Amhras Scuaine

Let's bone up on our mythology (or, when is a rib, not a rib?)

2011-08-12T12:40:00.001-05:00

Just about everyone who's had any exposure to Christianity knows the story of Adam and Eve. You know the one, where God decides Adam needs a "helpmeet" to do all that work in the Garden of Eden. Of course, making the female human late like this doesn't exactly fit into the entire narrative, where God's already made male and female critters of all kinds, but somehow neglected to do the same for humans.

Anyway, my point is I don't think the story has it right. No, I'm not going to argue for any sort of literal interpretation, but merely a re-translation of an important bit of the tale. Obviously, I don't believe this is a true story, but I think the translations have gotten something wrong, and probably have for centuries. It's got to do with that "rib" that Eve was created from. I don't think it was a rib at all.

Let me explain.

One of the difficulties with claiming the part taken from Adam was a rib is, what happened afterwards? Did Adam miraculously grow an new rib? Did he live out his life without one? Why is it that all humans, male and female, still have the same number of ribs? And why a rib at all? What's the point of taking such a superfluous bit of the body to make what is going to be Adam's mate and partner (junior partner, with no rights or claims to any property -- but that's for another post).

Instead of a rib, I think the part taken from Adam was something else - something that males of many other species have, but somewhat surprisingly humans don't. And because Eve was created not just as a helper, but as a mate, this body part is directly connected to the act of reproduction - but isn't necessary in humans (hence, the lack of this part in human male anatomy).

Ancient people weren't stupid. They probably had a better understanding of basic anatomy and skeletal structure than most anyone today. So they would have definitely noticed where all the bones fit in an animal when butchering it. Some were big bones (femurs, skulls, etc), others were medium sized (ribs, jawbone, etc), and a few were almost tiny (finger bones, toes, etc). It's those medium- to tiny-sized bones that are most interesting. Most people don't realize that all other primates have one more bone in their anatomy than humans -- the baculum. In fact, almost all mammals have one, or at least the males of each species do.

And that's where things get interesting. You see, the baculum is the penis bone. Yup, you heard that right. At least for most mammals, "getting a boner" is a literal fact. The baculum helps support and maintain an erection for those other species, but humans only use the blood pressure in the corpus spongiosum to keep it up. One reason is that for many mammal species, the act of copulation goes on for a long time. Other species mate many times in a very short span. So they need the extra support to keep going, long after a human male would go limp and fall asleep.

So why is this little anatomy lesson important? Because I think the body part taken by God to form Eve was originally the baculum. Think about it.

One of the key functions of the human female is reproduction, so shouldn't the part that created her have some sexual connection?
No human male has a baculum, but every other mammal species that the ancient peoples would have encountered did. They were trying to find a reason why we didn't have one.
The text of Genesis 2:21 says "So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribsand then closed up the place with flesh." When looking at the underside of the penis, it has the appearance of a healed over wound or scar. Biologically, this is due to the fusing of the two urogenital folds during fetus development.
A story where God takes a singular part doesn't make sense for paired organs like ribs, but fits perfectly with a part that is only found in male animals, not found in human males, and is not part of a pair.
The Hebrew term used for the part taken from Adam is "tsela". This translates to "beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side chamber". While "rib" is a definition, it's not the only one. And doesn't "board", "plank", or "beam" match what the baculum is?

I think the reason it was changed to "rib" in the story, and has remained that way for centuries, is because people began getting prudish about such things, and it was easier to tell kids a story about a man losing a rib (which they can all relate to, male and female) instead of a baculum, which none of the kids have.

What do you think?

Let's Throw a Party! Raise Your Tea Glasses High in Celebration!

2010-12-21T10:11:00.001-06:00

It's time for a celebration! Yes, 150 years ago, South Carolina officially seceded from the United States, throwing into motion the events that led directly to the Civil War. While some people might view this as a not-so-joyous occasion, others are jumping into it with abandon.

The Confederate Heritage Trust and the Sons of Confederate Veterans organized the Secessionist Gala yesterday, where people gathered to celebrate the start of the bloodiest and most violent episode in American history.

Of course, there were people who didn't think this was a good idea, like the NAACP. They're acting as if the whole secessionist movement was about slavery, and not States' Rights (you know, the right of states to say that some people, based on an arbitrary selector like skin color, aren't actually people but property).

I can't wait for all the celebrations and parties to commeorate the great and wonderful events of the War Between the States:

Fort Sumter Day - April 12–13, 2011: First shots fired in the Civil War.
Bull Run (or Manassas, for the Confederates) Days - July 21, 2011
Gettysburg Days - July 1-3, 2011
Antietam Day - September 17, 2012: The bloodiest battle ever fought by Americans, with over 23,000 casualties in a single day.
Emancipation Proclaimation Day - January 1, 2013
Sacking of Atlanta Day - September 2, 2014
Appomattox Day - April 9, 2015

Of course, some people haven't forgotten the war...

Have you been naughty or nice this year?

2010-12-17T18:28:00.000-06:00

It's that time of year again -- figuring out if you've been good enough all year to deserve presents and love, or too naughty and all you'll get are rocks and coal. But why is it that we threaten naughty children with those things? Could there be something else that is forgotten in the history of the most well known versions of the holiday tales?

Why, yes! There is something missing! The Krampus!

It's one thing to be told you've been naughty and won't get any presents. Imagine getting whipped and kidnapped from your house for punishment by this guy, instead!

Sleep tight, little ones! Better be on your best behavior this week!

Have you heard the one about going to watch a fight and a hockey game broke out?

2010-12-17T09:08:00.000-06:00

In this case, it wasn't a fight, but a charity donation -- an incredibly funny and happy one. Watch as 23,000 stuffed animals descend upon the ice while the players, refs and coaches look on. It took over 40 minutes to clear the ice!

@ Yahoo! Video

New Prayer study shows most Americans think God is involved in their lives

2010-12-15T09:29:00.000-06:00

In a study that should be filed under the label "No Shit, Sherlock", a sociology graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison has found that most people think god is loving, powerful and caring presence that's always around.

Gee, it probably would have been cheaper, easier and faster to simply look at the religious demographics of the USA and realize that over 80% of the nation is religious. Who would've thought that a majority of the population would believe in and pray to a god ?

The study's author, Shane Sharp, said "If they vented their anger to that abusive partner, the result was likely to be more violence, but they could be angry at God while praying, without fear of reprisal."

What a surprise (again). Getting angry and yelling at a violent, abusive partner might get them beaten. But yelling at an imaginary friend doesn't. Of course, for those who are not religious, Sharp said, the findings of the study may not apply unless they look to another "virtual" friend, such as a celebrity, in times of crises. Gee, I wonder why?

Is it just me, or is it getting hot in here?

2010-12-14T14:54:00.000-06:00

All that talk about the earth cooling over the last several years can now be put to rest. NASA just released the latest data for November, and it makes the period from Dec 09 - Nov 10 the hottest ever recorded. It's hotter than 1998, 2005, 2003 and every other year in the 130 year history of NASA's records.

The ice is getting thinner and less extensive over the poles. The glaciers are receding from the mountain ranges. Methane is apparently leaking from the permafrost and shallow seabeds at a much higher rate. Our CO2 emmisions continue to grow nearly unabated.

But, of course, it can't be humans causing it all! It must be the sun (or not). Or El Nino (or not). Or something else (or not).

Who's Going To Defend the Pope Now?

2010-12-11T10:19:00.000-06:00

The Catholics have spent years denying that the Pope and the Vatican knew about or covered up the sex abuse scandal that has rocked the church and put many diocese in financial terouble from legal judgements, hush money and bribes. Now Wikileaks comes alnog and confirms that the corruption and coverups reach the absolute highest levels. The Pope himself was more worried about the reputation of the church than the safety, health and well-being of its most vulnerable and innocent members.

Benedict refused to let investigators talk to Vatican oficials about the abuses taking place in Ireland. Apparently, it was more important to make sure the Catholics didn't get a bad reputation just as they were trying to sway the British Anglican community to convert to Catholicism. According to the Catholics, it seems, it's better to hide your dirty secrets and obstruct justice so you can grow your membership, and to hell with those poor, raped and sbused children.

Another Missile Fired in the War on Christmas

2010-12-07T11:57:00.000-06:00

Last night, the Daily Show had a segment that is absolutely spot-on in skewering Faux News and the hypocritcal indignation they spew about the supposed "War on Christmas" every year. Not only are Fauxers digging around into deep archives to try and find even the most obscure, irrelevant and old news to get mock-pissed about, but they can't even be honest about it. John Stewart explains, far more brilliantly and clearly than I can, how absurd and foolish these people are.

The Gretch Who Saved the War on Christmas

Not to mention, they've got the budget and video engineers available to make a "holiday special" out of old Christmas specials (Rudolf, Santa, Frosty and the rest). It's absolutely hilarious, and destroys (again) any claims that there is a "war".

So, in the spirit of the season -- "Happy Holidays"!

Follow-up to yesterday: Apparently, being a Dick is un-Christian

2010-11-19T13:50:00.000-06:00

The American Family Association (AFA) doesn't like it when people and businesses are open and welcoming to all faiths, traditions, and creeds. They want just their own religion granted a spot of reverence and privilege, and no one else gets any recognition. That's why they are one of the groups persisting in persecuting this fictious "War on Christmas".

Yesterday, I discussed the "naughty or nice" list that the AFA has, and the ones getting a "naughty" recommendation are those that don't pander to just the Christians, and recognize that there is a substantial percentage of their customer base that isn't Christian and doesn't celebrate Christmas. They've just put in a news flash - Dick's Sporting Goods is the "naughtiest of the naughty".

So, if you want to be a real dick about not saying "Merry Christmas" this year, maybe you can do all your holiday shopping at a large sporting goods store.

Are you "Naughty or Nice" this year? It depends on what you say...

2010-11-18T14:49:00.000-06:00

When I think of the phrase "naughty or nice", I picture an idyllic scene of a jolly fat man in a bright red suit (with or without the jacket - but when without, having bright red suspenders, too) perusing a long scrolling list of names and laughing heartily to himself as the snow flies lightly outside the window. I picture the "nice" kids as polite, well-rounded and eager to please, while the "naughty" kids are pulling obnoxious pranks, cursing everything in sight and dressed like a Goth nightmare.

Of course, that's just in my imagination, and I know that all kids have a bit of "naughty" and a dash of "nice", and often you can't figure out which side of the equation the kid falls into. But have you ever heard of labelling a corporation "naughty"? About the only ones that I could think of would be like Halliburton, Enron and BP, whose offenses against humanity and the world are legendary. But according to the American Family Association, all it takes for a company to be "naughty" is to not say "Christmas". That's right. They can have all the holiday decorations, reindeer-pulled sleighs, nativity scenes and betwinkling lights covering the entire store, but if they don't mention the word "Christmas" in their advertisments, they're waging "War on Christmas".

You can see the list of companies that the AFA has rated here, in three festive colors (Green, Red and Yellow). It also lists the criteria for making each of the three lists, and how a company can protest which list it's on (they've got to provide written documentation of their inclusion of the word "Christmas" to the AFA).

So, who's on the "naughty" list so far?

Barnes & Noble
CVS Pharmacy
Dick's Sporting Goods
Office Depot
Radio Shack
Staples
SUPERVALU
Victoria's Secret

Of all those, the only one I'd consider placing on a "naughty" list is the last one, and in that case I actually think being "naughty" should be considered a bonus.

The stronger the denial, the further the fall?

2010-11-17T14:50:00.000-06:00

Well, it's happened again. Another anti-gay preacher has "come out of the closet". And this time, it's not just a local celebrant, but one of the higher up muckety-mucks, a full blown bishop (pun intended).

Yet, and this is what surprises me (not really), there are other Christians who are now denouncing him as not a "True Christian(tm)". I wonder if they've ever heard of the logical fallacy called "No True Scotsman"?

Peter LaBarbara of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) said "This so-called 'Bishop' Swilley is a very confused man. He thinks he's being honest about -- quote -- 'who he is,' but actually, he's compromising the Word of God and he's Christianizing sin, which is impossible."

I've got to wonder how long it will be before Mr. LaBarbara himself announces he has to be "who he is", too.

I'm sorry, Mr. LaBarbera -- the last time I checked in the Bible, there wasn't a clause stating that sinners of any kind couldn't be Christian. Maybe I'm reading a different Bible than you are? Maybe AFTAH publishes it's own version, complete with graphic depictions of those heinous acts they condemn. I'm sure Mr. LaBarbera stays up late at night studying it hard.

They let crooks, thieves, liars, bigots, cheats, philanderers, and adulterers stay in the pulpit. Sometimes even after multiple offenses. In fact, one of the defining positions of Christianity seems to be that everyone is a sinner, but that shouldn't disallow them from being Christian. But touch one member of the same sex, and you are no longer in the club. Guess they should make a new "log cabin Christian" church?

What I'm reading this week

2010-11-16T15:12:00.000-06:00

I'm an avid reader. On average, I probably read at least one full novel per week, along with an assortment of nonfiction, biography and technical writings scattered throughout the year. I've usually got my nose (metaphorically) in at least one, if not three or four, separate books at any one time. Lucky for me, technology has made it easy to carry around an entire library in the palm of my hand.

This last weekend, I finished the latest book in my To Be Read (TBR) pile, The Gathering Storm by Brandon Sanderson and Robert Jordan. I needed something to go along with the Clan of the Cave Bear, which I'm also in the middle of re-reading. And then I saw this:

The Atheist's Guide to Christmas

And joy of joys -- it's only $1.01 on Amazon for the digital edition! What an amazing deal!

So I've been reading it on and off for the last few days, and it's an insightful and entertaining collection of essays from 42 atheists around the world (well, mostly Great Britain) about what Christmas means to them. From stories of childhood wishes to farsical comedic takes on the holiday, it's a blast to read, and an very uplifiting set of tales. And one of the most entertaining things about it is the British colloquialisms and jingo that is peppered throughout the essays, often quite unintentionally funny to a Muricun like me.

If you've got a chance and some interest, I highly recommend this book (especially the Kindle version, which is only a buck). If you don't have a Kindle, there are a lot of other ways to read it -- on your computer, on your iDevice, or get the hard copy (go ahead, kill a few trees while you're at it!).

So, who thinks it's going to be a cold winter?

2010-11-14T16:45:00.001-06:00

It's finally starting to cool down around here (I saw the first frost on roofs this morning). But just because the local weather is cooling doesn't mean the world is.

So far, this year is matching/exceeding 1998 as the hottest ever recorded. So much for the claim by deniers that the last ten years show a cooldown. Not even close!

Anyone want to bet on how much snow KC will get this winter?

Old Friends and New Commenters: Free-Fire-Zone #1

2010-09-07T11:44:00.000-05:00

Well, it looks like the gang's all here! I don't know why the conversations from KCFS and the old Tammeus blog are congregating on my humble little patch of internet space, but here we are.

I don't really care all that much about what goes on at other sites and discussion forums -- this blog is my own little place to voice my opinions, comment about news and provide links to stories and events I think are interesting, humorous or important. So I find it difficult to figure out why "junomilgram" has just shown up and acts like Iggy is the owner of this blog.

Hint, "juno" - he isn't. Has he commented here? Yes, but he usually keeps his comments applicable to the topic of my post. You, on the other hand (and several others of the "Goldstein" cabal) prefer to ignore any topicality, avoid actual substantial discussion, and veer directly into insults and ad hominem attacks.

Here's what I'm going to do. I hate censorship. So I'm not going to shut down comments or screen anyone's words. I'm going to give you a place to argue, attack, insult, and ad hominem to your heart's desire (I might even read some of them now and again). Starting with this post, once a week I'll put up a new "free-fire zone" post that you can use. Reference other blogs, discussion forums, people, places, things, etc as much as you want. Carry on your own conversations, free from any fear of censorship from me.

All I ask is that you refrain from spilling over into the other posts. If you've got a specific comment or something to say that relates to the other posts, feel free to comment on it. But if your comments have absolutely nothing to do with what I've written, why comment at all? Go to the "free-fire" post and do it.

Hopefully, everyone can be at least mature enough to follow this simple request. Otherwise, I may have to consider some sort of comment screening, which I really don't want to do.

Fire away!

And I Thought Tiger Woods Had A Hot Swing!

2010-09-01T09:00:00.000-05:00

But he's got nothing on this guy, who singlehandedly started a massive brush-fire with one mighty stroke of his club.

It's almost too strange to believe, but given the dry conditions in California, and the high winds, I guess anything is possible. And I have seen sparks fly from a metal-headed wood (isn't that an oxymoron?) before, so this could happen. Of course, it could also be that the guy was trying to hide his clandestine smoking habit, and didn't stub out his cigarrette butt properly when he tossed it into the kindling.

I Don't Think I'm Going To Complain About KC Traffic Again

2010-08-23T20:45:00.000-05:00

There have been some frustrating times on the KC highways for me, when I've got to get somewhere and run into construction zones, rush hour backups, and accidents that slow everything to an absolute standstill. But even in my worst nightmares, it never ends up lasting for days.

The same can't be said for Beijing, where a traffic jam has been ongoing for nearly two weeks.

It's gotten so big, there's actually a mini-economy that's started up, selling food, water and other necessities to the stranded drivers as they wait interminably long to move even a few feet an hour.

Did You Know There Are Non-Christians In The Army?

2010-08-23T07:24:00.000-05:00

Apparently, some evangelical captain thought all his troops should get a bit more Jesus in their training, so he ordered the entire group under his command to attend a concert by an overtly Christian rock group, BarlowGirl. When between 80-100 troops refused to attend (mostly because they recognized it was a Christian evangalization event), they were ordered back to the barracks for what can only be described as punitive action.

While not often this blatant, I did see a lot of this sort of ignorance and bigotry by the senior leadership when I was in the service. Rarely did soldiers get punished for refusing to attend a religious event or service, but they often felt ostracized and ignored -- not a good feeling in an organization that depends on camaraderie and teamwork to function and survive.

This type of proselytization and religious indoctrination is highly illegal and irresponsible, and there is absolutely no place for it in the US military. Several of the punished soldiers were Muslim, so I have to wonder if there was an additional bias in the application of punitive action on their account. We've spent years overtly declaring that the war actions in Afghanistan and Iraq were against specific terrorist and radical groups, not Islam in general. Actions like this, as well as the protests for the Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan, show what liars and hypocrites the people pushing to continue the wars are.

How Are You Going To Commemorate September 11th This Year?

2010-08-19T14:42:00.000-05:00

I wonder if there is a lot of sentiment towards making 9/11 a national "Bash Muslims" day? It can certainly seem that way, especially in the wake of the controversy over the Islamic community center being built in Lower Manhattan, as well as the vileness and hatred expressed in numerous polls showing the bigotry is rampant. I'd even be willing to bet that fear and hatred of Muslims is now greater than the previous "most hated" group, atheists.

So, on top of all that cold and prickly vehemence against Muslims, why don't we just throw a little more gasoline on the fire? How ready are you for an "official" Koran-Burning Day?

Now, I have no problem with people expressing their freedom and right to protest, but this seems to be a deliberate attempt to not only mock and deride, but provoke and incite. After all, it's one thing to make a statement about free speech and protesting religious favoritism, like when Dr. PZ Myers stuck a rusty nail through a communion wafer (and trashed a copy of the Koran and Dawkins' God Delusion, too).

Instead, this "church" is promoting this book-burning celebration because they proudly feel that "Islam is of the Devil" and "the Koran is leading people to hell". This sort of blind, bigoted, ignorant and destructive anti-intellectualism simply increases the discord and disgust that most Islamic people feel about Americans, which puts our troops, our civilians and our culture at risk. While I don't believe in any gods, I don't disparage and intentionally insult over 1 billion other humans simply because I disagree with them. I may single out individuals for my scorn and wrath, but I don't extend prejudice against entire nations and groups.

And Now For Something Completely Different...

2010-08-19T14:08:00.000-05:00

I love good animation. Not just pretty pictures, but a story that I can relate to on multiple levels. Here's something I found online that shows just how futile and frustrating some programs can be when they get a little too "smart".

Animator vs. Animation

If you like that one, there's a sequel here.

Want To Bet the Teabaggers will Jump On This As More Evidence Obama's a "Secret Muslim"?

2010-08-14T13:00:00.000-05:00

It's been a while since "Obama's a Muslim" was a mainstreamed Teabagger talking point, but there's a good chance this news will resurrect the meme. That proposed mosque that's going to be built a few blocks from the Ground Zero location in Lower Manhattan has gotten the nod from our President.

Obama outlines the freedom of religion aspect of our cultural heritage, and the inclusion and acceptance of immigrants and outsiders as strengths of our national identity. He makes all the right statements, and justifies his support for it by appealing to our Constitution and our humanity.

And the Teabaggers will be all over him for it. I can't wait.

A Literary Classic Turns 50

2010-08-13T20:32:00.000-05:00

Believe it or not, one of the most beloved books of childhood memories is now half-a-century old.

Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Suess turned 50 years old today, and I think it should be turned into a celebratory weekend. We should all have green eggs and ham for breakfast, make sure you eat it wherever you are (in a box, on a train, in a car, in the rain). And if anyone tries to beg off and claim they don't like them, just remind them to "try them, try them, and you'll see!"

Some People Are So Desperate To Play Video Games, They Sell Their Souls!

2010-08-13T09:20:00.000-05:00

You know those annoying disclaimers and legal statements that you have to scroll through and click "accept" before you can even install a simple program or game? Yeah, those long, boring and totally irrelevant screeds that no one ever reads or bothers to care about (other than getting rid of it to get to the game or program)?

Maybe you should read them, after all.

A computer game store put an extra couple clauses in their disclaimer statement that might make a few people upset -- because by opting in (which was the default option), they granted the company the right to claim the victim's soul.

Yes, over 7,500 people sold their soul to play a video game. And based on typical percentages here in the United States, that would mean over 5,500 Christians just lost out on their chance at a piece of heaven. I wonder if the flashing lights and funny noises that gave them a few minutes of fun were worth it?

And for those of you who aren't religious and don't give a damn about your immortal soul, there was a materialistic justification to read the whole thing, too. If you had opted out of the clause, it would have netted you a quick £5 voucher for the online store.

I learned a new word today, and it fits perfectly

2010-08-10T12:22:00.001-05:00

Kakistocracy

"government by the worst persons; a form of government in which the worst persons are in power."

Doesn't that sound similar to what some people are claiming about the US government, and have for the last several presidencies (different sides accused the government of this for each one, of course).

Of course, I don't think even in the days of W. that we ever descended into kakistocracy - but that might have been closer than just about any other time. No, I think kakistocracy applies more to groups like the Taliban, Khmer Rouge, North Korea, etc. Those extreme dictatorships that have a cult-of-personality-like stranglehold on their populace, and use violence, propaganda and extreme measures to enforce and maintain their position and power.

Those are the true kakistocracies. in contrast, we've just got to suffer from rule by the incompetent and ignorant.

Gee, I feel so much better knowing I live in an idiocracy.

Global Warming -- Man, it's hot outside today!

2010-08-09T15:02:00.000-05:00

I know there is a big difference between local weather and the global climate, but with the massive heatwave frying the air around Kansas City, I can't help but make the connection in my head. Of course, the local talking-head teabagger, Chris Stigall (710 KCMO AM) made some comments about it this morning, too. He said he hadn't heard any news or commentary about what he calls a "fraud and coverup".

Hmmm, I do seem to recall a number of stories, articles and reports about it -- and all of them have indicated the global climate is warmer this year than just about any other. 2009 ended the warmest decade ever recorded. 2010 had the warmest January. 2010, the warmest March, April and May. The hottest spring ever just ended in June. June was hotter worldwide than any previous year. We're on pace to have the warmest August worldwide.

The Arctic ice is thinner and less extensive than ever. A 100 square mile chunk of Greenland's glacier just broke off this weekend.

It sure seems like there's been a lot of news and information out there about the climate and how warm it's getting. Of course, since Chris apparently only gets his news from Fox, they must not be reporting it. Oops -- I guess he wasn't reading very close:

Global Warming Continuing
Climate Report Reaffirms Global Warming

Of course, there isn't much else about global warming on FauxNews, probably because they don't want to admit when they're wrong. They've spent so much time over the last couple years touting the short-term slight downtrend in global climate, they forgot to notice that even during that timeperiod, the global temps were still higher than ever before.

I wonder if Chris will read this and comment?

An Anniversary That Should Never Be Forgotten

2010-08-06T13:31:00.001-05:00

65 years ago, the US committed what would be the first of two final acts in the last brutal chapters of World War II -- dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan.

I'm not going to debate whether it was justified or not, whether it was moral or not, or whether it hastened an end to the war or not. That's for scholars and historians far more educated and informed than myself.

What I will say is that since that time, there has not been a single nuclear weapon launched in anger at an opposing force, even though there have been numerous times where such a course of action was considered.

Hundreds of thousands of Japanese lost their lives when we dropped "the bomb" on their country. Yet those two bombs (Little Boy and Fat Man) were comparatively tiny when seen in perspective. Little Boy, the one that destroyed Hiroshima, had an estimated blast yield of about 15,000 tons of TNT. Fat Man, the Nagasaki bomb, yielded just over 21,000 tons. That's a lot of power packed into a single weapon, but within a few years those yields skyrocketed into the MILLIONS of tons of TNT. Less than nine years later, in March, 1954, the US set off what would end up being larger than any other tested weapon in the US arsenal -- over 15 megatons. That single weapon, in an single instant, had over 1000 times the devastating power of Little Boy.

Wars continue to occur, and many nuclear nations have arisen over the decades. But not even openly hostile and angry confrontations between centuries-old enemies have persuaded the generals and national leaders to open the nuclear genie bottle again. I don't think it's coincidental that the horrors and devastation wrought by those two war-fired weapons have impacted the decisionmaking of countless nations, and that fact alone has probably saved many, many millions of lives from absolute destruction by nuclear fire.

Don't ever forget. War is hell.

Don't Forget to Get Out and Vote Today

2010-08-03T13:31:00.000-05:00

It's that time again -- Primary voting season! Yup, today is the day we all (well, about 15% of us) run to the polls and cast our ballots for the least repulsive, ignorant and pandering politicians we can stomach. Get out and do your civic duty, and try not to vomit on the touchscreen voting machines -- they've got to last until November's general election!

Oh, and if you want a hint as to who I'm going to vote for in the Kansas Governor's primary race, check this out.

Another Step Towards the Ground-Zero Mosque

2010-08-03T13:26:00.000-05:00

About two months ago, I wrote a post about the proposed Islamic Cultural Center and Mosque that would be only a couple blocks from the 9/11 Ground Zero site. Well, it looks like another barrier to building it has fallen.

The NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission denied granting landmark status to the building on the location the developers want to use. If this had been approved, it would have significantly altered what was planned -- although it woudn't have stopped the development completely -- they just would have had to keep the entire building intact (and possibly renovate it in the process), instead of demolishing it to build a brand-new building.

OK, so is this going to change anyone's opinion of things? I doubt it. The Teabaggers will continue with the parade of ignorance and isolationism, screaming that this is "insulting to the victims of 9/11" and a "provocation" to the Christians of the USA. One of the main reasons the teabaggers say they're opposed to is how close it is to Ground Zero - but if you quietly ask them how far away the mosque should be built, the answer seems to be "nowhere within the borders of the USA".

Maybe There's a Way to Prevent a "Governor Brownback"

2010-07-20T08:29:00.000-05:00

During the 2008 campaign, he was asked (along with the rest of the Republican field) some questions about evolution and creationism - and he sided with the creationists. He's a TeaBagger and a darling of the ultra-conservative movement. And he's probably going to be the next Kansas governor.

I know the prevailing sentiment is that no matter who the Democrats put forward in the November election, they'll get smashed by the Republican powerhouse of Sam Brownback. He's been a very popular senator for our state, and has not done too much stupid to get himself unelectable in this extremely Red State.

But maybe, just maybe, there's a way to stop this whole thing before it ever gets started. How, you ask? By beating him in the August 3rd primary race with someone even crazier, stupider, and more nutty than he ever could be. If only there was a Republican candidate that could fit the bill, one that would have enough "conservativism" to get the Republican Right Wing excited, but just a bit too far removed from sanity to actually have any chance of winning in November. Who could possibly manage that?

Joan Farr Heffington

She's a perfect candidate to upset Brownback in the primary, but be completely humiliated in the November general election. She's very Christian (notice the little crosses as bullet points). She's a widow and mother of three. She started her own business. She's self-educated. She's the daughter of an Air Force pilot.

She's almost perfect for the Republicans! Call her the Sarah Palin of Kansas! Annoint her as the next (first?) great female Republican, possibly line her up for the vice-presidential nomination in 2012! What could possibly go wrong?

Oh, wait -- she's a completely insane nutbag. Not only is she for the Fair Tax (a Republican Right Wing favorite), but she also believes the US government's been trying to kill her for 10 years. She thinks every bill the governor signs should be put to a public poll. She wants to teach Young Earth Creationism in public schools. She thinks the governor of a midwestern state should have the authority to override Congressional and Presidential laws. She says the third partner in her business venture is God (not figuratively, but literally).

On second thought -- maybe she's not too crazy for the Republicans. Can you imagine how silly the State of Kansas would look with this person in charge? Can you imagine how easy it would be for the Democrats to defeat the Republicans in November with this woman on the ticket?

Another Reason to Hate Vuvuzelas

2010-06-25T09:48:00.000-05:00

Vuvuzelas, those tremendously loud, obnoxiously droning, 120 decibel, ear-shatteringly-loud cheap plastic horns that are driving soccer fans crazy in South Africa, are spreading. I've seen them at KC Wizards games, I'm sure they'll make appearances at many NFL stadiums this fall, and now...

They've invaded MiddleEarth.

I had already figured out that vuvuzelas were bad, but apparently, they're the demonic creation of Sauron!

I Want One!

2010-06-25T09:35:00.001-05:00

When I was a kid, Legos were fun, cool and creative. My kids are now into them, but the variety and shapes available today far exceed what I had to play with. Still, it's fun to see what imaginations can inspire.

Who needs a fancy, multicolor, 1200dpi, wireless multifunction copier/printer/scanner/fax machine when you can have LEGO PEOPLE PRINTING FOR YOU!

Now, if they can just make an iPad out of Legos...

USA! USA! USA!

2010-06-24T13:25:00.000-05:00

I don't know if anyone reading this (both of you) have been watching the World Cup, but for an American fan, it's been an absolutely, nail-bitingly, infuriatingly, exhileratingly terrific first round. The US team has been robbed of at least two goals by the officials, had dozens of near-miss shots on goal, and took the third match down to nearly zero-time before a fantastic finish by Donovan to seal the win.

Now, after Germany beat Ghana in Group D, we're in great position to advance to at least the semifinal round, if not the quarterfinals. That would match the best result the USA has ever managed in World Cup play -- the quarterfinals in 1930. Yes, it's been 80 years since we finished in the top four, and it's time to go back.

Not only do we get the easier of the two Group D teams (I'm not saying Ghana is going to be an easy test, but certainly not more challenging than Germany would be), but each day another "mighty" team falls. Yesterday, last tournament's runner up, France, failed to move on. Today, the winner from four years ago fell (Italy). England looks beatable, and so does Germany.

Better yet, our side of the knockout bracket looks a whole lot easier than the other side. If we beat Ghana, we face the winner of Ukraine-Korea. Win that, and we're in the Final Four! Of course, at that point we'll probably be facing either Brazil, Spain or Portugal -- all of them extremely powerful and talented. But even then, we've got a chance. The US squad beat Spain last year at the Confederations Cup, and in the finals of that tourney, we led Brazil 2-0 at the half.

It's been an amazing ride so far, and I think this US team's got a long ways to go before they bow out of it.

USA! USA! USA! USA!

The question's been asked -- Are you a troll?

2010-06-23T14:23:00.000-05:00

So, you've taken the time to wander through a certain blog or website, and you see something that ticks you off, and they've got an open comments section. What do you do?

If you're a reasonable, sane and normal person, you might make a comment directly relevant and factual as an attempt to correct and/or address an issue. Or, you could take the easy, obnoxious, juvenile path and blast out a non-sequitur laden, grammatically incorrect and ignorant bucket of blargh -- i.e., be a troll.

It's a good think there aren't any trolls lurking around this blog!

Bears must believe in the Christian God -- They do his work for him

2010-06-22T12:52:00.000-05:00

Apparently, the reason grizzly bears maul humans occasionally isn't because we intrude on their habitats, destroy their living spaces, drive off their prey, and push them ever closer to extinction. Nope -- it's because the USA doesn't believe in the Bible anymore (or not enough), and the bears are God's enforcers.

Just like the story of Elijah and the Two Bears, when the Christian deity gets angry, he sends cuddly teddy bears out to maul the offenders. Or in this case, half-ton, angry, intoxicated, dazed and violated male grizzly.

Of course, the actual particulars of this case are more reasonably looked at as negligence (on the part of the scientists who left a tranquilized bear without observation) and carelessness (on the part of the man who wandered into the woods just after the bear woke up).

The "next generation" of technology?

2010-06-22T11:23:00.000-05:00

What would you do if you could time travel? Would you want to meet famous people (or even your own ancestors)? Would you try and influence major historical events, like assasinating Hitler before he came to power? Or would you be a selfish, greedy opportunist who takes advantage of modern technology for your own personal gain?

One artist imagined what he'd do with a time travel device, and I think it's pretty ingenious.

Imagine how popular you'd be at parties with an ALT1977 Pocket Hi-Fi:

Or how jealous all the neighborhood kids would be if your parents got you a Microcade 3000 for your birthday? That snotty rich kid with his brand-new Atari 2600 would keel over in a dead faint if he saw it!

This is some serious fun! What sort of technology or ideas would you take back in time? When would you take it to? Would you be someone who wants to "save the world", or would you try and make some fast money?

Called Third Strike on "Touchdown Jesus"

2010-06-15T08:50:00.001-05:00

For a while, it made a small town in Ohio famous. It was the "Touchdown Jesus" statue rising over 60 feet above the ground outside a megachurch, overlooking the nearby I-75 highway.

It was ridiculed by comics, parodied in song, and derided as excessive by many. And now it's gone.

Yes, what scoffing and mockery couldn't do, good old Nature took care of. Struck by lightning, the massive statue burned to the ground. I wonder if the hyper-religious who see "god's hand" in natural events (hurricanes, earthquakes, oil spills, etc) will say about this? Was it the Christian deity striking down a forbidden graven image? Or maybe it was Zeus trying to show he's still relevant?

Or was this just another example of the inneptitude and inaccuracy of the Biblical creationist god -- he was probably aiming at the nearby Planned Parenthood clinic, or the dozens of strip clubs just a few miles in that haven of iniquity -- Dayton, OH. After all, if that "god" can't hit Houston with an oilslick the size of Florida, why should we expect him to nail the right town with a lightning bolt? And who can blame him if the miss causes damage and destruction to the completely innocent?

-----------------------------------------------------

Quick update on what might have been the actual target (which was clearly missed): There's a Hustler Hollywood store directly across the highway from "Burning Man" Jesus, where all forms of smut and pornography are legally sold. Given the vast array of immorality and vice surrounding the Solid Rock Church (henceforth to be known as "Flaming Styrofoam Church"), it remains a mystery why only the 60' tall "Terminator" Jesus was struck down.

World Cup Fever!

2010-06-13T20:42:00.000-05:00

What an opening weekend for the biggest sporting event in the world! Amazing skills on display from the best players in the world, tremendous saves and shots all over the pitch.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've set my DVR to record every single game -- and I'm planning on watching as many as I can before the harddrive overloads and starts deleting the oldest ones. I've managed to watch at least parts of every game, and three full ones.

The USA-England match was phenomenal. I was worried when England scored in less than 4 minutes, but the US defense clamped down and forced a draw. Tim Howard -- what a monster in the box. Even with a ball that provides some very "interesting" bounces and bruised ribs, he still put on a clinic for every keeper in the tourney.

Watch out, world! The USA is going to make some noise this month. Next up, Slovenia on Friday. My prediction: USA 3, Slovenia 1

The Parade of Moronic False-Association Just Doesn't Stop!

2010-06-11T15:23:00.000-05:00

There's a pastor in Macon, GA that's just aced the "deluded beyond belief" test. His post, The Parable of the Gulf Oil Spill is an absolute gem of lunacy and nutbaggery. This moron thinks that God works by creating natural disasters that decimate huge expanses of humanity just to send "warnings" about things the poor pastor doesn't like (homosexuality, abortion, and prosperity gospel). The trouble is, he is too busy preaching about it to notice his sense of direction is all wrong.

Yup, the guy claims that the Gulf oil spill centered south of Louisiana and generally drifting to the east is retribution from God for the iniquities and sin in Houston, where Planned Parenthood is building a new clinic. Add to that the fact Joel Osteen's church is headquartered in Houston, and Pastor Joe goes ballistic. How dare Houston have such disrespect for his god!

Has anyone else noticed the absolutely terrible aim the god of these morons has? Every time I think they can get more absurd, another one (like this guy) jumps up and shouts his idiocy to the rafters. Pat Robertson asserted Disney World would be hit by a natural disaster because they allowed a Gay Rights group to visit -- and then his own hometown was hit by a hurricane. Another bozo claimed that Hurricane Katrina was retribution for all of the excesses of the French Quarter in New Orleans -- but Katrina didn't do much damage to that hotbed of sin, preferring to devastate the 9th Ward and numerous churches, instead.

Look, I'm not saying people can't have a personal belief in whatever deity they choose. Most are fine and normal and not complete nutjobs, and I get along fine with them. But it is absolutely insane to think that (a) any god would be so inept that he couldn't hit a city the size of Houston with an oil slick the size of Florida, and (b) that an omnipotent deity that created the universe would care about idiots like Joel Osteen bilking millions by pandering to the basest survival instincts of lonely people, or that (c) such a deity would use a massively wasteful, overdone and inaccurate method like an oilspill, hurricane or earthquake.

Clearly, these guys aren't thinking right. They're thinking too small. If they want to truly get "biblical" on the Osteens and Planned Parenthoods of the world, a worldwide conflagration that consumes everything (humans, plants, animals, bacteria, etc) is more God's style. Can't do a flood -- 'cause God promised! But all out nuclear holocaust -- you betcha!

This is simply awe inspiring!

2010-06-09T13:45:00.000-05:00

Check out this video that a French freediver made. I have to admit, I've done my share of swimming and snorkeling, but to simply drop into a blue hole like that is insane!

All I can say is, wow. I'm impressed.

Take a walk on the Faith side

2010-06-08T15:04:00.000-05:00

As all of my regular readers know (both of you, most likely), I was the first non-mainstream-religion writer for the KC Star's FaithWalk column back in 2007-2008. I wrote a total of 5 articles, which were all well received.

Now, it's time again for someone else to take up the challenge. The Star is again recruiting people to write for their column, and they're looking for just about anyone, of any religious persuasion (or none at all). I would love to see a wider variety of perspectives from the community. I think it would be interesting to read from a much younger viewpoint, especially for those still searching and questioning how beliefs and faith fit into their lives.

The last couple years have seen a small increase in the diversity of views, but not enough. Almost all of the writers have been Christian, most of the mainstream variety, and none of the overtly fundamentalist types. There has been the obligatory atheist each year, but no real agnostic or lapsed religious types. A single Pagan/Wiccan for that fringe. Only one non-Abrahamic writer.

If the point of the FaithWalk column is to provide a broader insight into the diversity and views of the greater KC area, I would hope that the Star makes the effort to recruit from the less common religious groups -- Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc, as well as the non-religious.

Urban Dictionary isn't the right tool for getting defintions of common terms

2010-06-07T11:01:00.000-05:00

OK, so the Urban Dictionary is pretty good for us "old timers" to get a grasp on the latest lingo and slang out there. But when it comes to more standard terms and words, it fails completely. PZ Myers mentioned it in regards to the term "atheist" today, so I thought I'd go check it out. He's right -- almost all of the "definitions" are idiotic insults hurled by ignorant religionists.

One thing I noticed while laughing my way through the first couple pages of "atheist" definitions was the links to other terms that were related: Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. So just for curiosity's sake, I clicked of "Muslim" first. Wow -- what an even worse display of ignorance, prejudice and hatred! Calling all Muslims terrorists, claiming that Muslims are all fantatics and intent on destroying Christianity. Misrepresenting sections of the Koran. Pages and pages of this stuff. It's horridly absurd and would be laughable if this wasn't the attitude of many Christians I know.

So then I clicked over on the "Christian" definition, just to see if the same level of bigotry, hatred and vehemence was shown there. Nope, not a chance. Christians are all fluffy bunnies and rainbows, if you were to believe that site. Hardly a single negative about the whole thing, and the whole lot of them whining about persecution and misunderstanding by the rest of the world! Oh, my -- you're only 75% of the US population, how sad for you to be in such a tiny minority! Sheesh! The arrogant hubris was so thick, I almost choked before I could hit the "back" button.

I'm sick of hearing how downtrodden and stripped of rights those poor Christians are. I'm so sorry that you've lost some of your unconstitutional privileges that you've enjoyed and lorded over the rest of us for decades. I'm almost (but not really) sympathetic to the travails and hardships of the majority now that you can't beat down the minority as easily. I know how hard it must be to swallow the fact that putting your "god" on our money and in our Pledge of Allegiance has been challenged as illegal in the courts. It must be so difficult for you, having all that tax-exempt land overflowing with massive, overly ornate places for you to go prostrate yourself before your chosen mythos.

Should a Mosque be Built Near Ground Zero in NYC?

2010-06-01T08:36:00.000-05:00

The NYC Community Board voted last week to approve plans for the building of a 13-story Islamic community center and mosque only a few blocks away from Ground Zero. The USAToday article has an online poll question that asks "Do you agree with the board's decision? Yes or No". Right now, it's running at 86% saying "no". That's disturbing and offensive, if you asked me.

I know how tempting it would be to say "absolutely not" to that question, but think about the consequences of such an answer. From what I understand, this mosque is being built by private financing, on privately owned land, only a couple blocks from the sight of the worst terrorist attack on American soil. It's being vilified and attacked already by the teabaggers and bigots as "insensitive", "evil" and "disgraceful". But what is insensitive, evil and disgraceful (as well as stupid and ignorant) is the sheer arrogance of these people to openly attack their cherished Constitution.

While it's true that the attackers on 9/11 were Muslim, they do not represent all of Islam. And unless someone can show that this Islamic cultural center (and mosque) are being financed by illegitimate terrorist organizations, I don't see how anyone could possibly say it should be stopped, unless they want to dismantle the essential freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution.

The First Amendment states that we have the freedoms of religious expression, assembly and speech. The calls by the bigots and teabaggers to stop this planned construction violate every single one of those freedoms. Can't they figure that out?

If you say we shouldn't allow the mosque because it's not "our" religion -- that violates the free expression clause.
If you say we shouldn't allow it because it would let Muslims congregate and organize near the site of the attack, that violates the free assembly clause.
If you say we shouldn't allow it because the imams might preach something you don't agree with, that violates the free speech clause.

If these ignorant savages had any sense at all, they'd realize that what they're doing is calling for a theocratic dictatorship. If that's what they want, I suggest they all move away, because this country was founded and has remained (mostly) a secular representative republic that is founded on the principles of personal liberty and freedom, not draconian Christian Dominionism. That sort of theocratic, authoritarian dictator-led government has been tried before, and is still functioning in many nations around the globe. Maybe the teabaggers would feel more comfortable over there -- like Iran, Yemen or North Korea. Personally, I wouldn't mind shipping all of them off to someplace like that. Maybe after a few months under those governments, they'd understand the need for the freedoms and liberties that are ascertained by our Constitution.

Come on, America. Be a bigger, more inclusive, more tolerant, and more honest nation. If you truly cherish and respect the Constitution that our nation was founded on, don't let the bigots and idiots run the place.

What'choo Talkin' 'Bout, Willis?!?

2010-05-28T14:44:00.000-05:00

Gary Coleman, the cute kid actor from TV's "Diff'rent Strokes" died today at age 42. While he didn't get much in the way of acting opportunities after he grew up, his role as the younger brother on that show bridged a lot of gaps in the presentation of racial differences on mainstream television in the 1980s.

He was a lot of fun to watch while I was growing up, and it saddens me to see someone so talented die so young. Heck, I'm only a couple years away from 42, myself.

Selecting the wrong answer on a Facebook Poll can get you fired!

2010-05-28T12:22:00.000-05:00

A teacher at a Catholic HS in Iowa was fired because she answered a poll about personal beliefs in a way her employer didn't like. Apparently, Abby Nurre was surfing around Facebook last summer (before she started her job at the Catholic school) and decided to answer a poll question she found. The poll asked whether she believed in God, angels or miracles - she answered "no".

Now she's out of a job because, as the school board put it, she violated "a policy that prohibits employees from advocating principles contrary to the dogmatic and moral teaching of the church."

Wow... just, wow.

It's funny that Catholic schools will let non-Catholic (even -- gasp! -- ATHEIST) students enroll and graduate, but if any teacher gives even a whiff of independent thought or questioning of their rigid dogma, they're publicly stripped of their job, kicked out the door without a second thought, and humiliated and shamed for even attempting to defend themselves.

Of course, the non-Catholic students have to pay for the privilege of attending the school, but the teachers take money away. Clearly, though -- there's no financial bias going on in this case, right?

First Synthetically Created Artificial Life Made by Humans

2010-05-20T13:23:00.001-05:00

It is finished...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1190719

OK, so maybe that line from the Bible is a bit over-the-top, but the implications of the announcement are far from tiny. Click the above link to the abstract from Science. The full-text article is available free, so go ahead and read the whole paper.

Craig Ventner's group has managed to put together a completely human-synthesized bacterial genome, then actually gotten it to work inside a cell. The cell has metabolic activity exactly as expected, and it reproduces itself faithfully. The only DNA in the cell is from the manufactured genome -- complete with unique markers and polymorphisms to identify it.

While this isn't a 100% synthetic organism, it is by far the largest step taken towards that goal.

Cue the creationists saying "See, it took someone intelligent to make this happen."

Of course, one could respond that since it only took a human level intelligence, then maybe the Intelligent Designer isn't all that smart to begin with.

What Freedom of Speech really means

2010-05-06T09:49:00.006-05:00

Read it and weep, motherf--kers! The US Supreme Court just bitchslapped the s--t out of censorship and bulls--t! Even the oldest damned Supreme got into the act:

Go stick that in your peace-pipe and smoke it. Or, as Justice Ginsburg is quoted as saying, this is "a bitch-slap in the face of all those uptight limp-dicks."

Free speech isn't just free, it's the f--king Law of the Land!

(hint: read the linked article if you are concerned about the language and tone of either this post or the SCOTUS decision)

Whitewashing the Fence - Should Bible Verses Be Painted On?

2010-05-03T13:47:00.008-05:00

A Casper, WY man caused a minor controversy in his hometown when he painted a short Bible verse from Leviticus on his fence. It would have been bad enough if he had just painted on Leviticus 20:13, but he had to go and add injury to insult with his own interpretation.

Not only is this guy an outright bigot, but apparently the people in town aren't much better. Apparently, the city council has decided that because this fence is on private property, they can't do anything about it. Although I usually applaud when people try to defend "free speech" and the rights of the individual to express themselves, there are always limits to what can (or should) be said. Just like shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is considered non-protected speech, this sign is a direct threat to anyone who dares to be non-heterosexual in Casper.

Even sadder is that this fence sits along the road to the local high school, so on many days over 100 students have to walk past it. This offensive, prejudiced, obnoxious and ignorant display of biblical literalism just shows again how backwards, anti-social and evil some people can be. I'm sure Mr. Turnbull is a nice enough person. But as Steven Weinberg said, "For good people to to evil things requires religion."

It Must Seem Like the World is Ending to the Fanatical Believers

2010-04-16T07:44:00.005-05:00

Earthquakes, volcanoes, meteor showers, global warming -- and now...

The National Day of Prayer is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Yes, believe it or not, the Congress-approved NDoP has been ruled by a Federal Judge to violate the Lemon Test, the 39-year-old landmark case that set the precedent and three-pronged requirement to determine legitimacy of a law or decision when touching on religious matters.

Especially after the massive hype over yesterday's "Tea Parties", where the scalding mugs of teabagged hosts whipped up a frenzy of hysteria over government involvement in things they feel shouldn't be regulated - like caring for the sick, housing the homeless, taking in the orphans and providing safe, clean, reliable food and water to all. You know, all those evil, socialist, demonic things that no "True Christian" would want to see.

I can't wait to listen to the talking heads explode with indignant anger and pumped-up piousness. I can only imagine the tears that will be streaming down the face of Glenn Beck and his cronies. I just know this is going to be appealled to the highest court -- and unless the religious right gets some sort of Divine Miracle, it's going to be confirmed.

And the great part is, many of the arguments used to promote and "justify" the NDoP are the same ones that have been cited in support of the "Under God" clause that was added to the Pledge and "In God We Trust" on our money. Take note, godly believers - NOT ONE OF THESE THINGS WAS ENACTED BY THE FOUNDERS!! In fact, all three were started during war, and pushed almost exclusively by prominent religious groups as a means of separating the "righteous" from the "godless enemy".

Oh, and that whole "tradition" argument that many have tried to claim? You know, the one that goes "but we've been doing it since the founding, so it must be good." Try substituting "slavery" for "prayer" and see if you can justify your morals with that. Good luck with that.

Man, the universe is FRICKIN' AWESOME!

2010-04-15T15:55:00.002-05:00

Seriously, how can anyone NOT consider it incredible, from the multitudinous scales and levels of the entire universe, from the teensiest bits of quantum foam to the utter-mind-blowing-immensity of the universal sight horizon? And the thought that even those depths, 14 billion light years away, is still not the ultimate limit of just our universe - it's just the fact that we couldn't see any further away, even if we tried.

Here's a fantastic site that gives a good scalable view of everything (and I mean everything) from strings vibrating at Planck length, all the way through the entire width of the universe. I advise you not to view this if you are too wrapped up in thinking the universe is less than 10,000 years old -- it will quickly disabuse you of that error.

I've seen the light! I've been converted to a new religion!

2010-04-09T12:14:00.006-05:00

I've been a PC/Windows user for over 20 years. The last time I spent any time on a Mac was in college, and that was multi-generations ago in computer years. I graduated from Win 3.1 to 95, through 98 and XP, dabbled a bit with Vista before falling in love with Win7. I use MS Office regularly at work and home, and although there have been some difficult and trying times (BSOD, virus/spamware bloating the system, peripherals and 3rd party software not wanting to work, etc), I was basically satisfied and content with where I was. I’d played with my daughter’s iTouch, and I’ve even got an iPod nano (tiny little green thing that I can play all my 80’s hair-band rockers on). But I’ve never really been interested in the Mac computers, and I had all the excuses to justify it – to expensive, too fancy, not compatible enough with Windows, don’t need it, etc.

Then my world was turned on its head.

I got my new 21.5" iMac exactly one week ago, and I am amazed at how fast, easy and brilliant it is. It runs circles around Win 7 (and I was truly impressed with Win 7 as a massively wonderful upgrade to the MS-OS). I hadn't realized how much better the MacOS is -- Windows is probably still several generations behind the curve. I remember in college how easy the Macs were to use, and even though I do recall when Win95 came out that it looked like the last MacOS I had used 5-6 years prior, I didn't want to shell out the cash for a Mac. Besides, Windows and Office were "good enough" for my needs.

Some people say that you can get "more bang for your buck" with a All-In-One (AIO) Win-PC (bluray, more USB slots, HD tuners, etc), but what do you sacrifice for those options (and they are optional)?

Speed, memory, power, finesse, and pure artistry.

My iMac has a 3.06Ghz Core Duo chip (I wanted to get an i5 system but I didn’t need the 27” screen – no matter how big and beautiful it is), an ATI Radeon 4670 HD chip, 4GB of RAM, a 1TB HD, and a 21.5" full-HD 1920-by-1080 display, wireless keyboard and mouse. Even your own tests show that the iMacs are by FAR the fastest AIO computers. This system is a graceful and speedy gazelle in a field of lumbering, clueless water buffalo.

Not only is the Mac OS faster, sleeker and more intuitive than even Win 7, my Mac didn't come bloated with all the adware and "trial" programs that bog down nearly every PC. The software it does come with is amazingly useful and feature-packed. I've got more memory, HD space, processing power and screen resolution than any of them. I can (and have) installed a virtual PC complete with Win7 and all the MS Office bulk, and it runs faster and smoother in a virtual window than it did on my old PC.

All of this luscious, tasty goodness is then packaged in a console that looks like it belongs in an art museum. Seriously, have you looked at the iMac compared to a Windows desktop or laptop? Brushed aluminum, slot drive DVD, crystal-clear front, a black bezel that hides the webcam, and only one cord needed to operate. It’s a perfect synergism between minimalism and function, uniting in what could the one of the most beautiful technology pieces ever made.

Oh, and I've got to say something about the keyboard/mouse combo. I thought the keyboard was undersized, and the lack of a 10-keypad initially bothered me. I even considered buying the wired Mac keyboard (same elegant, minimalist design, but included a 10-key and extra USB port). But not after using it for a week. This tiny little sliver of aluminum is rock-solid and smooth, and it's a breeze to type on.

As for the mouse -- WOW! The addition of the touchpad on the top makes it so innately simple and joyous to use. Set it so I can "right-click", and I can two button, three button, scroll up/down AND left/right without moving my hand. I can move back and forth between webpages (or documents) with a quick two-finger swipe. Tracking is phenomenal and precise. It's a combination of art and technology that simply isn't found in the PC world. Sure there are wireless keyboards and mice (and trackballs, pads, etc) for PCs, but the Mac stuff is so far ahead, it's not even fair.

Add in a copy of iWorks 09 (to go with the phenomenal "free" iLife suite), and you’ve got a genuine superstar of a system that will run rings around nearly any PC you want to compare it to. I paid just over $1700 for the entire system (software included), with a 3-year comprehensive warranty and service plan. That may seem like a lot, but just try and piece together a WinPC with comparable specs for that price. And don’t forget the software – Windows 7 and MS Office to match MacOS and iWorks, not to mention a decent photo and video suite to compare to the iLife suite that comes gratis with every Mac.

I think you'll be hard-pressed to find an AIO or laptop which is even capable of being upgraded to this level. I know it’s possible to match it with a full desktop PC, but then you’ve got this big, ugly box to find a place for. Oh, and a monitor that will match the size and performance of the iMac. Add it all up, and the cost of a comparable feature-set will easily equal or exceed what you'd pay for a Mac. I know – I tried it on Dell, HP, Best Buy and Tiger Electronics websites. Last but not least, don’t forget the comprehensive three-year service and support warranty.

At best, you can get a little cheaper (maybe 7-10% less) if you skimp a bit on some of the parameters. But then you have to factor in the elegance, aesthetics and overall clean integration of the Mac, which does count for something (if not in real dollars).

I never thought I’d say this, but I’m a Mac-convert. In less than a week, I’ve committed myself to a long-term relationship that will probably never end. Or at least, won’t until I fall in love with the iPad.

Do Methane Burps Give You a Warm Feeling?

2010-03-05T10:23:00.002-06:00

Climate change, global warming, AGW -- whatever you want to call it, whatever you think the cause of it is, I don't care. It's happening. The planet has warmed significantly in the last few decades, and coincidentally, the human emmissions of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) has also increased at a tremendous rate.

I'm not going to argue one way or another about the causes of it all. I personally think it's a combination of a lot of stuff (yes, including human actions). But the effects are going to be significant and potentially devastating to civilization as we know it. Changing weather patterns, rising sea levels, disruption of crop cycles, etc will all create chaos in the world as we know it.

But what happens if the methane bursts loose?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8437703.stm

It looks like it might be starting, and that's a bad thing. Carbon dioxide's a greenhouse gas, but not a very efficient one. Methane, on the other hand, is a blockbuster. There is enough methane trapped in the frozen hydrates beneath the Siberian sea and other oceanic shelf systems to more than double the atmospheric carbon if it all came out. And it's starting to melt and leak.

Right now, things are not perfect, but we can manage. But if the methane breaks out it will start a feedback chainreaction of warming the permafrost, releasing even greater amounts of methane, causing even more warming, etc. And then all that excess carbon has to go somewhere -- and it will go into the oceans.

Great idea, right? Wrong! That much carbon forced into the oceans will increase the acidity levels to the point of destroying the carbonate shells of the sea critters - including the diatoms which are at the bottom of the overall oceanic food chain. And what happens, boys and girls, when the bottom drops out of a food chain? Starvation and death all the way to the top -- which means all of the world's humans, too.

Yup, anthropogenic global warming might be wrong, but whatever the cause it's getting worse, and if we can't slow or stop the rise in temps soon, it won't matter a bit who caused it - we won't be here to argue about it anyway.

Apparently, some people think we ARE in a Holy War

2010-01-19T23:28:00.003-06:00

Get this, a company that makes the sighting system for the US Military's most common individual weapons has been putting Biblical references on them for probably close to 20 years. I've used these sights, and they are pretty damned good, but that's got nothing to do with the Bible verses. I personally don't care whether there is a reference to some mythological belief on my personal rifle. But I do worry about the message it is sending to our allies and our enemies.

We're involved in military action in parts of the world that are definitely not predominantly Christian. In fact, in some of those nations, discussing any religion other than Islam (even showing someone a Christian Bible) can be a crime. Yet here we are, on a supposedly sectarian nation-building endeavor, and even our weapons are screaming out "Jesus saves"!

I have to wonder what the Islamic terrorists will make of this revelation. Does anyone think that they'll ignore it and this story will end up swept under the proverbial rug? Not a chance, IMNSHO. This is a tailor-made recruiting dream for OBL and co. Not only are we having an occasional mishap where innocent civilians (all Muslim) are killed by various weapons, but now it comes out that those same weapons are marked with sectarian verses.

I worry that this revelation will fuel further indignation and outcry from the terrorists, and put our soldiers, civilians and everyone else in more danger. How many Iraqi and Afghan soliders who are being trained on these very weapons will refuse to use them now? Who will pay to have these sights replaced (an not-so-insignificant cost)?

The head of the company's sales and marketing division said "the inscriptions have always been there" and that there was nothing illegal about it. In a legal sense, he's right. This is a private company, and they've got the right to inscribe whatever nonsense they want on their wares. But the image it sends of our soldiers carrying weapons explicitly prosetylizing for Christianity while on a supposed secular mission in Islamic theocratic societies is chilling. The USA isn't on a Crusade, and we're not trying to be the new Empire of the world -- but stupidity like this sure gives the impression of just that.

Old Bottlecaps Don't Die, They Kill

2009-10-19T15:00:00.002-05:00

Check out the pictures here to see what happens to discarded plastic. It doesn't quickly dissolve, break down, or disperse into tiny little harmless particles. It kills baby birds (and other animals, too).

There is a place out in the ocean called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch that is composed almost entirely of plastic waste products -- bottles, caps, fishing line, etc. But don't worry, most of the trash in it is small and already starting to fall apart. Of course, when plastic disintegrates, it can also release lots of nasty, poisonous and nefarious chemicals into the water.

But these baby albatrosses didn't get the chance to fly over the Garbage Patch and see the damage to their environment for themselves. Their parents inadvertently fed them junk food -- literally. You see, birds can't readily distinguish a colorful piece of plastic from a colorful bit of edible marine life, so many of these young birds were force-fed trash until their digestive systems clogged and they died. It's not the mama bird's fault -- it's ours.

All plastic is human produced. All plastic trash is human waste. So all those dead birds (and turtles, otters, fish, etc) are our responsibility. So, how much wildlife have you killed today?

Who says Supreme Court Justices need to be unbiased?

2009-10-09T13:10:00.004-05:00

I always thought the nomination of Supreme Court Justices was supposed to be based on a record of fairness, clarity and intellect, and that they were lifetime appointments so that the partisanship of culture and politics would not color or sway their rulings.

Unfortunately, we aren't lucky enough to have a full nine justices meet those standards. One of them (at least) is an outright bigot and ignorant bastard. Check out this exchange over the perceived meaning of a cross:

Judge: The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war?

Lawyer: A cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity, and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins.

Judge: It's erected as a war memorial! I assume it is erected in honor of all the war dead. The cross is the most common symbol of . . . of . . . of the resting place of the dead.

Lawyer: The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemetaries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.

Judge: I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that's an outrageous conclusion!

Now, that's one confused and bigoted judge. Seriously, he seems unconcerned that the symbol he's claiming represents "all war dead" is a specific religious icon of a specific faith group. It's like claiming that no one should mind if he refers to all soft drinks as "Cokes", not even the Pepsi people. Or that the McDonald's golden arches are a symbol of all fast food restaurants, and ignoring the outcries of dismay from the Burger King's and Dairy Queen's of the world.

If this was some hick country judge from a century ago, presiding over some menial court case in the backwoods of the Ozarks, I probably wouldn't mind too much. Clearly, in such a situation, the judge's comments would be buried in the onslaught of history and never see any higher illumination than a few brief seconds in his own tiny community.

Unfortunately, the brilliant jurist and profound pundit who spouted such inanity was none other than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Yup -- one of the nine most important people in the nation, who are tasked with determining the constitutionality of law, the judicious application of fairness, and the blind eye of justice. There have been many claims that the Justices appointed by Clinton (and now Obama) are, or will be in the future, "activist".

I'm sorry -- let me clean out my ears. I must have missed the massive hue and cry from the religious right as Justice Scalia just shat on the idea of equality under the law and separation of church and state.

I'm sure Justice Scalia wouldn't mind, since the clear intention (not!) of the cross is simply to honor the dead and not single out any particular sect, if upon his gravestone we emblazon the Islamic Crescent -- after all, it's simply a symbol of recognition and honor to one who has served his nation well. Right?

A Comfort-less Introduction

2009-10-06T14:17:00.004-05:00

I was informed a few days ago that Ray Comfort's new "introduction" to Darwin's On the Origin of Species was available online, so I went and looked at it.

http://assets.livingwaters.com/pdf/OriginofSpecies.pdf

Well, I wasted 20 minutes of my morning reading it (GAHHHH!!!!!! THE STUPID!!!!! IT BURNS!!!!!!eleventyone!!!!!!)

Actually, the first 8 pages aren't too bad as a historical summary of Darwin's life and publication record. It wasn't great (I've seen far better books and articles that recapitulate his life in far more detail and accuracy), but at least it wasn't completely off-kilter and full of lies. Unfortunately, I can't say that for the remaining 86% of the "introduction".

Seriously, Ray Comfort is an idiot. Not just a little bit, but a full-blown, off-the-charts, willfully stupid and arrogantly unintelligent idiot. He's been shown dozens of times the basics of evolution, and where his "ideas" about it are wrong, and yet he continues to bleat out this mangled, inept, not-even-wrong version of crap. And the whole Pascal's Wager bullshit over the last dozen or so pages (convienently rewritten as being pushed out of an airplane at 10,000 feet) is so overblown and underthought, that one would think Comfort's head would be enough to keep one afloat at that altitude (he's definitely got enough hot air, and he's sucked way too much helium for even a dozen people to survive).

I'll admit, when I got to the section labelled "His Famous Student", I was actually expecting something about Huxley or Dawkins or Gould. Then I realized it was just a series of out-of-context quotes. Then I had my own "Uhh....wait.....what?...." moment (quite literally, actually) when I realized after the second quote from Darwin that he switched to quoting Hitler. Ummm... Poe's Law, anyone? And of course, there's no mention anywhere of the quotes from Hitler praising God, proclaiming his devotion to Christianity, and his emphasis on doing "God's work" throughout his life. Gee -- selection bias, maybe?

At that point, I almost gave up. Actually, I almost threw up (uggh... don't you hate that burning, awful taste of puke rising in the back of your throat, especially when you manage to swallow it back down? YUCK!!), but I managed to keep from yacking on my keyboard, and kept reading. Lucky for me, I didn't drink myself stupid last night, Ray's next few pages felt like it crashed my IQ at least 20 points. I don't think I could have survived the loss of that many brain cells twice in 24 hours.

AAAACCCKKKK!!!!! PPPPBBTHHH!!!! (Damn! Now I'm quoting Bill the Cat. A sure sign I'm a few braincells short this morning. Thanks, Ray!)

The bludgeoning of the transition from bashing Darwin to shoving Pascal's Wager down the pipe is simply breathtaking in it's absence of logic and rationality. Absolutely guaranteed to cause your synapses to misfire (not just a few -- all of them). In fact, I'm not sure I can even manage to stand up now -- I'm that overwhelmed by the stupidity. I think I need a drink (maybe a dozen or two) to restore my sanity.

What a maroon! What a fool! What a waste of time. I tearfully regret that I won't be able to regain the time lost while reading this crap, and I hope my wife likes wiping up drool, because I'm not sure how functional my brain is going to be from now on. It really is that bad.

Chatting with Jim...

2009-10-06T13:59:00.004-05:00

On a whim, I invited the theists who regularly post over at Bill Tammeus' blog to meet me last Saturday evening for a discussion about Richard Dawkins' latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth. I first announced I'd be there on Tuesday of last week, so that anyone wishing to show up would have plenty of time to schedule it. I even specifically invited the "Master Debater" Jim Christensen (or at least, I told the kids he mentors to invite him). Given the aggressive and offensive nature of the juveniles posting over there, I wasn't surprised to see vitriol and insults.

Clearly, just the thought of meeting an atheist is frightening and worrisome to the youngsters. So when polite invitations didn't work, I tried challenging their courage. As expected, they declined, as only cowards and fools will do. I predicted over there that only Jim would have the balls to show up - and sure enough, he was the only one who did. All the kiddies ran away to Lawrence, instead. (I have to wonder about the ethics of allowing teenagers to go to a college fraternity on a Saturday night). Ho, hum. Too bad they didn't show, maybe they would have learned something about tolerance, ethics and genial conversation.

As it was, there ended up being quite a lively crowd at Borders last Saturday. I really wasn't expecting much (again). Instead, when I arrived I saw Cole Morgan, Iggy Dybol and Greg Swartz sitting waiting for me. "Uh, oh." I thought. I worried that Jim wouldn't come over to our table with all four of us sitting there. Glad to see I needn't have been concerned. A few minutes after I sat down, I was tapped on the shoulder by the man himself, Jim Christensen. A quick round of introductions and a trip to the coffee bar (I bought Jim his first coffee, like I said I would), and the conversation took off.

Of course, I was hoping to focus more on Dawkins, and less on the theological arguments of atheism and belief. For better or worse, Iggy and Jim started to go astray almost from the start. I was impressed by some of the admissions and concessions that Jim made -- he's not a Young Earth Creationist, but a "Gap Theorist". He does accept most of evolutionary explanations, he just thinks there must be a "guiding force" (Star Wars Jedi Masters, perhaps?). While I tried several times to get the conversation back to evolution and the evidence from the book, it was futile. Jim and Iggy (and the rest of us, I'll admit) had too much of a good time arguing atheism vs. theism.

I do have to wonder, though. Jim made several comments about ethics and whether we thought it was right to be posting on a blog (Bill's) where perceived threats and offensive language were used. Of course, he didn't have much to say when I pointed out that his "kids", Adam and Will, were also on there and posting insults, personal attacks and slander. I guess being unethical only applies to atheists, because a good Christian can always ask forgiveness, right?

Quadrillions and Quadrillions of stars...

2009-09-30T16:14:00.004-05:00

I find it perverse and extremely arrogant of religion to insist that the entire universe was solely created to entertain/support humanity. That is an understandable viewpoint based on the knowledge level 2500 years ago, when it was thought that the earth was the center of the universe, and the whole thing was no bigger than the solar system, and no older than a few thousand years.

But after the findings of the last 200 years in cosmology, geology and physics, such a view is extremely difficult to comprehend. Have you ever looked at the Hubble Ultra Deep Field Image? They pointed the telescope at a tiny section of the sky (less 1/12,000,0000th of the entire sky) and took a picture (OK, slightly more complicated than that, but you get the idea). What they found was, for lack of a better word, magical. Over 10,000 galaxies, streching out over 13 billion lightyears of history, each one host to several billion stars.

Think about that for a minute. This was not a particularly interesting part of the sky they pointed at -- it was, in fact, fairly devoid of any visible light or known stellar objects. For all practical purposes, it was a blank, black bit of nothing to raise any interest. And yet . . . and yet. . .

10,000 visible galaxies, each with several billion stars. That alone is a staggering tens of TRILLION stars in that one image. But that image was just a random bit out of over 12.7 million possible bits of sky they could have looked at. There's no reason to think that it wasn't representative of the rest of the sky. Nor does it mean that those 10,000 galaxies seen by the Hubble were all that's in that little sliver of the heavens.

Think about it -- 12 million pieces of sky times ten thousand galaxies times several hundred billion stars per galaxy... That's a heck of a lot of stars! In fact, it's well over 200 sextillion of them. It's pretty much mind-blowing.

Let that number sink in a little bit -- 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

If the possibility of a sunlike star with a planetary nebula around it is extremely remote (say, 1 star out of every 1,000,000 happens to be like our solar system), that means there are approximately 200,000,000,000,000,000 "solar systems' out there. And if only 1 out of every 1,000,000 of those happens to have a planet in the "habitable zone", then there are only 200,000,000,000 possible 'earths'.

200 billion earth-like planets. How many of those will possibly have life? I don't know. But I wouldn't bet against the possibility.

---------------------------------------
Oh, and here's a little reality check on those solar/planetary probabilities. As you can see, I seriously UNDER-estimated the probabilities:

# of stars in typical galaxy: between 10 billion (dwarf galaxy) and one trillion (giant galaxies) (reference)

% of sunlike stars: ~10-20% of all stars (at least in the Milky Way Galaxy) (reference)

% of sunlike stars with rocky planets: ~5% (reference)

---------------------------------------

Now, think about all that for a few minutes, and then consider how reasonable and rational it is to think that all of that was solely for the sake of us humans on our little planet, with our thin smudge of organic life sloshing around on it. What possibly reason could there be to have trillions of galaxies out there that aren't visible or reachable? Why would any deity who could possibly conjure up a universe as vast and awesome as this one spend any time at all demanding blind obedience and servitude from a few billion slightly evolved apes?

Where did all the oil come from?

2009-07-07T15:10:00.003-05:00

Here's a question that puzzles me when I try and consider the young-earth creationist mindset.

Where did the oil come from?

Was the oil all there from the beginning (6000 years ago), and we've been using it up in an exponentially increasing manner over the last 200 years? Or is it created in an ongoing process that has accumulated those trillions of barrels in less than 100 centuries?

If the answer is the former -- and there is no new oil being 'created' -- then the problems related to peak oil and resource depletion apply (you know, those sticky issues that the 'greenies' and 'environmentalists' are so damned concerned about). If we've only got what we started with, then eventually it will run out, and there had better be some alternative energy source available and integrated into our infrastructure long before then, or the world will turn dark, slow and violent in a very short period of time.

However, if the answer is the second choice (continuously created over time), then where is the research in YEC science to find out how this occurs?

Our current annual consumption in the USA is approximately 7.5 billion barrels (that's over 317 billion gallons of crude oil consumed just in this nation every year). That's a lot of oil, but it's small potatoes when compared to the total proven reserves still in the ground worldwide -- over 1.3 TRILLION barrels. If only the US was using it, that amount of oil would last us (assuming we don't increase our consumption over time) over 175 years. Alas, we aren't the only nation in the world using those reserves, and in fact, while our own consumption has leveled off, other developing nations are rapidly increasing their demand as their economies grow and their citizens demand higher standards of living. As of 2008, the total consumption worldwide for oil was about 85.5 billion barrels. Unfortunately, that means that our current oil reserves will expire in less than 45 years.

Now, if we assume that oil is continually produced (option #2 above), and make an unevidenced assumption that at the beginning of the earth there was no oil, then that means there should be nearly 400 million barrels of oil formed per year for the last 6000 years (note: I'm including the historical consumption of oil in addition to the current proven reserve volume as an approximate total originally available). While that 400 million barrels isn't a complete solution to the energy crisis, it does present a unique and tempting opportunity. After all, if it is a natural process that is continuous and currently ongoing, then it should -- in principle -- be possible to duplicate it. And if one can repeat the process, then it can be scaled up and used to produce our own oil!

The YEC crowd often complains of a lack of funding and research dollars to support their "science". What better way to fund themselves than to find a way to manufacture hundreds of millions of barrels of oil per year? Even if they only got a penny per gallon of oil, that's still $164 million dollars PER YEAR!

But then I look at the creationist research on this, and I find something strange and incomprehensible. They aren't even looking at this avenue of investigation. What?!? How can that be? It's a clear winner for them -- not only do they gain scientific credibility for their research and claims, but if they are correct, it's a HUGE revenue stream that will bolster their mission. How can it not be done?

Unless, perhaps, they secretly realize that all their claims and assertions are actually not true...

Selective Breeding: It's Good to Be a Smart Atheist!

2009-04-10T07:26:00.003-05:00

Since it's well known that higher intelligence, higher education levels and higher incomes are all correlated strongly with a higher degree of critical thinking and atheism, is it any wonder that I'm not at all worried about creationists trying to out-breed the intelligent people?

I've been told by several arrogant theists that the atheists won't survive because we don't produce as many offspring (I happen to have three, so I'm certainly doing my part). But just like the Dilbert cartoon above, that whole Darwinian selective pressure makes it inevitable that we'll continue and increase in influence. The only way to stop it is to make ignorance, hatred and superstition "sexy". Somehow, I doubt that's going to get you very far these days...

A. P. Rillful's Proof that Darwin was Wrong!

2009-03-31T14:49:00.003-05:00

Yes, it's apparently true! A new peer-reviewed paper out just this week confirms what all the creationists and ID'ers have been saying for years -- Darwin was wrong!

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/03/new_work_on_lateral_transfer_s.php

In the April 1st edition of Journal of Evolutionary Diversions, Professor Augustus P. Rillful et al. document a paradigm-shattering, evidence based theory that revolutionizes all of biology (and every other aspect of scientific knowledge). Rapid faunal succession is the new way of thinking -- throw away all that "random variation and selection" crap! It's all part of the Empedoclean Evolutionary theory.

Darn! Guess I'll have to re-write all my blog entries, discussion group postings and random pontifications to encompass this new field of study.

Or maybe I should just take the day off and digest the implications of these new discoveries. After all, I wouldn't want to waste the first day of a new world order, would I?

Reference

Rillful, A. P., Metonym, P., Hebe, P., Samsa, G., et al., 2009. "A new theory of evolution based upon the ubiquity of lateral genetic transfer". J. Evol. Div. 23 (2):69-136.

How far should we go to protect "life"?

2009-02-25T13:27:00.002-06:00

My personal view of life is that it started several billion years ago, and has been continuing uninterupted ever since. I have never understood the idea that "life begins at conception". Aren't the sperm and egg alive before they merge? And don't they derive from already 'alive' humans? And if you traced back your ancestry, didn't every single person in your lineage start that way -- from already living people? Go back far enough, and you are connected in a very real and ancestral way to those first living things on earth, millions and millions of generations ago.

But there are many for whom "life begins at conception". What they seem to mean is that "humanity" begins at conception, or that the fertilized egg is "fully human" and deserving of all rights and protections as any other person. I wonder -- what could that mean for women and medicine, if taken to it's fullest extent. The following is an hypothetical based on where current technology is, and what the consequences and effects might be if "all abortions" were halted (I'm not just talking about medically induced ones).

Is this the type of situation that you imagined? Do you think such a situation is possible? What other options would you propose to either support or prevent this type of scenario from happening?

------------------------------------------

While the combination of one sperm and one egg give a unique combination of genes that have the potential to be a full and viable human, that moment is not all that is required. It's estimated that up to 70% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant and are flushed out with the next menstrual cycle (1) -- and the potential mother never realizes it. Additionally, of those that do implant, there is a sizable minority which also spontaneously abort over the course of the pregnancy (additional 10-15%) (2) This means that possibly 80% or more of all fertilized eggs (the majority of which actually successfully implant in the womb) are naturally aborted.

Saying "life begins at conception" implicitly ignores the medical reality that only 20% of those "conceptions" actually have a chance at surviving to birth, irregardless of the number of medically induced abortions. And there is no indication anywhere that all of those 80% naturally aborted were not viable -- on the contrary, it is actually far more likely that a large percentage of them are. They just "miss" the uterine lining and pass out with the next menstrual cycle. Even those that are spontaneously aborted after being implanted and medically confirmed (up to and including the 3rd trimester) are not necessarily "non-viable". Many other conditions and situations can naturally induce a spontaneous abortion -- injury, chemical imbalance, hormonal switching, etc.

So my question to all those who say that conception is the start of human life, and that any abortion after that point (including the "morning after pill") is "immoral", what should we do about all those non-medically induced abortions?

Now that we've got the medical technology to detect fertilization of an egg within 24-72 hours after conception (even before implantation), why should we not try and do everything possible to save them? It may be that some women's bodies are not yet ready to carry a child, but that doesn't mean there isn't a way to monitor the women and collect any and all fertilized eggs and fetuses that are developing. It might be an inconvenience to the women (always wearing monitoring equipment -- or having to go in for testing after each sexual encounter), and the protective regimen to save all those fertilized eggs may be considered by some to be extreme (mandatory bed rest, specially designed monitoring and collection equipment worn at all times to alert doctors and prevent the death of a spontaneously aborted egg or fetus, etc).

I can certainly understand the distaste and concern over medically induced abortions -- but those only account for a small percentage of the potential "lost children" that could be saved.

Consider: There were 4.3 million live births in the USA in 2006 (3) If we add in the full number of medically induced abortions (assuming that 100% of those would have been viable and brought to full term) - approximately 1.2 million in 2006 (4) that brings the number of babies to 5.5 million. But wait -- that's only 20% of the total potential births -- because that doesn't count in the 80% that are spontaneously aborted. Even if we assume that half of the spontaneously aborted would be non-viable (genetic malformation, etc), that still leaves a full 40% of the total conceptions that are allowed to die. That's an additional 11 million potential babies that are naturally lost, and through modern medical technology could potentially be saved.

Of course, implementing this to the full extent of medical technology would mean that every female who begins menstruating would require monitoring (either actively via portable hormone monitoring equipment or through regular weekly visits to a doctor) and surveillance. If a fertilization event is detected, the female would need to either have a full-time monitor carried with her (possibly along with a device that could "catch" any spontaneously aborted egg/fetus and protect it -- I'll let your imagination go to work on that idea), or agree to be examined daily by a doctor after positive confirmation of implantation. Once beyond the second trimester, the risk of spontaneous abortion drops, but not completely. Monitoring and surveillance would still be needed, but only once or twice a week. If at any time, signs of a potential spontaneous abortion are detected, the female should be immediately put into a medically supervised environment and maintained on strict bed-rest to ensure the safety and survivability of the fetus. Only after reaching 24 weeks of gestation would the female be released from the facility - but only with continuous monitoring to ensure the safety of the fetus.

This plan would ensure not only the prevention of all medically induced abortions, but would potentially save millions more who would otherwise die due to spontaneous abortion. If every fertilized egg is "fully human" and deserving of all the rights of humanity, and if we have the medical technology to detect fertilization, monitor implantation and gestation, and either prevent spontaneous abortion or safely collect and re-implant those that do -- shouldn't we make the attempt?

---------------------------------------------

References:

1 - http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/266317-overview
2 - http://tinyurl.com/c35s93
3 - http://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa08/hstat/mh/pages/233lb.html
4 - http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html

Science News: Cheap sequencing!

2009-02-18T10:53:00.001-06:00

Wow! I remember the days only a little more than a decade ago when the Human Genome Project was started and expected to take several billion dollars and 20-30 years before the first complete sequence was finished.

Technology, knowledge and computing power have completely shattered those limits -- at least one company expects to be able to sequence a complete human genome (all 3 billion bases) for less than the price of a used car and in only a few days.

What do you think this will mean for the future? What effects do you forsee happening in insurance, government, social sciences, etc? Is this a good thing, or not?

Discuss...

Logical Fallacies vs. Life's Work: Which is more important?

2009-02-18T10:43:00.003-06:00

Is using out-of-context quotations and selective opinion pieces a reasonable means of determining an person's overall viewpoint and opinion, or is it better to evaluate an author's entire body of work and acheivements? And should a person's accomplishments and successes be undermined or discarded because some of their views and statements are hateful and offensive?

This has been a topic of discussion in several threads on the KC Freethought Forum, and it made me wonder why anyone would try to use such an obviously flawed argument to try and demean and de-legitimatize the prodigious works of a man like Charles Darwin. In the case of Charles Darwin, one of the frequent posters to that site, Will Graham, linked to several sites that take only a few dozen sentences from his massive volume of professional and personal writings, and those are often mischaracterized or misinterpreted as being "racist" or "sexist".

I have no problem recognizing that compared to today's more "enlightened" culture, his overall views would be seen as bigoted and prejudicial -- but in the context of his timeperiod and culture, he was without doubt a very liberal abolitionist. On particular example of this is the attempt by creationists to use the sub-title of his most famous work, On the Origin of Species, to imply that he was racist. And yet, although the term "races" appears on the cover, it is clear from historical conventional usage at the time, as well as the full context of the book itself, that he was referring not to human cultural races, but to subspecies and breeds of species. That is blatant misquoting and purposeful misinformation, and should be condemned by all as unethical behavior.

Darwin is the subject of a very recent book, Darwin's Sacred Cause, which explores the abolitionist spirit and values of the man, and how his ideas and opinions drove him to understand and appreciate the value and interconnectedness of all humanity, and that the cultural definitions of race were a false construct of man, not an actual biological phenomenon.

Contrast that to someone like Martin Luther. While he gets great credit for challenging the archaic, bloated and hypocritical megalithic Catholic church, there is also little debate about his virulent antisemetic views. And in contrast to Darwin, whose views on race became much more enlightened and abolitionist over his lifetime, Luther became more and more antisemetic and hatefilled as he got older. Not only that, but he wrote entire books about the subject of how to demean, destroy and dismantle Jewish property, synogogues, homes and families in order to "purge" them from the face of the earth.

Luther on the Jews

More Luther

Even More from Martin Luther on Jews

In comparing the two, Darwin and Luther, we see that one grows over the course of his life more tolerant, more forgiving and more understanding of the connections between all humans and life, while the other grows harder, more intolerant and far more virulent as he ages. But neither the fact that their views changed, nor the fact that either or both were racist, antisemetic or otherwise bigoted, has anything to do with the overall contribution to human society that they both had and are rightly recognized for.

Luther helped overthrow a tyrannical, overbearing, overindulgent and corrupt church. Darwin gave a comprehensive and overarching explanation for why life is so diverse and yet so similar. So why is it that we often see attempts by those opposed to one or the other use the out-of-context quotes of Darwin, or the irrelevant-to-the-issue antisemetic views of Luther to attempt to poison the well of discussion? Rather than actually addressing the achievements of these great men, people who use such tactics are trying to avoid addressing the actual issue of their accomplishments.

So my question is, given that Darwin Day was just last week, why is it that creationists continually try to use out-of-context quotes from Darwin on race and sex? And why do they not actually address any of the challenges to the use of such logic when I applied those same techniques to Luther's writings? If using such logic works to invalidate all the successes and accolades of Darwin, then it should likewise work to invalidate the achievements of Luther.

And if anything, based on a reasonable comparison of the two men's writings, Luther has far more to answer for, and far more to lose. So if we're going to throw out evolution because Darwin was supposedly a racist, why shouldn't we also throw out the Protestant Reformation because Luther was a self-affirmed antisemite?

Science News: Search for alien life gets boost from Kepler

2009-02-18T10:41:00.000-06:00

Back when I worked on magnetotactic bacteria at Iowa State, I remember the frenzy and interest in the "Martian nano-bacteria" in a meteorite found in Antarctica. We still aren't sure about life on Mars, but with the upcoming launch of Kepler, we just might be able to see earth-sized planets orbiting stars far outside our solar system. And with some of the other ground and space based telescopes either already in operation or scheduled for the next few years, we're going to have the potential ability to detect the presence of potential life-marker chemistry (water, oxygen, amines, etc).

This is amazing, mind-blowing stuff. Just a few hundred years ago, we had no clue there was anything beyond our solar system. Even 100 years ago, it was thought that the galaxy was the extent of the universe. Now we're stepping out to the point of looking directly for other planets.

How does the potential of what Kepler might find affect your views of humanity and life on earth? If at some point in the next few years life (or significant indicators of life) are identified outside our solar system, will it affect your personal worldview?

Bee Healthy = Bee Happy / Bee Dead = We Dead

2009-02-18T10:29:00.003-06:00

Honeybees are used to pollinate the majority of humanity's crops around the world. Without them, fully half or more of our production of food would fail, leading to massive starvation and death worldwide. Bees have evolved for hundreds of millions of years, and are very good at what they do. But when humans arrived on the scene and started "hijacking" the bee's native abilities for our own uses, we messed with their system -- and not in a good way. Now it looks like we might be on the verge of a very steep, dark and treacherous decline.

Between pesticides, herbicides, genetics, selective breeding, the practice of monogenetic breeding and infection, we've put the honeybee on a path to potential destruction -- and our own health and future in jeopardy, too. While there are many non-honeybee pollinators out there (even many other bee species), the fact is that there aren't enough native pollinators to take up the slack if the honeybee populations crash and fail. We've not had a time in this country's history where such a large portion of the population are at a threat for starvation and disease -- even the great Dustbowl years didn't compare in the potential for overall crop devastation and failure.

What this will mean in the future, I don't know. It's possible that this massive, worldwide die-off is transitory and temporary, and over the next few years, the bee populations will recover. Or, in the worst case scenario, the populations are decimated permanently all over, and it could result in a total collapse of agricultural food production.

Think about it -- we're nearly to 7 billion humans on the planet (and well beyond that number of domesticated animals that depend on our agricultural food supply to survive). Based on conservative estimates, even if we restrict reproduction as humanely and efficiently as possible, the human population will probably not stabilize until well over 10 billion. Our food generating capacity right now is probably sufficient to feed all those mouths, but just barely (and let's not get into the difficulties and costs of distribution of food worldwide -- another great big problem area).

Now imagine if 25-50% of the world's food supply were cut down by the devastation of the bees. What consequences would result? Mass starvation? Rise of totalitarian states? Collapse of international alliances and accords? War?

The rising disaster in honeybees is only one facet of the greater problem, but without doubt, it's one that could have a rapid and devastating effect on the world economy and security within the next decade.

Vaccines don't cause Autism

2009-02-13T10:31:00.002-06:00

The science is clear, and the legal rulings are coming faster and faster. The original study (Wakefield, 1998) was flawed and the author is being investigated for misconduct, and over the course of the following decade dozens of studies worldwide have shown conclusively that there is no link between vaccinations and autism.

Does that mean there shouldn't be concern about the number of vaccinations, their interaction with the body, and the safety and health of all people? Not at all. But this autism-vaccine scare has gone on long enough. Autism is a difficult disorder to diagnose, and the symptoms don't all show up with consistent timing and sequence. And the fact that the MMR vaccine is given at 18 months means that there is very little development time for noticing autistic tendencies. In fact, it's not until about 18 months that those tendencies start to appear.

This is obviously a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy - just because the MMR vaccine (and many others) are given at around the same time that early autistic tendencies are noticed does not mean that one caused the other. It's clear from the research that's been conducted that there is no difference in autism numbers, regardless of vaccination status.

And the risks aren't just for the kids who don't get the vaccines. Herd immunity is critically important for public health. We need about 95-98% of the population immune to a communicable disease to keep from triggering outbreaks. Since this bogus vaccine scare started, the vaccinated numbers have dropped -- from over 97% in the late 90's to less than 85% now.

And what's happened? Outbreaks of measles, polio and other easily preventable illnesses. Not vaccinating your children is a reckless public health threat. There's no other name for it -- it's a threat and a risk for all people.

When you get vaccinated, you not only help yourself by immunizing against the disease, you also add to the blanket of protection that covers all people in your community. If everyone is vaccinated, then no one can get sick. Even if there are a few that don't vaccinate (for whatever reason), they are still protected by that greater public blanket. But poke enough holes in it, and the blanket starts to leak, and the infections, sickness and death follow quickly.

We haven't eradicated the diseases we innoculate against - we've simply put up a shield against them. And these anti-vax morons are trying to rip apart that shield and put everyone -- not just their own selfish selves -- at tremendous risk.

Please, educate yourself about the safety and security that complete vaccination creates. The risks are real, and the idea that these are "old" diseases is a fraud - they still exist, and they still kill, maim and disable. If we succumb to the irrational and fearmongering anti-vaxers, we'll end up with easily preventable, curable diseases making a "killing" on the death charts.

Saving old games for posterity

2009-02-13T10:22:00.002-06:00

I've always been a video game player. From the earliest Atari system to the video-game arcades of the 80's, through the Sega Genesis to the PS3, I've owned sysetms and played them for decades. One of the little joys of my life is using a software emulator (M.A.M.E.) to play old arcade and console video games on my computer. Donkey Kong, Galaga, Pac Man, et al -- they're a lot of fun. And the new games -- WOW! High Definition graphics, full 7.1 surround sound, interactive worlds of adventure: what a rush of adrenaline.

But there's a lurking problem. Many of the old games are hardware dependent, meaning that without the proper computer or console, they won't work. Sure, there are some emulators out there (as mentioned above, M.A.M.E.) , but it doesn't work for all games, and there are many consoles that don't have good emulators available.

Now there's an EU funded group that's trying to develop a software that will allow any game, from any generation, to be played. I think this is a worthy effort, but I'm hoping they aren't just looking at the gaming world - there was a lot of relevant and historically significant productive software that is being lost because there aren't any machines capable of running them anymore.

I really hope they succeed -- because we all need a little Donkey Kong now and then.

Maybe This Explains Creationists Too

2009-02-05T08:51:00.002-06:00

Well, chalk up another reason why teenagers are so rebellious and dismissive of parental authority. According to this study, teenagers haven't fully developed their "theory of mind" and have a more difficult time figuring out what other people think.

After reading the article, I can say that it sure looks similar to what happens when I talk with creationists. No matter how logical and reasonable the evidence is, no matter how many times the theories are explained, no matter how hard I try to get them to "imagine no religion" (even for a moment) - they refuse to do it.

Based on this report, it may not be because they choose to refuse, but because they can't do it at all. Trying to view things from another's perspective is difficult anyway, especially when that other view is radically different from your own. But if this research is correct, those with younger, less developed minds will have an even greater difficulty doing so. And we all know creationists don't like to think very hard about things -- they'd rather be spoon-fed their beliefs and simply parrot talking points and canards without reflecting on the reasoning and rationale behind them.

Of course, if this does explain creationist thinking, then it also implies that there may be other parts of their brains that are underdeveloped -- I wonder if there's a test for development of critical thinking and skepticism?

Artificially mimicking Natural Selection

2009-02-04T13:41:00.002-06:00

There they go again, proving evolutionary theories right!

Darn those dratted scientists!

When will they ever learn that Jumpin' Jebus Jee-horsey-fat preprogrammed every little thing before the start of the universe? Their experiments are all the work of that Evilainous Satan Dervil! I just knows it!

Now those pesky scientists are making artificial brains that actual learn and grow! Their monstrous creations (all the size of a paperback book) can walk, see, and maybe talk.

Someday soon, they might even make a fake brain that works better than the typical creationist brain.

Oops, wait a minute -- the one they started with had six neurons. Guess they've already accomplished THAT feat!

Curses Or Prayers -- What's the Difference When It Comes To Football?

2009-01-16T19:47:00.005-06:00

Most theists are quick to tell you that prayers get answered all the time. Of course, the empirical data says otherwise, but we all know how impervious theists are to rational examination of their beliefs.

However, I've got a question for all those honest theists who are so insistent that their preferred deity will answer their prayers. What is the difference between the answer to a prayer and the fullfilment of a curse?

Seriously, aren't they basically the same thing, and only the outcome being different (one for a "positive" result, the other for something "negative")? Is a curse something that God would deliver on, or is it just as ineffective as intercessory prayers?

At least in the world of sports, it's a common practice for individuals and teams to gather together and pray. Many credit "god" for their good fortune, skills and ability (of course, that leaves good old mom-and-dad out in the cold: thanks for those genes!) The KC Star has an article today about the faith of football players. Great for them -- they pray together.

But what are they really praying for? Luck, points surrepitously added to their score, or -- perhaps the injury and/or failure of the other team? After all, if "god" is going to favor one side, there is obviously a lack of such favor on the other, and what really is the difference between giving the favored side a little boost and the opponent a kick in the shorts?

Seriously -- would these professional, highly trained, extremely talented athletes be getting a lot of praise and positive press if they were calling down curses, hellfire and damnation on the other team? I can just see the quarterback standing in the middle of the field, his teammates huddled around him, chanting and swaying together as he calls out on his "god" to smite the other team, smack them down hard, make them hurt, make them suffer, make them LOSE!!!

Buddhas at the Zoo cause Christian Zealot to Cry "Foul!"

2009-01-14T08:43:00.003-06:00

Well, it finally happened! The Christian zealots have finally found a religious icon not related to JudeoChristianity on public property, and they're making a stink. David Engle was at the KC Zoo last weekend, and witnessed the abuse of religious power that Buddhism has over the zoo staff. There are apparently two statues of Buddha flanking the entrance of the Tiger Trail, and despite protests by the zoo management that they were only meant as decoration and to represent Asia, it was clear to Mr. Engle that they were there specifically and only for worship, to the exclusion of all other Asian belief systems.

Actually, while I do think the zoo wasn't trying to promote any religious bias, I have to somewhat agree with Mr. Engle on this one. After the fuss and protest about the bias given towards Christianity in the public square, the oversensitized feelings of all parties needs to be taken into account (including theists).

I haven't seen these Buddha statues, so I don't know if they are a traditional version (like a bodhisattva) or more in line with a Hotei, or "laughing Buddha". Either way, while Buddha statues aren't quite as common around these parts as crucifixes, they still represent a sectarian philosophical religion (albeit one that is nominally atheistic in nature), and should probably be taken down.

It's somewhat of a sad statement of today's overhyped sensationalism regarding religious iconography in the public square. While I do think there is too much influence of specifically Christian icons, references and symbolism in American government and the public square -- especially instances where it is intentionally used for sectarian influence -- there still needs to be some acknowledgement of the history and heritage of all cultures, which includes the religious traditions.

I would be very curious to know if the Buddhist community in KC pushed the zoo to adopt the Buddha statues for the Tiger Trail. This would be similar to the illegal influence of Christian groups who pushed (successfully) to get religious symbols, words and phrases inserted into official government places ("Under God" in the Pledge, "In God We Trust" on our currency, Christmas Trees in the capitol rotundas, etc). If they did, then it is definitely a case of state/religion comingling that shouldn't happen.

But if it was simply a case where the zoo employee thought the statues looked "Asian", then it is probably not quite so bad. Either way, the statues should go. After all, we wouldn't want to see all those good Christian kids turning Buddhist because they rubbed the belly of a Buddha!

Evolution In Action: Bettwer Watch Out for the Flu Bug!

2009-01-12T14:32:00.003-06:00

Guess what? Even when we know it happens, it can still surprise. Case in point, the current dominant strain of influenza that is causing people to use up all their sick days at work this winter happens to have be a "mutant" strain that is resistant to one of the newest and best antiviral drugs on the market.

Not only is the H1N1 strain resistant, but the very mutation that causes that resistance has been identified. It's a spontaneous mutation (apparently not caused by selective pressure from the use of antiviral drugs), but the sudden increase and overwhelming replacement this season in the flu genome is tremendous. The mutation was identified a few years ago, but was contained to a small percentage of the total cases. In fact, last year the resistant variety was less than 11% of the total flu cases. This year -- 99%.

Now, this isn't the dreaded pandemic of "bird flu" -- but it does show the incredible power and effect of mutation plus natural selection, i.e., evolution. But one of the biggest problems is the lack of a rapid differential identity test between strains. Not even in the biggest hospitals can the doctors tell which strain a sick person has until it's too late to start on the antiviral treatment (it has to be started within 48 hours of infection to be effective).

Lucky for us humans, the flu isn't capable of horizontal gene transfer -- er. . . wait a minute, yes it is. Hmmm. Better keep that box of tissues handy, the drugstore might not be able to help you in a few years!

What if we used other words in the motto?

2009-01-06T15:12:00.002-06:00

I've got a question for everyone who insists that the words "In God We Trust" and "Under God" are not an establishment of religion when they are prominently displayed on our money and in our Pledge of Allegience (and on just about every government building). If, as has been claimed, these are inocuous, ceremonial words that simply celebrate the heritage and history of our nation, then what happens if at some time in the future (and it may be sooner than you think) Muslims become a large enough group to gain a majority?

Will you have a problem if they suggest, mildly and with respect, that the word "God" should be replaced with "Allah"? After all, it would only be a recognition of the Muslim traditional and linguistic history, and not at all about a "founding of religion". It's not like they're pushing their full religious beliefs on you -- they just want to recognize in their traditional language the exact sentiments already present.

Think about it --

"In Allah We Trust" on the money.

"Under Allah" in the Pledge.

Would you be offended or upset by that? Why? The term "allah" simply means "god" in Arabic, so there really shouldn't be any reason to be angry, worried or threatened by it -- it means exactly the same thing! If it's OK and not an imposition of any specific religious belief or faith, then using a word from another language that has exactly the same meaning shouldn't bother you at all.

On the other hand, perhaps if you consider the situation in these terms, you can begin to understand why the prevelance and ubiquity of religious-words (like "God") on our national symbols, seals, oaths and money do seem somewhat oppressive and offensive to those of us who don't have a belief in your gods.

Commenting on Trolls and Abusers

2008-12-22T07:32:00.004-06:00

It's interesting to see how paranoid and delusional some get when a little bit of their freedom to spew hatred and insults gets curtailed. Late last week, I tried something that I've not done before (mainly because I didn't know how it would work) -- comment moderation.

What it did was put any new comments in a queue (that's a line, for those non-bilingual folks) that must be first viewed and approved by the blog owner -- yours truly. As I've only had a few people reading this blog, and one is extremely virulent and ugly, I thought perhaps that might work as a way to get him to slow down and think a little.

Alas, I was wrong -- it not only didn't slow him down, it increased his insults and attacks. I've now re-opened the comments (it was a short experiment just to see what would happen). I didn't remove any comments (you can look here, here and here to see the comments he posted while waiting for me to "approve" them). It appears that when caged, trolls get even uglier and more viscious.

Given the recent hubbub in upstate Washington over displays in the Capitol building, I thought it was an interesting test - I went from a completely open commenting section to one with a minor restriction, and the troll exploded. Just like the religionists up in Washington (and across the nation) when told that the fully open display ordinance would allow someone to -- GASP! -- put up a sign that was dismissive of religious belief. Good Heavens! We can't have that!

I've now restored the previous order -- comments are no longer moderated or held up prior to posting. I've also put through all the troll-ish comments and personal attacks so everyone can see the effect that even minor limits cause. I can't understand the level of hatred, vitriol and ignorance displayed by this particular troll, but if he wants to continue spouting his attacks and childish pouting, I'm not going to stop him.

It's like the theists are acting as trolls (or vise versa). Both want all the freedom they can get, but can't tolerate either inclusion of other views, or any limits on their actions. Sorry -- you can't have your cake and eat it too.

What's so special about humans?

2008-12-19T14:34:00.004-06:00

I'm a human, and I'm going to make an enormous "leap of faith" and assume that everyone who reads this is, too. I happen to like being human, I think I'm unique (as is every other human), and I have a natural self-selecting bias in favor of other humans - especially those most closely related to me - over other species. But then again, all species probably have a prejudiced "species-ist" mentality. But just because I happen to prefer humans over, say . . . spiders or jellyfish, doesn't mean I think we're "special", just that we're different from other species.

Everything living has through its history evolved the same amount (somewhere around 3.8 billion years and counting). So I've got to ask: What’s so special about humans, anyway?

What I mean by this is that no matter which religious believer you ask, or which holy book you consult, the conclusion is that humans are the final product of whatever process was used, and that God was subtly (or not so subtly) guiding the process to develop humans to their final form. To me, this is the ultimate ego trip.

Let me explain.

It’s fairly obvious that there exist thousands of fossils from species that went extinct sometime in the past. Some argue that a Noachian-type flood wiped them out, others that there were multiple creative events that were necessary to “clear the way” for humans to arise and still others claim that evolutionary processes did it. But all assume that with the arrival of humans, whatever process was used is basically finished.

My question is – why are humans the stopping point? After all, who can truly say that humans are the end result that God (or whichever deity you prefer) was looking for? Perhaps we’re just another “dinosaur age” that is needed to prepare the Earth for the next stage? Personally, I think it is the height of arrogance and egotism to assume that humans are the end result, given the size and scope of the universe as we know it.

How can we know that we haven’t been given religious inspiration to further some other cause or “chosen” species in the future? Every religion says that humans are fallible and cannot know God’s mind or intentions. Perhaps God is using us or our planet for seeding the ultimate creative process, and gave us misleading or incomplete information to keep us docile and complacent? Unfortunately, there is no way to test this or any similar theological quandary. The only thing we can continue to do is explore, investigate and test the universe in the only way we reliably can – naturally and through scientific methods. Perhaps someone can provide a logical and rational explanation as to why we are the “final product” of creation, but I’m not holding my breath.

In the meantime, I'll keep being human and trying my best to help out everyone I can -- human and/or otherwise.

This is an Oldie (but still applicable)

2008-12-19T14:17:00.002-06:00

I was going through some old files on my computer today, and came across this gem. For those reading this who are metaphorically challenged, it's a sarcastic take on sanctimonious religious proselytizers who (dis)grace the doorsteps of many residences. It's even been done on video (www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ), but I think the text does more justice to it - beside, I can easily picture John and Mary in their Sunday finest trying to be serious about this.

Kissing Hank's Ass

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

John: Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary.

Mary: Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us.

Me: Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?

John: If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you.

Me: What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?

John: Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever he wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss his ass.

Me: That doesn't make any sense. Why...

Mary: Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?

Me: Well maybe, if it's legit, but...

John: Then come kiss Hank's ass with us.

Me: Do you kiss Hank's ass often?

Mary: Oh yes, all the time...

Me: And has He given you a million dollars?

John: Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town.

Me: So why don't you just leave town now?

Mary: You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you.

Me: Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?

John: My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money.

Me: Haven't you talked to her since then?

John: Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it.

Me: So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?

Mary: Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street.

Me: What's that got to do with Hank?

John: Hank has certain "connections."

Me: I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game.

John: But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit of you.

Me: Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from him...

Mary: No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank.

Me: Then how do you kiss His ass?

John: Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on.

Me: Who's Karl?

Mary: A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times.

Me: And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?

John: Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself.

----------------------------------------

From the desk of Karl

1. Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list Himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't use alcohol.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you.
-----------------------------------------

Me: This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead.

Mary: Hank didn't have any paper.

Me: I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting.

John: Of course, Hank dictated it.

Me: I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?

Mary: Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people.

Me: I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?

Mary: It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right.

Me: How do you figure that?

Mary: Item 7 says "Everything Hank says is right." That's good enough for me!

Me: Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up.

John: No way! Item 5 says "Hank dictated this list himself." Besides, item 2 says "Use alcohol in moderation," Item 4 says "Eat right," and item 8 says "Wash your hands after going to the bathroom." Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too.

Me: But 9 says "Don't use alcohol." which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says "The moon is made of green cheese," which is just plain wrong.

John: There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure.

Me: Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock...

Mary: But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese.

Me: I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow "captured" by the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese.

John: Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!

Me: We do?

Mary: Of course we do, Item 5 says so.

Me: You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying "Hank's right because He says He's right."

John: Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking.

Me: But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?

Mary: (Blushes)

John: Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong.

Me: What if I don't have a bun?

John: No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong.

Me: No relish? No Mustard?

Mary: (Looks positively stricken)

John: (Shouting) There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!

Me: So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?

Mary: (Sticks her fingers in her ears) I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la.

John: That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that...

Me: It's good! I eat it all the time.

Mary: (Faints)

John: (Catches Mary) Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater.

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

Reading -- paper or virtual?

2008-12-18T12:48:00.003-06:00

OK, so I've had a Sony PRS-505 Reader for a little over a year, and I really like it. With this little device, I can carry around a full library with hundreds of books -- and it only weighs as much as a typical paperback.

I've been able to read (and re-read) tons of classic works (Arthur Conan Doyle, Shakespeare, Poe, Darwin, Wilde, etc), along with plenty of new books. I've read Terry Brooks, Matt Ridley, John Scalzi, and many other new authors releases. And the best part is -- none of the "ebooks" is more expensive than a regular paper book, and most often they're cheaper by 15-50%.

While there are some features that the Sony reader doesn't have (wifi access, touchscreen, larger screen size, etc), all in all it is a fantastic little device. I've had tons of people ask me about it when they see me reading, and I've probably been an unpaid salesman for the thing -- I know of at least three people who've bought one because of my recommendation and demonstrations.

One of the best things on the reader is it's ability to reflow PDF files, so I can easily read a scientific journal paper (two column) without having to actually print it out. And in low light or when I'm really tired, I can increase the font size.

If anyone has questions or wants to see one of these amazing gadgets in person, just let me know. I hardly ever buy a paper book anymore (unless the author is a Luddite who refuses to allow their books onto electronic media -- there are a few).

Don't Steal Jesus!

2008-12-16T13:23:00.003-06:00

It's happened in the past, it's happening now, and it will happen in the future.

Jesus is being stolen from nativity scenes.

I don't personally think this is a good idea -- stealing is wrong and it violates the trust and honor of those who put their beliefs in an open display like most creches.

Even in government buildings -- where I don't think they belong -- vandalism and theft are not the answer. Education of the public about free speech, a secular and agnostic governance, and the proper usage of public trust and space is essential. If a local, state or federal government agency erects (or allows to be erected) an obviously sectarian and divisive display, then they should have no problem allowing all sectarian and/or non-governmental displays.

It's what has happening in Olympia, Washington, and I'm sure those legislators and the governor are very happy for the publicity and attention their city is garnering. After all, where else can you go to see baby Jesus next to a sign proclaiming there are no gods, a Festivus pole standing proudly beside a Christmas tree, Fred Phelps lovely holiday message declaring "Santa is evil" juxtaposed against a backdrop of fervent Christians avowing the sanctity of such a wonderful Christian holiday? The only problem would seem to be a lack of space -- there are far more religions, personal viewpoints and non-governmental displays that potentially could be on display.

Interestingly, although there has been a lot of talk about legislative removal of the atheist sign, whether the Festivus pole is appropriate, or if the odious Phelps clan should be allowed to put up their sign, there is no indication at all that the state government is actually doing the "right" thing -- remove ALL such displays and signs. The creche and Christmas tree no more belong there than does a picture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (PBUH).

When will the religious zealotry end? When will the prosecutors of this unholy "war on Christmas" finally figure out that they are actually promoting ideas and concepts antithetical to the founder's vision of a free, open and secular society?

At this rate, the governor of Washington might just have to move out of his office to clear room for all the displays. I hope he's as good at working out of his house as the Mayor of KC!

The only way that seems to work (in most cases, not necessarily in Washington) is a dramatic and overwhelming increase in the number of displays and viewpoints in contrast to the "standard" Christian ones. At some point, we have to hope that the leaders of the respective polities recognize the futility and arrogance of only allowing one (or a select few) viewpoint on the public stage. There are a few options open, and only one is reasonable, logical and legal:

1) Try to ban those whose views you disagree with, and you're gonna lose a lawsuit.

2) Try to accomodate all views, and end up miserably crowded and despised by all.

3) Simply follow the Constitution and avoid all pretense of sectarian preference. Allow no public displays of religious viewpoints, sectarian causes and private opinions. Reserve the secular public square for non-judgemental and free access to all, without regard or prejudice.

The decision shouldn't be difficult or tedious -- but the blindness to the reality of secular government caused by personal religious fervor can prevent even the most intelligent from seeing what should be clear and obvious to all.

Wouldn't things be simpler with NO displays?

2008-12-15T09:20:00.003-06:00

It seems the Olympia Statehouse atrium is getting a little crowded these days. Not only is there a giant "Holiday Tree" and a large nativity scene, there is also the controversial FFRF sign. Now they're getting requests from all over to display even more things - signs, displays, protesters, etc. Now the controversy has gotten even worse, because the absolute bottom of the barrel religious protesters -- the Westboro Baptist Church -- has gotten into the act.

The last thing a federal, state or local government needs is to appear like it's supporting/advocating for the hatred and bitterness spewed by Fred Phelps and his notorious clan. Yet, based on the precendents set in the last month by the government in Olympia, they'll probably have to allow Phelps to add to the chaos.

Given that there is probably a church right down the street with a nativity scene, I wonder why there also has to be one in the building that houses the representative government of ALL people -- not just Christian, but Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, Hindu, Buddhist and every other belief and worldview? When it was just a nativity or menorah, it was easy for the governor and legislature to ignore the protests and complaints about lack of acceptance and diversity of views. But once they opened the floodgates, they're going to drown in the cesspool of their own making.

Phelps is the worst of the bunch so far, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the KKK, the Nation of Islam and many other divisive, aggressive and obnoxious groups lobby to post their own signs. Add in the protests and counter-protests that will ensue, and the entire statehouse will become a madhouse.

It seems like there is a very simple, easy solution to all of this -- leave the religious displays out. Rather than put up ANY displays, simply point out that individuals and groups are free to put any and all such displays up on PRIVATE property (such as a church, house, business, etc), and leave the arena of public representation open and free for ALL to feel welcome and undisturbed by sectarian displays and platitudes.

There are Atheists in Foxholes

2008-12-15T09:11:00.002-06:00

In my fifteen years as a member of the US Army, I was one of the few I knew who had no belief in God. I wasn't vocal or outspoken about it, but when questioned about my views or asked to go to "services" on Sundays, I was always honest about it.

Some people in far more difficult circumstances than I was put in have had their "lack of faith" tested even more strenuously. Benjamin Tupper is one of them. His story is both enlightening and heart-rending. That he was able to maintain a strong role in such a difficult situation, leading both Christians and Muslims in battlefield conditions, is inspiring. Even though those serving with and beneath him continually told him he was 'going to hell', he didn't relent and he lead them with honor. He even won the respect of the Afghani interpreter who was assigned to his unit (although the boy remained a Muslim).

Not everyone who serves is religious -- and those without religion are just as dedicated, caring and inspiring -- perhaps more so because they do it without promise of a heavenly reward (and often in the face of those who would have them 'hellbound').

Got a Prayer Request -- Stick it in the Wall!

2008-12-10T10:50:00.002-06:00

Apparently, there is some semi-obscure tradition that God answers prayer requests if they are written down and stuck in the cracks and chinks in a Jerusalem wall. Apparently, even if God is omnipotent and omniscient, he won't see/read/hear your prayers unless you've taken the time and effort to get your request to the proper authorities (Israeli postal clerks, apparently), who will then proceed to deliver them to God (via a wall?)

I don't know -- it all seems a little hokey and contrived to me. Why would letters stuffed in the cracks of a wall (not just any wall, but the crumbling outer retaining wall of Jerusalem's Jewish Temple) be answered?

According to Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitz, prayers of people all over the world “ascend through this holy place.”

Huh? A prayer said in earnest 10,000 miles away has to travel (apparently on paper) to this wall just to be heard by an omnipresent deity?

I have to wonder if any of the rabbis or letter writers have bothered to think through the implications of their bizzare rituals.

Hell on Earth - The Beginnings of Life?

2008-12-09T15:39:00.003-06:00

Life obviously began on earth at some point in the past -- even the Bible clearly states that when it was first formed, it was "void and without life". So somewhere, somehow, life started.

Obviously, the Christians and other religionists will insist that it was the "hand of God" or some other mythical conjecture. They all seem to envision it was done with a peaceful, gentle waving of some magic wand and a sprinkling of pixie dust, and then POOF! Life begins!

Of course, science and reality are never that cute and cuddly. Some bits of life's building blocks take far more "oomph" to get started than just a magical wave -- it takes conditions that exist in Dante's Inferno.

In this recent article in Science News, researchers at Tohoku University in Sendai, Japan subjected basic chemical constituents to a brutal test -- encapsulating them in small stainless steel cylinders and firing them at extremely high speeds at a solid wall. This wasn't done just for the satisfaction of watching things moving at high speed go "BOOM!" (although that can be a lot of fun, too), it actually had a valid scientific purpose.

The scientists were trying to replicate the conditions that would be encountered in a meteor strike on the early earth to see what sort of reactions and combinations would be created. Sure enough, they got some novel and very promising results. Glycine, fatty acids, amines, and other organic chemicals were formed from the tremendous heat and pressure of the impacts. Not only that, it is clear from the isotope of carbon (C13) that was used that no contamination occurred from outside the cylinders.

It seems that every day, new information and findings are providing tremendous support for the idea that the precursors of life, far from being rare and statistically improbable in the universe, are actually very common and readily found in just about every place we look -- from the hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean all the way to interstellar space. We've got several potential habitats within our own solar system that could evolve life (not including our own little planet) -- Europa, Titan, and Enceladus all have liquid water oceans under a thick ice crust. At some point in the future, we're going to be able to pull a sample from one of those distant places, and I wouldn't place bets against the possibility of finding some alien critters out there.

By all indications, the starting blocks of life weren't formed in a quiet, peaceful little pond, but in the hellish and violent conditions of interstellar space and high impact collisions.

A Polite Request for Discussion

2008-12-09T10:28:00.005-06:00

Wow -- I've actually got some people reading my little blog. That's really nice (although not all the comments have been).

It's been mentioned several times, both here, on Bill Tammeus' blog and in the KC Star's Faithwalk section, that some of the more vocal theist defenders have "listened in on" the atheist meetups around town. I have a polite request for those who do -- why don't you gather up your courage, gird your loins, and join in the conversations face-to-face? Why "spy" on others, when you could join in the conversation and perhaps actually provide something other than sniping, anonymous comments on blogs?

Here's a idea (and a challenge) -- I'll meet anyone, face-to-face/one-on-one to discuss religion, belief, faith, politics, etc. All you have to do is show up. I don't record, video, or take pictures -- just talk and maybe have some coffee. This Thursday from noon to 1:00, I'll be at the Border's bookstore (119th and Strang Line Rd) in Olathe. I'll be sitting quietly at one of the coffeeshop booths reading a book on my Sony digital reader. If any of the theists is brave enough to have their worldview challenged and questioned, please stop by and chat.

If you can't make it at that time, feel free to email me (or leave a comment here) to arrange a different time/location. I'm generally fairly flexible on scheduling if I have enough notice.

I'm looking forward to meeting you (maybe).

Are the seeds of life found in interstellar space?

2008-12-09T08:49:00.003-06:00

This article from Science magazine talks about a new finding from observations made of an interstellar region where new stars form. Apparently, one of the basic chemical building blocks of RNA has been detected in fairly significant quantities in the star-forming region G31.41+0.31 of the Milky Way (about 26,000 light years away).

Astronomers have detected a building block of RNA floating within the hot,
compact core of a massive star-forming region in the Milky Way. The molecule
appears to have formed with all of the other stuff that makes up planets,
suggesting that many other worlds are seeded with some of life's ingredients
right from birth.

This adds to the already impressive array of data and evidence that the conditions and precursors necessary for life to begin are not only available in the universe, but appear to be rather common. Not only have we discovered extrasolar planets (over 300 have been identified in just the last decade) orbiting stars trillions of miles away, but even in our own solar-system backyard, we've discovered several places with water oceans, which most biologists and chemists agree are necessary for the formation of earthlike life.

We're getting closer and closer to finding "aliens" out there. Of course, based on the track record here on earth, technologically sophisticated intelligent life is a long shot (we've only gotten that to happen once in four and a half billion years).

This is an amazing and exciting time to be a scientist -- it's findings like these that not only answer older questions, but provide the fodder and grist for new and even more interesting and fascinating ones, too.

Christmas Confusion - Why Christians should get their own holiday

2008-12-07T08:33:00.002-06:00

The trouble with how Christmas is celebrated by Christians is that they stole the date, symbology and meaning from other religions. Christ wasn't born in the middle of December -- read the bible. According to it, the shepherds were "in the fields with their flocks", which is an indication of sometime in mid-to-late spring, when the lambs were being born (hmmm, I wonder why Jesus is called the "lamb of God" -- couldn't be a coincidence, could it?).

Non-Christian religious festivals, holidays and celebrations were numerous in mid-winter long before Christianity -- Sol Invictus and Mithras were the two most prominent deities worshipped and celebrated in the Roman world. Most of the rituals and symbols used by Christians were lifted without alteration from those older, established religions -- blood sacrifice, the cross, rising from the dead in three days, wise men coming at his birth, gifts of incense and gold, born in a manger surrounded by animals, eating the "body and blood" of the savior, etc were all part of Mithraism and Sol Invictus religions hundreds of years before Jesus came along.

If the Christians were truly sincere in their efforts to fight the secularization of Christmas, perhaps they should clean their own closets first. Be honest and admit that Dec 25th is actually an non-Christian holiday that was stolen, your rituals and symbols are not "Christian", etc. Leave the Winter Solstice celebrations to those of us who don't follow your deity.

In other words, GO GET YOUR OWN HOLIDAY! (and don't even get me started on Easter -- that's an even worse transgression of symbol and date stealing!)

Somehow, I doubt that many would be willing to do that.

Converting Strict Religionists (or "How Not to Come Off As an Arrogant Bastard")

2008-12-03T15:06:00.005-06:00

How do you get through to a religionist that atheists aren't scary, evil, uninformed or immoral without the conversation degenerating into angry shouts and flaring tempers? Over the years, I've found that trying to stay calm, rational and focused on the issues works much better than direct confrontation and blithe dismissal of the believer's errors.

One idea that I've developed over the years is that a person's religious and political views end up not only coloring how they interact with the world, but also how they see and define themselves. In most households, religion is a permeating and everpresent fog that envelopes a child from the day he is born until the day he sets off to college (or work, or wherever). In such a climate, it is natural not only that an individual gathers in the views and opinions of his parents, but also that such views and opinions will come to define the image of "self". Being told time and again that one is a "Christian" or "Muslim", while seemingly innocuous, is actually forcing a child into a mold that didn't previously exist -- and is damningly difficult to escape from.

After a while, especially in a strict fundamentalist upbringing, those beliefs come to define the person. When later in life such a person is challenged about their religion or beliefs, the believer sees them as questions or attacks on not just the religion, but on the person. This is one of the most insidious and diabolical ways that religion pervades, infiltrates and takes over minds. By coopting the egotistical and natural sense of self-protection, religions can avoid direct challenge and argument.

However, this can leave the believer in a very tenuous state. If their entire sense of self-worth and self-image is tied so tightly to their religion that the two become essentially unified, then any perceived or real error, mistake, or omission in the religion becomes an error, mistake or omission within themselves, too. This is how fundamentalism and dogma assert themselves, and it takes a lot of patience, trust and time to overcome. Most YECs fall into this mold - and anyone else who is taught that their "holy book" is innerent and infalliable.

So, how does one deal with such people?

I've found over the years that you have to take things very slow. If you wade in from the start with a whole list of errors and mistakes from their holy texts, you'll never make any progress. All such frontal assaults will do is cause the believer to throw up an impenetrable wall that cuts off any chance of communication and rationality. Not only that, it will just reinforce what he or she has always been told about "unbelievers" -- that we're trying to get them to go to hell, too.

I prefer to start with trying to understand the believer as a person, and ask "searching" questions to get a dialogue going. Although I might have an answer I'm satisfied with, this allows me to express an interest in the believer's views and show that I've got respect for them as a person. It also can, if done skillfully, push the believer to begin to rationally and critically examine their beliefs in a safer, less confrontational setting. Usually, I start with tangential issues -- I never challenge them to "prove there is a God", because 1) that's not realistic, and 2) it ends up pissing them off, and they end up throwing up their wall of silence again.

Instead, I try to get to know them, gauge how deeply held their beliefs are, and try to find out what areas they are themselves somewhat uncertain or curious about. This not only leads to a shared experience, but generates some beginnings of trust and mutual respect that are essential when dealing with a person's self-esteem and ego. Depending on the level of discussion and the frequency, as well as how deeply embedded their beliefs are within themselves, getting fundamentalists to take those first steps onto the path of rationality and reason can be a frustratingly long process. I've personally "converted" a few -- and in each case, it took patience and a lot of time. You have to start with small victories and work your way up to the larger ones. In the end, most didn't fully drop their religion, but what they had was a less restrictive and more accepting version that allowed them the freedom and self-confidence to travel their own path, and to generate their own questions and challenges without fear of destroying who they thought they were.

Just getting a YEC or strict fundamentalist Muslim to admit that their holy books might not be perfect and innerent is huge. It might not seem like much to most, but that is the critical -- and necessary -- first step. If they can accept that just because their Bible or Koran isn't perfect, that it's not a reflection of imperfection in themselves, then they are on the path to a freer, more open dialogue and understanding of the universe. By severing that "belief=self" connection, the religionist is then able to begin the ardurous and often painful process of shedding the strictures and bindings of religion, and they begin to see the possibilities and beauty of life without faith.

The Decline and Fall of Newspapers?

2008-12-01T15:44:00.002-06:00

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/914754.html

It looks like at least for the time being, the KC Star is healthy enough to survive the current economic crisis and continue publishing a printed edition for the forseeable future. That, to me, is great news (pun intended).

I like to read the paper in the morning, and not just for the comics and crossword puzzle (although those two things are high on my list of desirables for a paper). No, it's because I get news in an easily viewed, highly visual, thorough and broadbased way. In the newspaper, I can scan the headlines quickly and easily, but also dive directly into articles without waiting for pages to load, ads to swim across the viewing area, etc. And if I decide I want to read something else, all I have to do is shift my gaze, not mess with a mouse to find the "back" button and search for another article!

Additionally, reading the newspaper is one of the most effective and easiest ways to be informed and knowledgeable about the world -- in fact, the recent ICI report made that conclusion, which I blogged about here.

While some may decry the "liberal bias" of the editorial staffs of traditional newspapers, I find that the general reporting of the actual news stories is identical to what is found online (on both conservative and liberal websites). In fact, those websites often use the stories from the papers as their sources! And most websites don't have the dedicated and trained journalists to track down, verify and coherently write a good investigative article, especially on highly local issues and concerns (like the KC Star has done on Mayor Funkhouser or the Overland Park Soccer fields). CNN and FoxNews aren't going to care what the wife-crazy mayor of KC is doing, or how great it will be for OP kids to play soccer in the rain. No, we need the paper -- I need the paper -- to stay informed, stay connected, and stay intelligent.

If I were to guess, most of those self-proclaimed politicians who scored so damned low on the ICI test of civics don't read the paper -- they just have their staffs edit and condense the news into soundbites. What a waste and a sad indictment of our nation.

Interfaith in Kansas City - A dinner unlike any other I've attended

2008-11-24T12:07:00.003-06:00

I got to attend my first KC Interfaith Council Thanksgiving Dinner service last night. I took my wife and kids, and all of us ended up participating in a small way to the ceremony and liturgy of the evening. In fact, my youngest son got the most enthusiastic response of anyone!

It all happened because I became friends with Vern Barnett after my Faithwalk columns were published in the KC Star. He and I have met several times, and he invited me to be the "freethinker" representative at the event. He told me that although he has pushed for a long time to include this vastly underrepresented minority in the InterFaith Council, he hadn't found someone who was clear in their views and articulate in the explanation -- until me (or something to that effect).

It was a nice dinner service at St. Paul's Cathedral in midtown KC, and I got to meet several very interesting and diverse people. My kids all thought it was boring (but I would expect most kids would feel that way about having to stare at food for two hours before getting to eat). Some aspects were fun, though, and the food wasn't all that bad once we got to eat it.

The evening started with acknowledgements and the Interfaith Council annual awards, followed by a "blessing" read by a representative of each of the faiths (of course, I was asked to read the "freethinker" part -- which was basically an acknowledgement of the wisdom of the nation's founders to separate church and state, and for the opportunity to pursue any faith tradition or none at all. The event then proceeded to a liturgical-style prompt/response exchange. Dr. Barnett was the interlocutor, and he walked around the room of about 200 people, tapping individuals on the shoulder to indicate they should read the responses as written.

Most of it was interesting, with some history thrown into the mix. At the end, 11 children were tapped to ask a series of questions about the symbols and foods that were involved. Finally, my youngest was given the honor of asking "IS IT TIME TO EAT?", to which the entire room responded with a hearty (and hungry) "YES!"

One of the questions I got asked was why an atheistic freethinker would want to attend an obviously theistically-biased event. I was asked this by a self-professed non-observant, non-theistic jewish man (who acknowledged that his views matched closely to those of Einstein, among others). I explained that first, I was invited by Dr. Barnett because it was his intention and desire to include all people -- even those without "faith". And second, I feel that freethinkers and atheists/agnostics are part of the social and civic structure of the community, and that our views and beliefs should be recognized and acknowledged with as much dignity, respect and value as any of the religious faiths.

All in all, it was a worthy event. Although it was a little too "churchy" for my tastes (hey - I'm an atheist, after all), the inclusiveness, openness and fellowship of the evening won me over. Seeing Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jainists, Freethinkers and Pagans all sharing an evening without acrimony or dispute, with a grand showing of acceptance and warmth, was very encouraging to me.

Although I have to wonder how many of the people there realized that "freethinker" is a code-word for "atheist".

Amurikins is stoopid!

2008-11-24T11:55:00.002-06:00

It says so right here:

http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2008/summary_summary.html

Yes, just a few weeks after a national election that to many was a referendum between the folksy ignorant and the elite intelligensia, we get this report. Although it appeared that the "elite" won the election, we're all losing the real battle -- education and basic operating knowledge of the world.

Not only that, the most frightening thing about this report is that we seem to be willing and eager to elect people who are even dumber and less informed than the average citizen (which probably helps explain why Sarah Palin was so damned popular!). Yes, it's as bad as you think: Politicians are woefully uninterested and uninformed on how the GOVERNMENT works. You know, that organization that they were elected to run?

I was most heartened by the fact that I -- a scientist who hasn't had a course on civics, government, history or other social science for over 17 years was able to score 87.88%. And the ones I missed were questions I stuggled with narrowing down the choices to two and ended up picking the "wrong" one.

The fun part -- you can take the test, too. It's only 33 multiple choice questions, and you can get your score instantly. Find out how you stack up against the best and brightest in our government. After all, you only need to score a 45% to beat the average politician!

http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx

I'm writing a book -- what are you doing for the next month?

2008-10-26T20:37:00.004-05:00

It's semi-official. I've decided to finally write my "great American novel", and I'm going to do it in that typical American fashion: quickly.

I was in the bookstore about a week ago, and there was a table of books for sale that were about writing novels and books in a short time (usually about a month). It was in recognition of the National Novel Writing Month, which is in November each year.

Of course, I picked up one of the how-to books and skimmed through the first few chapters while standing there in the store. I was hooked -- I know I can do this, and I've got just the story to write. I bought the guide and was on my way.

Of course, I didn't start in November -- I'm too eager to get moving. I started on Wednesday, Oct 22d, so I should have the rough draft finished (about 50,000-75,000 words) by Thanksgiving (assuming I stick to the schedule). It's been five days, and I've got well over 6,000 words on paper (electrons?) now. It's amazing how liberating it is to just write -- not worry about grammar, overall cohesiveness, editing, or anything else. Just writing, pure and simple, as fast and as prolific as possible. Now that the story is starting to move, it's getting easier. I've got about half the backstory fleshed out, and now comes the fun part -- the action and adventure!

I'll keep this blog updated periodically to let everyone (ok, both of you) know how I'm doing. Even if I get the first draft done by the end of Nov, it still won't be ready for publication. Lots of edits, rewrites, adaptation, changes, etc have to go into a novel. But if the story comes out half as good as I am imagining it will, I think this will be a fantastic read. At the very least, I can get an official rejection letter from a publisher!

What's the universe designed for?

2008-10-22T13:38:00.000-05:00

Religionists insist (at least the vast majority of them do) that the Earth and the rest of the universe were specifically designed to nurture and entertain humans.

But that seems absurdly weird. After all, there is very little in the universe itself that is habitable (far less than a few trillionths of a percentage of its volume), and even on Earth, most of the planet is inhospitable to human life without tremendous technological attempts to modify either the planet or ourselves.

So, given all that, and yet for the sake of argument accepting the religionist premise that the universe is designed -- what could it be for?

Well, it's clear that carbon-based life isn't it -- too much of the vastness of the universe is hostile to the existence of such things. And if you are only considering a single species, well now the possibility is just idiotic.

But there is one thing that a superdesigner might have use for in making our universe -- supermassive black holes.

Think about it -- according to cosmology and physics, the formation of supermassive black holes (at least a few hundred-thousand times heavier than our sun) is fairly commonplace (one exists at the heart of the Milky Way and every other galaxy, for instance), and the energy potential of such constructs is tremendous. Think about it -- E=MC^2. A black hole with the energy potential of our sun would fit into a space about 3 kilometers (two miles) across. This would be a very convienent way to store and transport potential energy sources, wouldn't it?

On top of that, because of the tremendous gravitational and quantum effects that occur in black holes, it is possible that near the singularity within the black hole, a breach or tear in the fabric of our spacetime into another universe could be created, where the energy of the black hole could be tapped. Granted, we don't know if this is true -- but it's no more fanciful than thinking some magical sky fairy listens to our every wish and grants our every prayer.

If the universe is designed for black holes, not humans -- where does that leave us? Obviously, we aren't too important -- a black hole the mass of the earth would only be a few millimeters across, hardly worth mentioning! In fact, I would bet that if there were a "designer" of the universe, life on a small rock orbiting a second tier star in the backwater subdistrict of a minor galaxy wouldn't even register as a blip on their screens.

We're just the spandrel waste of the universe, and I for don't regret it for an instant. If nothing else, this possibility gives me the hope that someday, humans might just figure out how to harness the knowledge and power of such a designer, and make our own black holes (of course, the LHC might just do that before we're ready).

Palin-tology -- Why should we put up with lowered expectations?

2008-10-06T15:58:00.000-05:00

After ruminating on things for a few days, I've come to some conclusions about the VP Debate last Thursday. Everyone -- and I mean EVERONE -- was saying that the expectations for the two VP candidates were different. Joe Biden was expected to have the knowledge and experience of 30+ years on his side, so his "expectations" were to not be exasperatingly boring and obnoxiously condescending.

Palin, on the other hand, has shown numerous times that she's got no experience or knowledge when it comes to federal issues, foreign policy and fiscal policy. Therefore, her "expectations" were simply to not make a complete fool of herself.

None too surprising that neither candidate met the expectations set for them. How hard is it for Biden to be polite and respectful of others for two hours? How difficult was it for Palin to recite her answers (answers that she admitted right off were not necessarily in response to the actual questions posed) and look cute and perky.

My problem is, when we lower expectations, we get exactly what we deserve. This contest is for the second-highest position in the US Government -- and we're most concerned with how cute and perky the VP candidate is? Why isn't the standard held the same for all candidates? Since when did taking a qualification test get easier just because you're new on the job?

Palin and Biden both met the expectations set -- but only Biden met the expectations and criteria for the actual job. Palin may have put on a good show, but it was clear that she doesn't know anything about the issues that will be faced by a VP.

Finally -- some rationality in the FaithWalk

2008-10-06T13:00:00.000-05:00

It's about time! Finally, another atheist in the KC Star Faithwalk column. I've been getting sick of all the sappy religious platitudes and panderings for the last couple months. And not only that, but Be-Asia looks to be a proud, intelligent and extremely rational woman.

Her column about how she grew in understanding and eventually threw off the shackles of blind devotional faith is inspiring. Her attitude of self-help and positive thinking is a role model we should all aspire to.

Congratuations, Be-Asia! Great column and I look forward to seeing more in the coming months.

The Complicity of Good - Absolutes Fester into Evil

2008-09-26T11:47:00.000-05:00

The attempt on the part of believers to claim “absolute knowledge” about anything – the delay of an adoption, God’s opinion of terrorist attacks, whether God ‘created’ evil or not, etc – is arrogant and divisive. Without some external, empirical means of testing and evaluating those absolutist claims, they are no more valuable nor insightful than any other unsourced and unsupported claim.

Religious believers of all stripes have made exactly the same type of assertions as all others, they come to many different conclusions, and attribute their absolute “truth” as the will of their deity (be it Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, Brahma, Odin, Zeus or any other human-created conception). The only reason Christians think it’s the Christian God is because that is the culture and upbringing they had instilled from childhood.

I have no problem with someone taking comfort in their beliefs, in using their beliefs to provide a means of dealing with uncertainty, sorrow and joy, etc. It is their right to hold whatever beliefs they wish, and I don’t dispute that, nor would I attempt to deny them that right. My issue is with the claims of absoluteness that all believers make – that what they know is “true” based on dreams, imaginings and retellings of ancient parables and fables.

I have a few open-ended questions for believers to answer. At least give them some consideration:

Is it possible that you are wrong? I am asking a serious, introspective question here. I know you claim certainty and truth, but how can you, as a mortal human being, imperfect and finite, possibly know “for sure”? If the possibility exists that you are wrong, however slight, does that in any way alter your feeling of certitude and view of “truth”?
You say that “his spirit lives inside” of you. Could you be misinterpreting it or be deceived by some other spirit or supernatural entity (like Loki the Trickster or Satan)? (Remember, you are not perfect nor all-powerful, you are just another human in this finite world)
If you were born and raised in another part of the world where Christianity is not the dominant religion, do you think would you still be Christian? Why or why not?
Why should anyone accept that your god is more “real” than any other? What evidence can you provide that is UNIQUE and EMPIRICAL that differentiates your chosen deity from all the others?
A Muslim would say the same things to me – that because I don’t believe in Allah, I can’t truly understand the meaning of the Koran and what Allah has “freely given us”. Why is your statement more ‘true’ than a Muslim’s? How can someone who is not part of either belief system choose between them, logically and correctly?
You say “The God I know asks me to love my neighbor as I love myself. My faith is certainly not in the same category as someone whose 'god' is telling them to kill others.” But isn’t that disingenuous – isn’t it true that there are numerous instances described in the Bible where God directly commands individuals, groups and nation-states to kill others? Just because YOU haven’t been told to “kill others”, why do you assume that no one else has been told to by your god?
And to bring it all together – is what God does good because it’s from God, or because it is inherently good? If the former, then God can do evil and still call it good. If the latter, then there is a standard outside and above God that exists to evaluate actions, and God is not supreme. Can you provide any justification or explanation why your conception of God counters this?

Most believers are genuine, honest, caring and kind. I have nothing against them personally. My concerns, as described above, are entirely about getting believers to understand the damage that claiming “absolute truth” can cause.

It’s devotion to “absolute truth” that gave the hijackers of Sept 11th their inspiration.

It’s devotion to “absolute truth” that let the Crusaders slaughter hundreds of thousands of non-Christians.

It’s devotion to “absolute truth” that erased the Middanites (Numbers 31) and Amalekites (Exodus 17:11-16).

It’s devotion to “absolute truth” that the followers of David Koresh, Jim Jones, Charles Manson and other mass murders used to justify their actions.

It’s devotion to “absolute truth” that allows children to die of neglect (http://amhrasscuaine.blogspot.com/2008/06/want-to-kill-someone-pray-for-them.html).

It’s devotion to “absolute truth” that allows mothers to kill their own children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Pia_Yates).

While I don’t think most believers would commit such heinous and unethical acts, the problem is that there is a complicity in their views because by claiming “absolute truth”, it gives legitimacy and grants clemency to all those others who would take it beyond decency and commit atrocities.

Because reasonable and moderate believers claim the same absolutes, it allows a safe haven and respite for those who aren’t moderate and reasonable to shelter under. And that is where the festering wounds of evil infect and spread – with the unwitting assistance of otherwise good, decent and honorable people.

We've nearly create "life in a test tube" -- does that mean we are men or Gods?

2008-09-09T16:07:00.000-05:00

Biologists from Harvard are working on creating "proto-life"

I have to wonder what goes through a creationists mind when he tries to read scientific literature that completely and totally demolishes his cherished beliefs. In this case, it doesn't quite fully demolish their arguments, but it's getting really close to being a nuclear warhead into their foundational idea -- that only God could create life.

Yup, it certainly appears that within a few years (perhaps a decade at most), some scientist somewhere will create an "artificial lifeform" that doesn't use the same genetic code as the rest of the evolved life on this planet. Not only that, but given the implications of Szostak's protocells, the end result will be an EVOLVING, LIVING, CREATED LIFEFORM!

Yes, Dr. Szostak will have, in accordance with creationist claims, become a GOD.

Of course, I highly doubt any of the other researchers and scientists will bow down before him and proclaim his greatness -- science is all about finding problems and tearing holes in old ideas and findings. I'm sure Venter and others will be hard at work creating their own evolving life, thus proving that there isn't just one god, but a plethora of them.

In a few years, we're going to be looking at a whole polytheistic scientific community!

And I thought you needed wings!

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

How to Fly

Look who's a hypocrite!

2008-09-05T11:46:00.001-05:00

Jon Stewart of the Daily Show has a segment from 9/4 where he demonstrates the blatant and rampant hypocrisy of the Republicans when discussing their choice for VP, Sarah Palin.

Not only does this montage of clips from Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Bill O'Reilly and others show just how low they will stoop to get their side elected, it demonstrates that within only a few weeks or months, they can forget their previous words and utter nonstop contradition without batting an eye.

Gahh!! The STUPID!!! It burns!!

Who is Sarah Palin -- and why she's a threat to all that America represents to the world

2008-09-04T10:52:00.000-05:00

Sarah Palin is the Republican nominee for Vice President. Good for her - I'm happy to see that even Republicans realize women are capable of high office in this enlightened age.

But that's where my approval ends.

You see, Sarah Palin is not worthy nor capable of being VP. She's a vaccuous creationist, a vindictive shrew and a manipulative politician.

She's tried to fire a librarian (because the librarian refused to ban books that Palin disapproved of). She claimed just two months ago that our military invasion and occupation of Iraq was a "task from God". She has been trying to Christianize the Alaskan government and force creationism/ID down the throats of their children. She supports abstinence only education (notoriously, the worst way to keep kids from getting diseased and pregnant).

Worse than that, when Governor of Alaska, she tried to use her influence to get her ex-brother-in-law (a state trooper) fired. When the head of the Alaskan law enforcement wouldn't do it, she fired HIM, and then threatened his replacement with the same treatment if he didn't comply. It was only after being found out and put under an ethics-violation investigation that she backed down.

Additionally, although she claims credit for opposing the 'bridge to nowhere', it's clear from her record and her statements that it was only AFTER the debacle was made public to the rest of the US populace that she took that stance. When it was still a hidden pork project, she enthusiastically and aggressively pursued the millions -- just like the other politicians.

In her small-town mayorship, she increased taxes, decreased public services, increased pork spending, and left the town with a HUGE deficit (from a surplus when she started, to over $20 million in the red when she left). And she's got no qualms about showing off her ignorance and hatred of all things "science" -- from climate change to stem cells, evolution to end-of-life decisions -- she's on the wrong side of the facts.

From what I've read, seen, heard, and discovered about Gov. Palin, she's an aggressive, ambitious and arrogant bitch who will use whatever power she gets to bludgeon those opposed to her and mete out her own version of vengeance and retribution on her political and personal enemies. And she has the balls to claim that what she does is sanctioned "by God".

Given that McCain is 72 and has had a history of health problems over the last few years, it isn't inconceivable that if they are elected, Palin would end up being the President before the first term is up. If that happens, the US is in for a very, very rough go of it -- you thought Bush & Co. were bad at foreign relations and obnoxiousness? Wait until Pres. Sarah gets in charge.

"Traditional Values": Neither valued nor traditional

2008-09-03T14:09:00.000-05:00

I've heard a lot of talk from the Rethuglicans and religiots about "traditional values", especially in the last week or so. Most of it is stemming from the political conventions and the nominee selections that have been chosen, and some of the questions, concerns and issues raised by those candidates. It seems that 'traditional values' means whatever the speaker wants it to mean, usually a long-ago dreamland virtue from some imaginary 1950's black-and-white drive-in movie, and hawked as being biblically based and "Christian".

In other words, it's crap.

If you want "traditional values" from the Bible, go buy some slaves.

If you want some real "Christian" sentiments, go stone a heretic to death.

"Traditional" simply means "we've always done it this way" -- which in no way implies that "this way" is the optimal or most ethical way. A long time ago (OK, about 150 years ago), a great many people in this country accepted the "traditional value" that blacks were unintelligent and unteachable. Many others accepted the "traditional value" that a woman's place was in the home. Just about everyone accepted the "traditional value" that only white men had the right to vote.

Guess what -- those "traditional values" aren't considered tradition anymore. Why not?

Because culture, social norms and mores change over time (you know -- evolve). As knowledge and education expand and spread, the lies, misinformation and errors of the past are laid bare, and the people adapt to accept the new and correct.

Usually, it seems that people who like to use the term "traditional value" have very little stock in that value themselves, but it is useful for gaining power and prestige over others - because most of the time, those "traditional values" end up de-valuing the worth and respect of others.

Using Compassion and Reason (Not Atheism) to Guide My Life

2008-07-30T13:05:00.000-05:00

"I believe in the religion of reason -- the gospel of this world; in
the development of the mind, in the accumulation of intellectual
wealth, to the end that man may free himself from superstitious
fear, to the end that he may take advantage of the forces of nature
to feed and clothe the world."
- Robert Ingersoll

When I was young, I was enthralled by mythology – Greek, Roman, Norse, Christian. To me, the heroic feats of the mortals, the power of the gods, and the glimpses of histories and people of the past were fascinating and inspirational. One day, when I was about 12, I asked my church youth leader about the ancient myths I adored, and was told “those aren’t real, nobody believes them anymore.” But when I asked for a better reason, he couldn’t give me any for why they weren’t true, other than the fact that they were old and they had no followers. I knew intellectually that they were just made-up stories, but I began to realize that there wasn’t a whole lot of difference between the stories of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and the stories I was hearing every Sunday in church.

I spent a lot of time thinking about the comparisons between the different religions, mythologies and gods. I worked my way through a lot of doubt, confusion and frustration to realize that all the religions – from the ancients to the modern day – were not all that different, and all were attempting to explain the unexplainable, understand the unknown, and provide comfort and guidance for their followers. You may scoff at the idea of dozens of quarrelling gods living on the top of a mountain and occasionally descending to the mortal level to interact with and influence the human cause – but is that so different from what is described in “modern” religions?

Atheism is not a “faith system” like Christianity or Islam. It’s a conclusion, based on rational enquiry, that there are no gods. Atheism is a descriptor of a personal viewpoint, but it is not the sum total of a person’s worth or commitment to life. I use my reason and intellect to examine the way humans interact, and how I wish to be seen and treated in the world. My ethics come from a sense of connectedness to not only the rest of humanity, but to the rest of the universe. Life is cruelty and compassion, heartlessness and joy, tragedy and triumph. I don’t need a supernatural guiding hand to be helpful, reasonable and kind – just awareness that others have feelings and needs. I don’t need a deity’s threatening tirades to avoid causing unnecessary pain and suffering – just a rational compassion and empathy towards the rest of humanity.

I have taken the next step in understanding my beliefs by contemplating and understanding the reasons for why one would not consider any other religion but their own “true”. Try applying the same criteria to your own beliefs, and in doing so, you may just realize that there isn’t any real difference – and make the leap of faith to atheism yourself.

The Messiah

2008-07-29T12:57:00.001-05:00

No commentary, just read the column below:

From: The London Times

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the
Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”