened by an educated woman.

Five Bad Arguments for Christianity

These bad arguments come from theistic sources trained in the field of Philosophy, which right there makes them suspect in my mind.  Philosophy only proves or disproves something within its own framework.  It doesn't account for evidence, which is a huge problem.  It also doesn't provide a method for taking down an argument based on faulty premises.  Some Christian arguments have such faulty premises that they're obviously flawed, but I chose these because they're often brought up in debates with atheists.  Some (Christian) philosophers will even snootily put down "evidentialism" or "naturalism" as if the basis for science (a.k.a. the study of reality) is a faulty reasoning system.  They know that the existence of God can't be proved by the scientific method so they fall back on philosophical argumentation.  They live in their own little world and they play by their own rules then claim they win because the rest of us live in reality.

Ontological Argument:  "I can imagine a God so great that there can't be anything greater, therefore God."  Or maybe "The idea exists therefore it's real."  The problem with this is of course the hubris of the philosopher thinking that his mind is so great it can define reality.  In The Forest People, by Colin Turnbull, an anthropologist studying Mbuti Pygmies in Africa travels with his guide to a hill overlooking a savannah, something the guide had never seen before.  Animals in the distance appear to get bigger as they approach the hill.  The guide is terrified.  He's never seen an animal grow before his eyes. He had never seen anything at a distance because he lived his life in forests.  Was he stupid?  No, his imagination was limited by his experience.  That's true of all of us, even people who have Ph.D.s in philosophy from Cambridge or Harvard.

Argument from Ignorance:  "I can't imagine there's another explanation for [fill in the blank with almost anything from nature], therefore God."  This argument also sometimes gets used by "UFOlogists" and other delusionals.  This argument proves nothing except the limited imagination of the person making the claim.  It's a favorite of creationists, who will say "Scientists don't know everything, therefore God."   Creationists' favorite is the gap between species in the fossil record.  Fossils don't document every tiny stage of evolution for each species, because 1) fossils are rare and 2) fossils rarely get discovered even if they survive the millenia.  The biggest problem with this argument is that if there's something that's not known, how could it not being known it be proof of anything at all?  It's not known!  You could make up almost anything!  "Scientists haven't discovered the missing link between Austrolopithicus and Homo Sapiens, therefore man is the product of space aliens breeding with Austrolopithicus."

Argument ad Populum:  "Religion is popular, therefore it's true."  A billion believers can't be wrong... unless they're the billion or so who are Muslims.  Or the combined four billion (at least) who aren't Christian.  A variation is the number of people over time who have believed something.  "People have been devout Christians for two thousand years, therefore it must be true."  If time were the main proof of validity of a belief wouldn't Zoroastrianism or Buddhism have a leg up on Christianity?  (This is also called Appeal to Tradition)  This argument never works on me because my grandmother said to me at least once a week all through my childhood "If [kid I liked] jumped off a bridge would you jump off too?"

Cosmological Argument: "The stars, therefore God."  Also, "The Universe, therefore God." This is a favorite of William Lane Craig, "professional philosopher," or more properly "master debater."  (Note, I think Craig is a dumbass)  He wins debates by cluttering up his arguments with red herrings, but the essence of his argument is that it's absurd to believe the universe could come into being without a mind whipping it up.  (Perhaps a kind of ontological argument by proxy)  He conveniently doesn't think it's absurd to believe a god could come into being without some other greater mind whipping it up or else he wouldn't be able to make a living.  Note, this argument has been around for centuries and it's still the best thing WLC can come up with.  With all that populum being believers for all those centuries, shouldn't there be a few good ideas surfacing eventually?

Pascal's Wager:  "If I'm right I win!  If you're wrong you burn!  therefore, God"  (Named for the medieval dude who came up with the idea)  Again, lack of imagination.  There may be more than two possibilities, and betting on only one of them isn't that smart if you haven't investigated every one of them thoroughly.   If someone throws Pascal's Wager at me, I answer: "What if you're wrong and Buddhists are right and you'll have to live through 500 lifetimes as a cockroach because you claimed to know something you couldn't possibly know?"

Christians really believe that these are closers.  It's the best they have, which is really sad.  Well, they sometimes pull out the "I feel the presence of god in my soul" crap, which isn't really an argument as much as an admission of neurological disturbance.  (I've blogged about that here and here)

Fortunately, the Everyday Atheist doesn't have to get a Ph.D. in philosophy to shoot down Christian argumentation.  If this post has put the debating fire in your belly, there's plenty more to stoke it out on the interwebs:

• Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God Theistic but much less rabid than the typical Christian apologetics page.  Atheists offer advice on rebuttals here.
• Timeline of World Religions
• Nizkor exhaustive list of fallacious arguments
• Cosmological Argument:  articles at infidels.org
• Video: A Universe from Nothing, by physicist Lawrence Krauss, introduced by Richard Dawkins, biologist and atheist who famously refuses to debate William Lane Craig.  Krauss puts the kibosh on the kalam in the video and in the book.

Dangerous Persuasions: Scientology on Investigation Discovery

Dangerous Persuasions.  Season One.  Episode One.

Wow.  This woman joined Scientology, got exploited doing crazyass work, then was promoted to being a spy.  On orders of Scientology, she got a job in a psychiatry office, and she took documents home, had them copied, then sneaked them back into the files.  She also spied on an author, Paulette Cooper, who wrote a book against Scientology: The Scandal of Scientology.  (Available for download at her site)

After spying on a Suppressive Person , she gets transferred to headquarters (Sea Org), and enjoys only a brief period of having some bit of respect.  But at HQ any misstep can result in being rehabilitated.  This rehabilitation consists of menial jobs at HQ, such as janitorial or food service.  The only way out was to write an essay saying how horrible she was and getting everybody else to sign it.  Everybody!  They imposed this ridiculous punishment on her while she was pregnant.

Humiliation served its purpose, making her duly afraid to piss off the superiors.  After this, she and her husband get transferred to Hollywood to oversee the fleecing of celebrities.  They get called back to Sea Org for more rehab, but this time they decide to leave Sea Org and just be regular Scientologists, like regular Catholics, I guess.  She deconverts, and Scientology can't tolerate that.  They subject her to brutal interrogation techniques, or more properly, psychological torture.  After being sent back home, the poor thing snaps completely, and winds up in a mental hospital.  This gets her husband's attention, and he also deconverts.

At the very end, she says how she's at peace, but she looks a little drugged and creepy, which is unfortunate.  She was probably just a little tired, or maybe she was trying to convince herself that she really was on the other side of her experiences.  I wonder how truly peaceful a person can be when they know they are a "Suppressive Person" in the eyes of such an evil organization.

Piers Morgan advertised having a former Scientologist on tonight.  I wonder if it will be her.

A few links

Extreme Sports "star" dies.  Now the only prize he can win is a Darwin Award.

Abortion protester banned from all of D.C.  I wonder how that will stand up in court.  I think considering his latest stunt was climbing a tree in the freezing cold without gloves, he could easily be committed for being a danger to himself or others.

Lawrence Krauss on the difference between science and religion (from the Why Evolution is True blog)

Live by the Sword, die by the sword...  this murder is a shame, but the real question is, will conspiracy theorists blame Jesse Ventura?

India will have a Violence Against Women act finally.  Perhaps they will shame Congress into reauthorizing the U.S.'s Violence Against Women Act.

Perhaps that's because one of Hinduism's sects is called "Smartism."

Pedophile priest still gets a promotion in Newark, N.J.  His name is "Fugee."  Wyclef Jean could not be reached for comment.

The Los Angeles Archdiocese released info on 122 pedophile priests, and relieved Cardinal Mahony of his "duties" for his role in covering up sex abuse.  Better late than never?  (the L.A. Times has some of the documents online here)

There's a new book out on Scientology, but you can't get it in Canada.

Next weekend is Evolution Weekend... in churches!

Links Links Links

Just a few this week:

Atheist mom blogs on CNN, with excellent list of things that are wrong with "God."   (h/t Kriss!)

Dolphin swims up to divers for help with fishing line!  Amazing video.   People like this are the reason why I really really really hate the Christian notion that humans are evil depraved sinners.  I disagree.  We can be totally awesome.

India has naked nuns...  well, they could go naked 24/7 but they don't.  Still, it's an interesting sect within an interesting sect.

Why Jews gravitate to Buddhism.  Don't miss the punchline of the opening story!
United Methodist online bookstore pulls its Lego assault rifle manual.  I feel safer now.

The only survivor of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing tells her story.

Oh rats!  Now I have to go back to Paris.  The Louvre just opened its new Islamic Art wing.

The LA Archdiocese of the Catholic church is releasing information on its pedophiles.  Well, really they're releasing documentation about how they hid the information from the public.

Is the YMCA just "The Y" now?

I grew up in a city that had only one health club:  the YMCA.  If you wanted to be a competitive swimmer or one of the cool kids or prove that your parents were richer than my parents, you belonged to the Y.  Then when I grew up I moved to Brooklyn, where there was a YMHA.  The "H" was for Hebrew.  They didn't exclude non-Jews but it was clear they wanted to do for Jews what the YM"C"A did for Christians -- provide healthy activities.  Good for them.  I joined a for-profit health club so I didn't have to explain myself at the H.  It never made any sense to me why there had to be a religious affiliation to swim laps or do jazzercize.  Over the years I've joined other clubs, but never had any religious entanglements.  Even Krav Maga, which is based on Israeli military self-defense training, had no religious significance except that some of our classes were at the local Jewish Community Center.

Meanwhile, from the web, or maybe TV, dunno... I got the idea that the YMCA was trying to dissassociate from the "C" and just call itself the "Y."

I looked up the local "Y" on the web because I want to swim laps.  I see the logo on the front page.  So far so good.  Mostly Y.  No emphasis on the "C."  They even state their purposes in secular terms:  For youth development, For healthy living, For social responsibility.

Well this sounds nice doesn't it?  I decided to check out the adult programs.  As I read down the list, it looked like the usual health club offerings but then...

• Wellness
• Basketball
• Volleyball
• Swim Lessons
• Private Swim Lessons
• CPR Training
• Bootcamp
• Group Exercise
• Tennis
• Bible Study
• Strength Training
• Personal Training
• Climbing Wall

 What what WHAT?  Bible Study???  There's no book club (for other books) or GED class or any other kind of "study."  But they seem a little embarrassed about it, and they just bury the Bible Study in between Tennis & Strength Training.  

I couldn't resist.  I had to look it up, and it cracked me up.  Here's the description of the downtown "Prayer and Share" class:  Our non-denominational adult fellowship group meets Wednesday mornings at 9-10 in the Downtown Y conference room. Led by Karen Wenger, the group shares payers, praises and concerns, a devotion and meaningful fellowship. No books or fees required.

No books at all?  Not even a Bible?  That's rich.  Here's the other "Bible" Study: This session's theme is "The Patriarch" by Beth Moore All are welcome! We are not affiilated with a specific church or denomination. We enjoy a variety of participants from all around the Muncie Community. Come join us!

Okay, so they have a couple of watered-down Christian feel-good "classes" for personal well-being.  Or maybe all those jocks who play basketball and lift weights won't go to a Bible study that actually requires studying the Bible. So maybe this Y isn't necessarily a Christian thing with a big "C" is it?  Anyone can rent space or set up a class in a library, too.  The "Bible Study" might not mean anything...

So I move on to the page with the membership fees.  And then it's very clear that this is indeed a Christian organization.  The "Y" may be their biggest letter but it's right here in black and white:

• FAMILY MEMBERSHIP CATEGORIES ARE DEFINED USING IRS STANDARDS
• FAMILY MEMBERSHIP - HUSBAND AND WIFE PLUS TAX DEPENDENTS
• SINGLE PARENT FAMILY - UNMARRIED ADULT PLUS TAX DEPENDENTS
• HUSBAND & WIFE - LEGALLY MARRIED MAN AND WOMAN

http://www.muncieymca.org/membershipfees/ 

This means you, GAYS!  Register separately and pay twice you sinners!

Seriously?  They felt they had to say that?  Did they think that single people would fake being gay to get a discount?  Or are they just trying to scare the gays away?  I've seen some pretty buff gay people.  If you are the type of person that believes you can study the Bible without actually reading it, I can only imagine what your work-out routine is like!  The gays would put you to shame!!!

So in the end, I've decided to just do some walking around the neighborhood for and then in the summer possibly join one of the local private pools (assuming they let gays and black people and other types of mutants join).

If they're going to make a statement on their membership page, then I'll make a statement by not joining.

...and by blogging about their bigotry.



.

Domincan Friar fired for Mythicist book

http://www.thesun.ie/irishsol/homepage/news/4754775/Pulpit-Fiction.html

Thomas Brodie's book Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus is now high on my must-read list!  It's the ultimate in courage when someone whose livelihood depends on a religion comes out against it.  It's costing him his life-long profession and probably dozens of personal relationships.  I applaud his courage "coming out," though apparently he's been dancing around the topic in his publishing career.

In general, I'm surprised at the total-mythicist stance, i.e. that Jesus never existed at all.  I had kind of assumed that Jesus had been a rabbi with a bit of a following who did get crucified, but whose "resurrection" was more like Elvis sightings.

I'm currently reading a self-published book that synthesizes the research and arguments behind the mythicist position:

Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed by David Fitzgerald.

I just finished the section that rips apart the gospels.  I never knew that Mark gets details wrong that a Jew would have known.  Then, Matthew comes along and corrects it and Jewifies Christ a bit more.  Luke meanwhile makes Jesus a bit more like the Jebus we know and love, and then John is off-the-charts nutty for Christ and at the same time anti-semitic despite worshiping a Jew.

Fitzgerald also validates my opinion that John is the Republican gospel.  I've noticed that the least "Christian" Christians tend to put more faith in John and quote John more often than any of the other gospels.   Quite the eye-opener, with references for deeper reading. John's Jesus is no poor-loving meek-inheriting Jesus. He's Superhero Jesus!

I was planning to review this book by Fitzgerald but every page (or Kindle screen) is so packed with information I'll just recommend it for anyone wanting an overview of the problems in the whole "Christ was a Real Person" idea.  (There are many!)