tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17792592960686748922024-03-12T18:53:38.935-05:00The Show-Me SkepticAn educational blog from the Show-Me State!Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-47700641455904930642016-05-07T14:48:00.002-05:002016-05-08T10:19:46.920-05:00What is Wrong with America that Trump Can Clinch the GOP Nomination?<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihtvQeHvoQXcCd39b1SjSzcDy-Sz0nJuV71RUrGPuGhPzHOLB4TOsmm5Jh8AYv_DNuBNKKWJeDL380sd4eQEQhMVKz7X7EWpg6HIbYDGt_EPM0ydu_7xGYV12PulyuoXYsBVAW6DrQ3ps/s1600/Trump.PNG" style="display: none;" />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihtvQeHvoQXcCd39b1SjSzcDy-Sz0nJuV71RUrGPuGhPzHOLB4TOsmm5Jh8AYv_DNuBNKKWJeDL380sd4eQEQhMVKz7X7EWpg6HIbYDGt_EPM0ydu_7xGYV12PulyuoXYsBVAW6DrQ3ps/s1600/Trump.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="191" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihtvQeHvoQXcCd39b1SjSzcDy-Sz0nJuV71RUrGPuGhPzHOLB4TOsmm5Jh8AYv_DNuBNKKWJeDL380sd4eQEQhMVKz7X7EWpg6HIbYDGt_EPM0ydu_7xGYV12PulyuoXYsBVAW6DrQ3ps/s320/Trump.PNG" width="320" /></a></div>
With Ted Cruz dropping out, The Donald has essentially clinched the GOP nomination for the Presidency. Not bad for an on again and off again <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/donald-trump-changed-political-parties-at-least-fi/" target="_blank">Republican</a>. But what is wrong in America that some one like Trump can be a threat to taking the Presidency. Last year I <a href="http://showmeskeptic.blogspot.com/2015/05/ted-cruz-look-at-republican-tactics-for.html" target="_blank">wrote a piece</a> that predicted Ted Cruz losing the GOP bid for the Presidency. As a total whack-job, theocrat, I knew Ted didn't stand a chance in a general election, and I sincerely thought he was encouraged to run to make ol' Jeb look more electable. But then the Donald happened. No one could have predicted Donald Trump.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqEnQ7v2sM4aK_TN2HTAr1hN5kEa8_pwuHFfg3W6ksUZWMXExQ9-wptaCxNWeCLELp3dZT6Au1_VfSyTnR3McyuSqafw59liqDdFJQgG1Uk0FBNMGH8iakMZE7V_NytG98SAtiFPZT2Ag/s1600/takei_trump.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqEnQ7v2sM4aK_TN2HTAr1hN5kEa8_pwuHFfg3W6ksUZWMXExQ9-wptaCxNWeCLELp3dZT6Au1_VfSyTnR3McyuSqafw59liqDdFJQgG1Uk0FBNMGH8iakMZE7V_NytG98SAtiFPZT2Ag/s320/takei_trump.jpg" width="320" /></a>I will not go into Trump's politics, nor his lack of public speaking skills (George Takei already pointed this out in the most perfect way). The reason I will refrain from this is because Trump's politics have nothing to do with his success. Yes. I just wrote that the politics of the GOP Presidential candidate's success is <i>irrelevant.</i> What has America come to? Well, it's a long story, one that began with the spouse of one other potential Presidential Candidate.<br />
<br />
The Clinton Presidency was a soap opera. It was as entertaining since the first time Bill played his sax. Yes, there was scandal, but it was of a personal matter. It's not like he was <a href="http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1889.html" target="_blank">selling illegal arms</a> and getting away with it. However, the Clinton Presidency was the first neo-liberal Presidency whose economic guru was Alan Greenspan, who <a href="http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/turbulence.html" target="_blank">suckled at the tit</a> of Ayn Rand and was a member of her cult, "the Collective." Thus began the purchase of America by corporate interests. Furthermore, his policies opened the door for successor to rape the Middle Class in America, leading to the Great Recession.<br />
<br />
When li'l Bush <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0grkxe5uPk" target="_blank">stole the Presidency in 2000</a> he began continuing Reagan-esque trickle down policies. He gave tax breaks for the rich, privatized (AKA segregated) schools along <a href="https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/reardon%20et%20al%20nclb%20gaps%20paper%2012aug2013.pdf" target="_blank">racial and class lines</a>, and lied to the American people to start an illegal war. And that's not to mention the unethical, and un-American detention camp in Guantanamo Bay. The Bush Administration continued the purchase of the American government by the corporate elite as the GOP rose to even greater power. With the marriage of the religious right to the political right now old hat, the Bush presidency led the country into a scientific back-slide. At the national level, climate change was denied, stem cell research suppressed, and creationism, now renamed "intelligent design," was allowed to be taught in schools along side evolution. These things became business as usual. Fortunately, Presidents have term limits, unfortunately, the next one was another neo-lib.<br />
<br />
In 2008, Obama upset the DNC by sweeping Hillary Clinton out of the race, thus ending her first bid for the Presidency. He promised hope and change, and while the country hoped, his changes weren't spectacular, when they did occur. His first major change was to implement mandatory health care that was similar to what Hillary Clinton advocated during her <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993#Controversy_in_retrospect_and_perspective" target="_blank">husband's Presidency</a>. The ACA, or Obamacare, passed, but not before the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies gutted the bill to the point that it was a mockery of its former self. In fact, States that did not expand Medicaid like they were supposed to have seen rate hikes and<a href="http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid-an-update/" target="_blank"> poor coverage</a> for the very people the ACA was designed to protect. Added to this debacle, Obama expanded US military interests in the middle east which further destabilized the region. Also under Obama's watch, a corporation's <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/" target="_blank">religious belief</a> trumps family planning, and corporations are now people who are allowed to <a href="http://www.demos.org/publication/10-ways-citizens-united-endangers-democracy" target="_blank">vote with their wallets</a>. Neo-liberalism looks less like liberalism, and more like old-fashioned conservatism. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkya2uaLxDheelr8mhPFKNZBf3GFHj_2yZ_Ds1-E7Zp4m3dyKQ-Wiv3mFJiPbaLwbmqqf1piBfqFAGor8g207Dosa1qsBAVC8KMo36lvnVCSwZIJFzW9lx76ig5S-nLeLhhL5TMCSWKzg/s1600/biblebelt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkya2uaLxDheelr8mhPFKNZBf3GFHj_2yZ_Ds1-E7Zp4m3dyKQ-Wiv3mFJiPbaLwbmqqf1piBfqFAGor8g207Dosa1qsBAVC8KMo36lvnVCSwZIJFzW9lx76ig5S-nLeLhhL5TMCSWKzg/s320/biblebelt.jpg" width="320" /></a>The funny (or sad, per your perspective) part, is that the Party of Lincoln was hijacked twice in our little story. The first time was when the Moral Majority took controlling influence back in the 80s. This married Gilded-Age economics with religion. From a political point of view, this is brilliant because socioeconomic status is often an indicator (and much more so in the 80s than today) of a person's education. Poorer people tend to be more religious. Less educated people are less likely to question authorities they respect. Like preachers, church elders, priests, what have you. How else do you get an entire demographic to consistently vote against<a href="http://www.politicususa.com/2014/03/18/fact-republican-run-red-states-americas-highest-poverty-rates.html" target="_blank"> their own interests</a>?<br />
<br />
The second time the GOP was hijacked came not from the 1%, but from the product of their political tampering. A grassroots movement sprang up in Red State areas calling for a return to more Constitutional times. The Tea Party: poor conservatives convinced that it was the liberals that were destroying the country. You remember them, they were the ones chanting "Keep the Government out of my Medicare!" The Tea Party exists not to keep the GOP conservative, but to oppose Obama specifically. Once the Republicans took control of the House and Senate they have stonewalled any left-leaning legislation introduced. This includes shutting down the Federal Government for not getting the 1% friendly tax breaks into the budget. Their obstructionism is so rampant, that the GOP controlled Senate is refusing to hold hearings on a Supreme Court vacancy. They want to fill the seat, they just don't want Obama to do it. Before the 2016 election, this had become the state of US politics, the party in the Majority, refusing to work at the job they were hired for out of simple hatred for the other aisle, and the brown man in the White House. The only person Tea Partyers hate more than Obama is Hillary Clinton.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSmaNpdyGlVtOPeV4vd_u2aHLBQDQtB88cNCkf6PNDqDkQMoLHRc9NfiMqDyaAOAWN-phLwRKDAagKi26x840ZlDu92-iQ6uJCaW57FfsxmFjHJMzrdTq8fJvXuDBYnz4sg_fihCWJiZ8/s1600/DNCrigged.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSmaNpdyGlVtOPeV4vd_u2aHLBQDQtB88cNCkf6PNDqDkQMoLHRc9NfiMqDyaAOAWN-phLwRKDAagKi26x840ZlDu92-iQ6uJCaW57FfsxmFjHJMzrdTq8fJvXuDBYnz4sg_fihCWJiZ8/s320/DNCrigged.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Enter the 2016 Presidential Election. When candidates announced their running in 2015, there were two political dynasties in the running. On the right you had Jeb Bush, son of Big Bush, and older brother to li'l Bush. Not even the GOP was having him. A dim-witted theocrat, Ted Cruz polled better than Jebbie. That's saying something. On the Left, you has Hillary Clinton, former First Lady and Secretary of State. Billing herself as the first woman President she stole the hearts of DNC hardliners. Of course, it helped that the DNC chair, <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/28/debbie-wasserman-schultz-under-fire-from-democrats/?page=all" target="_blank">Debbie Wasserman Schultz</a> was helping Clinton by making it hard for other candidates to be heard (I'm being nice, she flat out tried to <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/10/omalley_debbie_wasserman_schultz_is_rigging_dnc_primary_circling_the_wagons_around_hillary.html" target="_blank">rig the election</a>). Add in that in many of the states Clinton won, there have been severe election issues that smell like <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riley-waggaman/its-not-just-arizona-elec_b_9550670.html" target="_blank">purposeful election fraud</a> (funny how it always benefits Hillary). Unfortunately, due to half the states barring independents from voting, hard-line neo-libs in the DNC are giving Clinton a lead over her competition in the polls. But it is her competition, and The Donald, that are defining the Presidential race.<br />
<br />
Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are outsiders to the status quo. Clinton has many of the same <strike>employers</strike> donors as Republican candidates. Just like Bush, Kaish and Cruz, she is a whore to Wall Street too afraid to <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/" target="_blank">release her $200K-$400K speeches</a> lest they be used against her during the campaign. The reason why those speeches are so important is because shucking Wall Street is so important. You see, the people are tired of business as usual. We know the game is rigged and we have two candidates that are not beholden to Wall Street. Sanders, like Clinton also works for his employers: the thousands of small donors, formally known as The People, who have financed over 99% of his campaign. Trump, on the other hand, is a Wall Street insider that may belong to the 1%, but he doesn't work <i>for</i> the 1%. We have Sanders, who is grumpy, and Trump, who is crude. Trump the racist, and Sanders the activist. Two very different candidates, two very different people, two very different visions, but the most important thing is what they both share: Neither are under the thumb of the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746" target="_blank">plutocracy</a>. And THAT is why Trump is able to not only win the GOP nomination, but should Clinton win the DNC, have a good chance of becoming POTUS 45.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5BzuE5RSTN8kQani1pndt-NXy7XGZMsLqZsqQ9XA2gYb5Di-0GJSYEO6TCREUbV4nuPPwz84Nsjok-k0P4nUIqll2Cm9UdkvEAclaDdHdRC8q5RfKHuiA2Qo4ZELI07E7XkHAVO1tHaE/s1600/BernieDonations.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="144" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5BzuE5RSTN8kQani1pndt-NXy7XGZMsLqZsqQ9XA2gYb5Di-0GJSYEO6TCREUbV4nuPPwz84Nsjok-k0P4nUIqll2Cm9UdkvEAclaDdHdRC8q5RfKHuiA2Qo4ZELI07E7XkHAVO1tHaE/s200/BernieDonations.PNG" width="200" /></a></div>
Either way, the next President will not be one of the usual crowd. It will be either a Social Democrat from the Bronx, or a sometimes Republican, sometimes Democrat from Queens. But the Witch from Chicago is out. The people are tired of the moneyed ruling elite ruining what was the most prosperous country in the world. The lives of the people are being sold to fatten the fat cats, and we are not going to take it any more. The election of 2016 is a quiet revolution as The People are trying to use the system to get out Republic back. This is a test to see whether the American Experiment can survive our brush with the nouveau-Aristocracy that has arisen in America today. If not then in a generation or two the revolution may not be so quiet.<br />
<br />
I think a little ditty from the 80s can sum up the attitudes of the oft ignored independent voters this election cycle:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4xmckWVPRaI/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4xmckWVPRaI?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-40357518725308589012016-04-25T22:36:00.000-05:002016-04-26T10:19:59.115-05:00Sanders Facebook Support Pages Shut Down on FacebookIt started out good enough. A quiet evening watching the Simpsons and idley swiping through Facebook. Then I noticed that one of the Bernie Sanders supporter pages I was in went from public to private. Later, I see the following post on my time line. I tried to reply to it, but according to Facebook:<br />
<div class="_4-i0" style="background-color: #f6f7f8; border-bottom-color: rgb(229, 229, 229); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-radius: 3px 3px 0px 0px; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 19px; padding: 10px 12px;">
<div class="clearfix" style="zoom: 1;">
<div class="_ohe lfloat" style="float: left;">
<h3 class="_52c9" style="font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
Post Has Been Removed</h3>
</div>
<div class="_ohf rfloat" style="float: right;">
<div class="_51-u">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="_4-i2 _57_a _50f4" display="block" font-size="medium" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; padding: 12px;">
<span class=" _c24 _50f4" display="inline" style="color: #4e5665;">The post or object that you were commenting has been removed by its owner and can no longer be commented on.</span></div>
Fortunately, I hadn't closed out the thread so I was able to copy and paste it below.<br />
<div>
<br />
<div class="_5x46" style="background-color: white; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.08px; margin-bottom: 11px;">
<div class="clearfix _5va3" style="margin-bottom: -6px; zoom: 1;">
<div class="clearfix _42ef" style="overflow: hidden; zoom: 1;">
<div class="_5va4" style="padding-bottom: 6px;">
<div class="_6a _5u5j" style="display: inline-block; width: 422px;">
<div class="_6a _5u5j _6b" style="display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle; width: 422px;">
<h5 class="_5pbw" data-ft="{"tn":"C"}" id="js_tk" style="font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.38; margin: 0px 0px 2px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 22px 0px 0px;">
<span class="fwn fcg"><span class="fwb fcg" data-ft="{"tn":";"}" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: #0b5394;"><span style="cursor: pointer;">N</span>AME HIDDEN FOR PRIVACY</span></span></span></h5>
<div class="_5pcp" style="color: #9197a3; position: relative;">
<span class="fsm fwn fcg"><a class="_5pcq" href="https://www.facebook.com/lisa.canar/posts/10209393307170047" style="color: #9197a3; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;" target="">39 mins</a></span><span aria-hidden="true" role="presentation"> · </span><br />
<div class="_6a _29ee _4f-9 _43_1" data-hover="tooltip" data-tooltip-content="Shared with: Lisa's friends" style="cursor: pointer; display: inline-block; position: relative; vertical-align: middle;">
<i class="_1lbg img sp_5mR0a_NQ6U3 sx_4f6526" style="background-image: url("/rsrc.php/v2/yB/r/qNj7iWr9iHF.png"); background-position: -13px -70px; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-size: auto; display: block; height: 12px; margin-top: -1px; width: 12px;"></i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="_5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id="js_tm" style="background-color: white; overflow: hidden;">
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_571ed92d271520105223416" style="display: inline;">
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6px;">
We are connected in spirit and will not be silenced!!! New Bernie groups will form in an instant!</div>
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
See original post for comments!!!</div>
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Please share this to any Bernie groups you're in. The "online activist" group Hillary's super PAC hired (basically paid trolls) are striking tonight. By spamming the "report post to Facebook" feature on posts in Bernie groups, they've successfully shut down 3 of the largest Bernie groups within the past 20 minutes. Bernie Believers, Bernie Activi<span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline;">sts, and Bernie Sanders is my Hero had over 120,000 group members.</span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline;">
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6px;">
Don't panic! This should only be temporary until Facebook reviews the situation. Forgetting for a moment that this is easily one of the slimiest tactics I've ever seen in politics, you can still go to reddit to keep current on what's going on in the campaign. They hit us the night before tomorrow's primaries for a reason. Stay organized and stay informed.<br />
<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/</a></div>
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Bernie Sanders 2016 • /r/SandersForPresident<br />
<a href="http://reddit.com/" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">REDDIT.COM</a><br />
<br />
So far, according to the above thread on Reddit, the following pages have been taken down:</div>
<ul style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; margin: 20px 10px 10px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 40px;">
<li style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.42857em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Bernie Believers</li>
<li style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.42857em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Bernie Sanders is My Hero</li>
<li style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.42857em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Bernie Sanders Discussion Group</li>
<li style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.42857em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Bernie Sanders Activists</li>
<li style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.42857em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Bernie Sanders 2016 - Ideas Welcome</li>
<li style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.42857em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Bernie Sanders for President 2016</li>
<li style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.42857em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Bernie Sanders or Bust</li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">This is a horrible abuse of power from the Hillary camp. While she herself may not have ordered the attack, as the leader of her campaign she is ultimately responsible for it. I, myself, am conflicted. Part of me, the social studies teacher side, hopes she will call out her minions that would do such a cowardly act and hand them over to the authorities (the legality of this in uncertain) or at least flat out fire them. Another part of me wants to see this added to the growing stockpile of unethical deeds the GOP would use against her in the general election. If she gets the nomination that is. Sadly, she is already behind when it comes to millennials, and it is exactly this crowd that know what this kind of attack is!<br /><br />I will write more as this unfolds, but as far as unethical campaign practices go, this is a new one.<br /><br />Update: As of 11:30-ish 4/25/2016 the pages were back up thanks to the staff of Facebook looking into the matter as fast as possible.<br /><br />While this attack may seem minor, it only is so because of the fast acting staff of Facebook, and the thousands of FB users that counter-reported the pages being shut down. This could have been far more serious because the attack happened on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary. This was a coordinated attack by people in the Hillary camp. Redditor, jdkon, was able to procure proof:</span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8aBGwTqjE0yFQ1C9c_7X2q4k6L5tImJvu0ByvDGiBlcxcmwbfVs-uZ3ZddwcL3vBLtwr7wp0Ml1o_e0uaTqy4zRfLnkTohFBK3HT3lX7T5pgOpHm0fWdDtlv67TMiYjRpms5yTKwEBhk/s1600/ddoHill.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="334" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8aBGwTqjE0yFQ1C9c_7X2q4k6L5tImJvu0ByvDGiBlcxcmwbfVs-uZ3ZddwcL3vBLtwr7wp0Ml1o_e0uaTqy4zRfLnkTohFBK3HT3lX7T5pgOpHm0fWdDtlv67TMiYjRpms5yTKwEBhk/s640/ddoHill.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">On the left you have a $hillbot saying to keep ip the good work shutting down the pages, and on the right are the masses of $hillbots patting themselves on the back. The attacks were successful thanks to FB's algorithms which look at the frequency of reports an a page or a post. If a mass of people report a page in quick succession, the algorithms give FB's automated systems the go ahead to shut the page down. Better safe than sorry. And that's OK. But the Hillary camp exploited this safety feature to silence a political opponent.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">This behavior is exactly why a political revolution is necessary right now. We have lost what it means to be a democracy. In a democracy that values free speech, you NEVER silence your opponent. You engage them, you debate them, you out politic them, but you never silence them. If your positions are genuinely superior to your opponent's positions then the voters will silence them at the ballot box. Anyone who tries to silence political discourse is a failure as a citizen. This includes anyone in the Bernie camp that is thinking about retaliation. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">Sanders does not have to resort to dirty tricks to beat Clinton. Bernie is the leader of our little revolution, but only because he was in the right place at the right time. It just as easily could have been Elizabeth Warren. Sanders is doing so well because he is there for us, not the other way around. That is something Clinton and many of her supporters are blind to, because Clinton is only there for her. Her supporters that launched these attacks are only in for Clinton as well. Clinton is a demagogue who's only objective is to obtain the power of the Presidency. That power is an ends for people like her. For Sanders, it is only a means to implement policy that makes our democracy fair at the polls and fair at the work place.</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-12950854646057734682016-04-01T12:00:00.000-05:002016-04-01T12:00:15.190-05:00Why there is no Faith in Science<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="2i8ro" data-offset-key="131fp-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="131fp-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEishCQ3yMqoXE_kYyW_sjCZHvC7-IpYJvvhHsD7NtAGwAUgMaDEaB2EDcNIaNgsiDYv55SP7zQcKuogQghFcvg5z9mwRfZ9rhhhtvcuKWbXWQW2amgLizP1uhqKlEzXHBfjx1extdAr4Z0/s1600/funnyphilo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; color: #141823; float: right; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="background-color: white;"><img border="0" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEishCQ3yMqoXE_kYyW_sjCZHvC7-IpYJvvhHsD7NtAGwAUgMaDEaB2EDcNIaNgsiDYv55SP7zQcKuogQghFcvg5z9mwRfZ9rhhhtvcuKWbXWQW2amgLizP1uhqKlEzXHBfjx1extdAr4Z0/s320/funnyphilo.jpg" width="320" /></span></a>Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that misunderstood concepts are expressed quite a lot in social media. The other day I saw a post of a witty cartoon showing how philosophy is still relevant to science. The cartoon, shown here, can be found at<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> <a href="http://completelyseriouscomics.com/" target="_blank">Completely serious Comics</a>.</span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="131fp-0-0" style="color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="131fp-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
One commentator said the following,<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #141823; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
</span></span><span style="color: #660000;">"We ALL do. It's just that those who hide behind science think they don't- i.e. that they are all reason, no faith. It reminds me of the know-it-all kid in class who says "well, Teacher agrees with ME!" lol" </span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="131fp-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Another commentator replied, and I'll paraphrase, that faith is unnecessary in science. In fact, faith is the opposite of science. To which, of course, the first commentator replied the following:</span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="131fp-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span style="color: #660000;"><span style="background-color: white;">"</span>You do have a faith, you just pretend to be above it all and made of pure reason. Put away your childishness and perhaps we could have a conversation on such an important topic. But I don't joust with snobs..."</span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="131fp-0-0" style="color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="131fp-0-0" style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
Naturally, I had to chime in. My reply is below.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="2i8ro" data-offset-key="131fp-0-0">
<span style="color: #073763;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="2i8ro" data-offset-key="131fp-0-0">
<span style="color: #20124d;"><span style="color: #073763;">Philosophy =/= faith. the philosophical ground work of science relies in observation and logic grounded in some assumptions.<br />The assumptions are that there IS a physical universe, that we can learn things about the universe and finally, that explanations that predicts future observations are superior to explanations that do not.<br /><br />Now, saying all of that, science is a method of decreasing uncertainty, not a method for "absolute" truth. After all, "absolute" truth is still an unanswered philosophical question. The great thing about science is that it is not a belief system. It is a way to explain the physical universe. that distinction is important because explanations can be abandoned if needed for better ones (see last assumption above).<br /><br />A case in point is gravity. Various cultures had various myths as to why things fell to Earth. Sometimes fairies were involved, at other times it was a deity of some sort. Along comes Sir Isaac Newton. He develops a theory that gravity is a force of attraction between two objects. His theory predicted that a body moving at a certain velocity can balance with the force of gravity creating an orbit. However, his equations showed that the orbits would be unstable and thus it must be the hand of God that corrected the minor discrepancies.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: #20124d;">A few decades later, a French mathematician named Pierre Laplace refined the equations and showed how the Solar system is stable all by itself. When asked by Napoleon as to why there is no mention of a creator in his model, Laplace answered, "I had no need of that hypothesis." In other words, deities and fairies were not necessary, the natural forces did it all by themselves.<br /><br />And here's the kicker: They were BOTH wrong. Gravity is not a force (at least not in the conventional sense), it is a curve in the space-time continuum. Imagine a bowling ball on a foam mattress. That is a good visualization of gravity. This theory of gravity is Einsteins. Why is it better? First let me back up just a little. Einstein's theory of gravity is incredibly complex from a mathematical point of view. In fact, if his theory were developed first, the work of Newton and Laplace would probably be replicated as just a short cut because their equations are much simpler for everyday mathematics! So why are they still "wrong"? Einstein's theory predicts more phenomena. One such phenomenon is that gravity will bend light. This has been observed during solar eclipses. But perhaps some day Einstein's theory will lose out to an even more precise and predictive model. or maybe not. But how exciting will it be if it is so!</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #20124d;"><span style="color: #20124d;"><br /></span></span>
As you can see, faith isn't necessary. Now, no one pointed this out, but one could counter that holding the assumptions are done in faith. No. They are assumptions, not beliefs. The assumptions I pointed out are made for the sole purpose of just getting on with it. If better assumptions come along that improve the scientific process, then the old ones will be thrown out and the new ones accepted. We make those assumptions because they are useful, and keep them only as long as they are useful. A faith-based belief is something often adhered to in spite of contrary evidence. Often the belief is handed down by authorities that cannot be questioned, not experts who gained that title through being rigorously questioned.</div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-84103182404408755442016-03-20T16:18:00.002-05:002016-03-31T09:51:03.039-05:00"Bernie or Bust" Will Get Trump Elected, and That's OK.<div class="MsoNormal">
Once again it is an election year, and once again there is
infighting aplenty within the Republican and Democratic parties. What is
different this year is that there is a schism within the Democratic party that
may hand the GOP the Presidency. That may not be a bad thing. As a Democratic
Socialist I never thought I would ever say that. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How, you say? The
<a href="https://citizensagainstplutocracy.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Bernie or Bust</a> campaign. Pledges to the
campaign promise to either write in Sanders or vote Green Party if he loses the
Democratic nomination. Clinton supporters argue that not voting for Clinton in
the election would be the same as voting for Trump. Naturally, they assume, much like<a href="https://www.slantnews.com/story/2016-03-18-is-the-new-york-times-biased-against-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-election-2016" target="_blank"> main streammedia </a>that Clinton will get the nomination. The outlook on that in
dubious. The GOP got rid of their royal
line, little ol’ Jeb, but many Democrats are reluctant to give up their
queen. However, Sanders has not only
split the DNC, he also has a<a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/01/19/more_proof_of_bernies_grassroots_power_sanders_has_stunning_and_practically_absurd_lead_over_clinton_in_isidewith_com_poll/" target="_blank"> large, grassroots following</a> among<a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx" target="_blank"> independent voters who now outnumber both the Republicans and the Democrats.</a> While the
battle rages for the post March 15<sup>th</sup> primary States, the Bernie or
Bust campaign is growing.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbUhGEmv3u-SiNJrFMvyU2QkG4eCPNgDbYwnRz2I9ovV6PZb3BY9rX1rj7xNegKynMhhyphenhyphenxZnGS8kZRb3n4JtQMJJWpAyqbe1rRurI6Oy_diVYGHf_L7rAU6_YBrH3GYQe3t-Q17-2B6yQ/s1600/BoB.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="http://www.zazzle.com/bernie_or_bust_car_bumper_sticker-128463370655670341" border="0" height="86" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbUhGEmv3u-SiNJrFMvyU2QkG4eCPNgDbYwnRz2I9ovV6PZb3BY9rX1rj7xNegKynMhhyphenhyphenxZnGS8kZRb3n4JtQMJJWpAyqbe1rRurI6Oy_diVYGHf_L7rAU6_YBrH3GYQe3t-Q17-2B6yQ/s320/BoB.jpg" title="" width="320" /></a></div>
<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The reason why I say a Trump win wouldn’t be that bad is
because of Congress. 34 Senate seats and all 434 House seats are up for
election. The past few years of Republican dominance in Congress has shown the
electorate how defunct the Republican party is. They <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/8/10/1118614/-Biden-Mitch-McConnell-vowed-no-cooperation-with-the-Obama-administration-from-the-get-go" target="_blank">refuse to work</a> with the
Democrats or the White House, they have <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/republicans-shut-down-the-government-for-nothing/280611/" target="_blank">shut down the Federal Government</a> more
than once just to get their way, and now are refusing to do their job by
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/joe-biden-supreme-court-senate-republicans/" target="_blank">refusing to even hold a hearing</a> for Obama’s SCOTUS appointee. This year most of
them will be fired. Capitol Hill will turn Blue next January when the 2017
Congress convenes, and that is why a Trump victory wouldn’t be so bad.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4TLeuu7JItyJUb7cteL9n0coY2XFnDNxsL6Rk-IJCNvaaU9hUQmGyNvwH-PhMFTEdyHT16wYuzIlgPdW-Rc1kY1qgp2ejPwbgAKL9b_MvmBNvVb0uwFT9eYiZKDywkPAODIoUwQgu3lg/s1600/2bec81a13e8b090c83f4fa8e73309787.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4TLeuu7JItyJUb7cteL9n0coY2XFnDNxsL6Rk-IJCNvaaU9hUQmGyNvwH-PhMFTEdyHT16wYuzIlgPdW-Rc1kY1qgp2ejPwbgAKL9b_MvmBNvVb0uwFT9eYiZKDywkPAODIoUwQgu3lg/s320/2bec81a13e8b090c83f4fa8e73309787.jpg" width="320" /></a>If Bernie wins the nomination, <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html" target="_blank">he is a shoe in for the Presidency</a>. Clinton, perhaps not. Many voters, like myself, would find
themselves voting for the lesser of two evils and Trump would be the
lesser. <a href="http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml" target="_blank">Clinton voted for the Patriot Act</a> (Sanders was the in the House and voted against it), spread the racist stereotype of the “<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/8/1467336/-Hillary-Clinton-Gangs-of-kids-are-super-predators-with-no-conscience-no-empathy" target="_blank">super predator</a>,” and is <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career" target="_blank">in the back pocket of not only the bankers</a> who destroyed our economy eight years ago, but
also the <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/02/clinton-campaign-gives-private-prison-lobbyist-cash-to-charity-218524" target="_blank">private prison lobby</a> which in instrumental in lobbying for laws that
promote the <a href="https://www.aclu.org/fact-sheet/what-school-prison-pipeline" target="_blank">school to prison pipeline.</a> That pipeline is devastating the black
and Latino community. Yes, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-trods-a-well-worn-path-of-bigotry/2016/03/18/d9257c20-ec86-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html" target="_blank">Trump is a bigot,</a> and it’s working for him, but he
is blatantly a bigot. Clinton is an accomplished politician employed by some of
the biggest lobby groups in the country. Trump is not. Hell, trump used to <i>be</i> a Clinton supporter. Clinton’s support for the private prison
system indicates a subtler, hidden form of institutional racism.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFgVI42gKu4GXe28oJ6AFjZBFF5B4LS8dVbhyJnx5DxiXjBR-06PhzSYkiGpotYQuuKXlTda5QtsO69AZmS71fasjhxNfpJb_tGdJOZ310L5hSFFH3H6PbqOrBesQzNV74dy_3HVQZ5AY/s1600/trump-bush-think-again.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFgVI42gKu4GXe28oJ6AFjZBFF5B4LS8dVbhyJnx5DxiXjBR-06PhzSYkiGpotYQuuKXlTda5QtsO69AZmS71fasjhxNfpJb_tGdJOZ310L5hSFFH3H6PbqOrBesQzNV74dy_3HVQZ5AY/s320/trump-bush-think-again.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As an accomplished politician, Clinton knows how to get
things done. With the country in dire straits and the probable takeover of
Congress by the Democrats, Clinton will accomplish much. For the first two years at least. A win for
Clinton is a win for the status quo which would put Congress back in the Red in
2018. With Trump in office, I think there would be sufficient outrage over his
leadership that Congress will stay Blue until at least 2020. As Trump is not an
experienced politician, he will struggle getting anything done in office. That means he will probably be a one term
President, and he will definitely join the ranks of the <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/do-nothing-presidents" target="_blank">Do-Nothing Presidents</a>. Both
Trump and Clinton will keep us at war with some one or another. However, at least Trump is against free trade
agreements that Clinton champions. You know, deals like <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21042-nafta-at-20-lori-wallach-on-us-job-losses-record-income-inequality-mass-displacement-in-mexico" target="_blank">NAFTA</a> and the TPP. Deals that have cost Americans jobs and
shrunk the middle class. While Clinton says she has "reevaluated" her views on the TPP to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/10/hillary-clinton-sounded-a-lot-like-bernie-sanders-after-losing-to-bernie-sanders/" target="_blank">mirror Sander's views</a>, anyone who thinks that she isn't just saying that to appeal to Sanders' supporters is delusional. The TPP will be a money maker for everyone at the top of Clinton's donor list. You know, the people she works for.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO4bWFpwHOGjm2cVAfma64g7E8Nq0hzdov6N7KoMomWJ1fG_TpMKmd834Sdv-FKhqb5lFB2SdlNSpaXj3J7cgW5Yueu9B_tYjGHf5h4jOlutAWjmvZiACYz2MruVTwf6rAFPZ1bPwd2Hg/s1600/Sanders.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO4bWFpwHOGjm2cVAfma64g7E8Nq0hzdov6N7KoMomWJ1fG_TpMKmd834Sdv-FKhqb5lFB2SdlNSpaXj3J7cgW5Yueu9B_tYjGHf5h4jOlutAWjmvZiACYz2MruVTwf6rAFPZ1bPwd2Hg/s320/Sanders.jpg" width="285" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
If Sanders lands the nomination his first hundred days will
be a smaller version of FDR’s first hundred days, thanks to a Blue Congress.
With Sanders we have a chance to fix a broken political system. Neither Clinton nor Trump will do so, they
will maintain the status quo. The difference between Clinton and Trump is that
Trump won’t be able to get anything done, good or bad, unless it originates on
Capitol Hill, and then it is just a matter of Trump staying out of the way.
Which, for most of US history, is exactly what Presidents did. With a Clinton nomination it's four years of a Do-Nothing Trump.</div>
<o:p></o:p>Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-66436118958562763062016-01-18T07:54:00.001-06:002016-01-18T07:54:53.477-06:00Rand and HumanismIs Libertarianism compatible with Humanism?<br />
Originally published on the <a href="http://thebluegrassskeptic.com/2015/07/16/special-guest-post-by-the-show-me-skeptic-rand-and-humanism/" target="_blank">Bluegrass Skeptic's</a> blog (now defunct) in 2015.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRfwoO-CHPyx-cyehhYgSRf3PTsDzNyWubEKQoXvk79hZ1AYAoa5SGB-uDrWEQ0uPcPI6QD0SGoQQw4tg8POWTqN_exEfCeYHbiICnkfiMqVanWe_vsbUvcNpY8SwkG0VnY2glDv1Pj5M/s1600/7453053322_02bace1fd6_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRfwoO-CHPyx-cyehhYgSRf3PTsDzNyWubEKQoXvk79hZ1AYAoa5SGB-uDrWEQ0uPcPI6QD0SGoQQw4tg8POWTqN_exEfCeYHbiICnkfiMqVanWe_vsbUvcNpY8SwkG0VnY2glDv1Pj5M/s320/7453053322_02bace1fd6_o.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
Modern Libertarianism is based largely on the works of Ayn Rand. A glance at the<a href="http://www.aynrand.org/ideas/philosophy" target="_blank"> philosophy section</a> of the Ayn Rand institute and you'll see it nearly mirrors the philosophy of the <a href="https://www.lp.org/platform" target="_blank">Libertarian Party</a>. Both espouse civil liberties for all, and both desire Laissez Faire Capitalism. In the realm of skepticism and education, Rand's philosophies begin good enough, but once she gets to economics, politics and ethics, not so much. But are these ideals compatible with Humanism?<br />
<br />
A great philosopher, I forget which one, once mused that philosophy is the art of starting with premises no one rejects, and coming to conclusions no one accepts. This is (or should be) the case for Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy. Or as those past the age of 15 call it "being a selfish, spoiled brat." Perhaps that is a little harsh, but only if you do not look into Rand's philosophy. To do so is to see that at first, Rand's philosophy is seductive to Humanists, but on a closer look, her philosophy is quite incompatible with Humanistic thought.<br />
<br />
Ayn Rand's ideas begins innocently enough, she asserts that reality is real (no brains in a vat), and that the observable universe is all that there is. For a Secular Humanist, we are good so far. Though a Sectarian Humanist may depart ways here. Rand's philosophy leaves no room for God or other superstitions. For Rand, since the only reality is the observable universe, we must all face facts, no matter how uncomfortable and think critically to make use of those facts. For the skeptic, this is spot on. For those with a soft spot for children (like me) we know a few comforting words can soothe a distraught child. For instance, I would never tell a child that mittens had to be gassed to death, rather I would say they had to put her to sleep. Though I draw the line at kitty heaven claims.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Either way, none of the above are incompatible with Humanist thought. However, things begin to break down once we get to the rest of Rand's philosophy. Rand's work in ethics begins nice enough by claiming that divine command theory, getting our morals from a godhead, is wrong. Her conclusion on morality is that what is good moral behavior is what is in our own self interest. Since humans have no natural code of conduct, we must act in accordance to our needs. Sounds sexy, right?<br />
<br />
It almost sounds Humanistic. However, even though Humanists hold that morals definitely do not come from God, that is were the similarities end. The selfish principle, or Egoism, is where Humanists part ways with Rand and the Libertarians. A Humanist's base for morals is ending the needless suffering of fellow humans. In Rand's philosophy, such an endeavour is only moral if it is in your own self interest. Rand would be all for MMR vaccines for all so her children wouldn't get sick (thus causing Rand to spend more money). For a Humanist, vaccination is important to decrease the suffering of children for their own sake. See the difference?<br />
<br />
Another contention, is that Rand's ethics are highly relative. She claims that humans have no natural ideas of morality or "automatic codes of survival". While there are issues with this, it really has nothing to do with Humanism, so I will leave it for another day. However, with Rand's philosophy it is perfectly moral to manipulate people into supporting you. You would be using your talents to their fullest potential to meet your needs. If someone is out a few bucks, then they should face the facts and learn to think more critically. In Rand's philosophy, it is the often victim's fault.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM4FLu-sprvzbg4-NDMnQw_t1dC8g-xx_HCiHPYQum6VeSIvW_f6FV4E7J-cXXsajSFBVxS91rA5JPr6aEccFGf6iL3knC1Bn0tajzVKdOpgIX3KdmA0zw6xd9EjutHkKUDRAZqfd68g0/s1600/maxresdefault.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM4FLu-sprvzbg4-NDMnQw_t1dC8g-xx_HCiHPYQum6VeSIvW_f6FV4E7J-cXXsajSFBVxS91rA5JPr6aEccFGf6iL3knC1Bn0tajzVKdOpgIX3KdmA0zw6xd9EjutHkKUDRAZqfd68g0/s400/maxresdefault.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
When we examine Rand's economic philosophy, the part that Libertarians extol, we see a continuation of her selfish principle. Rand believed in full Laissez-Faire Capitalism, a complete separation of Corporation and State. The only role the Government should have is to provide courts for law suits, and a police force to keep the rabble in line. Laissez-Faire Capitalism not only doesn't work, but in incompatible with Humanistic thought. The reason is not just the distribution of wealth, but that of power too.<br />
<br />
In Rand's ideal State, and the ideal Libertarian State as well, the government is subservient to the corporation. This is because the corporation has more power. The EPA, USDA, FDA, SEC? Forget them. If human arms ground up in hamburger, useless drugs, flammable lakes, and insider trading are bad, then "the market" will correct the mistake. Of course, the market means the myth of the free market. I have already written about the "Free Market" <a href="http://showmeskeptic.blogspot.com/2015/07/american-mythology-free-market.html" target="_blank">here</a> so for the sake of brevity I won't recap the myth of the free market.<br />
<br />
In ancient Greece both Hedon and Epicurius based their philosophies partly on self interest. Rand was not claiming that we should be Hedonists. That is the eat-drink-and-be-merry style of freedom. Nor was she advancing Epicurian thought, which rests on the same basic principles as Hedonism, but valued long term happiness through education and understanding and not in the moment pleasures. However, both philosophers acknowledged and respected that other people have the same rights as anyone else. What Rand proposed, what Objectivism amounts to is a form of Might Makes Right.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKFwJA9APuZkri6Ttj0GpF7EA5Mo64Ow3OWYuI-jUSgCi98nXQHYvWuywqDjiqtXW3SiCKV3Fm795Piua8410HHUyjIPBIDE7ZBrK9C58bJfL7iVgxHoil4x6zdMq3VZU0WKx4Do5EQtk/s1600/Screen-Shot-2015-02-02-at-2.25.07-PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKFwJA9APuZkri6Ttj0GpF7EA5Mo64Ow3OWYuI-jUSgCi98nXQHYvWuywqDjiqtXW3SiCKV3Fm795Piua8410HHUyjIPBIDE7ZBrK9C58bJfL7iVgxHoil4x6zdMq3VZU0WKx4Do5EQtk/s320/Screen-Shot-2015-02-02-at-2.25.07-PM.png" width="320" /></a>To Rand, if a person <i>can</i> leverage you into doing their will, then they have the <i>right</i> to do so. If a corporation (which is an extension of the people running it) <i>can</i> exploit its employees then it is because the employees are weak and deserve it. If an entrepreneur destroys the environment to obtain wealth, then those in the environment who are too weak to stop it can simply move, or they too deserve to get what they get. One must wonder what then Rand would have thought about rape and institutional racism.<br />
<br />
A refugee from Stalinist Russia, Rand rejected only the Communist limitations on the economy, but in reality she championed and tried to justify Stalinist authoritarianism. Stalin leveraged his way to the head of the Communist Party, and used his power, his strength to run the USSR according to his whim. This is precisely where Rand's philosophy takes you. It is also why Social-Darwinists love her so much. Ironically, Rand hated Stalin and his USSR, and yet a Stalinist style of government is where it ultimately leads. The only difference is that Stalin would have began as a CEO and not as a lackey to Lenin.<br />
<br />
The goal of Humanism is the exact opposite of this. The primary principle of Humanism can be summed up as "alleviating unnecessary suffering of our fellow humans". All endeavors should be towards this end. This means we must protect the planet (our environment), feed the hungry, educate the youth, etc. etc. etc. To ensure that everyone has access to opportunity, and necessities, they must be enfranchised equally within the government, which necessitates limits on personal power, and at times wealth. While such a state may sound socialist, it is not necessarily so. Humanism itself does not concern itself with economic ideals in so much that the economic system does not contribute to suffering. This makes Humanism pragmatic, and not idealistic, like Objectivism.Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-31306558453587465542015-10-30T12:59:00.001-05:002015-10-30T13:01:38.703-05:0010 Mistakes of the Indoctrinated.The following is by a guest writer, Lawrence Tomas, who originally posted this to the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1603846669833487/1664600787091408/" target="_blank">Freethinkers United Facebook page.</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
THE BIGGEST MISTAKE THAT ALL CHRISTIANS MAKE</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Almost all Christians (followers of Christianity) make one tragic mistake in the very beginning when they first accept the religion and yes…it is a whopper!</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Becoming a Christian at the tender age of 12 years old, I never knew of course that I was making this mistake.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
But now that I see the mistake, it’s impossible to keep quiet about it! I can’t keep quiet... nor should I keep quiet. I have to share this…so listen close!</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
HERE IS WHAT HAPPENS…</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
It usually begins at a young age when someone (parent, friend or family member) approaches you and they ask you the famous question…</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
“If you died right now, do you know for sure you would go to Heaven?”</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
They then proceed to tell you the Gospel story how that 2,000 years ago, God loved you and sent his son Jesus to die on a cross to save you from your sins and save you from going to Hell.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Well, if the timing is right, this particular confrontation is too overwhelming and as it tugs on your heart strings, you somehow feel obligated to repent and ask Jesus to save you.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
If you ask any questions, they are quickly shut down and we are told…</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
“We don’t go by factual evidence or proof, we accept it by “faith”. Jesus said to “only believe”. He also said that the devil will lie to us and try to deceive us into disbelieving. Trust me…it is all true…I promise you!”</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
So we do what we are told and accept it by faith without seeing any evidence what soever to back any of it up…none…zero.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
SO WHAT IS THE BIG MISTAKE!</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
THE BIG MISTAKE IS….We never check any of it out…</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
1. We never do any research to see if Jesus actually existed.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
2. We never do any research to see if the apostles actually existed.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
3. We never do any research to see who actually wrote the Roman New Testament…the hows, whys, whens and wheres…we never check any of that out.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
4. We never do any research to see who actually started this religion and why?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
5. We never do any research to see if the Apostle Paul who allegedly wrote over half of the New Testament actually existed or started any churches.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
6. We never do any research to see if the Hebrew/Roman Bible is historically, scientifically and archaeologically accurate & correct. We never do any research to see if what the ancient Hebrews were telling us… was factually sound and 100% true.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
7. We never do any research to see if any of the so called “Church Fathers” were legit and actually telling us the truth.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
8. We never do any research to see if any of the Old Testament Bible characters were legit and actually existed.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
9. We never do any research into the ancient Romans to understand the religious culture & political climate which existed in Rome during the 1st Century CE. We never do any research into the ancient Judean Hebrews to understand the religious culture & political climate which existed in Palestine during the 1st Century CE.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
10. We never do any research to see that Imperial Rome had their dirty hands upon this new Christian religion from the very beginning and that the entire Gospel Story is nothing more than a fabricated Roman lie.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
NO…we never checked anything out for authenticity…we just went with it. We accepted the entire story upon the basis of “faith” and never spent ONE MINUTE of our time to see if any of it was ever true.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Then we start going to church where we are told if we question anything it displeases God and we are to accept & believe everything on “Faith Alone”. This brainwashing usually continues until we die unless we have an “epiphany” and somehow come to our senses which most people never do.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Yup…Christians have been taught to believe that the church was born 2,000 years ago and that’s the big mistake. They naively assume that everyone has been telling them the 100% absolute truth from the ancient Romans down to the modern day Christian ministers.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
We believe and accept it without doing any research whatsoever…we just go with it because someone told us to. We buy into and believe the greatest hoax that mankind has ever seen. What we thought was true (the Bible), turns out to be 66 separate books which are nothing than mythical fabricated fairytales.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
And it’s a whopper of a mistake because it controls & colors every single aspect of our thinking and being. We become a Christian, develop an imaginary friend, and spend the rest of our lives thinking we are immortal and that we are going to live forever in a paradise. This false beliefism will control us and our family for the remainder of our natural lives.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
QUESTION: Then who is to blame for making this monumental mistake?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
ANSWER: YOU and YOU alone. Because you never took the time to do any personal investigation or research. You just believed the lies and for doing that you payed or are still paying a great price…</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-top: 6px;">
WAKE UP!</div>
Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-88623838222746402522015-10-26T14:44:00.002-05:002015-10-26T14:44:12.365-05:00Why Bernie Sanders can Save the GOP<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjWUSU5MhQDa4wXM9dLN4G4j8o-bwRNVOUTZoynr6VnwpLnzF2m_k9hqVy9l9063GmkwaoeCKrj8SC5jKo2qRfFptsKLUvKHKjpJtOvUqmV-56kfZuJdE2hsNy5qlQChZLOHVFli_Vw98/s1600/Bernie_Sanders_portrait_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="227" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjWUSU5MhQDa4wXM9dLN4G4j8o-bwRNVOUTZoynr6VnwpLnzF2m_k9hqVy9l9063GmkwaoeCKrj8SC5jKo2qRfFptsKLUvKHKjpJtOvUqmV-56kfZuJdE2hsNy5qlQChZLOHVFli_Vw98/s320/Bernie_Sanders_portrait_1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
The history of political parties in the US is a sordid one. In George Washington's farewell address, he warned against political parties which had begun under his Presidency. By the time John Adams became President, two prominent parties had formed: the Federalists and the Republican-Democrats. Eventually, the Federalists went by the way-side, and the Republican-Democrats dropped the Republican part. A later party, formed in 1854, claimed the Republican moniker, and 6 years later elected their first Presidential Candidate, Abraham Lincoln.<br />
<br />
It was the Radical Republicans that called for full equalization of rights and protections under the law for blacks before the Civil War, and during Reconstruction. While the GOP has always had business interests in mind, there was still a progressive side that wanted to curtail rampant and destructive business practices. After all, the "Great Trust Buster", Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican. That goes to show that, historically, the Republican party was a dynamic party, one that covered a spectrum of political ideas.<br />
<br />
Today, however, the GOP has been hijacked; first it was the Moral Majority, and lately the Tea Party. Today, the "radical" Republicans are the Libertarians, or at least those who buy into their objectivist ideology. The GOP has gotten so extreme in it's platforms that the most liberal of Republicans are heavily conservative by the standards of just 40 years ago. This is spelling the undoing of the Republican Party. And it must not happen. Crack a history book to see the effects of a one party system.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8Aq__P5X8e-qCuJYX6HK3UsPTsC3qsHAxpphzWYXrt4yt2UrT63V8ezuJK3D5fDw5WunebCLGlveV92WhVG3XCXhhq4fZx254tOfa6yzRqWH5_FnvpTytknH4AJTKS3SbGrz9YzRblWQ/s1600/BernieSanders-socialsecurity-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8Aq__P5X8e-qCuJYX6HK3UsPTsC3qsHAxpphzWYXrt4yt2UrT63V8ezuJK3D5fDw5WunebCLGlveV92WhVG3XCXhhq4fZx254tOfa6yzRqWH5_FnvpTytknH4AJTKS3SbGrz9YzRblWQ/s320/BernieSanders-socialsecurity-2.jpg" width="319" /></a></div>
Enter Bernie Sanders, the Independent Senator from Vermont. Sanders (his supporters just call him Bernie), has a large <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/21/1423474/-Bernie-Tied-for-First-Among-Vermont-Republicans" target="_blank">Republican following in Vermont</a>, and there is even a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/republicansforbernie" target="_blank">Facebook</a> page for his GOP supporters. While Sanders is often criticized for being a socialist (he's actually a Democratic Socialist which is still a capitalist), his policy ideas are middle ground for most of the advanced nations of the world. American politics have gotten so far to the right, thanks to the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Partys-Over-Hijacked-Democrat/dp/0525954414" target="_blank">1% and the religious fanatics</a> hijacking of the GOP, that the middle ground is considered "extremist." Sanders is not of the 1%, in fact he's their political nemesis, and he's not all that religious. He's a progressive throwback and one that Republicans of when the party was truly Grand, would embrace.<br />
<br />
The fact that someone like Sanders is able to gain such support despite not taking any Super PAC money, shows that the people are behind him. Some of those people are Republicans. This is important because the bulk of America is tired of Republican party <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/10/1118614/-Biden-Mitch-McConnell-vowed-no-cooperation-with-the-Obama-administration-from-the-get-go" target="_blank">shenanigans</a>, and the corporate shills they choose for <a href="https://www.slantnews.com/story/2015-07-15-these-are-the-presidential-candidates-who-do-koch" target="_blank">candidates</a>. As an American, and fully aware that our political system is watched around the world, I was embarrassed after watching the first Republican debate. Trump turned the debate into a circus, and he's the GOP front runner. What scared me is that Trump is not really a product of the GOP as he is a reflection of current Republican Party. He's misogynistic, racist, and cares more about his own wealth than the well-being of his fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
No, not all Republicans are that way. In fact most are not, at least most of the one's I know. I understand that that was an anecdotal statement on my part, but I live in the Bible Belt, I live in GOP territory, I am surrounded by members of the Republican party. One of the primary virtues of Republicans is loyalty. That is why the sane, and good people I know that are Republican are not misogynistic or racist, or pro-1%. They identify as Republican, mostly because their parent's did, and they are loyal to their party; to attack the party is to attack them. But loyalty goes both ways. If not, then it is not loyalty but servitude. With the exception of the most radical of modern Republicans, the religious extremists, and Tea Partiers, many Republicans are waking up and realizing that the Party they are loyal too, is not loyal to them.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZZ_nTRCLhStwswqOQNeLinzQVGo_zAKMauWNQmSqNO4MwldrIm_BHmRHhGdlvf4TqRr_PHHxLvrh4rlz5ZBZ7IFuT-6NwyitZSS6mZRWKPZCqnEMOUKAW9TnexNVHTybezakFoESnTqM/s1600/BernieSanders-Senator-PresidentialCandidate-Democrat-Attrib-Meme-Twitter-JohnEMichel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="259" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZZ_nTRCLhStwswqOQNeLinzQVGo_zAKMauWNQmSqNO4MwldrIm_BHmRHhGdlvf4TqRr_PHHxLvrh4rlz5ZBZ7IFuT-6NwyitZSS6mZRWKPZCqnEMOUKAW9TnexNVHTybezakFoESnTqM/s320/BernieSanders-Senator-PresidentialCandidate-Democrat-Attrib-Meme-Twitter-JohnEMichel.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
If Clinton gets elected... well, she is a Democrat in Name Only. If this was the 1960s, she would have been a Centrist Republican, not a Democrat. Never mind that she is flip-flopping on nearly everything now and mimicking Sanders, with the exception of her most fanatical supporters, even Democrats take for granted that she is only flip-flopping until after she would take office; she is only changing her views to get elected. Even if she gets protest votes over Trump, nothing would change. It would be party politics as usual. <br />
<br />
If Sander's wins, however, it is a game changer. Part of his appeal is that he is not just a political leader, he is the leader of a movement. A grassroots movement of the young and old alike. The GOP is a repulsive force to to the <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/25/the-gops-millennial-problem-runs-deep/" target="_blank">Millennial Generation</a>. Even <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/246695-young-republicans-say-party-risks-losing-millennials-after-gay-marriage" target="_blank">Millennial Republicans</a> can see the writing on the wall if the GOP keeps to the path it is on. That is IF you can find a Millennial Republican, most pay <a href="http://newsone.com/3192279/reasons-millennials-tuning-out-gop-presidential-candidates/" target="_blank">no attention to the GOP</a> what so ever. In a more diverse-sensitive America, surviving parties must embrace the diversity of our nation. So far Republicans mostly alienate it. <br />
<br />
If Sanders takes office, the GOP party leaders will have to wake up or lose their party. To keep GOP obstructionists from stonewalling the White HOuse and Congressional Dems, GOP candidates will have to be more moderate, more willing to compromise, and more in touch with the needs of their constituents. Too long have the 1% run politics to the chagrin of voters. When Sanders takes office in 2017, it will show the 1%, and more importantly the American voter, that money is done. Politics belong to all of us, not just the 1%. The GOP will have to listen to their more moderate voters and politicians, and balance will return to American Politics. It is time for the GOP to return to its Lincoln roots, to regain its true fiscal responsibility like what Teddy Roosevelt exhibited, to work for the American People like Ike Eisenhower and not Big Business.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSAYXPwM8kMkNQ1Saap7o_cxPEx86Ry4q0AiTMXWRXElFoM0CXw1NeMfHKDfOIdpvf38S7HAsXu5tJ7VJrRAhmPcFzOmwCbDPf7pVW-VdxnO_O_l1F9DVPnWfDfAZNXNjFTQm1d8v4LEI/s1600/The+Real+Deal.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSAYXPwM8kMkNQ1Saap7o_cxPEx86Ry4q0AiTMXWRXElFoM0CXw1NeMfHKDfOIdpvf38S7HAsXu5tJ7VJrRAhmPcFzOmwCbDPf7pVW-VdxnO_O_l1F9DVPnWfDfAZNXNjFTQm1d8v4LEI/s640/The+Real+Deal.png" width="409" /></a></div>
<br />Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-83750338622958714742015-10-14T16:12:00.001-05:002015-10-14T17:09:14.284-05:00CNN the New Faux (Fox) News.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0I17aPjH-FZM2peqRJ7cQp9kzJug0NTIY42qSTLGbEaJP6ZSqQxBLWGApgwp1IlvgkPN_Rf_dYGfl360hyphenhyphen2uvhh-ReAva1f29ySjjzDZJkUpz-f9CqNOzhYVIr7rXReQdJINK_T8Bdco/s1600/shillary.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0I17aPjH-FZM2peqRJ7cQp9kzJug0NTIY42qSTLGbEaJP6ZSqQxBLWGApgwp1IlvgkPN_Rf_dYGfl360hyphenhyphen2uvhh-ReAva1f29ySjjzDZJkUpz-f9CqNOzhYVIr7rXReQdJINK_T8Bdco/s320/shillary.jpg" width="316" /></a></div>
If you do a Google search, as of today, on who won the first Democratic debate of the 2016 Presidential election, you will know that Hillary Clinton won. Except she didn't. You see, CNN, who hosted the debate, is spreading a bold faced lie. It's not surprising, CNN is owned by Time Warner who is one of Clinton's (or as a good friend of mine refer's to her, $hillary) biggest financiers. Not only that, but bloggers and news affiliates that follow CNN's lead all report that Clinton won the debate. <br />
Here's a few examples:<br />
<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/the-atlantics-liveblog-of-the-democratic-presidential-debate/410413/" target="_blank">The Atlantic</a><br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/us/politics/democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-biden.html?_r=0" target="_blank">The New York Times</a><br />
<a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/14/who-won-the-first-democratic-debate.html" target="_blank">CNBC</a><br />
Well, that is unless you are one of the more than thousands people who voted on CNN's poll last night before they deleted it. <br />
<br />
Here is the "report" from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/democratic-debate-2015-winners-losers/" target="_blank">CNN/Facebook Democratic debate winners and losers</a> by <a href="http://www.cnn.com/profiles/jeremy-diamond">Jeremy Diamond</a>, CNN (Updated 8:06 AM ET, Wed October 14, 2015):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Washington (CNN)The field of Democratic presidential hopefuls faced off in their first debate, hosted by CNN and Facebook, on Tuesday night.<br />
For more than two hours, the candidates tried to make their best impressions before a national audience discovering many of them for the first time.<br />
Here's how they did:<br />
<br />
<b>Winner</b><br />
<i>Hillary Clinton</i><br />
Hillary Clinton proved without a doubt Tuesday night why she is the Democratic Party's presidential front-runner.<br />
Clinton remained unflappable throughout the debate, showcasing her political experience and her command of the issues -- all the while deftly handling criticism of her flip-flops and displaying a humor that put a more human face to her oft-criticized candidacy.<br />
From the outset, Clinton was pressed to defend her changing stances on various issues -- from the Pacific Rim trade deal to same-sex marriage -- and came out from the tough questioning with a strong one-liner that very much fits the frame of her campaign: "I'm a progressive. But I'm a progressive who likes to get things done."<br />
David Axelrod, CNN senior political commentator and the chief strategist for the Obama campaign that trounced Clinton in 2008, said she did "very well" and that her campaign was likely "thrilled with the performance."</blockquote>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQk68F2PLRtD8MFhZwK-fN2OpCrTXtt8iM9uiaApRG5idUsfBppkR-7j12MfSdCuWdaZtbabDYiXVTDrHddDhWFK3iVz6uKZ58vvSmnmxeTChzeUwV6thDUiqlR41ApdLojbKcLSBzeH8/s1600/01twitterDNCpoll.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="165" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQk68F2PLRtD8MFhZwK-fN2OpCrTXtt8iM9uiaApRG5idUsfBppkR-7j12MfSdCuWdaZtbabDYiXVTDrHddDhWFK3iVz6uKZ58vvSmnmxeTChzeUwV6thDUiqlR41ApdLojbKcLSBzeH8/s320/01twitterDNCpoll.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
Now, mid you this was a Facebook poll. but apparent from the title of the page, they were trying to use social media (Facebook and Twitter) to determine popular opinion on who won. Apparently the <i>people</i> didn't vote they was we are supposed to. <br />
<br />
Out of curiosity, I looked for other polls. I found several, and below are a sample the polls. In every poll, Sanders is leading by a huge margin. I am not going to go into the various gaffes, blunders, zingers and one liners that pundits count when they form their opinion. Theirs doesn't really matter. Your opinion matters. <br />
<br />
However, mainstream media is on it's way out. With the internet, transparency in information is becoming the norm. Big Media no longer has the sway it once had. As the baby boomers are becoming more tech savvy or dying off, those who still clutch to their TVs and newspapers as their primary source of information are diminishing. Big Media is dying, and this serves as a great case in point.<br />
<br />
The revolution will not be televised, it will be tweeted.<br />
<br />
Now, here are some screen shots of various polls that agree with the CNN twitter poll above:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjT_ukTmfd9QoVh80AollN4Uz1u-aPILEVKQzRycrKrE6Kgk5z9GbcsrgtR0gmIGbmqMaedKbuvwHV0lu0pi68LEVbLFNSnSV9cUgnGX1rc0zpoe9rtEgnMTPmsnDpBHpQsOEeVB4ys1EA/s1600/01Fox5DNCPOLL.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjT_ukTmfd9QoVh80AollN4Uz1u-aPILEVKQzRycrKrE6Kgk5z9GbcsrgtR0gmIGbmqMaedKbuvwHV0lu0pi68LEVbLFNSnSV9cUgnGX1rc0zpoe9rtEgnMTPmsnDpBHpQsOEeVB4ys1EA/s320/01Fox5DNCPOLL.JPG" width="300" /></a></div>
<br />
Fox 5 News in San Diego,<br />
<br />
Sanders: 78%<br />
Clinton: 15%<br />
O'Malley: 2%<br />
Web: 3%<br />
Chaffee: <1%<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIuizel0EmvWTDdTO4xwuq8oVEyh99Lqn6JSL8g3BWoDIGxKM3PcTYFPWp_y02ShqVpaUgqq1eh2tRsuAJzAJX9P1_eKI9w6JsK4w554oc9_RhDPOTgkH3kwhs4LFxlixCRm95PXqYU08/s1600/01SlateDNCPoll.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIuizel0EmvWTDdTO4xwuq8oVEyh99Lqn6JSL8g3BWoDIGxKM3PcTYFPWp_y02ShqVpaUgqq1eh2tRsuAJzAJX9P1_eKI9w6JsK4w554oc9_RhDPOTgkH3kwhs4LFxlixCRm95PXqYU08/s320/01SlateDNCPoll.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Slate.com<br />
<br />
Sanders: 70%<br />
Clinton: 16%<br />
O'Malley: 2%<br />
Web: 11%<br />
Chaffee: 1%<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3pBeSygQNC5khh3aktjMl1NpJ95h0ab0wNzU8-TUemofX4FyfZXnbYoKGFh8r4JbPmCge8J0-OVNiMEyBccNQ4R5bep1igBRzhQfVVXl1YUfh4KjLM-R8HJM890C87hIa7t7wf4VZWLE/s1600/01NJDNCpoll.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="294" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3pBeSygQNC5khh3aktjMl1NpJ95h0ab0wNzU8-TUemofX4FyfZXnbYoKGFh8r4JbPmCge8J0-OVNiMEyBccNQ4R5bep1igBRzhQfVVXl1YUfh4KjLM-R8HJM890C87hIa7t7wf4VZWLE/s320/01NJDNCpoll.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
nj.com of New Jersey<br />
<br />
Sanders: 75%<br />
Clinton: 15%<br />
O'Malley: 1%<br />
Web: 3%<br />
Chaffee: <1%<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEim39zsEjlF8oBaA-2FIz7eZYCb3HMIP2p4pPhe3mAZtBXzvL2pkrxN-y1ZIegL8yLe4ahIfT-E9axm2M4fQjoHnT3Dlxv-_enWJvKP5sDOuGPIzrmGsct5O5S_wempmhxFAta0mfokXZY/s1600/01PatriotDNCdebate.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEim39zsEjlF8oBaA-2FIz7eZYCb3HMIP2p4pPhe3mAZtBXzvL2pkrxN-y1ZIegL8yLe4ahIfT-E9axm2M4fQjoHnT3Dlxv-_enWJvKP5sDOuGPIzrmGsct5O5S_wempmhxFAta0mfokXZY/s320/01PatriotDNCdebate.JPG" width="230" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Even patriot.com (a Right Wing news blog) weighed in<br />
<br />
Sanders: 53%<br />
Clinton: 5%<br />
O'Malley: 3%<br />
Web: 6%<br />
Chaffee: 0%<br />
<br />
<br />
Keep in mind, the Patriot is a Republican friendly site, and even if they could choose "the Republicans" or "I don't care", Sanders wins by a large margin.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
One last photo, sent to me from a concerned voter. Here is a screenshot of the television right after the debate. And CNN is still plugging Hillary. It's time for Big Media to #FeelTheBern!<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgacdztAXS1OdczxcoODJ61BDI6VxmW9o8_evbq67FXbFAqhkWBQYKgmeXAkQy0mK42nM3Zlu4MeV_tHb5ktp0iWUBrMdzLaSyVwuoQ10Y_EvJBlOCHZbEY_7WgtZmDZz-B8_dcAsqx9X4/s1600/DNCpollsScreenie.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgacdztAXS1OdczxcoODJ61BDI6VxmW9o8_evbq67FXbFAqhkWBQYKgmeXAkQy0mK42nM3Zlu4MeV_tHb5ktp0iWUBrMdzLaSyVwuoQ10Y_EvJBlOCHZbEY_7WgtZmDZz-B8_dcAsqx9X4/s640/DNCpollsScreenie.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-23255271556525113092015-09-15T10:00:00.000-05:002016-01-21T09:38:04.464-06:00An Atheist rebuttal to "5 Ways to Be a Better Atheist"<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj07gGmKBj-R9nhhGpdaJOFAU5IbOPS9zgE4PlETU_OgQdcbAzw7MikSoObsVzn3lrHGIhtdHL-x56U3PGLtt3rXZ0UjSKDV-u-ec_Os9982c1LyemyQtJ4ZVI0Xd_2ZNPBCBSdAOTC-8I/s1600/11659429_10155806561945173_2317461793274844379_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj07gGmKBj-R9nhhGpdaJOFAU5IbOPS9zgE4PlETU_OgQdcbAzw7MikSoObsVzn3lrHGIhtdHL-x56U3PGLtt3rXZ0UjSKDV-u-ec_Os9982c1LyemyQtJ4ZVI0Xd_2ZNPBCBSdAOTC-8I/s320/11659429_10155806561945173_2317461793274844379_n.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">An article came across my news feed lately entitled “<a href="https://credohouse.org/blog/5-ways-to-be-a-better-atheist-a-guide-for-unbelievers" target="_blank">5 Ways to be a Better Atheist</a>” by Michael Patton. I initially thought that the article is
either a lesson in critical thinking or a rant against anti-theism. Typically
I check the source before I read something, this time I did not. It is a
happy accident though, because the article has become popular in theistic
circles, so I feel as if I must address it as a reference to not only atheists,
but also skeptically minded theists. “Five Ways…” is written by a theist
in judgement of atheists. Imagine if an Atheist wrote such an absurd list
as “5 Ways to be a Better Christian.” I can almost hear the theistic outrage
now! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">The introduction to the article claims that “Atheism is
suffering.” He is writing his article to theists and is only pandering to their
emotions. By claiming that Atheism is suffering, Patton is trying to
allay theist fears that they are losing some sort of battle for the souls of
man. Furthermore, he claims that New Atheism is evangelical in its
nature. Not quite. In all fairness, some New Atheists have used the
word evangelical – trying to spread the word as it were – but most New Atheists
would say they are activists, not evangelicals. Why the
distinction? Most New Atheists (that is all except for the extremists –
all movements have their crackpots) couldn’t care less what you believe, so
long as you do not force others to those beliefs. If you want to believe
that that a certain day of the week is special, fine, good for you. But
do not force businesses to close down that day. If you want to believe
that the universe was created in 6 days, fine, good for you. But, until
you can prove it though verifiable and </span><span style="font-size: 18px;">measurable</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> means, do not insist that it
is taught as science in schools.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">And now for the laundry list:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Claim One:</span></b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> <i>Atheists
must make more concessions.</i></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVD9Xjr8el4vbuUdIdnp5RB5N90SwDP0EitKURn-ved_I5sfK6qntn2dEWkwVTu644lf6BRxrB5dHObV8DAa-VJy_tXkzgVFiEPbyW58vK-lqlX14VTWQGAZam4f0zsuIswqqgJEo_nCo/s1600/addiscartoon1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVD9Xjr8el4vbuUdIdnp5RB5N90SwDP0EitKURn-ved_I5sfK6qntn2dEWkwVTu644lf6BRxrB5dHObV8DAa-VJy_tXkzgVFiEPbyW58vK-lqlX14VTWQGAZam4f0zsuIswqqgJEo_nCo/s320/addiscartoon1.jpg" width="241" /></a></i></div>
<i><o:p></o:p></i><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Patton asserts that Atheists must stop making certain
claims. The first is that there is no evidence for god. Well, there
isn’t, and no a religion’s sacred texts do not count. To claim that a
certain sacred text is exclusively accurate without allowing the claims in the
text to be scrutinized is the fallacy of special pleading. This is true
for not only material claims (the age of the earth, resurrection etc. but also
for moral and historical claims. A case in point is that there is debate
among historians as to whether Socrates was a real person, or a literary device
for Plato. The evidence for Socrates is stronger than that for Jesus
(<a href="http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Socrates_vs_Jesus" target="_blank">THIS PAGE</a> covers the comparison of evidence quite thoroughly). Briefly, there are three sources for Socrates that were written in
his lifetime, the earliest sources for Jesus were written over 50 years after
his death, and by non-witnesses. To compound the problem, many “official” books
of the Bible have been added to centuries after the earliest copies. In
other words, later authors forged parts of the books.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">According to Patton, Atheists must stop saying theism is irrational. No. We
must not. When you hold a belief based on faith and not evidence, you are being
the very definition of irrational. Faith is incompatible with
reason. I will not go further into the matter here, as I have already
covered the material in my response to R.R. Reno’s view on critical thinking <a href="http://showmeskeptic.blogspot.com/2015/04/piety-and-rr-renos-assault-on-critical.html" target="_blank">HERE</a> and in my video on faith <a href="https://youtu.be/A0Nemdq1ojI?list=PLtVeWQsfPN72KeXhb0FgQYTk8TvrFpLII" target="_blank">HERE</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Next he tackles the correlation between education and
Atheism. Studies show (here’s a few </span><i><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">The </span><span style="font-size: 18px;">Independent</span></a><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">, <a href="https://www.barna.org/barna-update/culture/713-2015-state-of-atheism-in-america#.VfdmmH9Viko" target="_blank">Barna</a>,<a href="http://www.medicaldaily.com/proved-atheists-more-intelligent-religious-people-250727" target="_blank"> Medical Daily</a></span></i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">) that the more educated
a person is, the more likely that they are an Atheist. This is also true not
only of populations within a country, but among nations themselves
(<a href="http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/the-14-most-educated-countries-in-the-world-346448/" target="_blank">most educated countries</a>, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/14/map-these-are-the-worlds-least-religious-countries/" target="_blank">most Atheistic countries</a>) Patton tries to counter these studies by saying that there
are many highly intelligent people that are Christian. This is
true. It is also true that there are those who are as dumb as a box of
rocks that are Atheist. But he misses the point. The point is that
highly educated people are also well versed in critical thinking.
Religions are often found wanting when challenged with the words “prove it”.
Saying that, there are still those that find comfort in the rituals of
religion, in the promise of seeing loved ones after death. No one faults
them for holding on to those desires. But when they try to justify their
beliefs through reason, even the most intelligent of people may buy into their
own bullshit. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZy8UzLjeM0jmFrog2GtP0rqU4fjXLd9G1wDj1mU-Vtfi3FHp3T1_s4sxQe9zcBAZie_xJ3yJe_BXf54ifeOkXZLuoDIIoApW_VXj44R_CgwtR7qg4-D4mCdblA7KaRPyqkuU6SHmt9Qg/s1600/11880549_519652754857622_7651600531721270466_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="273" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZy8UzLjeM0jmFrog2GtP0rqU4fjXLd9G1wDj1mU-Vtfi3FHp3T1_s4sxQe9zcBAZie_xJ3yJe_BXf54ifeOkXZLuoDIIoApW_VXj44R_CgwtR7qg4-D4mCdblA7KaRPyqkuU6SHmt9Qg/s320/11880549_519652754857622_7651600531721270466_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">James Randi, aka the Amazing Randi, is a mentalist and a
magician. For decades he wowed audiences with seemingly supernatural
powers until he became fed up with charlatans who were practicing the same
tricks to convince people that they had “real” supernatural powers. So,
Randi picked up where Harry Houdini left off, and began exposing these
charlatans for what they were (<a href="https://youtu.be/M9w7jHYriFo" target="_blank">Randi’s expose of Uri Geller</a>). Randi has offered a million dollar prize (<a href="http://web.randi.org/" target="_blank">JREF</a>) to anyone who can perform supernatural feats under laboratory
conditions. So far, no one has been able to. There have been
scientists who have claimed to find evidence of ESP or telekinesis, but once
Randi’s people evaluated the studies, the ruse was exposed. The
scientists were not the ones trying to con Randi, but it was their subjects
that conned the scientists! Why? Magic tricks are not a part of
science curriculum. You see, nature does not lie, it does not try to con
us; only people do that. The scientists lacked the proper training in
mentalism and the art of illusion. So even a highly intelligent person, a
highly trained skeptic can fall for a ruse. That’s one of the dangers of
having an open mind:<a href="http://www.patrobertson.com/" target="_blank"> those well versed in grift</a> can take advantage of
you. And sometimes we want to believe something so badly, that we twist
logic and reason any way we can in order to<a href="http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html" target="_blank"> hold those beliefs</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Patton claims that by not relenting to theistic claims of
evidence,the Atheist is committing intellectual suicide. On the surface, he is correct. However, what he fails to understand, is that
when Atheists are being “dismissive” of theistic claims of evidence rooted in
sacred texts, miracles, prophesy, etc. they are dismissive because such things
are <i>conjecture</i> not evidence. Evidence is corroborative, verifiable, and
falsifiable. That means that more than
one source can produce the results, that the results can be repeatable, and
that there are conditions that, if met, would render the evidence as
false. However, when backed into an
intellectual corner, the theist often pleads that if the Atheist only had faith
they would understand. The fallacy of
appeal to faith is the last refuge of the theist. To which, I will invoke Hitchens’ Razor in
the late, great Christopher Hitchens’ own words, “What can be asserted without
evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Lastly, Patton, says that there is evidence for god, and we must
concede that point. Go back to the beginning of this post and click the
link to Patton’s article. Read the bit where he says there’s
evidence. Notice something missing? Yep, this supposed
evidence. Now naturally, his article is not about presenting such
evidence but he could have at least listed some types of evidence, or
arguments, or even a link or two to those arguments. Alas, he does
not. He asserts there is evidence for god, but fails to include that
evidence. </span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">However, I would wager dollars to doughnuts that the majority
of the evidence has been thoroughly debunked, most of which was so centuries
ago. Here’s the thing, if you make an argument for something and that
argument is shown to not only be invalid, but the counter argument is shown to
be valid, then your argument is no longer</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">evidence</span></i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">. Since Patton has not listed is supposed evidence I
cannot disprove it. However, I have already addressed the most common
theistic apologetics <a href="http://showmeskeptic.blogspot.com/2015/03/arguments-for-god-part-0.html" target="_blank">here</a>, which may include what Patton would
consider his “evidence”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">In conclusion to this first little bit, I will say that all ideas
must be challenged. Personally, I care too much about people to allow
unfounded, untrue, and often malicious ideas contribute to their misery.
This is doubly true when their false ideas contribute to someone else’s
misery. So no. No concessions will be made by me or anyone else
that place their fellow humans above any notions of imaginary sky-daddies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><b>Claim 2:</b> <i>The Flying Spaghetti Monster</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI0GYBB79v_ZOg-OmlPLlPZGbQdKTY_QdUQVfAuC2x7DQOYVDLqcKzOYaihUjLjpl1WSOOaUIv3vjfxy2Y_xmWdBzPk5LesMUeVJLBjbaUr6ZEcmLSpb6w1xiF2rZePusvmexuQMtiPvU/s1600/se2Fe6D.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI0GYBB79v_ZOg-OmlPLlPZGbQdKTY_QdUQVfAuC2x7DQOYVDLqcKzOYaihUjLjpl1WSOOaUIv3vjfxy2Y_xmWdBzPk5LesMUeVJLBjbaUr6ZEcmLSpb6w1xiF2rZePusvmexuQMtiPvU/s320/se2Fe6D.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">At first I was going to gloss over this one, because it is
silly. Then, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that Patton,
and quite possibly many of his like-minded cohorts are actually</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">scared</span></i><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
(FSM). For those who have not heard of the FSM, he is from a children’s
book that is written much like the bible, about a deity, the FSM and the
religion that follows him. It’s silly. It’s cute. It is an illustration
on how silly the claims of other religions are when viewed outside that
religion. And what I think gets the goat of most theists is when a
non-believer in their brand of woo-woo points out that their little religion
looks just as ridiculous to the non-believer as the FSM does to them. No
one that follows the FSM think it’s real, it is just fun make believe, but the
theists are taking it seriously!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Patton makes it clear that he takes the threat of the FSM
seriously when he tries to get philosophical to counter FSM claims. He
claims to be able to invalidate (remember, he is trying to invalidate something
that the fans of it say is fiction) the FSM through a two-step process. First, Patton
brings up the specter of the</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">necessary</span></i><span class="apple-converted-space"><i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></i></span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">being. It is a tired philosophical concept that it is
necessary that some being caused the very first event in cosmic history; an
uncaused cause if you will. This idea is found in the Teleological and
Cosmological arguments which are addressed, again, in my <a href="http://showmeskeptic.blogspot.com/2015/03/arguments-for-god-part-0.html" target="_blank">God Arguments page</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Secondly, and if we were being intellectually honest, we would say
that Patton is still stuck on the first part, he</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">says that there is no</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">historical</span></i><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">basis for it. ALL religions are
stuck on this step. The reason that anthropologists, sociologists etc.
are the </span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span id="goog_1802675514"></span>least religious scholars<span id="goog_1802675515"></span></a><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> is that these fields have not
only studied various religions, but have even seen the historical record and </span><span style="font-size: 18px;">archaeological</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> evidence of</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">when</span></i><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">religions and deities were invented, borrowed and developed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><b>Claim 3: </b><i>Admit the weakness of their position</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Patton is getting slick with this one. He makes an indirect
ad hominem on Atheists by claiming that those Atheists who publicly debate are
similar to used-car salesmen: they dress nice, so they MUST be hiding
something! He then says that we Atheists must admit that our position is
a “weak” one (implying his is the “strong” one.) The basis for his assertion is
that Atheism cannot explain any basis for morals or existence itself. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg221ABkO5zOCy6JthAGG7AO_rtXdXS7eynNV4Da8NBPmBimyzMTgY-PdyHi3IlVGcdxvxAW3CzFEv7_cZspG7uiQFdq6qs3q9eGCq6v65rd-FDjAuxRDIBdGNtTjDQiXIEUWTzUSv_N0/s1600/straw-man-fixed.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg221ABkO5zOCy6JthAGG7AO_rtXdXS7eynNV4Da8NBPmBimyzMTgY-PdyHi3IlVGcdxvxAW3CzFEv7_cZspG7uiQFdq6qs3q9eGCq6v65rd-FDjAuxRDIBdGNtTjDQiXIEUWTzUSv_N0/s320/straw-man-fixed.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Ok, first, Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is simply
the lack of belief in any gods. That is all. Atheism doesn’t HAVE
to explain anything because it is a baseline position. But, since Patton
brought it up, are there any</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">secular</span></i><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">theories to morals or existence? Why, yes. Yes there
is. There is a whole field of philosophical study (it’s called ethics, by
the way) that deals with morality. As to why there’s something instead of
nothing, I say, why not? Assuredly, science is working on it, and there
are some hypotheses as to why we have a universe. But it is a complex
matter and one that cannot accept the lazy-man’s answer: god did it. You
see, if you want to posit an idea as to why there is something rather than
nothing, you must prove it. Claiming one deity or another and resting on
it is intellectually lazy, and fraudulent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><b>Claim 4:</b> <i>Atheists must be more open-minded</i><br />
<br />
Patton claims that Atheists are necessarily closed-minded. He pleads that
Atheists cannot claim to be open-minded because Atheists reject religion. When
I first read this, I thought, “Oh, he just doesn’t understand what open-minded
means.” Now that I’ve read it again, I’m not only sure he doesn’t, but I’m also
sure he doesn’t fully understand his own argument. Patton claims that Atheism
is so married to naturalism that Atheists cannot think outside the box. Again,
Atheism is only a lack of belief in gods. Most Buddhists are Atheists, as are
Jains. And yet, they do believe in non-naturalistic things. Again Patton’s
attack on Atheism is really an attack on secular skepticism (Skepticism with a
capital ‘S’ as it is a sort of movement that fits exactly what Patton is raging
against). When a Skeptic says to be open minded, they mean to not clutch your
beliefs so tightly that when faced with evidence that nullifies those beliefs,
you are incapable of revising your beliefs. The Skeptic uses reason and
empirical evidence as their basis for knowledge because it fucking works!
Language and math operate on the same logic, in fact the field of Propositional
Calculus does just that: it turns logical, linguistic statement into math so
computers can compute. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">What people like Patton cannot stand, is that there is no room for
faith at the table of reason. Faith is accepting something to be true
(believing in it) without evidence. This is the antithesis of reason!
Now, the most popular theistic dodge to this criticism is that theists do
not base their faith on a lack of evidence, but rather on evidence, such as
personal revelation, miracles and fulfilled prophecies. I've already
tackled why these do not count as evidence in my god videos. The video on
prophecy and miracles is <a href="https://youtu.be/fbTtiOHQWqg?list=PLtVeWQsfPN72KeXhb0FgQYTk8TvrFpLII" target="_blank">here</a>, which leaves personal revelation.
It is not evidence. Accepting something on someone's say so is not good
evidence of any sort. It is not that they are lying, though that may be
the case, but it is well known that eye-witness accounts are <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/" target="_blank">not reliable</a> (even
for cops). Not to mention that while an eye witness account
of an event will more than likely have corroborating physical evidence, a
report of someone's<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>feelings</i> on
something, or the voices in their head are most likely attributable to various
psychological states, not on the super natural. One last thing that gets
the preachers, used-car salesmen, kings, and other con-men upset with the
rejection of faith as evidence, is that THEY have to prove what they say too.
They do not have the authority to dictate "truth." Take
that power away, and they have none. No religion has ever been able to
withstand the words, 'prove it.' What Patton cannot comes to grips with,
is that neither can he prove it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV8bG-gAUOeULRq6sCPsBqVl9Svd6g1fIZdbQNP75kua-GQ2jefe2PI-MBfqzr8GP_Ga3jCxaB3YOTqf7T8c0EoflP4n_ZNMhyVRYwnFF3IrnORcSQhKsqrUQQk2vdwaCiGhvSHpcNDj8/s1600/11141195_838541649549382_7893995939999521192_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV8bG-gAUOeULRq6sCPsBqVl9Svd6g1fIZdbQNP75kua-GQ2jefe2PI-MBfqzr8GP_Ga3jCxaB3YOTqf7T8c0EoflP4n_ZNMhyVRYwnFF3IrnORcSQhKsqrUQQk2vdwaCiGhvSHpcNDj8/s320/11141195_838541649549382_7893995939999521192_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Another interesting thing, is that many theists will try to commit
an <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/amphibol.html" target="_blank">amphiboly</a> by interchanging two separate meanings of the word
faith to show that their religion is "true." They will mix the
meaning, 'belief without evidence' with other meanings of the word, be it a
synonym for some other emotional state like hope or 'confidence', or they will
use the synonym 'religion'. I won’t go into it more here, I've already covered
faith in the following video,<a href="http://showmeskeptic.blogspot.com/2015/04/faith-what-is-it.html" target="_blank"> here</a>, and argued against R.R. Reno's
idea of using faith instead of reason in education <a href="http://showmeskeptic.blogspot.com/2015/04/piety-and-rr-renos-assault-on-critical.html" target="_blank">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><b>Claim 5:<i> </i></b><i>Stop saying Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods.</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Oops. I think I've fully violated that one. The reason
why Patton says this, is because he is convinced that Atheism is more than
that. He makes a claim that the reason why Atheists say that Atheism is a
lack of belief is because Atheists are trying to avoid the burden of
proof. There are a couple of things going on here. The first, is
that the reason why no one claims to be a-leprechuanist or a-Thorist is because
leprechaun and Thor are not Greek words (though Atheism includes a-Thorists).
Secondly, and again, Patton is nor raging against Atheism, but
Skepticism. Now, it is true that many Atheists in the US come to it
through Skepticism, but they are not the same thing. In fact, the man who
argued for modern skepticism was very devout indeed! Rene Descartes
formulated the principal of doubt as a starting point to figure out how we
could ever know anything. </span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Before Descartes, new knowledge was mashed with old
preconceptions, and it the new did not fit, it was often rejected.
Copernicus had this problem, as did Galileo, with the authorities at that
time. Descartes said that to gain new knowledge it is best to begin from
a state of utter doubt, and let the evidence guide our conclusions. This
one principle has guided scientific inquiry for the past 400 years. This
one principle is the foundation that led to discoveries that feed the world,
that prevent and cure disease that got us to the moon. Now, as devout as
Descartes was, he began from is principle of doubt and arrived at a
"necessary, and good god" conclusion. But, that was due to
certain assumptions that can easily be argued away today.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">So, since Patton is confused on what Atheism</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">is</span></i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">, and he is actually arguing against Skepticism…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSn-ssBJPSyXROMW6StujanUEnxw_rLr7Re9ajtRILEYpcfUmJpBn9XU5s62IuFPECCDkuiVhRRVxltu_n9qpG655jf3pnICd8lcyQbV4tYFa-PaSVc0-_lEIp62ASsIpZtU6igqlqhZw/s1600/11705124_1602619146658411_7114100119731030175_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSn-ssBJPSyXROMW6StujanUEnxw_rLr7Re9ajtRILEYpcfUmJpBn9XU5s62IuFPECCDkuiVhRRVxltu_n9qpG655jf3pnICd8lcyQbV4tYFa-PaSVc0-_lEIp62ASsIpZtU6igqlqhZw/s320/11705124_1602619146658411_7114100119731030175_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">What Patton is trying to get at is that people need a world view
and that Atheism is a part of it. He is basically making a R<a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html" target="_blank">ed HerringFallacy</a>, by misusing the term Atheism to distract what he is
really against: world views other than his own. While he is correct that
Atheism is a part of an Atheist's world view, Atheism itself is not a world
view. Patton proposes the following questions are necessary to answer to
have a world view:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• Is there such a thing as morality?<br />
• Does man have free will?<br />
• Why is there something rather than nothing?<br />
• What is the basis for rationality?</blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">For each of these questions, Atheism is an irrelevant concept;
meaning that the concept of Atheism does not answer the question. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Question: "Is there such a thing as morality?"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Answer: "A lack of belief in gods"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">See, it doesn’t fit. So then what is he getting at? He
is railing against modern philosophy and science, which are beginning to answer
those questions in a manner that is more in touch with reality than the authoritarian mandates of
religion. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Can Skeptical inquiry answer such questions? Let us consider
some questions then (note: these questions are</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">far</span></i><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">from exhaustive):<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Is there such a thing as morality</span></i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">? A skeptic would ask such
questions: What is morality? Is it universal or not? Can
morality be determined either philosophically or through the eyes of science,
say evolution, or sociology?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Does man have free will</span></i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">? A skeptic would start with, "what IS free
will?" Is free will even possible? Then the Skeptic would
tackle the problem if man has it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Why is there something rather than nothing?</span></i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> A skeptic would begin thusly: What
do we mean by nothing? Is nothing even possible? Does the original
question, itself, have any real meaning?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">What is the basis for rationality?</span></i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> The skeptic would then ask,
"What is logic?" What does it mean to know? How do we
know if we know? What is the best way to use knowledge to find new
knowledge? Can we use knowledge to find knowledge?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Again, the questions above are far from exhaustive, and many a
career in philosophy has been made just focusing on one set of questions
above. So, why not just use some sort of variation of "god did
it" To answer the above questions? Because then you would have to
prove two things: One that there is in fact a god (more specifically</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">your</span></i><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">god) and two, you would have to prove that
god did, in fact, do it. It is the same burden of proof that ANYONE has
when trying to answer the above questions. Do Atheists have the same
burden of proof to answer the above? Of course they do. But, Athe<i>ism</i></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">does not, as it is a concept with a
singular meaning and it is a meaning that has nothing to do with explaining
anything other than a singular person's acceptance of any gods.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Modern philosophy and science are used more and more to answer the
above questions and people are relying less and less on religion for those
answers. Religion is losing its special status, its power, and the
shamans of the world's religions are fighting to keep their power. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">The closing remarks of Patton’s diatribe against Atheism is
another ad hominem against Atheists.
But, he did offer to pray for us.
I think I can speak for many Atheists by saying, “keep praying. Want to try to convert us? Stay at home and
pray for us. Want to spread the word at
a school? Stay and home and pray that
your god will reveal himself. Is it the
second Tuesday in November? For the love
of democracy, stay at home and pray!”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8PxNjC-Z0TM-TGrAgFsPVvbUJ0dT2fKdDLxWaJweQ9ZjOnRHq0jTfJCVOfr9e5nUbT23XacEinMoRcb37iHt2FOwhUa37KS3RpShKPAaAIMwULUC2tE67Sw1G4l0dWvbxa2OgN-KkRes/s1600/11150459_10202679228822326_6797845142738651362_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8PxNjC-Z0TM-TGrAgFsPVvbUJ0dT2fKdDLxWaJweQ9ZjOnRHq0jTfJCVOfr9e5nUbT23XacEinMoRcb37iHt2FOwhUa37KS3RpShKPAaAIMwULUC2tE67Sw1G4l0dWvbxa2OgN-KkRes/s640/11150459_10202679228822326_6797845142738651362_n.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-881976129349924472015-09-10T10:00:00.000-05:002015-09-14T21:02:48.634-05:00Cynthia Davis (R-O'Fallon) doesn't know how government works.The following link is to the original post from the Turner Report:<br />
<a href="http://rturner229.blogspot.com/2015/09/cynthia-davis-radical-left-wants-to.html?spref=bl">The Turner Report: Cynthia Davis: Radical left wants to keep all Chri...</a>: (From former Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O'Fallon, who is now an internet talk show host) Last May I was invited to attend the St. Charles C...<br />
<br />
Davis is another legislature that is jumping on the "persecuted" Christian bandwagon. Cynthia Davis is the same State Representative that in 2009 wanted to do away with the Summer Lunch Program in Missouri schools because, I quote, "<a href="http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/local/group-boosts-summer-food-program/article_20ed5cc0-8778-5b98-b660-2d2ee6cbcc0a.html" target="_blank">hunger can be a positive motivator</a>." Yeah, because all a 9 year old poor kid needs is a little hunger to go out and get a job. That's a big F-You to parents and kids of parents who were hit hard by the recession just a year earlier.<br />
<br />
Anyway, Davis is making the outrageous claim that "the left" is trying to do away with Christians in government and create a new government. Yeah, this is a woman people elect to government who is saying this. Of course she is referring to Kim Davis (no relation), who has been imprisoned for contempt of court for refusing to issue licences to gay couples. So, because the clerk is not doing her job, and is being penalized for defying court order, now Christians are being persecuted.<br />
<br />
C. Davis tries to explain why there are Constitutional bases to fight against the "persecution" of Kim Davis. C. Davis lists four Constitutional reasons why Kim Davis, and thus all Christians, is being persecuted.<br />
<br />
1) The Kentucky State Constitution says that marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. This, Kim Davis was upholding the Kentucky State Constitution.<br />
<br />
FAIL: The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court ruled that banning gay marriage is against the protections within the Constitution. The reasoning is the same as former bans on mixed race marriage (whose opponents gave the exact same arguments against it as they do now for gay marriage), banning marriage for certain groups violates the right to their religion, privacy, and their <a href="http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment9.html" target="_blank">9th</a> and <a href="https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html" target="_blank">14th Amendment rights</a>. <br />
<br />
Thus, the Supreme Court's ruling trumps Kentucky's Constitution. Their one man, one woman amendment is a waste of ink. This is how America works, a Representative, even at the state level, should know this.<br />
<br />
2) C. Davis then emphatically stresses that Supreme Court opinions do not create new laws. In fact, the Supreme Court can only declare a law unconstitutional and cannot ever create a new law.<br />
<br />
FAIL: C. Davis throws out a Fallacy of Equivocation in this bit. She tries to be slick by putting the word <i>opinion</i> in all-caps. Why this is slick, is that the is trying to equivocate a court opinion with an emotive opinion. An emotive opinion is one that cannot be falsified, one that is solely personal preference. These opinions are such, "blue is the prettiest color," or Justin Bieber is a better singer than Justin Timberlake," <br />
<br />
You see, each court ruling is accompanied by an opinion by the judge. This is an opinion in the same way as a doctor uses it. The Judges opinion is his view on the correct course of action -- his ruling -- (a diagnosis for a doctor) based on facts presented (symptoms for a doctor) and how they fit together gleaned from arguments by the attorneys (or how the symptoms interact in the patient). These opinions make case precedent. Precedent is used to keep laws consistent, that way what will get you punished one day, is acceptable by another judge at another time.<br />
<br />
Secondly, the Supreme Court cannot make a law. But it can interpret laws and declare laws unconstitutional. And that is what the Supreme Court did in this case, it interpreted existing laws and declared that discrimination against gays in regards to marriage is unconstitutional. So, no new laws were made, the Supreme Court only upheld existing laws.<br />
<br />
3) C. Davis states that the governor of Kentucky should be able to order the release of Kim Davis, and that the gay-thing is a state issue, not a federal one. She then reiterates that Kim Davis would be breaking Kentucky law if she issued marriage licences to gay couples. In fact, C. Davis says that there is no federal law to counter the Kentucky law.<br />
<br />
FAIL: First, C. Davis fails on whose "issue" it is. Kim Davis is a representative of the state of Kentucky. Disagreements between citizens and their state IS a federal problem! I do not mean the state of Kentucky disciplining Kim Davis, I mean the gay couples in conflict with the state of Kentucky. That is a federal issue, and a federal judge gave a lawful order for Kim Davis to comply with the law under the current interpretation of the Supreme Court. Kim Davis was not persecuted for refusing gay marriage, she was prosecuted for contempt of court!<br />
<br />
Secondly, Kim Davis would break no law in issuing a gay marriage license. The reason is that the Supreme Court's ruling was that states cannot restrict marriage based on sexual orientation. That ruling nullified the Kentucky law. In other words, the Kentucky constitutional amendment is rendered null and void. It is NOT a law anymore.<br />
<br />
Lastly, since Cynthia has yet to learn this, there is a federal law that trumps the Kentucky law. It is called the Constitution of the United States. The laws are the 9th and 14th Amendments. The 9th says that rights not given to the government belong to the people, and the 14th says that a citizen cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process and extends the law to all citizens. In other words, states cannot discriminate against people when they write laws. Laws like no interracial marriage... or gay marriage.<br />
<br />
4) Cynthia (I cannot continue to give her a formal moniker, as she has lost all of my respect at this point) then comes up with an absurd scenario of the Governor of Kentucky sending the national guard to arrest the federal judge and "rescue" Kim Davis. Then she reiterates that the federal judge had no legal right to order Kim to do her job. Lastly, Cynthia pleads that if nothing is done, then states won't be able to write their own laws.<br />
<br />
FAIL: Yeah, a state that rises up against the federal government is a conservative's wet dream. But the governor of Kentucky had no legal ground to send troops to "rescue" Kim, let alone arrest a federal judge.<br />
<br />
Again, the judge was in the right, Kim wasn't. I won't reiterate why, I've already done so.<br />
<br />
The bit about stopping the federal government lest states be powerless. She makes not only a false dichotomy (either we fight against this one law, or states won't be able to pass laws any more), but also she over exaggerates. No, Cynthia, gays being able to marry is not going to nullify state constitutions, just like ending Jim Crow didn't.<br />
<br />
5) Here, Cynthia offers some Christian-rant about how screwing doesn't require a license. And if sex doesn't require one, then gays don't need one.<br />
<br />
FAIL: Neither do straights. Straight people do not need to get married either. But then some people, such as Kim Davis, like getting married so much they do it four times. Basically, Cynthia lays out every bigoted reason Christians have against gays in one paragraph. It's a pedantically written, vitriolic prose that perfectly captures the bigotry taught by many Christian churches.<br />
<br />
6) Cynthia has the audacity to claim that gays should stand up for Kim Davis as well. Her reasoning is that the issue is not gay rights, it is civil rights. She states that if gays do not fight against barring Kim Davis from refusing to issue licenses then we all will lose our freedom of religion, state constitutions and civil rights.<br />
<br />
FAIL: Here, Cynthia has just failed as a human being. It is her bronze age religious beliefs that pit her against gays. If you want to sit around thinking all gays are bad, fine. If you want to sit around thinking that all women need <span style="background-color: yellow;">to</span> be subordinate to a man (which is in the same gay-hating book) then fine. If all of that is in your religion, so be it. You have the right to think that way. What you do NOT have the right to do is interfere with anyone else's right to religion including their rejection of religion in general, and rejection of YOUR religion specifically. <br />
<br />
In America, your right to punch ends where the other guy's nose begins. Kim Davis is abusing her powers to punch out gays. Sorry, Cynthia, sorry Kim, but your religious beliefs do not entitle you to force others to live with your bigoted and immoral values. This is doubly true for agents acting on behalf of the government. You see, Cynthia, in America, our civil liberties are tied directly with enfranchisement with the system. When you treat a certain class of people differently, it runs the risk of disenfranchising them, of creating a second class citizenry. <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/163/537" target="_blank">Plessy v Ferguson</a> institutionalized racism in America for about 70 years. It has taken decades of fighting to desegregate the US, and fully enfranchise blacks and other racial minorities in the US. Cynthia, your bigoted rage against gays and gay marriage is no different than your Jim Crow loving predecessors.<br />
<br />
George Takei said it best in a recent Facebook post (emphasis mine):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px;">Well this is a bit of a circus. So let us be clear: This woman is no hero to be celebrated. She broke her oath to uphold the Constitution and defied a court order so she could deny government services to couples who are legally entitled to be married. She is entitled to hold her religious beliefs, but not to impose those beliefs on others. If she had denied marriage certificates to an interracial couple, would people cheer her? Would presidential candidates flock to her side? In our society, <b>we obey civil laws, not religious ones. To suggest otherwise is, simply put, entirely un-American</b>.</span></blockquote>
Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-75301800813696442402015-08-21T16:52:00.000-05:002015-08-21T16:52:01.532-05:00Sheriffs Showing Allegiance to god, Not Duty to Citizens<div class="tr_bq">
Several counties in Missouri have begun placing "In God We Trust" stickers on patrol cars. Today, Jasper County, where I live, have begun to do the same. The pic below is the "press release" the department put on Facebook.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz_8Uclb5ULoGpt6RTa49YecVsdUniRCRj-InX-cb8wqlA3ortyhOxzWJWl8uvEA4op5l36oQx0mV7RErYbQrc0wtPP4yTWgy4J8UyjYZEugEh4ElpnYpHA6Fc2Q18q294PLqtQwg96Y8/s1600/Jasper002.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="304" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz_8Uclb5ULoGpt6RTa49YecVsdUniRCRj-InX-cb8wqlA3ortyhOxzWJWl8uvEA4op5l36oQx0mV7RErYbQrc0wtPP4yTWgy4J8UyjYZEugEh4ElpnYpHA6Fc2Q18q294PLqtQwg96Y8/s640/Jasper002.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The release reads:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">MEDIA RELEASE</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">The Jasper County Sheriff's Office is very pleased to announce that we are adding "In God We Trust" decals to the vehicles in our fleet. The first vehicles have begun to have the decal applied this week. We are extremely fortunate that many citizens, businesses and organizations of Jasper County have volunteered to help finance the making of the decals.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">Randee Kaiser</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">Jasper County Sheriff</span></blockquote>
Does the Kaiser not know that he is alienating pretty much every citizen that does not believe in the Abrahamic god? I have no problem with a civil servant wearing a cross, or a crescent, or a pentagram on a chain around their neck. That is a personal statement about the individual, and I'm all for that. But when they advertise for Yahweh on public property, that is a big no-no. It is the religious equivalent of them painting a Confederate flag on the roof of the squad cars.<br /><br />I have sent the <a href="http://ffrf.org/" target="_blank">Freedom From Religion Foundation</a> a violation report.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjqBXfuzDiJQx05sPJyOaKpm8m0sfg_cMaXya9VAJcu4X0WlQ53xZILec2RrOyfC2LUskHF8-5TpWhceGuRbFZhBQWMRu2oOke7v1xuiKfDL6RkwiU35I_R5n62vXhrYY13ImgbvcD_tc/s1600/Jasper003.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjqBXfuzDiJQx05sPJyOaKpm8m0sfg_cMaXya9VAJcu4X0WlQ53xZILec2RrOyfC2LUskHF8-5TpWhceGuRbFZhBQWMRu2oOke7v1xuiKfDL6RkwiU35I_R5n62vXhrYY13ImgbvcD_tc/s400/Jasper003.JPG" width="343" /></a></div>
If you live in Jasper or Stone county, please send in a report to the FFRF, or<a href="https://www.au.org/" target="_blank"> Americans United</a> to report your sheriff department for a blatant violation of church and state.Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0Joplin, MO 64804, USA37.0193161 -94.50058079999996636.8153546 -94.824677299999962 37.223277599999996 -94.17648429999997tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-13446213979684784302015-08-19T08:16:00.000-05:002015-08-19T08:16:52.982-05:00Star Wars Fun<script src="//www.powr.io/powr.js" powr-token="404f8b202d" external-type="iframe"></script>
<div class="powr-photo-gallery" label="Enter a Label"></div>Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-78590494161053862962015-08-11T11:18:00.002-05:002015-08-11T11:18:38.553-05:00An Atheist Answers "Atheism on Trial" from Philosophy Now Magazine<div class="tr_bq">
In the August/September 2015 issue of Philosophy now, Stephen Anderson explores Atheism by putting the concept on trial. While the author thinks it is a clever way to write an article, the meat of the article is lacking; it is all style, no substance. I love reading<a href="https://philosophynow.org/" target="_blank"> Philosophy Now</a> magazine and I implore you to read <a href="https://philosophynow.org/issues/109/Atheism_on_Trial" target="_blank">Atheism on Trial</a> for yourself in its entirety preferably before or even after you read this article. I will not reproduce the entire Philosophy Now article here, as I usually do, but rather I will pull out quotes from the article and respond. Feel free to put any questions you have or inaccuracies you find in the comments below.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">There was a time – some years ago – when to profess disbelief in a Supreme Being could be hazardous to one’s health. You could get hacked to pieces with a scimitar or boiled in oil. Neither the public nor the authorities had much tolerance.</span></blockquote>
This is called the Middle East, and it is NOW! Anderson is, of course, talking about Medieval Europe, and Christianity, but killing apostates and Atheists still happens, and by followers of the same Abrahamic god.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> Today, atheism has taken its comfortable seat by the fire and has its feet up. It has </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">de facto</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> control of education, the universities, and the academic press. It is the go-to position of our media and the controlling assumption of political discourse. Popular atheist authors have no trouble churning out bestsellers and culling invitations to speak. Atheism has never been so respectable.</span> </blockquote>
Anderson must be from a Scandinavian country. In the US, most people have no qualms about reminding Atheists about their not-so-comfortable seat IN the fire. The US was built as a secular government so all religions would have equal protection under the law. Yet, we have god on our currency and our patrol cars. 11 States have statutes that bar Atheists from holding public office and celebrities such a Oprah and Steve Harvey publicly declare that Atheists cannot have morals because they have no god-belief. The only place in America where Atheists are treated respectably are in academia, which itself is a very small percentage of the population.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Maybe the really daring thing today is not </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">being</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> an atheist, but </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">challenging</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> atheism. It can certainly be risky, and can provoke a whole lot of knee-jerk animus, even if one supplies good arguments to back one’s case.</span></blockquote>
Anderson must be a Christian. Why do I say that? In two sentences he tries to build the case that being non-Atheist means being persecuted. I run into this all the time with Christians. At first I thought it was just a rhetorical tactic, and for some it is, but for most Christians it is because they've never had their core beliefs challenged on such a fundamental level. Theists place a great deal of their identity in their god and their religion. To claim it is all fairy-tales is to claim they are living a lie. Such a notion causes great cognitive dissonance within the theistic mind.<br />
<br />
But Anderson is saying something else too. It's subtle until you see it. He is right off saying that Atheist counter-arguments to his theistic assertions are merely "knee-jerk animus" despite what Anderson considers a good argument. Mr. Anderson, if your argument has a soul-crushing (as it were) counter-argument, then it is by definition NOT a good argument.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
Before we begin the trial, perhaps we ought to clarify the case. What is ‘atheism’?</blockquote>
Good start, we must always define what we are to argue against not only to clarify and elucidate our exact position, but to also so counter-points can be honestly made. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">In answering, let us observe the</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> </span><em style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">principle of charity</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">. </span></blockquote>
I smell a trap.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">This means we ought to address an opposing view in its strongest and most representative form, rather than in any of its weaker or less representative forms. In charity, then, we must ask ourselves, ‘What is the strongest form of atheism?’</span></blockquote>
And here is the first mistake. Catch it?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"></span>To begin with, we could consider a basic definition. ‘Atheism’ is clearly ‘a-’ plus ‘theism’. Theism is from the Greek for God (or gods), of course; and the ‘a-’ prefix is the Greek negation of whatever it’s prefixing. Thus atheism means simply ‘no God’. It claims there exists no kind of god.<br /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">That’s basic. But we might ask, ‘Is it really necessary to understand atheism as so </span> </blockquote>
Here is Anderson's mistake: The<a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation" target="_blank"> Fallacy of Equivocation</a>. What Anderson is equivocating is Strong Atheism with run-of-the-mill Atheism. In itself, Atheism simply means a lack of <i>belief</i> in any gods. In Strong Atheism, not only are the various gods not believed in, but the Atheist takes the position that it is more likely that proofs against the gods is stronger than proofs for the gods. Strong Atheism is not held by all atheists. In fact, Strong Atheists are a minority in the Atheist community. Why? I don't know. What I think to be the case is that Strong Atheists tend to be exceptionally skeptical and rational and were once theists. However, it was their skepticism and reason that saved their mind. Most Atheists in the world were never indoctrinated to begin with. Most Atheists in the US realized at some point that it was all hogwash and that was that, their Sundays are now free.<br />
<br />
Anderson makes his equivocation so he may commit on of the most basic of logical fallacies. He is trying to set up a <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man" target="_blank">straw man</a>. By using Atheism in a highly specific, and inaccurate, way, Anderson can use arguments specific to a certain position even though those arguments do not work on the basic position as a whole. The reason for this is that, to Anderson, it will be easier to show that Strong Atheism is a weak position, without addressing Atheism as a whole. Remember, Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any gods, so even if the theist can show that there <i>might</i> be some sort of deity floating out in space, the Atheist can always fall back on asking which one. That then puts the theist on the defensive as they then have to prove that their specific deity is the correct one. Apparently, Anderson has made that mistake before and does not want to repeat it.<br />
<br />
I will spare the quote, but Anderson brings in agnosticism into the mix and tries to muddy the waters by saying that agnostics want to believe, they just have no proof. Of course he then goes on to say that Atheists do not want to include agnostics because that would make believing in a god a personal thing, and not a statement of reality. I won't say much on this other than Anderson confuses agnosticism with atheism. Agnosticism meant "I don't know". If someone says they are agnostic it means that they don't know if there is a god or gods. That is a statement of reality. Most Atheists are agnostic Atheists meaning that they don't know if there are any gods and they do not believe in them. A Strong Atheist is more of a gnostic Atheist, meaning they find arguments against the gods convincing and do not believe in any gods. By itself, Atheism is a personal statement, but then so is theism! Belief is a personal thing. However, most theists are gnostic theists, meaning they know the god they believe in exists. But their religion requires it. Atheism has no such requirement.<br />
<br />
Anderson then goes on some asinine comments about whether or not he should believe that Denmark is a real place or not. What he is trying to do is get the reader thinking that his denial of evidence to the existence of Denmark is of equal value to Atheistic skepticism of supernatural deities. This is done to make the point that an Atheist wouldn't want his agnostic friends coming along for the trial. Again, most Atheists are agnostics, so still, it is only a minority of Atheists that Anderson is willing to put on trial.<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
Again, the principle of charity must come into play. In ancient Rome, Christians were persecuted as ‘atheists’ because they failed to believe in <em>enough</em> gods. But I doubt very much that sort of characterization of their position would satisfy modern atheists. So we must be clear: do atheists wish to deny only one God, or two gods, or the entire spectrum of possible gods?</blockquote>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
I think it must be all. I don’t know of any atheist who would be happy to think that Zeus doesn’t exist but Ares does; that Thor and Loki don’t exist but Allah does; that Yahweh doesn’t exist but the pantheon of Hindu gods is real. For a true atheist, I think <em>all</em> gods, no matter of what name or nature, have to be out: and I think I’m staying in the true atheist spirit in saying so.</blockquote>
Well, at least Anderson gets <i>something</i> right. Christians are still atheistic about all but one god. Atheists just disbelieve in more more god than Christians.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">But if this is true, then this thorough-going atheism can no longer get any support from one of the New Atheist’s favourite objections; namely, that things in this world are messed up, and this negates any possibility of there being a good God. For the apparent disorder of the world </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">could</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> rather be evidence of an evil or uncaring God. But these possibilities cannot matter here, since atheism has to deny the existence of even an </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">indifferent</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> or </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">evil</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> Supreme Being. </span></blockquote>
Ah, the specter of New Atheism! Again, equivocation. To be fair, most, if not all New Atheists are Strong Atheists, but New Atheism is and Anti-Theist movement. Anti-Theism holds that religion itself is a bad thing. No good religion has done cannot also be done by secular means. However, religion - or more specifically faith-based belief and the absolute obedience righteousness requires - can make good people do the most evil things. That is a far different position than simply not believing in any gods.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> This makes the famous ‘Argument from Evil’ so beloved by New Atheists simply off topic: the existence of evil or injustice does not count as evidence against gods of every possible kind, and leaves harsh, judgmental or indifferent gods as possible. (Though maybe it can even be answered with some explanation that allows for a </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">benevolent</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> God, such as the argument from free human will).</span></blockquote>
Quite the contrary! I love invoking the problem of evil to Christians and Muslims. They hold their god as a loving god, yet cannot morally reconcile the flood story or even that of Sodam and Gamora, or the plagues of Egypt. As far as free will goes, the concept of free will further muddies the waters of morality (the last topic in the <a href="http://showmeskeptic.blogspot.com/2015/06/arguments-for-god-part-4-apologetics.html" target="_blank">video here</a>) and free will itself is a wonky concept especially when applied to religion (the first topic in the <a href="http://showmeskeptic.blogspot.com/2015/06/apologetics-part-three-is-last-of-my.html" target="_blank">video here</a>).<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">So atheists say that no god of any kind exists. But we must now ask, do they do so merely out of raw will, or fear, or personal preference, or private taste, or do they sincerely hope to do this on an </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">evidentiary</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> basis? The atheists I meet say, “We disbelieve because of the </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">evidence</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">.” Usually, they insist that something like history, science, truth or logic is on their side; and that something like credulity, superstition, and foolishness is essentially on the other side. But here, we need to pause to consider rather than assume the nature of appropriate evidence.</span></blockquote>
Quite right, most Strong Atheists are skeptics. In fact, it is skepticism that led to Atheism to begin with! So, what does Anderson want to do? Attack skepticism. Funny that skepticism was one of the terms he eliminated at the beginning, yet his first real attack on Atheism is an attack on skepticism. Intellectual battles, like that of the god question often encompass far more than the immediate topic. Today is no exception. However, I should say that the intellectual battle that Anderson is readying his analytical knife for hinges on whether or not it is better to not believe until evidence supports such a belief, OR should we believe first and try to reconcile that belief with the current body of knowledge until evidence shows the belief cannot be true. The latter was the mode of thinking during the Dark Ages, the latter was developed by Rene Descartes to show that reality is real and that there is a benevolent god. Ironically, it is Descartes who re-birthed skepticism and gave Atheists one of their strongest tools; the doctrine of doubt. This is the basis not only for modern skepticism, but for science as well. I won't go too much into it here and I've already covered all of this in addressing <a href="http://showmeskeptic.blogspot.com/2015/04/piety-and-rr-renos-assault-on-critical.html" target="_blank">R.R. Reno's desire to dumb down our education system</a>.<br />
<br />
Anderson sets up his next attack by eloquently (at least far more so than myself) bringing in evidence for finding the rate of gravity on earth and then saying that (rightly enough) that the strength and type of evidence depends on the subject and depth of the question.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> For atheism, the statement is that “Evidence shows that there is no God.” </span></blockquote>
And here it is. Why Anderson spent the introduction to his piece defining Atheism in general as Strong Atheism. Most Atheists hold that there is no evidence for gods, NOT there is evidence of no god. See the difference? In the first case, the burden of proof rests solely on the theist because the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. When you hear positive claim, it means the claim the evidence is FOR. A negative claims is what the evidence is AGAINST something. Negative claims happen all the time; as it turns out, <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative" target="_blank">you can prove a negative</a>. Most atheists hold a null hypothesis, meaning that they recognize no proofs for the existence of gods, and do not recognize, or bother with, proofs against the gods yet refuse to <i>believe</i> in any gods until at least one is proven. The soft Atheist position is the hardest to assail, so Anderson leaves them alone. Instead he attacks the Strong Atheist position as he thinks (wrongly) that it is easier.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Many theists believe God is eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent. They also believe that He transcends the limits of time and space. They believe He has existed historically, and will continue to exist indefinitely; and so on. We must ask, then, “What is sufficient evidence to rule out the existence of such a being?”</span></blockquote>
Ah, the <a href="http://showmeskeptic.blogspot.com/2015/07/arguments-for-god-part-5-case-against.html" target="_blank">ever-impossible</a> Abrahamic god.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">As with the gravity example, one would have to conduct an investigation that fits the scope of the subject. It would certainly not be enough to decide the matter on the basis of personal preference or taste. Nor would it do to make a perfunctory personal search of the local terrain, and then declare victory. For an evidentiary denial of the God concept implies much more substantial proof. One would need to rule out </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">every</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> reasonable possibility of positive evidence for his existence.</span></blockquote>
Or we could take a short cut and rule out classes that meet the requirements. If god is outside time and space, then we can rule out all tests that measure time and space. But then if we do that, we've eliminated everything that would indicate any involvement of a deity on the universe. We should also eliminate personal tastes, preferences as they are purely emotional in nature, and have no bearing on reality outside the person experiencing the emotions. We should also eliminate any and all personal accounts because not only are <a href="http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx" target="_blank">eye-witnesses notoriously inaccurate</a> in their<a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/year-review-memories-vulnerable-manipulation" target="_blank"> recollections</a>, but because any way to test their claims is eliminated by the space-time non-test-ability.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">If indeed a description of God includes the sort of attributes I listed, then the atheists’ claim of evidence against His existence is completely unfounded.</span></blockquote>
This is a subtle attempt to throw in the<a href="http://showmeskeptic.blogspot.com/2015/03/arguments-for-god-part-1-ontological.html" target="_blank"> Ontological Argument</a> for god. While Anderson does not do so explicitly, the specter of ontology is brought up as a matter of fact, not as something itself that is disputable, which it is very much so.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Adequate evidence for atheism would require the observer to go everywhere, at all times, see everything, test everything, and eliminate all possibilities – then, having found that God was neither here nor there, neither in time nor in any dimension of space, neither on earth or anywhere around the universe, not in history and not in eternity – only then could he or she justifiably claim to have sufficient evidence to warrant atheism!</span> </blockquote>
We've already eliminated this, by holding god to be outside time and space. To say that an Atheist must physically look everywhere is to make a sort of reverse god of the gaps argument. To say that every physical place must be observed is to hold that god was just where you weren't looking. We can make the same argument with gravity. No one can observe gravity. Look under every rock, on every planet, in every galaxy and never find gravity. This is because gravity is a concept to explain a certain phenomenon. While the phenomenon itself cannot be observed, its effects can. So what would the effects of a god be? Life? Something rather than nothing? we have to ask the right questions, and not look for the smell of the color two.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Now ask yourself: what sort of evidence will be necessary if I am to win? It’s not impossible. I will have to travel to all the places where an okapi could be found – the deep jungles, the grassy plains, the mountain valleys, and perhaps as well the zoos, the private collections and the illegal markets for animals. Having done all that, I could say, “I was right; no okapi exists.” Now, in contrast, ask yourself this: what would my colleagues, the okapi-believers have to do? How far would they have to go, and how many okapis would they have to locate in order to falsify my skepticism? That’s right: one. One single, solid, verifiable counter-case would be sufficient to bring my whole okapi-skepticism down.</span></blockquote>
Anderson is playing at sophistry here. I am becoming convinced that he is a<a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/sophists/" target="_blank"> Sophist, and not a philosopher</a>. What Anderson illustrates in the above paragraph is quite correct. Without producing an okapi (or a yeti, or a unicorn) the skeptic mind would not believe in it. And producing just one would suffice to provide belief. Would that make the skeptic wrong? nope, he would just reserve belief until evidence shows otherwise. This is the position of most Atheist towards the gods. However, Anderson is wailing not against Atheism as a whole but rather the Strong Atheist position.<br />
<br />
In this case, Anderson is being disingenuous with his analogy. In fact he is making a false analogy. it is false because because okapi are just another species of deer, or elk, or something similar. While they may be so rare that zoologists took forever in finding them led to skepticism of their existence, their existence was always held to be<i> possible</i>. A more accurate analogy would be with unicorns. While there may be, or once have been, a horse with a single horn protruding from its head, it is not possible that such a creature existed that had magical powers.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">You see, by positioning themselves as defending a negative, atheists have put themselves at a horrible disadvantage. If it should turn out to be the case that </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">just one</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> of the various sources of religious revelation claimed by the many varieties of theists should turn out to be true, if </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">even one</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> of the many phenomena attributed to the Supreme Being should turn out to be genuine, or if </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">just one</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> of the people on the earth had ever had a real experience with God, then atheism would be decisively defeated. And this explains yet another reason why atheists are forced to pretend they’ve rationally eliminated the possibility God exists – they are terribly vulnerable to disproof. Only if </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">all</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> religions are bunkum, only if </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">all</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> believers are deluded, only if </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">all</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> Gods are eliminated is atheism secure.</span></blockquote>
Even the most stringent of Strong Atheists are still waiting for this proof. If just ONE verifiable case of the <i>supernatural </i>(let alone any gods) were to present itself, then the Atheist would reevaluate his or her claims. If that supernatural phenomenon can be conclusively linked to a supreme being, then the Atheist would change his or her world view. At least I hope they would, that would be the only intellectually honest thing to do. After all, the only game changer to human outlook than aliens stopping by to say hi, would be to find proof of Odin or Zeus! Yet we are still waiting for that evidence.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">I am not saying that just because atheism is irrational we must all become theists immediately – various forms of agnosticism are still viable. It is however true that we have already detected significant vulnerabilities in these alternatives, and that is why we did not burden atheists with them in the first place. This has spared atheism instant humiliation, perhaps; but we have not been able to save it. Atheism simply isn’t a rational choice.</span></blockquote>
Oh this'll be good. let me guess, we're in for some presuppositional apologetics. It's a tiresome approach because of the mental somersaults needed to go through to arrive at the conclusion that presuppositional apologetics is basically one of the most convoluted arguments out there. So, on to the nest paragraph and let's begin.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Its chief proponents know it. I can think of no atheist of recent times more celebrated than the late Antony Flew. But he died a Deist, leaving an account of his transformation titled, </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">There is <del>No</del> A God</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">. What about contemporary atheism’s most famous proponent, Richard Dawkins? He’s not much help: he’s realized the problem and publicly declared himself a ‘convinced agnostic.’ (Witness it for yourself: </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4" style="background-color: white; color: #0058a1; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">). This, of course, raises the question why, on other occasions, Professor Dawkins still allows himself to be called an atheist. Perhaps he senses that agnosticism simply cannot offer the kind of serious resistance to the idea of God that he wants to promote; and as a rhetorical flourish, atheism makes better press. But whenever he is pressed on the irrationality of that term, you can see that he lapses into calling himself a ‘convinced agnostic’ instead.</span></blockquote>
Really? Seriously? Anderson offers not an argument but rather the word-salad above that amounts to nothing more than an <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority" target="_blank">argument from authority</a> fallacy? I had to look up Antony Flew, I had never heard of him before. That he turned to Deism late in life is no surprise, he was dying. It is more comforting to believe in something after death than nothing. And the comment on Dawkins, sure, he said that, but the joke is on Anderson. remember an Atheist simply does not <i>believe</i> in a deity, an agnostic finds no evidence for or against the <i>existence</i> of a deity. He allows that a god may be possible, but not in any way that is meaningful to humans, and definitely not the Abrahamic god!<br />
<br />
Yet the strength of Anderson's claim that Atheism is irrational is not in presuppositional apologetics, but in that he produced a case where one influential Atheist turned into a theist, and another considers himself more of a hard agnostic than an atheist. Mr. Anderson, listen very carefully: in the Atheistic community, we do not recognise authority in ideas. Expertise, yes, but not authority. Just because someone says something, does not make it so. Just take a look at the Richard Dawkins Facebook fan page, when ever he says or tweets something a bit off, like the fiasco about aborting a Down's Syndrome baby and starting again, we call him out on it! No one in the Atheist community speaks with authority, which is how it is in the science community. It is the strength of WHAT is posited that is evaluated, not WHO said it.<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<b>The Verdict</b></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
Why then, we might ask, is atheism so popular? Why does it enjoy so much grace in the public eye, and why is it so often the default position in the academy? The motives cannot be philosophical, for atheism is not a position that can be compelled or sustained by logic. It is perhaps tempting to observe that something more visceral is at work. Ignorance? Evasion? Faddism? Or posturing? (After all, there is a considerable difference between wanting to <em>appear</em> intellectual and actually <em>being</em> intellectual). Whatever the case, it’s hard not to see that reason has left the building.</blockquote>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
As for the Supreme Being, if He has seemed reticent to weigh in on this debate, it is not too surprising. Those who claim to know something about Him have often insisted that God is particularly uninterested in bowing to the demands of the hard-hearted cynic. As the <em>Tanakh</em> says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’.” That looks justified. Even by our most charitable account, we have seen that atheism is a disingenuous, bombastic claim to certainty, one without evidence or logic. What then can one call it but foolishness?</blockquote>
Oy vey! Here is Anderson's closing in its entirety. Is Atheism popular? No, not at all, but religious "nones" are growing in America. It is not at all popular, even a death sentence in the Middle East and in parts of Africa and the Far East. Is it illogical? Mr. Anderson, you claimed to be able to show that it is, but failed in a most basic way. In failing to do so, you must resort to intellectual name calling. Calling someone a fool for failing to hold your particular god-belief is just that, name calling. Is it just me or does anyone else find it interesting that Anderson posits that those "in the know" about the gods say that their god will not "<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">[</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">bow] to the demands of the hard-hearted cynic." A cynic? That's a word that gets thrown around a lot, so let's look at it:</span><br />
<blockquote style="float: left;">
<span data-dobid="hdw">cyn·ic</span><span class="lr_dct_ph">ˈsinik/</span><span class="lr_dct_spkr lr_dct_spkr_off" data-log-string="pronunciation-icon-click" jsaction="dob.p" style="display: inline-block; height: 16px; margin: 0px 2px 4px 5px; opacity: 0.55; vertical-align: middle; width: 16px;" title="Listen"><br /></span><i>noun</i><strong>1</strong>.<br />a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.<br />"some cynics thought that the controversy was all a publicity stunt"<table class="vk_tbl vk_gy" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(135, 135, 135) !important;"><tbody>
<tr><td class="lr_dct_nyms_ttl" style="font-style: italic; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; vertical-align: top; white-space: nowrap;"></td><td style="padding: 0px;"><a data-ved="0CB8Q_SowAGoVChMI3cKaxrKhxwIVj3-SCh0YuQlR" href="https://www.google.com/search?es_sm=122&biw=1366&bih=643&q=define+skeptic&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q_SowAGoVChMI3cKaxrKhxwIVj3-SCh0YuQlR" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;"></a><a data-ved="0CCAQ_SowAGoVChMI3cKaxrKhxwIVj3-SCh0YuQlR" href="https://www.google.com/search?es_sm=122&biw=1366&bih=643&q=define+doubter&sa=X&ved=0CCAQ_SowAGoVChMI3cKaxrKhxwIVj3-SCh0YuQlR" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;"></a><a data-ved="0CCEQ_SowAGoVChMI3cKaxrKhxwIVj3-SCh0YuQlR" href="https://www.google.com/search?es_sm=122&biw=1366&bih=643&q=define+doubting+Thomas&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ_SowAGoVChMI3cKaxrKhxwIVj3-SCh0YuQlR" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;"></a><span data-log-string="synonyms-more-click" jsaction="dob.m"><span class="lr_dct_more_btn" style="color: #1122cc; cursor: pointer; padding-left: 4px;"></span><div style="display: inline;">
<div style="display: inline;">
<div class="lr_dct_more_txt xpdxpnd xpdnoxpnd" data-mh="-1" style="max-height: 0px; overflow: hidden; transition: max-height 0.3s;">
<a data-ved="0CCMQ_SowAGoVChMI3cKaxrKhxwIVj3-SCh0YuQlR" href="https://www.google.com/search?es_sm=122&biw=1366&bih=643&q=define+doomsayer&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ_SowAGoVChMI3cKaxrKhxwIVj3-SCh0YuQlR" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;"></a><a data-ved="0CCQQ_SowAGoVChMI3cKaxrKhxwIVj3-SCh0YuQlR" href="https://www.google.com/search?es_sm=122&biw=1366&bih=643&q=define+Chicken+Little&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ_SowAGoVChMI3cKaxrKhxwIVj3-SCh0YuQlR" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;"></a></div>
<div class="lr_dct_more_txt xpdxpnd xpdnoxpnd" data-mh="-1" style="max-height: 0px; overflow: hidden; transition: max-height 0.3s;">
<div class="vk_gy">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table class="vk_tbl vk_gy" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(135, 135, 135) !important;"><tbody>
<tr><td class="lr_dct_nyms_ttl" style="font-style: italic; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; vertical-align: top; white-space: nowrap;"></td><td style="padding: 0px;"><a data-ved="0CCUQ_SowAGoVChMI3cKaxrKhxwIVj3-SCh0YuQlR" href="https://www.google.com/search?es_sm=122&biw=1366&bih=643&q=define+idealist&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ_SowAGoVChMI3cKaxrKhxwIVj3-SCh0YuQlR" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;"></a><a data-ved="0CCYQ_SowAGoVChMI3cKaxrKhxwIVj3-SCh0YuQlR" href="https://www.google.com/search?es_sm=122&biw=1366&bih=643&q=define+Pollyanna&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ_SowAGoVChMI3cKaxrKhxwIVj3-SCh0YuQlR" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;"></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<strong>2</strong>.<br />a member of a school of ancient Greek philosophers founded by Antisthenes, marked by an ostentatious contempt for ease and pleasure. The movement flourished in the 3rd century BC and revived in the 1st century AD.</blockquote>
So which is it? Is Anderson saying that Atheists view others as motivated solely by self interest, or that we follow a 2000 year old Greek aesthetic lifestyle? I think he means skeptic which is simply to doubt until evidence shows otherwise. But even then, that is skepticism, not Atheism. I shall resign myself from name calling; or at least any further name calling. I will not make fun of this article that one would normally expect from a first-year philosophy minor. The kind of work that said student would re-read two years later and laugh at his own naivety. We can be comfortable in the knowledge that Mr. Anderson tried to run with the adults, but he came in last and must go back to what ever church he preaches at in the kiddie pool. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
© Dr Stephen L. Anderson 2015<br /><em>Stephen Anderson is a philosophy teacher in London, Ontario.</em></blockquote>
Oh. Doctor? Teaches philosophy? I couldn't find any further credentials for Anderson, so I don't know if he is a medical doctor, has a doctorate in divinity, theology, astrology or other flim-flam, or if he has a legitimate doctorate. Nor could I find out if he teaches on the street corner or at a university. Oh well, he calls himself a doctor, but still, unless this whole piece was satire, and I missed it (I really hope that is the case) or he should get a refund on his degree.Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-26239302776983873822015-08-10T08:44:00.000-05:002015-08-10T08:44:00.262-05:00A rebuttal to "Answering the Skeptic: Is the Bible a Myth?"<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
The following is from the ComeReason ministries found at www.comereason.org. The exact address of the article can be found at http://www.comereason.org/skeptic-bible.asp</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
The original post is in plain text, my comments are in <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">itallics</span>.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Answering the Skeptic: Is the Bible a Myth?</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
Recently, I received some e-mail from an avowed skeptic that repeatedly made the following claims:</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
"Is not the bible simply a book of parables and mythology, written by men for men? Is not the parable simply a short story, never intended to be taken literally? With the events of September the eleventh behind us, is it not reasonable for humanity to take another look at religion and it's contribution to the chaos in the world?"</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
Such a sentiment is common. So many people today think that belief in the Bible is for the simple-minded of the past whereas we are now "enlightened" through science and discovery. However, in that view lies some unfounded assumptions - making the position as unreasonable as that which they object to.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Assumes Myth With No Good Reason</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
When a skeptic asserts that the Bible is merely a collection of myths, he must put forth evidence to bolster his claim. <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">T<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">his is a misuse of burden of evidence. It is true that those making the POSITIVE claim must put forth evidence. Thus if I say that there are unicorns living in my shoes, I must provide evidence to that effect. The skeptic's position is a negative. All stories are fiction unless shown to be otherwise.</span></em><span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"> </span> But if we are to compare the Biblical texts against other ancient documents, we find a marked difference. The Bible speaks about real people, places and events and dates many of those events within an historical framework<em style="box-sizing: inherit;">. <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens also is about people, events etc. But it is fiction. If you notice, the original author sneaks the world real into his list without explaining how he determined they are real.</span></em><span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"> </span>The New Testament especially reads not like myth at all, but like recorded history. <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">This statement means nothing. How something "reads" has nothing to do with if it is true or not. And, no, I've read the bible several times and it most certainly does not read like a history book.</em> </span>In fact, if we use the rules of textual criticism consistently across all ancient documents, we find the Bible to be some of the most reliable historical documents of antiquity<em style="box-sizing: inherit;">. <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">Again, the author makes a claim that is absolutely false. I'll even give him an out: what rules are you talking about? List them and explain how they apply.</span></em></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
More importantly, it is evident that the authors of the Bible intended for the readers to take them literally. <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">That still has no bearing of whether the stories are true or not.</em></span> Luke begins his gospel by explicitly stating, that he has carefully investigated the accounts of Jesus from the eyewitnesses and he seeks to write out "the exact truth about the things you have been taught." To claim that this was intended as a parable or myth is wholly without merit<em style="box-sizing: inherit;">. <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">If a freshman in high school were to use book A as proof to the claim that book A is true, the teacher would patiently explain that you cannot use a source to prove that source true. IF that student were a freshman in college, the professor would be less patient, and probably mutter something about the failing of the US educational system. If a senior in college made that mistake, the professor would tell the student that he should look at trade school as an option. Why? It is called begging the question. Begging the question is a fallacy where the truth of a proposition is assumed in its evidence. In layman's terms it means that a piece of evidence you present is only viable if the conclusion (point you're trying to make) is true. Here, the book of Luke is assumed to be true based on the evidence that the book of Luke says it is true.</span></em></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Assumes The Evil In The World Is Attributable To Religion</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
The more prevalent assertion today is that religion is at the root of much of the world's evils. <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Some anti-theists do make this claim. However, it is not a "skeptic" position. A skeptic is someone who demands evidence to accept a proposition, and will hold that proposition until evidence indicates otherwise. Here, the author is mixing terms.</em> </span> Skeptics will argue that a serious belief in Christianity promotes a type of fanaticism that causes more harm than good. <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">History has shown this to be the case. But it is not JUST Christianity, but ANY form of faith based belief. This includes Christianity, Islam, Roman Polytheism, Scientology, Babylonian Polytheism, Mayan Polytheism, and the Cult of Personalities found around such people as Vladimir Lenin, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, Joseph Stalin, Joseph Smith, Charles Manson and the list goes on.</em></span> Again this assumes much, but provides little support. Where are the facts? <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">The Inquisition, Slavery in the US, the Twin Towers, ISIS, the Salem Witch Trials, Jim Baker. Just to name a few.</em></span> Exactly what evils are we talking about and from where are they drawing your data?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
If faced with having to provide proof for the above claim, most skeptics tend to either reassert their assertion or shrink into anecdotal tales of a particular event (such as the Crusades.)<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"> <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Anecdotal evidence is hearsay of one highly specific incident. For example, Alice tells Bob that smoking is linked to lung cancer. Bob replies that his second cousin on his mother's side smoked all his life and never got lung cancer. Bob is giving an anecdotal account. A skeptic wouldn't offer anecdotal evidence, at least not a good skeptic. The bible is nothing BUT anecdotal evidence. And for the record, the Crusades are most definitely not anecdotal evidence. There is an archeological record, and corroborating accounts of the Crusades.</em> </span>However, it is illogical to argue from a particular to a general. <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Actually, not at all. There is a whole field of logic that does exactly this: it is called inductive logic. Everything we use today is the result of it. Computers, cars, wine glasses, tracking game through the woods, all owe their existence, as it were, it inductive logic.</em></span> Therefore, the skeptic's claim dismissed as irrational.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">The One Question</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
The main problem with both these objections is that the skeptic assumes Christianity to be false a priori.<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"> <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Again, it is the Christian making the POSITIVE claim, not the skeptic. The default position is that something isn't.</em></span> In other words, they are coming from an anti-Christian bias and then trying to muster support for their position. <em style="box-sizing: inherit;"><span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">The use of anti-Christian is what is called a weasel word.</span> <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">The author is trying to play on the fears of his intended audience (Christians) to strengthen their resolve against reason. The skeptic is not anti-Christian, just as the skeptic is not anti-Unicorn.</span></em><span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"> But this is neither fair nor rational<em style="box-sizing: inherit;">. It is both actually. If a skeptic were to say there IS NO god, then they would be making a positive claim. But that is not the skeptic position. The skeptic position, is that they will not BELIEVE in a god, until one is proven to exist.</em></span> A sincere seeker of truth would look for just that - truth. We all have biases and we all start examining truth-claims leaning in one direction or another. But if we're honest, we will study all positions with an open mind until they have proven themselves to be not true. <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Not at all. It is the reverse. Positive positions must be shown to be true, or at least shown to be the most plausible position. Keeping an open mind does not mean believing, or giving credence to any old idea. Keeping an open mind means to weigh the evidence for claims and give them credence based on that evidence.</em></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
The most reasonable stance to take on any position is the one that is true. If the Bible records history accurately and it portrays Jesus' life, death and resurrection as history, then it follows that Christianity is true. If Christianity is true it becomes the only rational position to hold. In rejecting Christianity out of hand, one runs the risk of rejecting the truth - and to reject the truth is the most illogical thing someone could do<em style="box-sizing: inherit;">. <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">Again, the author implies that the bible is true, yet has not provided any evidence to that effect. He is trying to shift the burden of proof to the negative claim of the skeptic, which is unfair. Why is it unfair? Because negatives cannot be proven! Prove that unicorns do not exist. Prove that aliens did not impregnate the Virgin Mary. Prove that George Bush was not responsible for the Twin Towers. </span></em></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">The skeptic position is the same as the Missouri State motto: Show me.</em></span></div>
Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-75711226669312846812015-08-06T10:00:00.000-05:002015-08-06T10:00:04.259-05:00About that J. Krishnamurti meme going around...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVWWpnCU607n8-uAtcAZfe3Ttuu_zF8WMjZcL5OKsiQY-0y2jAgp6hGWb9t9iQYZDrFp9ANekPG0QUS01TU2MR3YVQSfo8KQSIbpUhpQcMCTAaHwL9-UlhL5A3S6i0iSUZBsDvV5ThrNQ/s1600/11836887_10207481240819880_3319945849809377740_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Non-nutritious word salad by J. Krishnamurti" border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVWWpnCU607n8-uAtcAZfe3Ttuu_zF8WMjZcL5OKsiQY-0y2jAgp6hGWb9t9iQYZDrFp9ANekPG0QUS01TU2MR3YVQSfo8KQSIbpUhpQcMCTAaHwL9-UlhL5A3S6i0iSUZBsDvV5ThrNQ/s640/11836887_10207481240819880_3319945849809377740_n.jpg" title="Woo woo by J. Krishnamurti" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”</span><br />
<div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
- Jiddu Krishnamurti</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The above quote came across my Facebook feed recently. At first glance it looks like wise words, Krishnamurti's sentiment is very humanistic, and what he's trying to say is worth listening to. However, if you spend more than a second thinking about it, the <a href="http://skepdic.com/woowoo.html" target="_blank">woo-woo</a> slaps you in the face. Where Krishnamurti fails in reason is that he is redefining the word violence outside any intelligible meaning. By saying that violence is when you separate yourself from the rest of humanity. </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The quote above begins with Krishnamurti giving a definition of tribalism, but the tail end of the quote implies that <i>any</i> separation is his version of violence. Let's be clear on what violence is. Violence is doing tangible, physical harm to others. It is not calling some one a name, and it is definitely not joining or identifying with a group.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
Are you a registered Democrat or Republican? You're being violent!</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Have you joined a church? You're being violent!</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Do you root for your school's sports teams? You're being violent!</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Consider yourself a Humanist? You're being violent!</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Are you a member of a labor union? You're being violent!</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Do you consider yourself Canadian? You're being violent!</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
What about considering yourself Irish, African-American or Polynesian? You're being violent!</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Do you have a name? You're being violent!</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
To reiterate, This is violence:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiDY-hxpnD396ReRIY32Lqwt17Halcgd801_2t_8b-NkRB6vTdFlPPBa57VYOvooVsCb4LS3IKjaLGR991a5Q6xD2aTin0hS_8j2CMbT79VFE3AxxyOF0vb_Rsq4JkzAQghS6tss5-PMw/s1600/zz1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Cop beating up motorist" border="0" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiDY-hxpnD396ReRIY32Lqwt17Halcgd801_2t_8b-NkRB6vTdFlPPBa57VYOvooVsCb4LS3IKjaLGR991a5Q6xD2aTin0hS_8j2CMbT79VFE3AxxyOF0vb_Rsq4JkzAQghS6tss5-PMw/s400/zz1.jpg" title="L.A.'s Finest" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Violence</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
And this is NOT violence:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhz5K0uhpcRk67MoZbm2nWtLuMAB6v2VCx8ZBYKsZ3VyQOjGe7r77ZdZ8hT65iDwMhMTf1BtdfbY495UoezxjtGcNlzjdm1PTwCbHYSmsJDJ3gtkKrGN1rQlwtk-CjSDMd1nDxKObrv6JE/s1600/zz2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhz5K0uhpcRk67MoZbm2nWtLuMAB6v2VCx8ZBYKsZ3VyQOjGe7r77ZdZ8hT65iDwMhMTf1BtdfbY495UoezxjtGcNlzjdm1PTwCbHYSmsJDJ3gtkKrGN1rQlwtk-CjSDMd1nDxKObrv6JE/s400/zz2.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Not violence</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
According to Krishnamurti, the black people in the "Not violence" photo above are being violent because they are identifying themselves as black, and thus not white like the police officer in the photo. That same police officer is being violent by identifying himself as a cop, and thus not a civilian. Ironically, that last photo not only exposes the absurdity of Krishnamurti's definition of violence, but refutes the very thing he was trying to say while simultaneously reiterating his sentiment.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How the photo refutes Krishnamurti is that the Black Lives Matter movement is in response to rampant and inexcusable police violence and institutionalized racism in many police departments in America and yet there is a white police officer holding up a #BlackLivesMatter protest sign. Human identity is a necessary component of our psyche. To end violence is not to get rid of our differences, but to embrace them when we can, dissect them and change when they cannot. right now, American police departments are being dissected, we as a people cannot accept their treatment of certain members of our society. Eventually, we will change the outlook of police officers towards black citizens.<br />
<br />
Separating oneself from others does not necessarily breed violence. It can also breed corroboration and cooperation; in fact humanity is at its best when doing so. But if we all have the same beliefs, the same ideas, belong to the same groups, then what is best in humanity dissipates. It is not the act of differentiating oneself by idea or nation that breeds violence, the desire for violence is in some ideas themselves. Does your religion allow you to lie or harm non-followers? Does your group necessitate hostility to other groups (like the KKK or NFL teams)? Then THAT is the cause of violence through groups: the design and desire within the group itself. Often the purpose of the violence is more power for the group, or at least for the leaders of the group. Until notions of personal power are eradicated from the human psyche, there will be violence. Until then, redefining a component of identity as violence only asks the wrong questions, thus seeks the wrong answers.</div>
Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-44408555231729529342015-08-03T08:36:00.000-05:002015-08-03T18:10:30.497-05:00A Rebuttal to "Is Jesus a Myth" from gotquestions.org<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
This article was sent to me and I will respond to it as I have other articles. The original will be in plain type, and my comments will be in red.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
The original article can be found at: </div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-myth.html#.VIZYf0d_zGg.facebook</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
I last accessed it on 12 December 2014</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Question: "Is Jesus a myth? Is Jesus just a copy of the pagan gods of other ancient religions?"</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Answer: There are a number of people claiming that the accounts of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament are simply myths borrowed from pagan folklore, such as the stories of Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, and Mithras. The claim is that these myths are essentially the same story as the New Testament’s narrative of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. As Dan Brown claims in The Da Vinci Code, “Nothing in Christianity is original.”</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">To discover the truth about the claim that the Gospel writers borrowed from mythology, it is important to (1) unearth the history behind the assertions, (2) examine the actual portrayals of the false gods being compared to Christ, (3) expose any logical fallacies being made, and (4) look at why the New Testament Gospels are trustworthy depictions of the true and historical Jesus Christ.</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">The claim that Jesus was a myth or an exaggeration originated in the writings of liberal German theologians in the nineteenth century. </strong><span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;"><span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit;">To be fair, this ONLY applies to Christians. Congregants of other religions already held Jesus to be a myth or at least claims of his divinity as such.</span> </em></span><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">They essentially said that Jesus was nothing more than a copy of popular dying-and-rising fertility gods in various places—Tammuz in Mesopotamia, Adonis in Syria, Attis in Asia Minor, and Horus in Egypt. Of note is the fact that none of the books containing these theories were taken seriously by the academics of the day. The assertion that Jesus was a recycled Tammuz, for example, was investigated by contemporary scholars and determined to be completely baseless. It has only been recently that these assertions have been resurrected, primarily due to the rise of the Internet and the mass distribution of information from unaccountable sources.</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">This leads us to the next area of investigation—do the mythological gods of antiquity really mirror the person of Jesus Christ? As an example, the Zeitgeist movie makes these claims about the Egyptian god Horus:</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<ul style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em 1.5em;">
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">He was born on December 25 of a virgin: Isis Mary</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">A star in the East proclaimed his arrival</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Three kings came to adore the newborn “savior”</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">He became a child prodigy teacher at age 12</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">At age 30 he was “baptized” and began a “ministry”</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Horus had twelve “disciples”</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Horus was betrayed</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">He was crucified</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">He was buried for three days</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">He was resurrected after three days</strong></li>
</ul>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">However, when the actual writings about Horus are competently examined, this is what we find:</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<ul style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em 1.5em;">
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Horus was born to Isis; there is no mention in history of her being called “Mary.” Moreover, “Mary” is our Anglicized form of her real name, Miryam or Miriam. “Mary” was not even used in the original texts of Scripture.</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Isis was not a virgin; she was the widow of Osiris and conceived Horus with Osiris.</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Horus was born during month of Khoiak (Oct/Nov), not December 25. Further, there is no mention in the Bible as to Christ’s actual birth date.</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">There is no record of three kings visiting Horus at his birth. The Bible never states the actual number of magi that came to see Christ.</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Horus is not a “savior” in any way; he did not die for anyone.</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">There are no accounts of Horus being a teacher at the age of 12.</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Horus was not “baptized.” The only account of Horus that involves water is one story where Horus is torn to pieces, with Isis requesting the crocodile god to fish him out of the water.</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Horus did not have a “ministry.”</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Horus did not have 12 disciples. According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four demigods that followed him, and there are some indications of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him.</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">There is no account of Horus being betrayed by a friend.</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Horus did not die by crucifixion. There are various accounts of Horus’ death, but none of them involve crucifixion.</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">There is no account of Horus being buried for three days.</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Horus was not resurrected. There is no account of Horus coming out of the grave with the body he went in with. Some accounts have Horus/Osiris being brought back to life by Isis and then becoming the lord of the underworld.</strong></li>
</ul>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">When compared side by side, Jesus and Horus bear little, if any, resemblance to one another.</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Jesus is also compared to Mithras by those claiming that Jesus Christ is a myth. All the above descriptions of Horus are applied to Mithras (e.g., born of a virgin, being crucified, rising in three days, etc.). But what does the Mithras myth actually say?</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<ul style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em 1.5em;">
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">He was born out of a solid rock, not from any woman.</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">He battled first with the sun and then with a primeval bull, thought to be the first act of creation. Mithras killed the bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race.</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Mithras’s birth was celebrated on December 25, along with winter solstice.</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">There is no mention of his being a great teacher.</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">There is no mention of Mithras having 12 disciples. The idea that Mithras had 12 disciples may have come from a mural in which Mithras is surrounded by the twelve signs of the zodiac.</strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: inherit;"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Mithras had no bodily resurrection. Rather, when Mithras completed his earthly mission, he was taken to paradise in a chariot, alive and well. The early Christian writer Tertullian did write about Mithraic cultists re-enacting resurrection scenes, but this occurred well after New Testament times, so if any copycatting was done, it was Mithraism copying Christianity.</strong></li>
</ul>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">More examples can be given of Krishna, Attis, Dionysus, and other mythological gods, but the result is the same. In the end, the historical Jesus portrayed in the Bible is unique. The alleged similarities of Jesus’ story to pagan myths are greatly exaggerated. Further, while tales of Horus, Mithras, and others pre-date Christianity, there is very little historical record of the pre-Christian beliefs of those religions. The vast majority of the earliest writings of these religions date from the third and fourth centuries A.D. To assume that the pre-Christian beliefs of these religions (of which there is no record) were identical to their post-Christian beliefs is naive. It is more logical to attribute any similarities between these religions and Christianity to the religions’ copying Christian teaching about Jesus.</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">While the Jesus myth is not exactly like any other tradition, they often share similarities in certain aspects. The above shows that this essay is written for an audience of believers and not for skeptics. A skeptic will read this and ask, "what is more likely, that there is this Demigod named Jesus who share some similarities to various other deity-figures as a matter of coincidence, or is it that the tradition of the Jesus myth is a conglomeration of other myths mixed into some original ideas?" </em></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">This leads us to the next area to examine: the logical fallacies committed by those claiming that Christianity borrowed from pagan mystery religions. We’ll consider two fallacies in particular: the fallacy of the false cause and the terminological fallacy.</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">If one thing precedes another, some conclude that the first thing must have caused the second. This is the fallacy of the false cause. A rooster may crow before the sunrise every morning, but that does not mean the rooster causes the sun to rise. Even if pre-Christian accounts of mythological gods closely resembled Christ (and they do not), it does not mean they caused the Gospel writers to invent a false Jesus. Making such a claim is akin to saying the TV series Star Trek caused the NASA Space Shuttle program.</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">The terminological fallacy occurs when words are redefined to prove a point. </strong><span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;"><span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit;">There is no such thing as a terminological fallacy. The only references to it are found in other christian blogs. The proper fallacy is the definitional fallacy and that fallacy covers any misuse of definition, including tailoring a definition to fit a particular stance. The author does just this when he begins talking about ministries. </span> </em></span><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;"> For example, the Zeitgeist movie says that Horus “began his ministry,” but the word ministry is being redefined. Horus had no actual “ministry”—nothing like that of Christ’s ministry. Those claiming a link between Mithras and Jesus talk about the “baptism” that initiated prospects into the Mithras cult, but what was it actually? Mithraic priests would place initiates into a pit, suspend a bull over the pit, and slit the bull’s stomach, covering the initiates in blood and gore. Such a practice bears no resemblance whatsoever to Christian baptism—a person going under water (symbolizing the death of Christ) and then coming back out of the water (symbolizing Christ’s resurrection). But advocates of a mythological Jesus deceptively use the same term, “baptism,” to describe both rites in hopes of linking the two.<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"> </span></strong><span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">And the author commits his own "terminological fallacy" by defining baptism to mean a very specific (and Christian) meaning. Baptism is the Christian name for a sacred washing of the body, which is a religious rite that is shared by other religions. They just have different names for it. In the English language, baptism can mean more than just a Christian rite.</em></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;">This brings us to the subject of the truthfulness of the New Testament. No other work of antiquity has more evidence to its historical veracity than the New Testament. </strong><em style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"><span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">This is also not true. The lost city of Troy was found by Heinrich Schielmann when he followed the clues in the Illiad. Also, the writings of Heroditus, while biased, are mostly based in fact. The writings of Plato, more specifically the trial of Socrates, has been covered by other authors contemporary to Socrates, thus giving credence to his existence. These are just two instances that I could recall off of the top of my head. A google search, or better yet, a google:scholar search will turn up many more historical writings that predate the bible, and even more that predate the new testament. </span> </em><strong style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;">The New Testament has more writers (nine), better writers, and earlier writers than any other document from that era. </strong><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><i><span style="color: red; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24.7272720336914px;">I think students of philosophy, and literature would disagree with this statement. Some of the most influential Roman philosophers were from this period. Lucretius, Seneca the Younger, Cicero, and Marcus Aurelius are still studied in philosophy classes today. In literature, there is Julius Caesar, Seneca the Elder, Philo, Pliny, Tacitus, Ptolemy, and Pliny the Younger. No serious literati would regard the works in the bible more elegant than the literary authors listed above. No philosopher would consider biblical works of a greater philosophical value than the philosophers listed above. </span></span></i></span><strong style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;">Further, history testifies that these writers went to their deaths claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead. While some may die for a lie they think is true, no person dies for a lie he knows to be false. Think about it—if someone was about to crucify you upside down, as happened to the apostle Peter, and all you had to do to save your life was renounce a lie you had knowingly told, what would you do? </strong><span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">This presupposes that those in question knew it was a lie. The terrorists of the Twin Towers knew that Alah would reward them. The followers of Jim Jones knew they would die with the kool aid. So, yes, people die and kill each other because of belief all the time. This is the reason that militant atheists are against religion in general: If you can convince people that they are inherently evil and only your invisible friend has the cure for that, you can convince them of almost anything. Islam, Christianity, even Buddhism does this. The main difference between the three is that Islam and Christianity are founded on the belief in an omnibenevolent god that has the temperament of a spoiled, bloodthirsty sociopath, and in Buddhism there is no god save for a cosmic Karma that metes out rewards and punishment through reincarnation.</em></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">In addition, history has shown that it takes at least two generations to pass before myth can enter a historical account. That’s because, as long as there are eyewitnesses to an event, errors can be refuted and mythical embellishments can be exposed. All the Gospels of the New Testament were written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, with some of Paul’s Epistles being written as early as A.D. 50. Paul directly appeals to contemporary eyewitnesses to verify his testimony (1 Corinthians 15:6).</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><span style="color: red;"><i><span style="font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24.7272720336914px;">Eyewitnesses to what? All of the books in the New Testament were written well after the supposed death of Jesus. What the author ignores is that for one, <a href="https://public.psych.iastate.edu/glwells/Wells%20pdfs/1976-79/Wells_Lindsay_Ferg_JAP_1979.pdf" target="_blank">eyewitness accounts are very unreliable</a> immediately after an event, let alone years after the fact. Also, the author is pulling a little dishonest trickery here. The bible verse he quotes is indeed from Paul, but it is Paul quoting from some earlier "scriptures" that Jesus appeared before 500 people. The truth is that there are several <a href="http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/12groups.htm" target="_blank">differing accounts</a> as to whom and how many Jesus exposed himself to after his three-day nap.</span></span></i></span></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">The New Testament attests to the fact that, in the first century, Jesus was not mistaken for any other god. When Paul preached in Athens, the elite thinkers of that city said, “‘He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,’—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, ‘May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming? For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things mean’” (Acts 17:18–20, NASB). Clearly, if Paul were simply rehashing stories of other gods, the Athenians would not have referred to his doctrine as a “new” and “strange” teaching. If dying-and-rising gods were plentiful in the first century, why, when the apostle Paul preached Jesus rising from the dead, did the Epicureans and Stoics not remark, “Ah, just like Horus and Mithras”?</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">In conclusion, the claim that Jesus is a copy of mythological gods originated with authors whose works have been discounted by academia, contain logical fallacies, and cannot compare to the New Testament Gospels, which have withstood nearly 2,000 years of intense scrutiny. The alleged parallels between Jesus and other gods disappear when the original myths are examined. The Jesus-is-a-myth theory relies on selective descriptions, redefined words, and false assumptions.</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Jesus Christ is unique in history, with His voice rising above all false gods’ as He asks the question that ultimately determines a person’s eternal destiny: “Who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:15).</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">There are scholarly works that counter many of the claims throughout this paper, and scholarly works that agree with the claims throughout this essay. But, that is theology, which presupposes that there is a deity, or deities, of some kind In order for theology to have any meaning, the supernatural, anything supernatural, must first be demonstrated. </em></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">To argue that the new testament is true because it isn't exactly like other mythologies is a mistake in reasoning. By showing that the new testament is different than other mythologies shows only that the new testament is different from those myths. One cannot point to the new testament, or any bible, or religious work and say "see it is true because it says it is true!" This is the very definition of circular reasoning.</em></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">This whole essay is written for a theistic argument, by the fact that a godhead is presupposed. In the philosophy of religion such a presupposition is laughable as it is unsupportable since it is based in a fallacy. If this essay was written with the skeptic in mind, a more logical approach would have been taken. </em></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">To me, the whole issue of the bible being close to other mythologies or not is an intellectual curiosity at best, and a waste of time at worst. In a debate on the existence of a godhead, the mythological argument is a red herring. It adds no evidence to the possibility of a god or not.</em></span></div>
Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-88173369783627531192015-07-28T07:54:00.000-05:002015-07-28T07:54:00.258-05:00Faith in God IS a Crutch<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
This article was sent to me after I said that faith, at best is a crutch. The original article can be found at <a data-mce-href="http://www.gotquestions.org/faith-God-crutch.html#.VIZZcJpJFmw.facebook" href="http://www.gotquestions.org/faith-God-crutch.html#.VIZZcJpJFmw.facebook" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #bf5c19; display: inline-block; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out;" target="_blank" title="A straw man argument against the god-is-crutch view.">gotquestions.org</a>. In the usual fashion, I will put the article here as it appeared on 01 January 2015, and my comments will be in <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">red</span> ink.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Question: "Is faith in God a crutch?"</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
Answer:Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota, once said, “Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers.” Agreeing with him is pornographer Larry Flynt, who commented, “There's nothing good I can say about it [religion]. People use it as a crutch.” Ted Turner once simply said, "Christianity is a religion for losers!" Ventura, Flynt, Turner, and others who think like them view Christians as being emotionally feeble and in need of imaginary support to get through life. Their insinuation is that they themselves are strong and in no need of a supposed God to help them with their lives.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
Such statements bring a number of questions: Where did such thinking start? Is there any truth to it? And how does the Bible respond to such assertions? <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">Again here is the common tactic of using the bible to refute an argument. Where this becomes a problem, is that to the theist, their sacred texts are unquestionable, and infallible. To the non-believer, they are just fiction. What this means is that if a theist wants to put forth an argument it must not be scripture based, as the scriptures have no rational authority. The scriptures only have authority for the congregation, not those outside of it.</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Is faith in God a crutch? - The Impact of Freud</strong><br />
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was an Austrian neurologist who founded the practice of psychoanalysis, a system espousing the theory that unconscious motives dictate much of human behavior. Though championing atheism, Freud admitted that the truth of religion could not be disproved and that religious faith has provided comfort for untold numbers of people through history. However, Freud thought the concept of God was illusionary. In one of his religious works,<i style="box-sizing: inherit;">The Future of an Illusion</i>, he wrote, “They [believers] give the name of ‘God’ to some vague abstraction which they have created for themselves.”</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
As to the motivation for creating such illusions, Freud believed two basic things: (1) people of faith create a god because they have strong wishes and hopes within them that act as comfort against the harshness of life; (2) The idea of God comes from the need for an idyllic father figure that eclipses either a non-existent or imperfect real father in the life of a religiously-minded person. Speaking of the supposed wish-fulfillment factor in religion, Freud wrote, “They [religious beliefs] are illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind. We call belief an illusion when a wish-fulfillment is a prominent factor in its motivation and in doing so we disregard its relation to reality, just as the illusion itself sets no store by verification.”</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
For Freud, God was nothing more than a psychological projection that served to shield an individual from a reality he does not want to face and cannot cope with on his own. After Freud came other scientists and philosophers who asserted the same thing and said that religion is just an illusion/delusion of the mind. Robert Pirsig, an American writer and philosopher who typifies Freud’s followers, has said, “When one person suffers from a delusion, it's called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it's called religion.”<br />
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">What we have here is the build up of a classic straw man. Freud new little if nothing of archaeology or anthropology as they were primarily new fields of study in Freud's lifetime. Thus, Freud based his views on his own flawed research into psychoanalysis. Freud is often attacked for the God is a crutch argument, because his is the easiest to build an argument against. This is so, because Freud's argument is that the Christi-Muslim concept of an all powerful God is a fairly recent development in human history.</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">The history of religion begins with mythological explanations for natural occurrences. Along the way, the idea of a spirit comes into play. This is due to how human conscience works. We are able to not only distinguish ourselves from, say, a lamp but our sense of spacial separation (or self) is so great that it is flawed. It is flawed in that we can separate "our self" from our body. It doesn't take a great imaginary leap to conclude that animals, rocks, trees and the sky have these "souls" or "spirits" too. </span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">I'm actually surprised that the author didn't include Karl Marx's claim that religion is the opiate of the masses. Instead, he quotes Robert Pirsig, a practicing Buddhist author of </span><a data-mce-href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/zen-and-the-art-of-motorcycle-maintenance-robert-pirsig/1100594308?ean=9780060589462" data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/zen-and-the-art-of-motorcycle-maintenance-robert-pirsig/1100594308?ean=9780060589462" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red; display: inline-block; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out;" target="_blank" title="Barnes and Noble link"><em data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit;">Zen and the Art of Motorcycle </em><i style="box-sizing: inherit;">Maintenance</i></a><span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit;">. <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit;">Where the author gets that Pirsig was a "follower" of Freud, I don't know. I can't find any information on that.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">Below is a simple illustration as to how religions can evolve over time.</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;"><span data-mce-style="color: #0000ff;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: blue;">Why does it rain?</span> </span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"><span style="color: magenta;">The sky-god sweats.</span></span><span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"> </span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"><span data-mce-style="color: #0000ff;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: blue;">Why isn't it raining now?</span> </span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"><span style="color: magenta;">We must have pissed off the sky-god.</span></span><span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"> </span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"><span data-mce-style="color: #0000ff;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: blue;">What does he want?</span> </span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"><span style="color: magenta;">A new bride! </span></span><span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"> </span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"><span style="color: blue;">O<span data-mce-style="color: #0000ff;" style="box-sizing: inherit;">k</span></span><span data-mce-style="color: #0000ff;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: blue;">, let's sacrifice a virgin to send her spirit to the sky-god.</span><span style="color: red;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"><span style="color: magenta;">There are no virgins, except for small children</span><span style="color: red;">. </span></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"><span data-mce-style="color: #0000ff;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: blue;">Then let's make some rules that girls cannot have sex until they take a husband.</span><span style="color: red;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"><span style="color: magenta;">They'll never go for that.</span><span style="color: red;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"><span data-mce-style="color: #0000ff;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: blue;">Then tell them that the sky-god commands it! They will be rewarded by the sky-god if they stay a virgin until marriage, and punished if they do not.</span><span style="color: red;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"><span style="background-color: white; color: magenta;">But if they have premarital sex and are not punished, won't that give up the game?</span><span style="color: red;"><span style="background-color: white;"> </span></span></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"><span data-mce-style="color: #0000ff;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: blue;">Hmmm. I know! We'll tell them that the rewards and punishment are for their soul and come after they die.</span><span style="color: red;"> </span><span style="color: magenta;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24.7272720336914px;"><span style="color: magenta;">Brilliant!</span></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span style="color: #606666;">What about the above charges? Is there any truth to the assertions made by Freud and others?</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Examining the Claims of the “Crutch Crowd”</strong><br />
When making an honest examination of these claims, the first thing to recognize is what those making the assertions are claiming about themselves. Deriders of religion are saying that Christians are prone to psychological and wish-fulfillment factors that they, the skeptics, are not. <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">Not at all. Any person is prone to flights of fancy, and wishful thinking. A skeptic is one how uses the tools of reason, science and logic, to keep their own flights of fancy in check. Occasionally, Skeptics have to keep an eye out for those who wish to force their flights of fancy on others: such a priests, ideologues, quacks, and other con-men.</span> But how do they know that? For example, Freud saw the need for a Father God as an outworking of emotionally needy people desiring a father figure, but could it be that Freud himself had an emotional need for no father figure to exist? And perhaps Freud had an outworking of wish-fulfillment that manifested in not wanting a Holy God and judgment in the afterlife to exist, a wish for hell not to be real. Demonstrating the plausibility of such thinking is the writing of Freud himself who once said, “The bad part of it, especially for me, lies in the fact that science of all things seems to demand the existence of a God.” <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">Again, more build up of a straw man. Freud was a shrink, and a bad one at that. He wasn't a philosopher and really didn't follow the scientific method. Consider that he is the one who turned everything cylindrical into a phallic symbol, yet said that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Freud is easily picked on because he has no credible defenders. </span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
It would seem reasonable to conclude, as Freud and his followers have argued in their position, that the only way a person could overcome “demanding” black-and-white evidence of something is by creating an illusionary hope that overpowers the verifications of God’s existence, and yet they do not consider this a possibility for them. Some atheists, however, have honestly and openly admitted this likelihood. Serving as one example, atheist Professor/Philosopher Thomas Nagel once said, “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and naturally hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope that there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.”<br />
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">Most Atheists who hope there is no God are referring specifically to the God of Abraham. The God depicted in the Torah (that's Old Testament to you gentiles), is a horrible god. He is a boastfully jealous, petty, misogynistic, genocidal bully that has a fascination with genitals. On the other hand, the Hindu Brahman, or even Spinoza's God do not scare the Atheist, and if such a being were real, an Atheist would want to know about it!</span><br />
Another consideration to keep in mind is that not all aspects of Christianity are comforting. For example, the doctrine of hell, the recognition of humankind as sinners who are unable to please God on their own, and other similar teachings are not of the warm-and-fuzzy kind. How does Freud explain the creation of these doctrines?<br />
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">Ah, the doctrine of Hell, and sin. The original Hell can be found in Zoroastrian writings, as they have a version of it. The same is true of Hades's realm, some parts of it can be considered a hell. As far as sin, what is considered sin is a crime against God. If you do not do what he says then you sin. Judeo-Christi-Muslim religions aren't the first to conceive of a hell, or even sin. But I think they may be the first to ABUSE their children by telling their kids that they are evil.</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">The idea of inventing an illness that only you have a cure for is an old con. This is precisely what snake-oil salesmen do. Have a bloated tummy? It's too much gluten, by my over priced bread to ease your weight! Have subluxations? I'm the only one who can even see them, and with a quick snapping of your neck I can cure them! Have sin? Then do everything I say and they'll go away after you die, and it is all for the low low price of 10% of your income!</span><br />
An additional thought that springs from the above question is why, if humankind merely invents the concept of God to make itself feel better, would people fabricate a God who is holy? <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">Social control. Refer to my example above. It is a fictitious illustration, but one that took little imagination on my part. It is hard for a ruler to justify sending young men into combat to be killed for royal glory and the ruler's personal gain. However, if the ruler can convince his subjects that God commanded them to do so, then they will much more easily. Why so many regulations? Some are to keep communal order, some are to make a sense of tribalistic community (like rules on how long to grow your beard) and others are to keep control of family planning in the hands of those who are in control in the social hierarchy. </span>Such a God would seem to be at odds with people’s natural desires and practices. In fact, such a God would seem to be the last type of god they would come up with. Instead, one would expect people to create a god who agrees with the things they naturally want to do instead of opposing the practices that they themselves (for some reason yet to be explained) label as “sinful.” <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">What the author is trying to do is confuse the reader. Here the "they" is supposed to be ALL of the followers who crafted the religion. However, in reality, the "they" were the few in power. And let's not forget that those in power mostly did not follow their own rules. In biblical times, most kings were either held as gods, (like the Pharaoh, or Caesar), or were seen as direct voices of the gods. Thus they got to make their own rules, and were not typically forced to keep them.</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
One last question is how do the “crutch” claims explain people who initially were hostile to religion and did not want to believe? Such people seemingly had no wish or desire for Christianity to be true, yet after an honest examination of the evidence and an acknowledgement of its “realness,” they became believers. <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">What is meant by "realness"? I have to say, that I find it amusing that the author had to put "realness" in quotes. </span> English scholar C. S. Lewis is one such person. Lewis is famous for saying there was no more reluctant convert in all of England than himself, that he was literally dragged kicking and screaming into the faith, which is hardly a statement that one would expect from a person engaged in a wish-fulfillment fantasy.<br />
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">The crutch outlook has nothing to do with whether there is or is not a god. </span><br />
These issues and questions seem to be at odds with the claims of the “crutch” crowd and are conveniently ignored by them. But what does the Bible have to say about their claims? How does it answer their charges?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">I've omitted the biblical section, which would go here as it is not necessary for the rest of this post. Again the author tries to use the bible to prove god. Again, the bible would only have authority of god exists, so using the bible to prove god is a circular argument. One quickly tires of spinning of biblical proportions.</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<strong style="box-sizing: inherit;">Is faith in God a crutch? - Conclusion</strong><br />
Jesse Ventura was wrong when he said that religion is nothing more than a crutch. Such a statement speaks to the prideful nature of man and epitomizes the type of people rebuked by Jesus in the book of Revelation: “You say, ‘I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,’ and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked” (<a class="rtBibleRef" data-mce-href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%203.17" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%203.17" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #bf5c19; display: inline-block; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">Revelation 3:17</a>).</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
The wish-fulfillment claims of Freud, Ventura, and others only act as an indictment against themselves and showcase their desire to reject God and His claim to their lives, which is exactly what the Bible says fallen humankind does. But to these same people, God asks that they recognize their true desires and offers Himself in the place of the false hope of humanism that they cling to.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
The Bible’s statements regarding the fact and evidence of Christ’s resurrection bring comfort and real hope—hope that does not disappoint—and instruct us to walk in a way that trusts God and recognizes our true “weak” position before Him. Once that is done, we become strong, just as Paul said, “For when I am weak, then I am strong” (<a class="rtBibleRef" data-mce-href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Corinthians%2012.10" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Corinthians%2012.10" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #bf5c19; display: inline-block; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">2 Corinthians 12:10</a>).</div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
Read more:<a data-mce-href="http://www.gotquestions.org/faith-God-crutch.html#ixzz3Nb3ezcoE" href="http://www.gotquestions.org/faith-God-crutch.html#ixzz3Nb3ezcoE" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #bf5c19; display: inline-block; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out;">http://www.gotquestions.org/faith-God-crutch.html#ixzz3Nb3ezcoE</a></div>
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #606666; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.7272720336914px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: red;">I have stated that this article is a straw man argument because the author is trying to refute the claim that since religion is a crutch, god does not exist. That is not the claim at all. To say that religion is a crutch is not to imply that those who are religious are weak and stupid. At least not always. Picture this, you see a man with no legs in a wheel chair. Do you consider the man weak and stupid? Of course not. What about a girl with a leg cast, moving about on a crutch? Nope, neither stupid nor weak, just hurt. And that is how religion is a crutch. There are times we need someone to lean on, and at times, a group to lean on. Those you lean on act as a crutch to keep you from falling... to keep you on your own two feet. And this is what is meant by religion is a crutch. It is also what Karl Marx meant by religion being the "opiate of the masses". </span></div>
Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-85457996457940205682015-07-12T11:13:00.002-05:002015-07-12T11:13:47.976-05:00Suing Missouri in the Name of Satan<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2rpD_3vnxAZl4j-vQv7yckLpd7i-36RBZkFQ_cvldkytoQfTjZS2V9K9mwrj2Z0hciKZv3claAl8iQdM561uFzl780Hj8YNRsojmfZKyMlEB47TWLuW2WcJY07BCSV0Mshe6Z566PHIM/s1600/001Satan.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2rpD_3vnxAZl4j-vQv7yckLpd7i-36RBZkFQ_cvldkytoQfTjZS2V9K9mwrj2Z0hciKZv3claAl8iQdM561uFzl780Hj8YNRsojmfZKyMlEB47TWLuW2WcJY07BCSV0Mshe6Z566PHIM/s320/001Satan.png" width="240" /></a>I've been following this story for the past few weeks and I've debated if I should write about it. The reason for it, is that as an Atheist and a Skeptic, I don't endorse any religion. But after reading an opinion piece by the attorney Howard Slugh in the <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420918/satanists-religious-freedom-publicity">National Review</a>. I think the case bears mentioning.<br />
<br />
The story is of "Mary Doe" who appealed to the Satanic Church of New Your to help her <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/04/a-satanic-temple-member-says-an-abortion-waiting-period-is-against-her-religion-would-a-court-agree/" target="_blank">sue Missouri</a> over a 72 hour waiting period for abortion. The suit declares that the 72 hour waiting period for an abortion violates Mary's religious freedom to get an abortion on demand.<br />
<br />
Missouri, like many states has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (<a href="http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/00100003021.HTML" target="_blank">RFRA</a>), similar to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/indiana-religious-freedom_n_6984156.html" target="_blank">Indiana's RFRA</a> that got their Governor in hot water a couple of months ago. The difference between Missouri's RFRA and Indiana's is that Missouri's really doesn't have any teeth.<br />
<br />
That brings me to Slugh's (what an unfortunate name) article. He begins by assessing the Satanic Church itself concluding that they don't really worship the devil, but "troll religious people". This is kind of like how Prosperity Christians really don't believe in Christ, they just troll poor people. What Slugh is doing is trying to discredit the Church's religious beliefs as "valid" religious beliefs (which is an oxymoron). <br />
<br />
The suit rests that by forcing a woman to wait 72 hours and receive pamphlets on "alternatives" to abortion, violates the woman's right not to have religion forced upon her. In Missouri, women are subjected to sit through a lecture and read material that is anti-abortion in nature and then wait the 72 hours before the procedure. The trouble with that is two fold. One is that the reason women must endure the lecture, etc. is based on religious moralization. The second reason, and the most heinous, is that <b>the law treats women as incapable decision makers</b> by assuming that women would not, or cannot, weigh the pros and cons of such a large decision for themselves; the state has to force them to do so.<br />
<br />
Slugh, naturally, calls the suit frivolous, and he may be right, Missouri's RFRA has almost no teeth. Also, he states that the suit is over Mary being exposed to views contrary to her religion as the base of the suit (When does "life" begin? When is a clump of cells a person? different religions have different answers, different philosophies as well -- thus no answer is "factual" and belongs in a medical pamphlet) , but this is a misrepresentation. However, an article by the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/04/a-satanic-temple-member-says-an-abortion-waiting-period-is-against-her-religion-would-a-court-agree/" target="_blank">Washington Post</a>, that is more representative of the facts of the case, point out that the 72 hour waiting period violates her religious tenets and her privacy. This is the kind of case that may go to the Supreme Court.<br />
<br />
Where Slugh is correct, and what led me to write this post, is that the case is not just about the violation of women's rights, but about publicity. And what beautiful publicity it is! The case is highlighting the religious right's hijacking the public conversation of morality by institutionalizing their own morality. That IS a violation of other's religious beliefs. The law suit is another chip in the religious wall erected to silence non-Christian views, and will further push people away from faith-based morality and towards philosophical (secular) based morality. Such a notion scares the religious right as the last refuge their push to accept religion is that without it, there can be no morality. Of course this is a bogus claim (here's a<a href="http://showmeskeptic.blogspot.com/2015/06/arguments-for-god-part-4-apologetics.html" target="_blank"> video with a strong rebutta</a>l to that claim).<br />
<br />
While the religious angle is one battle in a much larger war, it is a little distracting to the main concern: Individual Reproductive Rights. I say, individual rights because a person's right to plan their family goes beyond gender. In this specific case it concern's a woman's right to plan when and how to handle her pregnancy. And in Missouri, the state has decreed that women are not responsible enough to take the time and effort to think about a huge life decision, and thus must dictate how, and for how long they do so.Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-37701887552916225962015-07-05T11:11:00.004-05:002015-07-05T11:15:24.597-05:00LOLs for a Sunday: An Atheist Meme Gallery<div id="cp_widget_a313f61d-fa2d-4b42-b9ab-5b99af068295">...</div><script type="text/javascript">
var cpo = []; cpo["_object"] ="cp_widget_a313f61d-fa2d-4b42-b9ab-5b99af068295"; cpo["_fid"] = "AgGA4uMfxIbc";
var _cpmp = _cpmp || []; _cpmp.push(cpo);
(function() { var cp = document.createElement("script"); cp.type = "text/javascript";
cp.async = true; cp.src = "//www.cincopa.com/media-platform/runtime/libasync.js";
var c = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0];
c.parentNode.insertBefore(cp, c); })(); </script><noscript>Powered by Cincopa <a href='http://www.cincopa.com/video-hosting'>Video Hosting for Business</a> solution.</noscript>Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-76508881931914415862015-07-03T20:21:00.000-05:002015-07-03T20:21:08.727-05:00My Little Heathens: Swearing and Skepticism"Shit!"<br />
<br />
It sounds so cute coming from a 6 year-old. But I cannot let him know this. Instead I have to take a short break from making dinner and go be daddy-cop.<br />
<br />
As a skeptic parent, you haven't lived until you've had to explain why certain words are "bad" to your six year-old child. You try to tell them that certain words are considered rude and that children shouldn't say them. Anxiety builds as this strange idea works its way into their head. Then comes the most terrifying word a 6 year-old can utter, "why?". <br />
<br />
Intense anguish grips your gut as you know you have to try to explain something drilled into your head as a child and accepted as a matter of course. Yet you are proud the little bugger asked why; you know you're doing something right! You try to explain that "the S-word" is a rude way to say poop. Then the little guy asks the next impossible question:<br />
"Why is shit..."<br />
"Don't say that word, bud."<br />
"Why is that word ugly, but it's ok to say poop?"<br />
<br />
Ugh! Those wankers at the hospital didn't tell me parenting would be so hard! I've used up my weekly quotas of "because I said so," so I tell him that we will look it up.<br />
"Can I go outside and play while we look it up?"<br />
Smart kid. He'll make a good politician some day.<br />
<br />
After awhile he comes back in and I sit him down to explain why cussing is bad. After an over exaggerated eye roll he resigned himself for my lecture. I tell him that most cuss words are insults, they call someone a name and hurts their feelings. As for why poop isn't bad but the other word is, I told him that a long time ago people decided that word was bad, and so it has been ever sense.<br />
<br />
"That's silly, dad."<br />
Yes, it is. I think he'll be a Senator.<br />
<br />
But some words, I tell him, were thought to hurt the gods. Either physically or it would hurt their feelings. The eye roll that produced was one of incredulity, "That's stupid, dad!" By his tone, I could tell he was getting annoyed with his old man. I told him I was serious, but I don't think he believed me.<br />
"Even Jesus, dad?" He learned about Jesus from his grandparents and his kindergarten teacher.<br />
"Yup, even Jesus."<br />
"That's stupid, dad. I don't believe you."<br />
<br />
I ask why not, and he said that no one is that stupid, so it can't be true. I think he'll be President some day.<br />
<br />
<br />
For further reading try the following:<br />
<a href="http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/04/10/nine-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-swear-words/" target="_blank">Nine Things You Probably Don't Know About Swear Words</a><br />
<a href="https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JePJAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA301&dq=history+of+cursing&ots=VQmLSM7ay2&sig=yt6xlZZkhHqW3d3KaOdWzCFU4Nw#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank">Cursing: A Damned Persistent Lexicon</a><br />
<br />Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0Joplin, MO 64804, USA37.0193161 -94.50058079999996636.8164516 -94.823304299999961 37.222180599999994 -94.177857299999971tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-55856069549198732912015-07-03T16:11:00.001-05:002015-07-26T19:59:44.081-05:00ARGUMENTS FOR GOD PART 5: The Case Against GodFinally!<br />
This is my final video concerning the existence of God.<br />
In this video I lay out arguments over the three main concepts of god-heads and how they cannot be.<br />
I hope you enjoy:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/O4m-n4nPqRI" width="420"></iframe>
Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0Joplin, MO 64804, USA37.0193161 -94.50058079999996636.8164516 -94.823304299999961 37.222180599999994 -94.177857299999971tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-26494073282248898102015-07-02T10:26:00.001-05:002015-08-27T11:33:52.426-05:00American Mythology: The Free Market<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigvEcy0mKcjJevF1QAWJoOt0-Txyj8tEink5ssyy-jrOpjIk19rho61AAykKCaPGAE7lluTDzfLydcn2cSVqd7Fs72iGGFt-Gr9u4W6zGXyXvzKnlldIdi-qQxpFJTnZun_Xxr24MunN0/s1600/milton-friedman-quotes-sayings-free-market-economics.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigvEcy0mKcjJevF1QAWJoOt0-Txyj8tEink5ssyy-jrOpjIk19rho61AAykKCaPGAE7lluTDzfLydcn2cSVqd7Fs72iGGFt-Gr9u4W6zGXyXvzKnlldIdi-qQxpFJTnZun_Xxr24MunN0/s320/milton-friedman-quotes-sayings-free-market-economics.jpg" width="320" /></a>What is the Free Market? By definition it is an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. To achieve this a special form of Capitalism it requires: Laissez-Faire Capitalism. With Laissez-Faire, the government does not regulate business, or does so in the most minimalist of ways. Belief in the free market is a litmus test in the United States used to determine one's patriotism. Yet, towards whom are we being patriotic? A look at Laissez-Faire Capitalism in American history and analysis of the problems with a free market will answer who is demanding our loyalty.<br />
<br />
There are three main problems to the myth of the Free Market. Below I will address each one in turn.<br />
<br />
<b>The Goods Expert</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Quick: How do magnetic bracelets improve health?<br />
What are the top 5 Blue Chips?<br />
What do cerium and europium have to do with Apple?<br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6pgtCFaBtL4u-BjxbHmHQ90NB-AMYkIOtwbTZ4JIxK7f3-ry1MY5h4VB6RzgdZvYQTpqUSHp7jWcXmCs3ejhAh-HQcVkUE0KfDlqIeYf_hdLN25gnMan6KFWkS656h1HCRyq6Q22gjsc/s1600/insurance-caveat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6pgtCFaBtL4u-BjxbHmHQ90NB-AMYkIOtwbTZ4JIxK7f3-ry1MY5h4VB6RzgdZvYQTpqUSHp7jWcXmCs3ejhAh-HQcVkUE0KfDlqIeYf_hdLN25gnMan6KFWkS656h1HCRyq6Q22gjsc/s320/insurance-caveat.jpg" width="320" /></a>The idea of the Free Market rests in part on the assumption that the buyer knows everything about the product. Under Free Market theory, if a vendor is dishonest in its representation of the item, then future buyers will go to different vendors. However, this is not always the case. In cases of Monopoly, like having only one cable company in the service area, there may not be an alternative. Previous to the industrial age, this may not have been a huge problem. People bought mostly raw goods and manufactured their own usable goods. Simply put, there were not that many goods to know about. In today's world that is not the case. <br />
<br />
Most people don't know how the majority of their usable goods work. Without devoting your life to learning how cars, computers, cell phones, the Internet, etc. all work, one won't know, meaning that endeavors like teaching and plumbing become side jobs. At best, we can educate ourselves on how things work in a general sense, but there is not enough time in our lives to learn the particulars of every good and service available to us. As such, the vendor, not the buyer has the power.<br />
<br />
<b>Greed</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4gZ3W-HGjAEZ6YhZ0uaPuvoBxKRKURu5CZH4LVm3Bj7OXnuOQm4iaudq7ziql_M-zEIPECmnc30l6Y6Ms_WGDrhkj6GegQAR6K6C-f7qvunwCoeKVJZEFqjb_aJF00FzigblXh0tyMQk/s1600/greed.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Gordon Gekko "Greed is Good"" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4gZ3W-HGjAEZ6YhZ0uaPuvoBxKRKURu5CZH4LVm3Bj7OXnuOQm4iaudq7ziql_M-zEIPECmnc30l6Y6Ms_WGDrhkj6GegQAR6K6C-f7qvunwCoeKVJZEFqjb_aJF00FzigblXh0tyMQk/s1600/greed.png" title="Gordon Gekko" /></a>The world is full of professions that are absolutely essential to modern society: farmers, teachers, plumbers, construction workers, firemen, just to name a few. None of these professions make their practitioners rich though. To become rich, one must either be born into money, or enter into a profession whose primary purpose is to make money. The people who do this have only one interest in mind: their own wealth. <br />
<br />
Those with the deplorable disease of greed care not about their fellow man, the planet, nor future generations outside of their own genetic legacy. In a Free Market system, the greedy do all they can to capture the market for themselves. In other words, they want the freedom to economically enslave others. The US is experiencing an era of greed that began under Reagan in the 1980s. But this is not the first time greed has corrupted America.<br />
<br />
<b>The Gilded Age</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The Gilded Age is empirical evidence on why Laissez-Faire Capitalism cannot work in a modern economy, and why the Free Market is a myth.<br />
<br />
The post Civil War era is known as the Gilded Age. It got this name because that is when the fruits of industrialization took off, enriching business owners more fantastically than any time in history. During the Gilded Age, there was no restrictions on collusion, monopolies, trusts, or any other form of business dealings. Prices weren't determined by supply and demand alone, but through boardroom negotiations with the purpose of stifling any competition.<br />
<br />
Simultaneously, they kept worker wages low enough that the workers could not get an education and their whole family had to work (<a href="http://www.history.com/topics/homestead-strike/videos/the-fight-to-end-child-labor" target="_blank">including children</a>), but high enough that the workers could eat. There was no health care benefits, no unemployment, no FDA, no USDA, no such concept as sexual harassment. Work conditions were deplorable and if you got sick or hurt, you lost your job, often permanently. There was no welfare system for the disadvantaged, but Corporations often enjoyed welfare from the Government, like using eminent domain to buy property for Corporate use, or giving huge tracts of <a href="http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/riseind/railroad/grants.html" target="_blank">land to the railroads</a>.<br />
<br />
Then the government gets involved. In the latter part of the 19th the Armed forces of the US spent most of its time "protecting US interests" in Latin America. In other words, we toppled governments and invaded countries to protect US business assets in those countries. This trend continued into the 20th Century with the <a href="https://youtu.be/H3vqTygzi5Y" target="_blank">Banana Wars</a> in Central America. Not only was the US military used on foreign soil to enforce corporate will, but in the US as well. <a href="http://history1800s.about.com/od/organizedlabor/a/Pullman-Strike-1894.htm" target="_blank">The Pullman Strike of 1894</a>, and the <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/homestead-strike" target="_blank">Homestead Strike of 1892</a> are prime examples where the Government Military was in the employ of a Corporation.<br />
<br />
Before industrialization, pre-capitalist societies were ran by guilds at the authorization of the Crown. Before then, in the agoras of ancient Greece, and the dealings between hunter-gatherer tribes the Free Market may have been a reality. The opportunity for one person to dominate a commodity or good was almost nil. Wealth was not generated that fast. That would change when labor became mechanized.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMebXEgGPdJWImEd9yz6hEGXgVnZYlH6wqINtqdP1jbxX3lNeGxjwThTHMnPaBwaRi8uLHgFadbYpxK_qWDvH85kbZUbPVKLZ0_kEvm4JSZe-Qk06ZGWsnBc8yRn7S1fWsiqd_i8kyvc4/s1600/034fe148ae61cfa9b05242099e08623e.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMebXEgGPdJWImEd9yz6hEGXgVnZYlH6wqINtqdP1jbxX3lNeGxjwThTHMnPaBwaRi8uLHgFadbYpxK_qWDvH85kbZUbPVKLZ0_kEvm4JSZe-Qk06ZGWsnBc8yRn7S1fWsiqd_i8kyvc4/s1600/034fe148ae61cfa9b05242099e08623e.jpg" /></a></div>
As labor was mechanized, wealth could be generated faster than ever before in human history. Around this time, improvements in communication transformed the finance market as well, adding to and compounding the wealth generation. What this means is that once one person, one company begins buying out his competitors, the wealth generation increases, allowing more capital to buy more shares of the market. In doing so, competition is stifled and the market is no longer free: it is ruled autocratically.<br />
<br />
After acquiring a sizable share of the market on a good, the company becomes a monopoly. Through this tactic,<a href="http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ilr21&div=17&id=&page=" target="_blank">among others</a>, companies are able to keep their monopoly, but to what end? To prohibit upstart companies by pricing its goods at a loss. This forces the smaller competitor to either take the loss and match prices, or lose business to the larger corporation. Either way, this forces the new business, which may have a superior product, to go out of business. <br />
<br />
With great wealth comes great power. What power the rich lack they can purchase in the <a href="http://sageamericanhistory.net/gildedage/topics/gildedagepolitics.html" target="_blank">form of politicians</a>. Political power and economic power then gets further concentrated in the hands of the few. In a democratic society, officials may be elected, but money then buys the official's vote. At that point, the government is run not by the people, but by the corporations.<br />
<br />
At that point, democracy becomes plutocracy. Liberty dies not with a cry, but with the bell of a cash register. And the free enterprise of the market becomes the sovereign domain of the privileged few.<br />
<br />
<b>Regulation</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free." That sounds like something Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln would say, but it is actually from the King Arthur movie, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113071/?ref_=ttqt_qt_tt" target="_blank">First Knight</a>. Despite being an unmemorable movie, I have always remembered that line, and how true it rings. Slavery was the law of the land in the South before the Civil War. The 13th Amendment set them free.<br />
<br />
Government regulation is to free the consumer, and the entrepreneur from the tyranny of the plutocracy. Theodore Roosevelt realized this when he went on his anti-trust crusade, and formed the FDA and USDA. Franklin Roosevelt also realized this when his New Deal took up the task of rebuilding the America that the corporations ruined. FDR also legislated in bargaining rights for workers, increasing working conditions and wages for millions of Americans. The result of which was three decades of prosperity brought to an end by the resurgence of corporate greed and influence.<br />
<br />
The free market litmus test does not test ones patriotism to the country, to mom and apple pie. It tests the loyalty to the corporate oligarchs bent on using our great nation as their personal, exploitable resource.Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0Joplin, MO 64804, USA37.0193161 -94.50058079999996636.8164516 -94.823304299999961 37.222180599999994 -94.177857299999971tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-65640317540430783852015-06-26T20:52:00.001-05:002015-06-26T21:08:33.527-05:00Bigotry is Finally Losing Ground in the US.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsBqHVRXcn0iRov_HNR1RMxoDWoU8R8vL6e8SDrJzzbU0oI4petHnKvKQuhGMVbrBiJbI_r6Cozg34hCdWePQNn9TVS1kUaCyHwKtjxUZUVSQ9xotDD8Bc8jTMbBvESSnN7dWao0cFV6k/s1600/1907505_1616111992004418_1344354289694716771_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsBqHVRXcn0iRov_HNR1RMxoDWoU8R8vL6e8SDrJzzbU0oI4petHnKvKQuhGMVbrBiJbI_r6Cozg34hCdWePQNn9TVS1kUaCyHwKtjxUZUVSQ9xotDD8Bc8jTMbBvESSnN7dWao0cFV6k/s320/1907505_1616111992004418_1344354289694716771_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This past week has been a political whirlwind. One the equality front civil liberties are winning, but on the economic front, the nation took a blow. The New York Times has covered the Trans-Pacific Partnership quite well. You can read about it <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/business/unpacking-the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal.html?_r=0" target="_blank">here</a>. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This week has been more positive than negative, and I would rather write about that.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This week the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) has issued two rulings that change the face of America. The first was upholding the Affordable Care Act's subsidies which allow millions of Americans to keep their health care. This is also the final hurdle (I think) for the Affordable Care Act. Now it joins the ranks of Social Security and Medicare, political suicide for those who try to repeal them. The Washington Post has a great article on it <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/obamacare-survives-supreme-court-challenge/2015/06/25/af87608e-188a-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The biggest predictor for success in school, and life as well, is the socioeconomic background of a student. Part of the reason is that the poor often have poor nutrition and poor health care. SNAP benefits help, but go nowhere near eliminating, the nutrition aspect. Proper health care goes a step further. This ruling levels the health playing field between the rich and the poor. Or rather the children of the rich and the poor.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY80BnHlUm4kt_upURJhdDcOE9Al4iXsAQKbo0K7t-MBueLruDhSELf1tKm1EATp0BGp7hlEwo5x7VBY1fjd33HUFU9byED1EVCwjSfdvZZvLV5YQFq379X7HAmPMYNFZEiNm_mBvpr_I/s1600/kennedy_2.png.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="285" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY80BnHlUm4kt_upURJhdDcOE9Al4iXsAQKbo0K7t-MBueLruDhSELf1tKm1EATp0BGp7hlEwo5x7VBY1fjd33HUFU9byED1EVCwjSfdvZZvLV5YQFq379X7HAmPMYNFZEiNm_mBvpr_I/s400/kennedy_2.png.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.png" width="400" /></a>Secondly, marriage is now recognized as a basic right. Today, Friday June 26th, 2015 SCOTUS has ruled same-sex marriage cannot be denied by the States, they have to honor and allow gay marriage. The last paragraph of the Majority Opinion is below. It is not only a powerful statement on equal rights, but it is also a masterpiece of prose.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Of course the religious right is up in arms over the ruling. Everything from the ruling opening the doors to <a href="http://www.catholicvote.org/polygamy-the-next-marriage-fight/" target="_blank">polygamy</a> and <a href="https://youtu.be/1yzYcADkEDU" target="_blank">bestiality</a>, to God judging America (according to <a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/06/26/exclusive-franklin-graham-warns-gay-marriage-ruling-will-lead-christian-persecution" target="_blank">Franklin Graham</a>) and bringing about the Apocalypse. Naturally, many Christians regard this as "<a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/kevin-swanson-gay-marriage-will-lead-murder-christians" target="_blank">Christian persecution</a>", which is a claim that's always good for a laugh. You cannot claim persecution when the only thing you are restricted from is <b>restricting others in practicing what the believe</b>. </div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Being beheaded by ISIS because you wear a cross and mumble to the sky is persecution. Not allowing you to force others to mumble to the sky, or allowing you to display your symbols and only your symbols on <b>public</b> property is not persecution. It is keeping the political sphere neutral to personal beliefs. Sure we can bring those beliefs to the table, but they are no better than their adherence to reason. Which is no different than anyone else.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPyx2BnPpwobWxUZ60ViXrxzr-T78QYmsq7Uilkvs_ZXtw_n6rD7urZZGKRKUplQ5KcBHWwlcxpnPv__mfDiQAYmXv2c-3Nf85aLqYxeLmjou3ZK5VZtyRzfxsqEL9cPca6x9z1shKMM4/s1600/11209526_10152944426196485_2300272313404578677_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPyx2BnPpwobWxUZ60ViXrxzr-T78QYmsq7Uilkvs_ZXtw_n6rD7urZZGKRKUplQ5KcBHWwlcxpnPv__mfDiQAYmXv2c-3Nf85aLqYxeLmjou3ZK5VZtyRzfxsqEL9cPca6x9z1shKMM4/s320/11209526_10152944426196485_2300272313404578677_n.jpg" width="320" /></a>This ties in with the third bit of good news: we may be seeing less of the American version of the swastika, the "Confederate" flag. I have to admit that it is a little hard for me to write about this. Only because <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078607/" target="_blank">The Dukes of Hazzard</a> </i>was one of my favorite shoes growing up. Yes, I remember when it was on prime time. I still have a fond place for the <i>General Lee</i>, the name of the Duke boys' orange 1969 Dodge Charger. Yes, it had the Confederate Flag on the roof, but this car would freaking FLY at least once per episode.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
But I digress. I didn't want to write about nostalgia, but about a blow for social equal rights. The story of the "Confederate" flag flown today begins decades before the Civil War. Slavery was a dividing issue between the States since the Articles of Confederation. However, the national government had no basis for abolition under the Articles. When the Constitution was written, Slavery was such a hot issue, it was tabled for twenty years so the rest of the document could be hammered out. However, the call for abolition was on the rise after the signing of the Constitution. At that time, Christianity had to contend with not only<a href="http://www.ftsociety.org/" target="_blank"> Freethinkers</a>, but <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deism" target="_blank">Deists </a>as well. Both groups tended to be rabid abolitionists, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deists" target="_blank">influential</a>. Then the second Great Awakening happened. America had a religious revival and with it, opposition to abolition grew. In fact the Southern Baptist Church grew out of a pro-slavery movement in the South. </div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both;">
The Reverend Dr. <span style="background-color: white; text-align: -webkit-center;">Richard Furman was a highly influential Baptist in the early and mid 1800s. His essay,</span> <a href="http://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/rcd-fmn1.htm" target="_blank">Exposition of the Views of the Baptists, Relative to the Coloured Population</a> is a letter to the then Governor of South Carolina on the importance of slavery to the State, and the divine-created inferiority of blacks. The <a href="http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Slavery/" target="_blank">Holy Bible</a> was the inspiration for the <a href="http://www.archive.org/stream/WillieLynchLetter1712/the_willie_lynch_letter_the_making_of_a_slave_1712_djvu.txt" target="_blank">Willie Lynch Letter</a> which expanded on the Bible's treatment of slaves. Of course the Bible was also used to fight for abolition, but the passages used were taken out of context. For instance, Exodus 21:16 "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." sounds like an anti-slavery verse, but the context is that the stolen man is in this case property, not a person. In other words, the bible prohibited <i>stealing</i> slaves, not owning them.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3qryy9X0IwABH7igLUV3xuREsG3mwdAgma4YjUByCKEPpOqP2OfB2tTMYY0LuCUR8PWBjoAK9_l3Flm7OdowsWYH8hKoHLyWxp1BEril-ntHZ3t4pBrF2bpFPYpm4k2YwmColNTRRV98/s1600/whiteflag.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3qryy9X0IwABH7igLUV3xuREsG3mwdAgma4YjUByCKEPpOqP2OfB2tTMYY0LuCUR8PWBjoAK9_l3Flm7OdowsWYH8hKoHLyWxp1BEril-ntHZ3t4pBrF2bpFPYpm4k2YwmColNTRRV98/s320/whiteflag.png" width="320" /></a>What does this have to do with the Stars and Bars? <br />
It would be adopted by a Christian organization forty years after the Civil War.<br />
<br />
During the Civil War, the "Confederate Flag" was just the battle flag for Northern Virginia. It fell into obscurity until the 1920s when the Ku Klux Klan took it up as their flag. At that moment, the "Confederate" flag went from a forgotten battle flag of a small region of the country, to the banner of Jim Crow. And this is why the flag must be taken down. <br />
<br />
Now the movement to remove it has begun. Like the Cross, it is a symbol of oppression. The flag will be removed, and furthermore religious symbols will follow the flag's demise from the public sphere. Why? The World Wide Web.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The Internet is the place where religion goes to die. <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/view/526111/how-the-internet-is-taking-away-americas-religion/" target="_blank">It is what is killing religion</a>. Why? Humans have this annoying need to one-up each other. The Internet was once ruled by geeks, that is until social media made it cool. Concepts, like <a href="http://www.logicalfallacies.info/" target="_blank">fallacies</a>, were once the providence of a select few, a certain <a href="http://philindex.org/" target="_blank">brand of geek</a>. Now everyone wants to get their geek on. Yet we still yearn to one-up each other. The Internet has done more to spread skepticism and logic more than anything all for intellectual battles that have raged in academia for millenia. As religion becomes more <a href="http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2014/08/01/five-signs-great-decline-religion-america-gallup-graphs-church/" target="_blank">irrelevant to American life</a>, Civil Liberties will increase a la <a href="https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/3260" target="_blank">Humanism</a>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Now your average stay-at-home parent, liberal arts major, or plumber is a philosopher with a highly attuned bullshit detector. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Religion is the highest form of bullshit.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
That is why religion is out.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Reason is in.</div>
<div class="vox-cardstack">
</div>
<script src="//embed.vox.com/cardstack.js"></script>Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0Joplin, MO, USA37.084227100000007 -94.51328136.881581600000004 -94.8360045 37.286872600000009 -94.190557500000011tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-82468230724693257442015-06-21T16:54:00.003-05:002015-07-26T20:00:04.927-05:00ARGUMENTS FOR GOD PART 4: Apologetics Part 3Apologetics Part Three is the last of my Apologetics trilogy. This video tackles Free Will, faith, God of the Gaps, and other apologetic arguments.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qCG5Az8jbnE" width="420"></iframe>
Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779259296068674892.post-43889719366843247172015-06-12T16:45:00.001-05:002015-06-12T16:45:13.604-05:00ARGUMENTS FOR GOD PART 4: Apologetics Part 2.This is the second part of the Apologetic series. I cover claims for God via genes, beauty and morality.<br />
Enjoy!<br />
Please feel free to respond below.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/watNfj6vt9w" width="420"></iframe>Show-Me Skeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08713165281856453126noreply@blogger.com0