New Godspam

One of my coworkers received this pack of lies (debunked on Snopes):

God vs. Science

"Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'


'Yes sir,' the student says.


'So you believe in God?'


'Absolutely '

'Is God good?'


'Sure! God's good.'


'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'


'Are you good or evil?'


'The Bible says I'm evil.'


The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'


'So you're good!'

'I wouldn't say that.'


'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'


The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'


The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'


'Er...yes,' the student says.


'Is Satan good?'


The student doesn't hesitate on this one... 'No.'


'Yes, but - where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'


'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'


'Yes, sir.'


'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'


'Yes'


'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'


Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'


The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'


'So who created them ?'


The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'


The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'


The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'


'No sir. I've never seen Him.'


'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'


'No, sir, I have not.'


'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'


'Yes'


'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demon-strable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?'


'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'


'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '


' Yes'.


'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, no, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can get down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'


Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.


'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'


'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'


'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'


The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'


'My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'


The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'


'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'


'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'


'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'


The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.


'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'


The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so.. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir. So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'


Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'


'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world.. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'


To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.


If you read this all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail to your friends and family with the title 'God vs. Science'.


PS: The student was Albert Einstein.


Albert Einstein wrote a book titled 'God vs. Science' in 1921...

I love the graphic it came with.  What was she saved from?  Certainly not ignorance, stupidity, or gullibility. 

I saw the above graphic on Facebook yesterday and I grabbed it in case I might want to use it someday.  I thought I'd have time to photoshop the spelling but no, already today I have found something so stupid it deserves this graphic:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/higher-things/2012/apr/21/science-and-common-sense-point-gods-existence/

After raising the Kalam cosmological argument and the argument from complexity as supposed proof of a scientific explanation of god, the author ends his claim that science makes god's existence probable with this zinger:

But if you wish to be more than just a rational theist whose belief is based on science and common sense, there is a way to know God more intimately. It is by personal revelation. If we sincerely turn to God, he will reveal himself in our hearts. He told us so himself: “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”

Okay, so personal revelation in your heart is scientific just how exactly?

Just yesterday I posted about the part of the brain that is most probably the location of "revelation in the heart."

So science says "god" is a product of quieting one part of the brain.  Justifying your faith by referring to "science" apparently requires the quieting of several more parts of the brain.

Oh, and what a "win" for Christians that Dawkins is willing to use the word "agnostic."  Apparently they are too lazy to read his book, or the dictionary definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic."

What Really Happened to Paul on the Road to Damascus

Recent research may have given us an answer to the question of what really happened to Paul:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/god-spot-in-brain-is-not-_n_1440518.html?ref=topbar

“We have found a neuropsychological basis for spirituality, but it’s not isolated to one specific area of the brain,” said Brick Johnstone, professor of health psychology in the School of Health Professions. “Spirituality is a much more dynamic concept that uses many parts of the brain. Certain parts of the brain play more predominant roles, but they all work together to facilitate individuals’ spiritual experiences.”

In the most recent study, Johnstone studied 20 people with traumatic brain injuries affecting the right parietal lobe, the area of the brain situated a few inches above the right ear. He surveyed participants on characteristics of spirituality, such as how close they felt to a higher power and if they felt their lives were part of a divine plan. He found that the participants with more significant injury to their right parietal lobe showed an increased feeling of closeness to a higher power.

Since Paul didn't have these experiences at random moments throughout his life, it's possible he had something like an ischemic stroke, or a febrile seizure located just there.  Or perhaps it was just the D.T.s.

The Huffpo article indicates that "spiritual" experiences need not be spiritual.  They can be aesthetic.  I have had aesthetic experiences that were downright spooky, but I understood what they were.  They happened at concerts and it's only happened a few times.  The first was a cello performance when I was in high school.  The second was a jazz performance when I was in college.  The third was the Tokyo String Quartet.  The author of the study has these experiences while listening to Led Zeppelin. 


Is it any wonder that most cultures use music and sometimes dance to induce "spiritual" experiences?  The Huffpo piece mentions "meditation" which is actually less common around the world than music and dance as a tool.  Could the black church in America and other African-influenced religious practices survive without music?  Is it any accident that Rick Warren has a "praise band" and evangelicals use Christian rock to keep the young'uns in line?

Now I have only one more question:  would Jesus play a Fender or a Gibson?

What I've Learned from Watching Eagle Families

I have often taken offense to claims that Americans, or Christians, or Midwesterners, or our team are "the greatest" when we come to the aid of neighbors or are altruistic in any way.  If you watch (rare in the U.S.) television coverage of floods or earthquakes in other parts of the world, people act pretty much the same as they do in saintly U.S. of A.

Then there's the Christian claim that we would all be horrible people if not for their purported influence on our behavior.  They have been so brainwashed to believe that they're sociopathic rapists, killers, and thieves that without their Ten Commandments they'd be running rampant.  They blame the lack of prayer in the schools for whatever evils they see around them even if the actual amount has declined.  (such as the teen birth rate, except in fundy states, where it has increased).

So when I indulge my current addiction of watching eagle nestcam, I can't help but notice how many of their "instinctive" behaviors are as altruistic as some of ours.  Then I've been reading up on the species and found out some other facts.  I've especially learned about what good parents they are.

First, eagles mate for life. They are probably more loyal to each other than human couples are, and they don't have any Commandment about adultery to worry about.  They build a nest and raise clutch after clutch there, making the nest bigger each year.   If a nest blows down in a storm the next year they will rebuild, sometimes choosing a different tree.  This week a nest burned in a forest fire.  There was no hope for the babies, but the parents will probably return and start over next year.

They feed each eaglet equally.  They may feed one first, or a bit more during one feeding or another, but they don't play favorites.  None of this "Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated" shit.  Score one for eagles over humans.  (My brother was my mother's favorite, and don't let him tell you otherwise!)

They will take in eaglets that have been placed in their nests.  If a strange child showed up in a human home, it would be taken in.  Tie there.

The Decorah pair of certain roles but they share duties.  Dad does a lot of hunting and fishing.  Mom keeps the babies warm at night.  Dad watches over the nest from above while Mom sleeps.  Both of them will fight off raccoons or other animals that get too close.  One year the mom died and conservationists worried whether the babies would survive.  Dad took over the duties and the eaglets grew up just fine. 

The pair do some behaviors I would not have expected in birds.  Dad will bring home a fresh fish and start chomping away at it and then feed Mom the way he would feed an eaglet.   It looks real sweet, or perhaps he's learned to always give her the eyes of the fish or she'll peck him.  Yes, they bicker.  But they get over it.  They're adults.

They arrange their nest, usually just making sure the kids are warm unde mom.  But sometimes seem to bring in a twig or corn husk with no particular reason, then put it right in front of a baby.  "Here baby, play with this."  Of course, the baby will need to learn to manipulate twigs to make his/her nest one day.  The parents seem to "know" this.

When rain is on the way, dad will bring in extra fish.  When the rain arrives, mom makes sure all their little heads are under her (they're all too big to fit in the nest bowl they hung out in as newborns).  Does Dad know they need extra energy to fight the cold?  Does mom know that heat is lost through the head?  Do they know that the babies have down, which is not waterproof, before they have feathers?  Seems like it. 

Eagles are very large birds.  Are they "thinking" with larger brains than say, a chicken?  Well, I rather doubt that brain size is why they do all the "right" things.  Several years ago my zebra finches had a clutch of babies and they were also excellent parents.  In their case, Dad made sure that each baby got a little of each of the goodies I put in their cage:  bird food, hard boiled egg bits, chopped kale, and water.  He would do the rounds of all these goodies and then go into the nest and feed the babies.  Why did he do this?

Because being good to others (or at least our babies) is instinctive for many species.

...and then the babies are old enough to fly and eat on their own, and they have to leave and start the whole cycle over.  The parents don't send them to Hell forever for saying "I hate you."  They don't require the babies to follow artificial rules that don't make sense.  They're good  parents.

God "the Father" is a bad parent.  He lets his "children" starve.  He lets his children get cold.  He plays favorites.  He rejects the "children" of other gods.  He lets predators get hold of his kids.

Comparing the parenting qualities of eagles to the parenting of "God the Father," it's easy to see why tribes might worship an eagle god or goddess.  Wouldn't an eagle feather on your headdress be a better symbol of trust in a good parent than a cross pendant, the symbol of a parent who abandoned his favorite child and made him a sacrifice in exchange for the lives of his brats?  'Look how my good father chose to let his best kid suffer?  Whattaguy!

Who would you rather have as a parent?  God?  or an eagle?

 

Vote against "Faith!"

A nesting pair of eagles at the Davenport, Iowa Alcoa plant has hatched three healthy eaglets.  The pair are predictably named "Liberty" and "Justice."  They held a poll to name last year's singleton, and the winning name was "Freedom."  So far so good.

This year there are three eaglets, and Alcoa has narrowed the online poll to a selection of names, and one of the names is "Faith."

*facepalm*

So tell your friends, even if they're not American, that the symbol of American strength should *not* be named "Faith!" and get them to vote here or here.  Keep in mind the sex of the eaglets has yet to be determined, so the choices such as "Orville, Wilbur, and Amelia" could result in a girl named Wilbur.  But it would still be better than spoiling the tradition of naming the eagles for valued American principles by naming one of them "Faith."

We chose the bald eagle as an American symbol for its ability to swoop down on a squirrel or duck or carp and rip it to shreds.  They do not pray they prey.

So vote for Orville, Wilbur & Amelia - famous flyers all, even if one wind up as a girl with a boy's name.  She'd rip you to shreds if you made fun of her.

"The Woman Who Wasn't There"

I watch the "Investigation Discovery" channel quite a bit and they've been advertising a documentary called "The Woman Who Wasn't There." (link to Variety review)  It's the story of Tania Head, who claimed to survive the Twin Towers' collapse on 9/11.  She kept up the lie for several years and became a leader amongst 9/11 survivors until she was busted by the New York Times.  Online we call these people trolls.  In the psychology literature they're victims of Munchausen Syndrome by proxy, or "factitious" disorder, i.e. big fat liars.The commercial is awesome.  A deep, booming voice says: "She made it. all. up."

I recently also saw a rerun of 20/20 about a hoax in which a woman pretends to be her abused adopted son.  The "son" wrote a book that was very inspirational, and the debunking inspired an HBO movie and an episode of Law & Order.  Apparently there have been other instances like this.

Snopes has linked this case to that of "Kaycee Nicole."  (they need to update this article!)  There have probably been many more of these.  The motive seems to be attention for whoever made it up.  Sometimes there may be money involved.  In the internet cases no actual children have been harmed.  In the 9/11 fake survivor story, the situation is a bit different in that the whole thing is about Tania Head, and her fiancé who perished in one of the towers (a real victim, but who had never actually met her).

Why am I blogging about this?

Well, in the canon of Reasons Why the Bible is Bullshit, we fail to acknowledge the potential for one or more of the founders of Christianity to have been a big fat liar along the lines of these people.  The other reason is that Christians frequently point to the benefits of religion, which presumably would override the falsity of their basis.  Supposedly this 9/11 faker helped other people, so we're supposed to have mixed feelings about her.  Sure, she's a liar, but look at all the good she did!  I can almost hear Christians saying "Okay so you think Jesus wasn't a magical half-god miracle worker, but look at all the good that came from the fairy tale!

Imagine if this woman had managed to convince people that she died at the Twin Towers and was resurrected by a supreme being that was visible in the smoke... or pieces of toast, or whatever.  Imagine if Paul had this disorder.  Or Moses.  Or Mary.  What if Mary had made up these stories?  Nobody would question the motives of a grieving mother, would they?  What if instead of being a schizophrenic suffering from hallucinations and delusions of grandeur, Joseph Smith had simply been a big. fat. liar?  Or L. Ron Hubbard?  (heh, well...)

Somehow we imagine the people of ancient times to be wiser than us, more honest than us, yet more violent than us, and also stupider than us.  We don't consider that they might be pretty much just like us.  Some were liars.  Some were gullible dupes.  Some were vicious.  Some were kind.  Some were skeptical.  (probably)  And some could have invented entire religions out of whole cloth.  If the Christian can resort to "well, it's possible therefore believable" (or even probable), then we should counter with "It's also possible that the people who wrote the Bible made the whole thing up for their own purposes."

Wait.... there were historical events and actual kings mentioned in the Bible!  Yes, and there really was a 9/11 and there really were a few people who survived the collapse of the Twin Towers.  But everything Tanya Head said about her involvement there was totally made up.  Putting a big lie into a truthful framework is a classic technique.  In Gone With The Wind,  we call it "historical fiction."  In Acts of the Apostles we are expected to call it "history."

Scientific American Mind: Can Atheists be Happy?

I can't believe even a magazine with the word "Scientific" in the title would honor that old lie about religion making people happier by referencing it in an article:

Can Atheists be Happy?

Well, duh.  Can't anyone be happy?  And can't anyone have depression?  We have the recent example of Andrea Yates to prove that being a devout Christian is no guarantee of happiness.

Being religious also seems to be most beneficial if you live among mostly religious people, indicating it is way of fitting in socially. In countries where few people believe, the psychological benefits of faith disappear.

So... living in a society where everyone agrees with you and supports you is beneficial, not religiosity per se.  Her advice?

So if you are nonbeliever, surround yourself with like-minded people, and work on achieving your goals in other parts of your life...Your social and professional successes will then help you weather life’s ups and downs just as religion does.

So... this means we should read atheist blogs, go to atheist meetups, choose professions where whether something's true or not matters, and come out to people you think might share your non-belief.

...and put up billboards to let the ones in the closet know they're not alone!

I think we're on the right track.  That makes me happy.

The Easter Story: Where the "Trinity" Becomes an Absurdity

Someone at work awhile ago told me that her Sunday School, or maybe her fundy college, taught that the Trinity is like the three forms of Water.  Each has its own "identity" but they're all H20.  So I asked why Jesus referred to God in the third person.  Her answer:  "good question."

 

She didn't have a good answer.

 

Tonight I had the opportunity to go to a Good Friday concert at a Methodist church.  They requested no applause, and there was a prayer/mini-sermon at the beginning, but otherwise it was just a concert with a peculiar theme.

During the brief speechifying, I sensed some awkwardness, as if they were embarrassed to tell such a ridiculous story.  Or maybe I was projecting.  *shrug*  Anyway, during the more boring parts of the concert instead of thinking about Christ's suffering and his love for "each of us," (except many groups he slams in the gospels), I found myself thinking of how the concept of the Trinity makes no sense in light of the Easter story.

The basic story is that we are stained by original sin, or sins we've committed, or by being sinful beings by design, and only animal sacrifices could save us from God's wrath until Christ allowed himself to be betrayed, marched through the streets of Jerusalem in shame, and then killed by crucifiction.  .... then he gets put into a tomb (typical of the time) and then disappears from it, and then appears to people, Elvis-style, for a time... and then goes to live with God.

...except that he is God.  And in the story, he cries out to God, "Why hast thou forsaken me?"  Now, if he was so powerful that he could have liberated himself if he'd wanted to, why would he say that?  And why refer to God in the second and third persons?  And if he could decide to forgive us via his "sacrifice" of being dead for part of a weekend, why not just decide to forgive us just cuz?  They're his rules.  He can change them... unless he's not all-powerful.

So... the Trinity is problem for several reasons:

• Jesus refers to himself as "Son of Man"
• Jesus refers to God in the second and third person
• Jesus didn't have the power to jump off the cross
• Jesus was expecting God to intervene for him
• Jesus as half-God and half-human was more in keeping with stories of his time
• Jesus didn't willingly sacrifice himself - he could have turned himself in rather than be betrayed
• In the cannibalistic meal he references himself as a sacrifice, but sacrifice to whom?  Can a god be sacrificed to appease himself?  That's just plain messed up.
• Jesus says the "father" acts through him, not that he is  his own father
• Jesus "sits at the right hand" of God.  How can God sit next to himself?

Well, at least that many reasons.  Even if you accept everything else as historically true in the Bible, the Trinity seems like a big stretch.

Why does it matter?  Well, the reason this came up with my coworker is that when I asked why Baptists don't consider Mormons to be Christians despite the words "Jesus Christ" being right in the title of their denomination, she brought up the Trinity.  She said they can't be "Christian" because they don't believe Jesus is God.  Apparently, even though they say that believing in salvation through Christ's sacrifice is key to being a Christian, there's a whole list of things they will hold other Christians to. 

 The Nicene Creed, which was codified in 325, is still kind of central, but you'd think that you could drop one or two without being ex-communicated by fundies.  But... take a look at this other version, known as the Apostles' Creed, which goes easy on the Trinity crap.  Yet fundy theology doesn't say that the people who say those words aren't Christians.

What a fucked up theology and fucked up bunch of followers.  If there really were an all-powerful deity behind this, couldn't he have fixed it?

That Idiotic Duggar Family

Duggar baby #20 died in utero.  They dug the thing out and gave her a funeral, complete with photos of mom holding the fetus' hand.  My Christian Facebook friends were bawling their eyes out.  Yes, the stupid TV show exploiting these crazy people showed that shite.

Oh puh-leeze.  That woman should have had her tubes tied years ago.  Instead, she's allowing her body to be used by Jebus to show America that Christians should increase their numbers by, well, increasing their numbers.

How can someone who is 45 years old and has had 19 children really expect #20 to be healthy?  #19 had problems.  Focus on that one.   In fact, focus on all the ones that are still little enough to need their real parents, not teenage siblings acting as surrogate parents so the parents can focus on babies.  The whole arrangment is sick, sick, sick.

Not to be outdone, TLC is starting a "reality" show about their goofy "friends"called the Bates family.  I wonder if they own a motel.  With 18 kids they'll need that many rooms.

This "be fruitful and multiply" movement is really creepy.  And curiously, not every mom is happy to be used as a breeding mare.

This brings up a little-known cult called "Quiverfull" that believes in population explosion of Christians by using woman as breeders.  One of their successful moms was Andrea Yates, who was so determined to keep her kids sin-free that she drowned all five of them to keep them from going to Hell.  Andrea Yates has sought permission to escape from state custody every Sunday to return to the slavery of her church for an hour.  That's like letting the Manson girls visit Charlie in the hoosegow for an hour a week.  Really?  WTF?  Her attorney describes this as a "baby step" towards rejoining the community.  uhhhh which community?  Why should anyone who has killed FIVE children be taking baby steps anywhere but within the walls of the nut house?

Another One Bites the Dust

http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Minister_Steps_Down__145835335.html?storySection=story

Dateline:  Tallahassee:  Minister Steps Down, Says She's An Atheist

A local minister stepped down from her post just before announcing she is an atheist.

A member of Lake Jackson United Methodist in Tallahassee says Teresa MacBain left the church Friday, March 30.

A day later, a video was posted online from a recent American Atheist Conference.

In it, MacBain came out as an atheist to the crowd.

Church members are meeting tonight to discuss leadership plans in her absence.

MacBain was with the church since 2009.

Very courageous of her to "come out" in public that way.  I hope we'll be hearing more from her in the atheist blogosphere!

The Decorah Eagles

 

Two babies have hatched and the third one is trying to break out of his shell today!  Very exciting! If you get a chance, check out the live webcam:

Broadcasting live with Ustream

http://www.ustream.tv/decoraheagles

Book Review: How We Decide

http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Decide-Jonah-Lehrer/dp/0618620117

I bought this book for my Kindle because I was having a hard time deciding what book to download and read next. And surprisingly, it applies to atheism! Doesn't everything apply to atheism?

This book is about the neurology of decision-making. Each chapter addresses certain types of decisions, and I admit to being totally bored by some of the examples. I'm a girl. If you want to use a football play as an example in a book, keep the description under a paragraph, mmkay?  There's a multi-page description of some Superbowl play, which could have been described in about a paragraph but for some reason had to start years earlier than the actual play.  I dunno what the point of that chapter was.  My eyes glazed over and I just had to skip to the next chapter, ...which has an overlong description of some military event. I dunno what it said. I skipped that chapter too. There was probably some point to it, but you wouldn't know from the beginning of the chapter.

So, skipping to something of more universal interest, there's a chapter on moral decisions which of course refers to religious prescriptions, but also points out that the interpersonal parts of the 10 Commandments specifies not doing harm to others. I never made that connection before, perhaps because so much of O.T. interpretation got rewritten by people who didn't want us to touch ourselves.  We've all heard the contradictory self-congratulatory versions of what the 10 Commandments are supposed to mean:  1)  If not for those we'd be raping, stealing, and telling lies and generally running amok.  If some Christians are actually sociopaths who need to be told these things and then actually restrain themselves... hahaha who am I kidding?  That "explanation" is total bullshit.  2) says that there is a universal morality given to us by Gawd.  This #2 explanation is the neo-apologists' way of accommodating evolution and multi-cultural perspectives.  The secular #3 is more like that but without the Gawd crap, and this book basically says that.  They make the point that getting along in society is the reason for rules like the non-theological commandments.  (Well, of the Big 10 -- doesn't say anything about the other 600+ commandments in the OT)

There's also the famous fake-mom hugging rhesus monkeys of Harry Harlow.    I already knew about the study that resulted in the "discovery" (duh) that babies need a warm and nurturing mom to hug, but there were many other studies with rhesus monkeys.  One was even more revealing than the fake mom one.  A clique of monkeys in separate cages but who knew each other, learned that one lever dispensed super yummy foods and another one dispensed less fun food.  After they had learned it, the researchers had an unrelated monkey scream from being shocked when the good lever gets pulled.  After the first time, all the monkeys stopped eating the yummy food and two even starved themselves.  It seems that not wanting to harm to others is hard-wired into primate brains, but only assuming normal childhoods and not having something like autism or sociopathy.   Autistics wouldn't understand the communication of pain by others; sociopaths wouldn't care.

So... as I'd suspected, religious proscriptions and prescriptions about morality are really aimed at people with no internal moral compass, i.e., sociopaths, autistics, and people who got bad parenting as children.  Having watched way too many hours of "The First 48 [hours]" I've seen several instances when a detective gets a confession out of a suspect by appealing to religion or the supernatural.  "Your dad is watching you from Heaven.  What would he say to you  now?"

[I'm not just making that up:  Cal Thomas wrote as much in the Washington Post this week.  Without his religion he would be "lost" and he thinks non-believers are lost.  He doesn't bother to ezplain why so many believers commit crimes despite their moral compass, or why atheists are no more inclined to criminality than anyone else.]

The basic conflict, as described in this book, is between the amygdala, or the emotional and fearful part of the brain, and the frontal cortex, which can calm the amygdala and sort things out rationally.  Curiously, there is a limit to what the rational brain can handle.  The author's advice: gather information, and if there are more than 4-10 (depending on whose research you believe) factors, then you're better off deciding with your "gut."

I have made life decisions this way and been embarrassed because of it.  Like my current rental.  After all my checklists and research about what the features of the place are, I went with my gut. I did the same when i decided which college to attend.  But... without all that research to help me rule out no-go places, my gut could have misled me.

Dusty of youtube fame closes his videos with "Logic," even though his videos are often very emotional.  I have never believed that logic could dissuade most believers that their religions were bogus.  Their amygdalas put amygdala fingers in their frontal cortex's ears and sing "la la la la I can't heeeeeear youuuuu."  And they are better and better at willful ignorance because of techniques of modern churches, but I'll save that for the next post.

Futurama vs. William Lane Craig

On the question of free will vs. Craig's "A or Not A" circular argument:

Someone from the "Discovery" Institute reviews a book by an "atheist"

http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/2012/03/aping-mankind-an-atheist-professor-of-medicine-exposes-weaknesses-in-darwinian-tales-about-the-human-mind-10/

uhhhh there's something very very wrong with this article, and with the book if it's being quoted accurately:

Darwinism, therefore, leaves something unaccounted for: the emergence of people like you and me who are indubitably sighted watchmakers. If there are no sighted watchmakers in nature and yet humans are sighted watchmakers, in the narrower sense of making artefacts whose purpose they envisage in advance, and in the wider sense of consciously aiming at stated goals, then humans are not part of nature: or not entirely so.

So, apparently you can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural?  uh sure.  As long as you remain willfully ignorant of actual sciences, the God of the Gaps makes sense.

Facebook Funny (this one's an Audio-Visual)

First the visual:

Now for the audio (I would change the lyrics a bit):

Dear Rush Limbaugh,

Dear Rush Limbaugh, if we pay for OB/GYN services for pregnant women are we paying them to have sex?

Just wondering, because you know what that makes your momma

Book Review: Quiet

http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Power-Introverts-World-Talking/dp/0307352145

I downloaded this to my kindle because it was intriguing and alsobecause the title was unflattering to *extroverts.  Extroverts get on my nerves and I have known many who just don't know how to shut up.

The book draws on scholarly research but instead of being a dry presentation of those results, the author describes events and interviews with a variety of researchers, extroverts, introverts, and introverted pseudo-extroverts. 

There's a huge bias against the extroverts, but of course it made me go *yeah* or *snigger* rather than want to diss the book in this review.

Speaking of this review, why am I writing it?

Well, throughout the book there are hints at the reason why introverted people might be more drawn to atheism, or rather, put off by religion.  First, religion generally involves gathering with other people at least once a week.  That right there is a turn-off.  Then consider that introverts live more inside their own heads than take in stimulation from outside.  Listening to a pastor or even a rousing gospel choir isn't anywhere near as much fun for us as being lost in our own thoughts going in our own direction.  Then follow this torture with "coffee hour," during which we are forced to make cocktail party style small talk without the benefit of a cocktail.

Cain took one for the team by going to Rick Warren's Palace of Emotional Torture, a.k.a. Saddleback Church.  Huge, loud, obnoxious..... I shudder thinking of being there.  Her description was vivid and I felt every twitch of discomfort with her.  Of course there are churches where introverts won't feel overwhelmed, but her description got me thinking about a connection between introversion & atheism.  Ever since seeing the Myers-Briggs skewing of atheists online into the INT- camps, I've wondered if that was a reflection of atheism or of computer geekiness.  After reading this book I'm leaning toward the introversion theory.

We introverts apparently share a lot of qualities other than just recharging our batteries alone rather than at parties.  We can be more sensitive inwardly but also more sensitive to the social cues around us.  We "read" the social enviornment more keenly than extroverts, who basically just get high when they're in their element.  Could this mean we are attuned to the "tells" of the adults around us as children?  Were we the first to suspect that Santa Claus wasn't real, and could we tell that the priest/pastor/rabbi/imam didn't really believe every word they said?  Could our in-touchness put us more in the real world than our in-headness would suggest?  Or do we doubt more because we're just immune to religious group think because we're immune to all kinds of group think?

Wall Street bankers demonstrated the difference between extroverts and introverts quite dramatically:  the extroverts made stupid decisions when they saw the market starting to implode while introverts made more cautious, wiser decisions.  It wasn't so much that introverts are averse to risk (or else why would they be investment bankers in the first place?) but that extroverts get high on adventure, which isn't always a good thing.  Of course, it's not always a good thing not to go for adventure.

I really only skimmed through the chapter on child-rearing, since I don't have kids and I'm not a teacher.  What I remember of it was "yep, yep, yep."  Especially:  group assignments YECH!!!!  And when a kid is passionate about something, they will speak up so points for "class participation" are really just uhhhh talking points.  This chapter was a good complement to the view of the Asian culture of introversion, which coincidentally encourages scholarship, thought, and listening and discourages empty blather.

Perhaps predictably, she includes a yin-yang kind of story: FDR & his wife, quiet Eleanor.  He was an extrovert (as most politicians are) and Eleanor was an introvert.  Their marriage didn't work but as a political couple they complemented each other.  She was the sensitive soul that saw and felt the needs of the poor.  He was the astute and bold politician who could make things happen after she'd raised his awareness.  And she could "come out of her shell" for a cause that ignited her passion.  (The book also talks about how to survive a mixed marriage but I'll spare you that)

So... as an atheist introvert, I could see myself in most of this book, even the parts about introverts who learn to behave like extroverts.  I can bring my work-self to work but I need to get away for breaks to recharge my batteries.  I also related to the part about Asian culture.  I investigated Taoism & Buddhism on my way to skeptical-atheism (a-supernaturalism is too much of a mouthful).  Meditation is more my style than any type of church.  My only fond memories of being a Christian are listening to or performing classical music with the backing of a beautiful old organ.  And even that was a little much for me.

Interestingly, many of us can learn to "fake" being extroverted.  I think I learned how to be extroverted-seeming from my experiences with black people in workplaces where I was the only non-black.  One of my coworkers who didn't have much experience with white people accused me of being snobby... after she felt comfortable with me and vice versa.  I was shocked.  After that I made more of a point of trying to make a good impression, which usually meant acting extroverted, or at least being more open.  Once I got comfortable with the cultures in the various places I've been, I didn't feel like I was being untrue to my real self.  I still kept to myself in my head even though I was cutting up and being outgoing on the outside, if that makes sense.   When we all had to go to Myers-Briggs "training," everyone was surprised that I was an introvert.  Even today, in mostly-white Indiana, I make a point of being more forward with black people, like saying  "Hi don't fear me I'm not a bigot or a snob, m'kay?"  The people I meet here probably have lots of experience with white people but it's second nature for me to be extra friendly toward black people now.   Of course the downside is that white people think I'm sometimes too forward and brash - not midwestern at all.  (I tell them that's my "New York" showing when that happens)

... but I did meet lots of introverted black people in these all-black-but-me workplaces.  My first impression was probably that they didn't like me because I'm white, just as some extroverted people may have thought I was a bigot for being more reserved.  In both cases, after we got to know each other better in our own time everything was cool. See how thought-provoking this book is?  I never gave that a thought before.  The chapter on Asian-American relationships really helped me to see those experienes in a new light.

So... the book has a lot of food for thought and a lot of cheerleading for those of us who have been made to feel there was something wrong with us.  I recommend it for introverts & extroverts alike.

And I want to delve into psychological journals now to see if there really is a relationship between introversion and atheism.  Stay tuned!

*the author intentionally used the common "extrovert" spelling rather than the "correct" spelling, "extravert" so I did the same.

Religious Insanity kills another Indiana baby

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-23/church-baptismal-death/53217544/1

Employees told officers they found the child in water about 2 feet deep in the baptismal pool and called for help, said officer Kendale Adams, an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) spokesman.

Adams said the boy attended the day care center at the church. He was found about 1:45 p.m. and taken to St. Vincent Indianapolis Hospital, where he died a short time later, police said.

A one-year-old is able to wander off on unsteady feet, unnoticed, until he stumbles into a baptismal pool that shouldn't be accessible to him at all.  A tragedy, and sure stuff happens in other day care centers, but here's the kicker:

"This was preventable," said Emily Barrow, of Child Care Answers in Indianapolis. "Licensed facilities have a sight and sound regulation; child care ministries do not."

The "sight and sound" rule requires children to be within seeing and hearing distance of an adult at all times....

Among the other exemptions are staff-to-child ratios; educational requirements for owners or managers; medication monitoring; nutrition requirements; food safety and sanitation requirements; and heating and lighting standards.

The Praise Fellowship Assembly of God Church did have to meet an additional 17 requirements in order to receive federal funding. The most important of those included drug testing and limited criminal background checks for employees, officials said.

I looked up the statute (.pdf) and it's even worse than it sounds.  Not only are these places allowed to operate without a license, but parents sign waivers saying they'll take responsibility for kids' health and nutrition.  They can also exempt kids from vaccinations on religious grounds.  Other than Christian "Science," who would qualify for that?  Apparently Indiana lawmakers think that children in religious care are different from children in secular care.  I mean, the Baby Jesus waited until he was old enough before getting dunked, didn't he?

They get inspected for "fire safety" and "life safety," but nothing else.  At least they are eligible to be sued for injury due to negligence.  I hope the family sues the holy off the church.  It's too bad the state doesn't have an interest in making sure that injury doesn't happen in the first place.  Apparently prayer was enough for the idiots who make Indiana laws.

Until now, anyway.  They should name the inevitable too-late statute over the little baby that died.

This Blog doesn't have nearly enough followers

No, not this blog.  This blog!

Check out the list of new species on the blog.  I'm still going over old posts of this new discovery.

I really appreciate a pro putting it on the line to help us argue against the ostriches trying to claim that creationism is true and evolution is false.  What's happening in the U.S. ought to be criminal, but the First Amendment protects the rights of dumbasses to promote dumbassery.  They can sound very convincing to people who are ignorant and gullible (not their fault, should be their fault).

Indiana Students are Safe From Creationist Idiocy ... for now

http://www.indystar.com/article/20120214/NEWS05/202140366/Indiana-House-Speaker-says-he-s-killing-creationism-bill?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CNEWS

Curiously, the local paper that has published so many letters on this topic did not carry this news item, but the Indy Star, owned by the same corporation, did:

A bill that would have specifically allowed Indiana's public schools to teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes has been shelved by the leader of the Indiana House of Representatives.

The proposal cleared the state Senate two weeks ago, but Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma is using a procedural move to kill the proposal for this legislative session.

“It seemed to me not to be a productive discussion, particularly in light that there is a United States Supreme Court case that appears to be on point that very similar language is counter to the constitution,” Bosma said Tuesday. “It looked to me to be buying a lawsuit when the state can ill afford it.”

He wouldn't admit that it's just plain WRONG to pass off fairy tales as science but at least he admits it's a waste of money to fight a losing battle.

I'm glad this sorry episode is over.   Now I can return to being embarrassed about Indiana for other reasons!