The rationalist may not enjoy admitting to the biological evolutionary naturalistic roots of what he concludes is "rational." A good analogy is how Spock was portrayed as viewing the world: logical until mating season came around, but even then his actions were in the end logical to him.
It's is indeed rational to eat, breath, have sex, love, make babies, have fun, and so on - so the rationalist will naturally conclude because his brain and being are coded to conclude as much. So be it. Humans aren't fully rational though, whatever the fuck rational may actually mean.
In any case, the idea that we can divorce ourselves from emotion is an illusion and is in many ways a potentially damaging self deception. Go without food long enough, or other of our primary biological needs, and the supposedly strict rationalist will very quickly go right off the rails. Pretend like you've got a "rational mind" divorced from your "emotional mind" and you're frankly drive yourself and others crazy.
On cultural relativism: I don't have a problem with judging how people acted in the past. There's a limit to my own tolerance regarding past behavior, and I believe everyone has a limit. My mentioning of Mohamed's 9 year old wife was to show one example. Maybe people did marry at 14 in the past more, but there's all sorts of things that used to happen which we now have concluded were incorrect actions. Incorrect now, and, incorrect then. For example: slavery, the oppression of women, having kings rule with an iron fist, and so on.
Pinker has spoken of an progressing moral zeitgeist as has Dawkins. Also Harris has some good ideas on a science of morality. Thank goodness we now have a much wider scope for our in group morality.
Down at BYU in the psychology & religion departments, they may strongly decry the "hedonistic" nature of "the world," and try to get their students to be wary. They go to their churches on Sunday where Mormon bishops interrogate youngsters about masturbation, and where all the youngsters learn to fear normal natural human sexuality. But, meanwhile, their founding prophets have been reasonably documented as doing things which the Mormon Church would excommunicate people for. So that's the point. Hypocrisy.
Don't masturbate Johnny, but meanwhile worship a god who had literal sex with the wife of another man. Don't have oral sex, Julie and Jim, but meanwhile Brigham & Joseph got to have sex with the wives of other men and with under age girls.
My own experience with Mormonism has made me more of a strong naturalist, on both sides of the cultural spectrum. So for example I'm all for people having as many babies as they want - if that's what deep down they feel like doing. The exuberance of the gays has a companionship with the exuberance of a large family. I try not to disparage either course of action because deep down people are doing what they feel included to do as animals. So be it. And, as rather intelligent animals maybe in the long term we can engineer and way to stay alive when the sun gets 10% hotter.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/funeral-talk-that-i-gave-in-february.html
The bottom line is that I don't think everything is relative. All societies past & present can for example be evaluated against the following yardstick: How well did each help humans be happy & thrive, and how much did each hold people down & make them unhappy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality
Friday, December 7, 2012
Thursday, December 6, 2012
What was it like, when God had sex with Mary?
Today I found a Family Guy clip about the conception of Jesus, and that reminded of the following question:
What was it like, when God had sex with Mary?
Even in Catholicism, how did the Holy Ghost overshadow Mary's vajayjay?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajayjay
Here's Mormon references for your spiritual and humor-bone edification:
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Conception_of_Jesus
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon385.htm
Here's the relevant Family Guy clip:
What was it like, when God had sex with Mary?
Even in Catholicism, how did the Holy Ghost overshadow Mary's vajayjay?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajayjay
Here's Mormon references for your spiritual and humor-bone edification:
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Conception_of_Jesus
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon385.htm
Here's the relevant Family Guy clip:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2fhb16QP-dA
And my own video commentary is attached below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OymNAUmVUBY
Relevant clip from an older film, showing Elohim knocking on the door of Mary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgBNVcY6ro8&t=2m58s
Also, whodathunkit, Joseph Smith thought Jesus was married also?
The whole video is interesting and is mostly accurate.
Here's more on the Catholic version, where a guy in a sheet gets to have sex with her...
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_life_of_jesus/jesus_is_born_02/lk01_35.html
The Mormon oral sex letter stating it's bad:
http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter.shtml
http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter1.shtml
And yet, Joseph & Brigham had 14 & 15 year old wives & also wives who were still married to other men:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith%27s_wives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young%27s_wives
Additional thoughts, regarding the issue of marrying young & whether people in the past married at 14 or 15:
In this case I would have a slightly easier time sympathizing with 17 or 16. There are some older looking 14 year olds. Both Joseph & Brigham took other men's wives as brides. Also consider Aisha:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha
and the lego version of Moohamed's meeting with her at age nine:
http://mattseanbachman.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/mohammed-lego.png
Relevant quote: "...According to traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated..."
Maybe on a Fiddler on the Roof type of scenario 14 is ok, if one or the other are 14 or 15 are they are in love. But some older cult leader took taking a 14 year old to wife, that's when the icky poo factor comes in more. Also Moohamed having a 9 year old one was not so good.
Moohamed was a great man though, nine year old fully consummated bride and all, according to the national Unitarian organization:
http://www.isna.net/uploads/1/5/7/4/15744382/uu_muslim_interfaith_guide.pdf
[previously at: http://www.uusc.org/files/BBToolkit_uu_muslim_interfaith_guide.pdf ]
But Islam is about social justice, right? According to muff brained Unitarians, Amy Goodman, and Reza Aslan. Sometimes we go to Unitarian meetings, but we don't go to the congregation where they said Mohamed was a "great man who cared about women & treated them well," and for the one we do sometimes go to we'll be monitoring any religious education curricula to ensure it's not whitewashing dogma. Liberals can have dishonest religion too...
Related blog post:
Unitarian Universalist fawning appreciation of Mohammad and Islam:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/unitarian-universalist-fawning.html
I'm personally all for "marrying young" and evening having babies young if a couple feels so inclined, but when when at least one of the parties is under say 18 or 21, then the age difference should be less than can be common for people over 18 or 21. And the whole cult or warlord leader taking yougin' to wife is a different scenario from similarly aged youngsters hooking up.
And my own video commentary is attached below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OymNAUmVUBY
Relevant clip from an older film, showing Elohim knocking on the door of Mary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgBNVcY6ro8&t=2m58s
Also, whodathunkit, Joseph Smith thought Jesus was married also?
The whole video is interesting and is mostly accurate.
Here's more on the Catholic version, where a guy in a sheet gets to have sex with her...
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_life_of_jesus/jesus_is_born_02/lk01_35.html
The Mormon oral sex letter stating it's bad:
http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter.shtml
http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter1.shtml
And yet, Joseph & Brigham had 14 & 15 year old wives & also wives who were still married to other men:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith%27s_wives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young%27s_wives
Additional thoughts, regarding the issue of marrying young & whether people in the past married at 14 or 15:
In this case I would have a slightly easier time sympathizing with 17 or 16. There are some older looking 14 year olds. Both Joseph & Brigham took other men's wives as brides. Also consider Aisha:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha
and the lego version of Moohamed's meeting with her at age nine:
http://mattseanbachman.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/mohammed-lego.png
Relevant quote: "...According to traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated..."
Maybe on a Fiddler on the Roof type of scenario 14 is ok, if one or the other are 14 or 15 are they are in love. But some older cult leader took taking a 14 year old to wife, that's when the icky poo factor comes in more. Also Moohamed having a 9 year old one was not so good.
Moohamed was a great man though, nine year old fully consummated bride and all, according to the national Unitarian organization:
http://www.isna.net/uploads/1/5/7/4/15744382/uu_muslim_interfaith_guide.pdf
[previously at: http://www.uusc.org/files/BBToolkit_uu_muslim_interfaith_guide.pdf ]
But Islam is about social justice, right? According to muff brained Unitarians, Amy Goodman, and Reza Aslan. Sometimes we go to Unitarian meetings, but we don't go to the congregation where they said Mohamed was a "great man who cared about women & treated them well," and for the one we do sometimes go to we'll be monitoring any religious education curricula to ensure it's not whitewashing dogma. Liberals can have dishonest religion too...
Related blog post:
Unitarian Universalist fawning appreciation of Mohammad and Islam:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/unitarian-universalist-fawning.html
I'm personally all for "marrying young" and evening having babies young if a couple feels so inclined, but when when at least one of the parties is under say 18 or 21, then the age difference should be less than can be common for people over 18 or 21. And the whole cult or warlord leader taking yougin' to wife is a different scenario from similarly aged youngsters hooking up.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Tracy Aviary & Thanksgiving videos - 11-2012
Tracy Aviary visit - 11-17-2012:
Thanksgiving dinner - 11-22-2012:
Thanksgiving dinner - 11-22-2012:
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Crazed old fart virgins don't know shit - and keep them away from your children
From the BBC today:
"...Pope Benedict reaffirms the importance of the Christian belief in the virgin birth, that Jesus was not conceived through sexual intercourse but through the Holy Spirit."
Isn't that nice.
Back to the sex is evil gig of a bunch of crazed old farts.
An apt response from Andrew Sullivan:
"...The Catholic church does not condemn a whole class of human beings, regardless of their acts, as deemed inferior by God for all time because of their biological nature, having to wait even in the hereafter behind all other groups to become gods themselves. It condemns non-procreative sex for all, and by that teaching uniquely singles out gays for lives of loneliness, celibacy and repression, while permitting the infertile and the elderly to be full members of the church even as they too have non-procreative sex..."
Also check out:
http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/04/its-celibacy-stupid/188420/
and
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2010/apr/01/why-celibacy-should-be-abolished/
Now, then there's the perverse alternative from Mormonism, where we learn that God the Father (Elohim) had sex with Mary the Mother of Jesus.
Didn't they teach you that in Sunday School?
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Conception_of_Jesus
And, once again my friends, Joseph & Brigham, they like'd'em young, and also women who were simultaneously married to other men:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith%27s_wives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young%27s_wives
But then, later, it's the f-ing old farts again, who screw things up. Spencer Kimball's hate filled book: http://www.amazon.com/review/RTF9W8850RNTE
Boyd KKK fudge Packer comes out with his anti-masturbation little factory pamphlet:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml
Spencer Kimball tells Mormons that oral sex is bad:
http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter.shtml
http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter1.shtml
So, what's the bottom line?
Crazed old fart virgins don't know shit, AND keep them away from your children.
"...Pope Benedict reaffirms the importance of the Christian belief in the virgin birth, that Jesus was not conceived through sexual intercourse but through the Holy Spirit."
Isn't that nice.
Back to the sex is evil gig of a bunch of crazed old farts.
An apt response from Andrew Sullivan:
"...The Catholic church does not condemn a whole class of human beings, regardless of their acts, as deemed inferior by God for all time because of their biological nature, having to wait even in the hereafter behind all other groups to become gods themselves. It condemns non-procreative sex for all, and by that teaching uniquely singles out gays for lives of loneliness, celibacy and repression, while permitting the infertile and the elderly to be full members of the church even as they too have non-procreative sex..."
Also check out:
http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/04/its-celibacy-stupid/188420/
and
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2010/apr/01/why-celibacy-should-be-abolished/
Now, then there's the perverse alternative from Mormonism, where we learn that God the Father (Elohim) had sex with Mary the Mother of Jesus.
Didn't they teach you that in Sunday School?
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Conception_of_Jesus
And, once again my friends, Joseph & Brigham, they like'd'em young, and also women who were simultaneously married to other men:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith%27s_wives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young%27s_wives
But then, later, it's the f-ing old farts again, who screw things up. Spencer Kimball's hate filled book: http://www.amazon.com/review/RTF9W8850RNTE
Boyd KKK fudge Packer comes out with his anti-masturbation little factory pamphlet:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml
Spencer Kimball tells Mormons that oral sex is bad:
http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter.shtml
http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter1.shtml
So, what's the bottom line?
Crazed old fart virgins don't know shit, AND keep them away from your children.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Response to Sam Harris's 'Science on the Brink of Death'
In Sam Harris's recent blog post "Science on the Brink of Death" it's worth noting that Steve Paulson is interviewing the guy in question. Paulson is a "Templeton wonder boy," and host of the Wisconsin Public Radio program "To the best of our knowledge."
Paulson's connection to Templeton:
http://www.templeton-cambridge.org/fellows/showfellow.php?fellow=6
Paulson's got a lot of smoke to help blow, everywhere he can. But mention of Paulson & public radio reminds me of another public radio host with a Templeton connection, Templeton wondergirl Krista Tippett.
http://www.templeton.org/what-we-fund/grants/krista-tippett-on-being-pursues-the-big-questions
My current responses:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/11/nobel-prize-winner-harry-kroto-michael.html
And a response video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nj4KIix2vI
Steve Paulson is very interested indeed in blowing smoke about "spiritual realities" and Templeton loves him for it.
Here is a great website I just found on the whole issue:
http://www.skepdic.com/essays/templeton.html
On this blog:
Watering down science: Templeton, KCPW & KUER
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/11/watering-down-science-templeton-kcpw.html
On other blogs and sites:
On Templeton money
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/06/on-templeton-money/
Gledhill, Ruth. “Why do we believe in God? £2m study prays for answer,” Timesonline. February 19, 2008,
Horgan, John. “The Templeton Foundation: A Skeptic’s Take,” April 5, 2006,
The 2009 (not prestigious) Templeton Prize Winner is....
“Current Prize Winner,” March 14, 2007.
“Scientific study into religious belief launched,” The University of Oxford press release. February 19, 2008.
Paulson's connection to Templeton:
http://www.templeton-cambridge.org/fellows/showfellow.php?fellow=6
Paulson's got a lot of smoke to help blow, everywhere he can. But mention of Paulson & public radio reminds me of another public radio host with a Templeton connection, Templeton wondergirl Krista Tippett.
http://www.templeton.org/what-we-fund/grants/krista-tippett-on-being-pursues-the-big-questions
My current responses:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/11/nobel-prize-winner-harry-kroto-michael.html
And a response video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nj4KIix2vI
Steve Paulson is very interested indeed in blowing smoke about "spiritual realities" and Templeton loves him for it.
Here is a great website I just found on the whole issue:
http://www.skepdic.com/essays/templeton.html
"...The subtext is clear: secular science alone can’t solve our problems. We must seek our answers in a realm that includes the non-secular..."Additional links:
"...The TF’s anti-secularism is also evident from the fact that Taylor was nominated for the Templeton prize by the Rev. David A. Martin, Ph.D., emeritus professor of sociology at the London School of Economics and author of A General Theory of Secularization, which, among other things, laments the way religion has been marginalized by sociology and pushed to the periphery of significance in some quarters. (Taylor wrote a blurb for the back cover of Martin’s follow-up: On Secularization: Towards A Revised General Theory, published in 2005.) Taylor’s latest work, A Secular Age, was published last September by Belknap Press. It is being promoted as “the definitive examination of secularization and the modern world.” At 896 pages, it is certainly the heftiest examination of religion in a secular world..."
"...Those who argue that our only hope for peace on earth is to become purely secular will never win the Templeton prize. To win the Templeton Prize, one must be selective and focus on those aspects of 'spirituality' that don’t involve bigotry, hatred, ignorance, or superstition. If you ignore many religions, many religious beliefs, and many religious practices, you can come up with a fine set of ideas showing how spirituality must move back to the center from the periphery if we wish to live free in a new golden age. I look at it a little differently than Charles Taylor does. In my opinion, secularism is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for peace on earth and for understanding the things of this universe. Religion, on the other hand, is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for continued misery and obfuscation of even the simplest truths..."
"...For a million dollars, I'll tell them why that’s so. For another million, I’ll do it in 900 pages..."
On this blog:
Watering down science: Templeton, KCPW & KUER
On other blogs and sites:
On Templeton money
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/06/on-templeton-money/
Gledhill, Ruth. “Why do we believe in God? £2m study prays for answer,” Timesonline. February 19, 2008,
Horgan, John. “The Templeton Foundation: A Skeptic’s Take,” April 5, 2006,
The 2009 (not prestigious) Templeton Prize Winner is....
“Current Prize Winner,” March 14, 2007.
“Scientific study into religious belief launched,” The University of Oxford press release. February 19, 2008.
Mormon funerals - how they usually go down
Yesterday my wife and I attended a viewing for one of my uncles. I was trying to explain Mormon funerals to my wife. Here for example is how they usually go down:
http://marklynnhigbee.blogspot.com
...with it being a session where people get up and bemoan the fact that the only way to see the person who's died is to become a good Mormon - even if the person who died wasn't a particularly faithful or adherent Mormon themselves. Mormon funerals are often morbid demeaning sales pitches that can have little relevance to the life of the deceased person.
At my own mother's funeral I did manage to shed a bit of light though:
So anyway, today, Saturday, we'll be doing more useful & fun things... And, at least some of my uncles children and grandchildren are clearly not true believing Mormons. That's a good legacy we can all be proud of... Same goes for my own mother, especially with regard to many of her grandchildren. Leaving Mormonism is like growing up psychologically.
http://marklynnhigbee.blogspot.com
...with it being a session where people get up and bemoan the fact that the only way to see the person who's died is to become a good Mormon - even if the person who died wasn't a particularly faithful or adherent Mormon themselves. Mormon funerals are often morbid demeaning sales pitches that can have little relevance to the life of the deceased person.
At my own mother's funeral I did manage to shed a bit of light though:
The talk I gave at my mother's funeral - February 2010:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/funeral-talk-that-i-gave-in-february.html
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/funeral-talk-that-i-gave-in-february.html
Related posts found by others:
http://kaylanamars.blogspot.com/2012/02/ultra-sad-disease-that-is-mormon.html"...Even as a TBM, I felt like they were a sales pitch, designed to peddle a religion to those in mourning and to take advantage of their grief..."
So, while my wife and I were happy to attend a viewing, and to see again a cousin who I played with as a kid & his family, we won't be attending the funeral because I can in about 10 seconds play in my mind exactly what is going to be said & happen at my uncles funeral. It will be a demoralizing and belittling sales pitch - demoralizing to those who aren't Mormon and who have no intention of becoming Mormon again."...Mormon funerals are only for proselytizing. They are using one of the most vulnerable times like a death in the family to promote their church..."
So anyway, today, Saturday, we'll be doing more useful & fun things... And, at least some of my uncles children and grandchildren are clearly not true believing Mormons. That's a good legacy we can all be proud of... Same goes for my own mother, especially with regard to many of her grandchildren. Leaving Mormonism is like growing up psychologically.
Friday, November 16, 2012
making hootenanny pancakes - November 10 & 11, 2012
On Saturday and Sunday we made Hootenanny pancakes. These are also called volcano pancakes. November 10 & 11, 2012
Recipe: http://corvus.freeshell.org/psittacus/three/serotonin/food.html
Clips showing Mr. Bebe helping out:
:
Recipe: http://corvus.freeshell.org/psittacus/three/serotonin/food.html
Clips showing Mr. Bebe helping out:
:
liberal and conservative religion, think about legacy
liberal and conservative religion, think about legacy - evening commentary Nov. 12, 2012
Problems with liberal religion and culture. Your right to be a zero: apology for overpopulation leading you to choose to be a zero. Be concerned about legacy: do something useful; have kids, or be a great scientist or artist. Do something!
Don't spend your whole life staring at your own navel. Spend some time staring at someone else's instead. Let's burn all the bras we want. Further notes about psychics, crystals, fortune tellers, and Deepak Chopra.
Problems with liberal religion and culture. Your right to be a zero: apology for overpopulation leading you to choose to be a zero. Be concerned about legacy: do something useful; have kids, or be a great scientist or artist. Do something!
Don't spend your whole life staring at your own navel. Spend some time staring at someone else's instead. Let's burn all the bras we want. Further notes about psychics, crystals, fortune tellers, and Deepak Chopra.
Nobel prize winner Harry Kroto, Michael Shermer, William Lane Craig, and unfortunate Templeton Foundation chumps...
More
commentary and videos on the Templeton Foundation, Nobel prize winner
Harry Kroto, Michael Shermer, William Lane Craig, and unfortunate Templeton
chumps... November 11-12, 2012.
First video above:
Harry Kroto on Templeton. Michael Shermer blows a gasket. Further commentary.
Nobel prize winner Harry Kroto criticizes the Templeton Foundation. Michael Shermer blows a gasket and childishly demands an apology. My evaluation and response. November 11 to 12, 2012
Second video above:
Templeton, Craig, Shermer, and Rand - Nov. 12, 2012
Commentary on the Templeton Foundation, William Lane Craig, Michael Shermer, and Ayn Rand. Also about Steve Paulson of To the Best of Our Knowledge on Wisconsin Public Radio. November 12, 2012.
Related notes & phrases:
Conflating science & religion. Religious apology. Apologizing for genocide. Bible. God. Big bang. Cosmology. KCPW. KUER. Libertarianism. Libertarian. Obamacare. Memetic viruses. Camel's nose. Secularism. Veterans Day. 9/11 liberals. Afghanistan. Iraq. Hitchens. Burqas.
More info on Craig in a previous post:
Friday, November 9, 2012
Mr. Muffbrain blows more smoke about consciousness and (hopefully to him & to Templeton) non-overlapping magisteria
Steve Paulson is by his own account "...a lapsed Christian who's not a strict materialist..."
One full hour of smoke blowing by Steve Paulson on consciousness:
My latest video response:
One full hour of smoke blowing by Steve Paulson on consciousness:
My latest video response:
related info and articles:
Mister Icky Poo himself William Lane Craig blowing a huge amount of very thick smoke - and brought to you by who? Templeton:
more articles found on Kauffman, Templeton, and (ick!) William Lane Craig
Stuart Kauffman erects anti-reductionistic straw man...
http://wordsofsocraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/11/stuart-kauffman-erects-anti.html
Templeton basically gloms onto and supports any "scientist," "philosopher," or "journalist" who wants to blow smoke, obfuscate, and whitewash.
Related article:
Questioning the Integrity of the John Templeton Foundation
http://www.project-reason.org/images/uploads/contest/EP0992115.pdf
William Lane Craig (a penultimate a-hole who's debated Hitchens & Harris in the past) gives a Templeton sponsored lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esqGaLSWgNc
People blowing smoke - brought you to by the Templeton Foundation...
Related articles:
Watering down science: Templeton, KCPW & KUER
Steve Paulson & Stuart Kauffman - god & religion apologists get angry at Dawkins - my response
Confirmation that KCPW receives a Templeton supported program for free: To the Best of Our Knowledge
Krista Tippett, Templeton, and the denial of basic human rights
The Templeton Bribe to journalists & scientists who whitewash the problems of religion, and who conflate science and religion
University of Utah & KUER promotes rich conservative sugar daddy's god & his religion
The distortion of science via Templeton's chumps
http://wordsofsocraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/11/stuart-kauffman-erects-anti.html
Templeton basically gloms onto and supports any "scientist," "philosopher," or "journalist" who wants to blow smoke, obfuscate, and whitewash.
Related article:
Questioning the Integrity of the John Templeton Foundation
http://www.project-reason.org/images/uploads/contest/EP0992115.pdf
William Lane Craig (a penultimate a-hole who's debated Hitchens & Harris in the past) gives a Templeton sponsored lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esqGaLSWgNc
Mister Icky Poo himself William Lane Craig blowing a huge amount of very thick smoke - and brought to you by who? Templeton:
People blowing smoke - brought you to by the Templeton Foundation...
Related articles:
Watering down science: Templeton, KCPW & KUER
Steve Paulson & Stuart Kauffman - god & religion apologists get angry at Dawkins - my response
Confirmation that KCPW receives a Templeton supported program for free: To the Best of Our Knowledge
Krista Tippett, Templeton, and the denial of basic human rights
The Templeton Bribe to journalists & scientists who whitewash the problems of religion, and who conflate science and religion
University of Utah & KUER promotes rich conservative sugar daddy's god & his religion
The distortion of science via Templeton's chumps
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Steve Paulson & Stuart Kauffman - god & religion apologists get angry at Dawkins - my response
God & Religion apologists (and Templeton chumps) Steve Paulson (SP) and Stuart Kauffman (SK) tell us, in their article at http://www.salon.com/2008/11/19/stuart_kauffman/, the following:
And here's an apt response in the comment section for the article:
by http://letters.mobile.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2008/11/19/stuart_kauffman/permalink/bba3b48ea0aec88ca7ee8f95b28f79a2.html
You guys are basically pretentious a-holes, who pretend that the only way to have awe about the Universe is through the lens of religion. It's not!
Reductionism can bring awe, and it doesn't exclude science working to explain things like morality, love, awe, and existence.
What's the history of science & religion? Religion was a first attempt, and a bad & faulty one. It got key answers wrong! And it worked very hard to kill detractors - and in Islamic countries it still does (because Islam never went through a sustained Renaissance & Enlightenment, or they're having theirs now with our help).
Where Kauffman says "...You see, Richard’s view, and those of the new atheists, is simply not going to reach out and persuade those who hold to the standard Abrahamic religious views to consider something else..."
My response: How the fuck do you know? Have you ever spent one second in any sort of a real religion? I bet not. In real religions they believe in real gods, not in just a nebulous "sense of awe." People's lives in real religion are being curtailed & suppressed. So, the light of science can and does help people see the true light!
Kauffman: "...There’s consciousness in the universe. We may not be able to explain it, but it’s true..."
Response: We'll never explain it unless we try. Science is the best method humans have developed thus far to separate fact from fiction, period. Sounds to me like you don't want us to even try to explain consciousness.
Paulson: "...And that new scientific view has no room for reductionism?"
My response: Not in your myopic Templeton-funded view of the world Steve! In your so-called "science" there's no room for honesty.
Kauffman: "...There are things that we just can’t deduce from particle physics..."
Response: No shit Stuart. That's why we also have neuroscience, and an emerging science of morality that Sam Harris has spoken of.
Kauffman: "...Physics cannot talk about values because you have to have agency to have values..."
My response: A whole boatload of smoke just came out of your bum Stew. You're blowing smoke and so is Mr. Paulson. May I suggest that you both take your heads out of your proverbial asses and check out where awe really comes from: From continuing to use science as a means of exploring! You both are essentially asking that we stop exploring! That we just sit around thinking about how things are not explainable! And that way, we can placate people still held back by the Abrahamic concept of god? I don't think so! Homey don't play that! You're both being fucking lazy!
Excuse my French and expletives my friends, but these types of bozos don't know where true awe can come from: From finding out how we really came to be here. Keep searching. Keep pushing. And when people are being oppressed by cults, just simply replacing one definition of the word god with another isn't enough! You've got to be honest about definitions, and honest about what the history of science & religion shows. Which one held humanity back for thousands of years, and which one is leading us to the stars?
SP: We should see the ceaseless creativity of nature as sacred, argues biologist Stuart Kauffman, despite what Richard Dawkins might say.
...
SP: You’ve suggested we need a new scientific worldview that goes beyond reductionism and incorporates a religious sensibility. Why?
...
SP: You don’t accept traditional beliefs about God. But are you carving out a different space from atheists, especially the scientists who are atheists?
SK: I absolutely am. Take Richard Dawkins‘ book “The God Delusion.” It’s a very good book. And I know Richard, and he lays out the atheist case well. It appeals to the billion or so of us who do not believe in a supernatural God, and who’ve hidden in the corners, particularly in the United States, where religion is so widely adhered to. But it will do no good whatsoever in bridging the gap between those who do believe in some form of God and the secular humanists like Dawkins and myself who do not. We need something else.
SP: Well, Dawkins does not want to bridge that gap. He wants to convince those religious believers that they’re wrong.
SK: Absolutely. But I think Richard is wrong. Not that there’s a supernatural god. I think that there’s something else. I think the creativity in nature is so stunning and so overwhelming that it’s God enough for me, and I think it’s God enough for many of us if we think about it. You see, Richard’s view, and those of the new atheists, is simply not going to reach out and persuade those who hold to the standard Abrahamic religious views to consider something else. Whereas I hope what I’m saying may help create a new kind of sacred space.
SP: Can you explain what emergence is?
SK There are things that we just can’t deduce from particle physics — life, agency, meaning, value and this thing called consciousness. The fact is that we can act on our own behalf and make choices. So agency is real. With agency comes value. Dinner is either good or bad. There’s consciousness in the universe. We may not be able to explain it, but it’s true. So the first new strand in the scientific worldview is emergence.
SP: And that new scientific view has no room for reductionism?
SK: Right. In physics, and in the meaningless universe of Steven Weinberg, there are only happenings. Balls roll down hills but they don’t do anything. “Doing” does not exist in physics. Physics cannot talk about values because you have to have agency to have values.... end of excerpts.
And here's an apt response in the comment section for the article:
by http://letters.mobile.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2008/11/19/stuart_kauffman/permalink/bba3b48ea0aec88ca7ee8f95b28f79a2.html
Salon must have made some deal with Steve Paulson - he has had a whole series of articles here - all with the "God" apologist message. Salon needs to get some other perspectives from Shermer, Harris, Dawkins, etc. (I know they will say that they have done that, but, not nearly as often as Paulson's stuff).And here's my own responses to Paulson & Kauffman:
This whole "atheists don't experience awe" thing is such bullshit. It is presumptive audacious pomposity. How the hell do these "god believers" know how atheists or agnostics or "non-believers" feel about "awe". I can tell you that as a former "believer" that I never felt REAL awe until I let go of the supernatural "god" stuff and started to study the real and natural world. It pissed me off that I had spent so much time with the phony baloney "awe" of religion.
And - those who say that Dawkins and other "non-believers" are "foaming at the mouth" fundamentalists is so much BS. I've never heard Dawkins speak in that manner. It just shows me that his detractors just don't like what he is saying. ...end of quote.
You guys are basically pretentious a-holes, who pretend that the only way to have awe about the Universe is through the lens of religion. It's not!
Reductionism can bring awe, and it doesn't exclude science working to explain things like morality, love, awe, and existence.
What's the history of science & religion? Religion was a first attempt, and a bad & faulty one. It got key answers wrong! And it worked very hard to kill detractors - and in Islamic countries it still does (because Islam never went through a sustained Renaissance & Enlightenment, or they're having theirs now with our help).
Where Kauffman says "...You see, Richard’s view, and those of the new atheists, is simply not going to reach out and persuade those who hold to the standard Abrahamic religious views to consider something else..."
My response: How the fuck do you know? Have you ever spent one second in any sort of a real religion? I bet not. In real religions they believe in real gods, not in just a nebulous "sense of awe." People's lives in real religion are being curtailed & suppressed. So, the light of science can and does help people see the true light!
Kauffman: "...There’s consciousness in the universe. We may not be able to explain it, but it’s true..."
Response: We'll never explain it unless we try. Science is the best method humans have developed thus far to separate fact from fiction, period. Sounds to me like you don't want us to even try to explain consciousness.
Paulson: "...And that new scientific view has no room for reductionism?"
My response: Not in your myopic Templeton-funded view of the world Steve! In your so-called "science" there's no room for honesty.
Kauffman: "...There are things that we just can’t deduce from particle physics..."
Response: No shit Stuart. That's why we also have neuroscience, and an emerging science of morality that Sam Harris has spoken of.
Kauffman: "...Physics cannot talk about values because you have to have agency to have values..."
My response: A whole boatload of smoke just came out of your bum Stew. You're blowing smoke and so is Mr. Paulson. May I suggest that you both take your heads out of your proverbial asses and check out where awe really comes from: From continuing to use science as a means of exploring! You both are essentially asking that we stop exploring! That we just sit around thinking about how things are not explainable! And that way, we can placate people still held back by the Abrahamic concept of god? I don't think so! Homey don't play that! You're both being fucking lazy!
Excuse my French and expletives my friends, but these types of bozos don't know where true awe can come from: From finding out how we really came to be here. Keep searching. Keep pushing. And when people are being oppressed by cults, just simply replacing one definition of the word god with another isn't enough! You've got to be honest about definitions, and honest about what the history of science & religion shows. Which one held humanity back for thousands of years, and which one is leading us to the stars?
Confirmation that KCPW receives a Templeton supported program for free: To the Best of Our Knowledge
Copy of email received from KCPW confirming that they recieve To the Best of Our Knowledge for free:
Subject: Re: drop To the best of our knowledge, move the Takeaway back to live, and drop Car Talk
From: Eric Ray <eray@kcpw.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:20:36 -0600
Jonathan,
Thanks for your note. We always appreciate hearing from our listeners. Let me address the programs you have mentioned.
To The Best of Our Knowledge: You obviously have strong things to say about the show's content, and it may not be your thing, however it's obvious by our ratings that the show does have a fair share of listeners. And to your point that KCPW would save money by dropping the show. Well, the show comes to KCPW free of charge, so no, we would not save money by dropping the program, but would likely have to pay if we were to look for a replacement.
The Takeaway: This is a tough one. We were shocked when the show was re-purposed as an afternoon news magazine and removed from the morning hours. That said, the show is live during our 7 am hour - which would mean breaking up the flow of Morning Edition with a random hour of The Takeaway - and any program director would tell you that's not good programming. Unfortunately with shows produced on the east coast, west coast stations suffer. We feel having a news magazine hour during the lunch hour is best for KCPW, despite our listeners not having the opportunity to participate. We have the same issue with On Point.
Car Talk: You are correct here, which is why KCPW /has/ cancelled the program. We announced the cancellation in August and only ran the program through the end of the new episodes. We now air The Moth Radio Hour on Saturday and Sunday mornings.
Eric Ray
Station Manager/Program Director
KCPW 88.3 and 105.3 FM
Salt Lake City, Utah
eray@kcpw.org
On 10/26/2012 9:55 AM, Jonathan wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> As a contributor to KCPW and a listener (under FCC regulations) I
> would like to make the following programming suggestion:
>
> Drop the show, To the best of our knowledge.
>
> The show is largely a front for pseudoscience and obfuscationary
> religious apologetics and white washing, and the group the Templeton
> Foundation, whose mission is to fund such things.
>
> Please replace the show with something more useful and helpful. KUER
> refuses to drop the show. You can save money & all our our time by
> dropping it from your schedule.
>
> Secondly I would like to suggest that the show The Takeway can only
> really be useful if it's live. A big part of the show is near real
> time interaction with listeners. Tape delaying the show means we don't
> really get to participate.
>
> Lastly & sadly, please drop Car Talk. This long running show is, from
> what I understand, on near-permanent re-run status, with possibly
> occasional more recent inserts popped in. The operators of the program
> really aren't making new material - just digging up old stuff.
>
> http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/08/entertainment/la-et-st-car-talks-click-and-clack-ends-20120608
>
...end of quote
Subject: Re: drop To the best of our knowledge, move the Takeaway back to live, and drop Car Talk
From: Eric Ray <eray@kcpw.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:20:36 -0600
Jonathan,
Thanks for your note. We always appreciate hearing from our listeners. Let me address the programs you have mentioned.
To The Best of Our Knowledge: You obviously have strong things to say about the show's content, and it may not be your thing, however it's obvious by our ratings that the show does have a fair share of listeners. And to your point that KCPW would save money by dropping the show. Well, the show comes to KCPW free of charge, so no, we would not save money by dropping the program, but would likely have to pay if we were to look for a replacement.
The Takeaway: This is a tough one. We were shocked when the show was re-purposed as an afternoon news magazine and removed from the morning hours. That said, the show is live during our 7 am hour - which would mean breaking up the flow of Morning Edition with a random hour of The Takeaway - and any program director would tell you that's not good programming. Unfortunately with shows produced on the east coast, west coast stations suffer. We feel having a news magazine hour during the lunch hour is best for KCPW, despite our listeners not having the opportunity to participate. We have the same issue with On Point.
Car Talk: You are correct here, which is why KCPW /has/ cancelled the program. We announced the cancellation in August and only ran the program through the end of the new episodes. We now air The Moth Radio Hour on Saturday and Sunday mornings.
Eric Ray
Station Manager/Program Director
KCPW 88.3 and 105.3 FM
Salt Lake City, Utah
eray@kcpw.org
On 10/26/2012 9:55 AM, Jonathan wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> As a contributor to KCPW and a listener (under FCC regulations) I
> would like to make the following programming suggestion:
>
> Drop the show, To the best of our knowledge.
>
> The show is largely a front for pseudoscience and obfuscationary
> religious apologetics and white washing, and the group the Templeton
> Foundation, whose mission is to fund such things.
>
> Please replace the show with something more useful and helpful. KUER
> refuses to drop the show. You can save money & all our our time by
> dropping it from your schedule.
>
> Secondly I would like to suggest that the show The Takeway can only
> really be useful if it's live. A big part of the show is near real
> time interaction with listeners. Tape delaying the show means we don't
> really get to participate.
>
> Lastly & sadly, please drop Car Talk. This long running show is, from
> what I understand, on near-permanent re-run status, with possibly
> occasional more recent inserts popped in. The operators of the program
> really aren't making new material - just digging up old stuff.
>
> http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/08/entertainment/la-et-st-car-talks-click-and-clack-ends-20120608
>
...end of quote
Watering down science: Templeton, KCPW & KUER
Draft email to: esweeney@kcpw.org, eray@kcpw.org
cc: news@kuer.org, Mike.Crane@wpr.org
For the FCC comment files, regarding KCPW, KUER, and Wisconsin Public Radio:
Here's the most recent things we've learned about the Templeton sponsored show, To the Best of Our Knowledge:
1. On KCPW, they receive it for free. Presumably there's a similar situation over at KUER.
2. Popularity is more important than content at some public radio stations.
3. Stations receiving government funding refuse to cancel this religion-advocacy program.
Templeton is apparently enabling their flagship To the Best of Our Knowledge program to sneak under the radar, rather in a similar fashion to how "creation science" advocates try to sneak religion into science class. Same smoke & mirrors.
Remember when KCPW lost 1010 AM to a Catholic radio station? I would imagine that the current owners of 1010 AM in Utah would be more than willing to their programs also on 88.3 and 105.3 FM in Salt Lake - for free. And I bet KCPW could find an audience for this. Or how about: Rush. Howard Stern. Sports. Or some other radio equivalent of porn? As long as it's popular, that's the most important thing, right? But, here's a more accurate and rational response to this Templeton-connected snake oil being foisting upon us:
By Dr. Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago:
as from http://whyevolutionistrue.
Steve Paulson, a "journalist" on To the Best of Our Knowledge, has been honored in a high profile way by the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Program in Science & Religion. http://www.templeton-
So, what's the deal with the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Program?
as from http://old.richarddawkins.net/
So, presumably this letter I am sending is reaching people who claim to be "journalists," right? Can you follow the money?
Dawkins claims that journalists get paid to go to Templeton sponsored conferences?!? And, their camel's-nose-under-the-tent radio program To the Best of Our Knowledge gets carried for free on KCPW & presumably on other so-called public radio stations? What's going on here?
From Gil Gaudia:
On a recent To the Best of our Knowledge program KCPW and KUER listeners were subjected to hearing a woman bemoan the fact that her son no longer believed in God.
Who's god?
Which god?
It's not up to my public radio stations to ask that I believe in any gods or any religion. That's what the Catholic station on 1010 AM here is for. It's what the other Bible beater stations are for.
Enough is enough. The religions have their channel he Bible Beaters have their channels. Rush has his. The sports freaks have theirs. And, the little spaces taken up by public radio are supposed to be for the rest of us - those of us who are children of the Enlightenment. Your taking on this program is a betrayal of that and of our trust.
----end of draft message
Further details via past blog posts:
Steve Paulson & Stuart Kauffman - god & religion apologists get angry at Dawkins - my response
Confirmation that KCPW receives a Templeton supported program for free: To the Best of Our Knowledge
more articles found on Kauffman, Templeton, and (ick!) William Lane Craig
Mr. Muffbrain blows more smoke about consciousness and (hopefully to him & to Templeton) non-overlapping magisteria
Krista Tippett, Templeton, and the denial of basic human rights
The Templeton Bribe to journalists & scientists who whitewash the problems of religion, and who conflate science and religion
University of Utah & KUER promotes rich conservative sugar daddy's god & his religion
The distortion of science via Templeton's chumps
Related videos:
More videos at: Mr. Muffbrain blows more smoke about consciousness and (hopefully to him & to Templeton) non-overlapping magisteria
cc: news@kuer.org, Mike.Crane@wpr.org
For the FCC comment files, regarding KCPW, KUER, and Wisconsin Public Radio:
Here's the most recent things we've learned about the Templeton sponsored show, To the Best of Our Knowledge:
1. On KCPW, they receive it for free. Presumably there's a similar situation over at KUER.
2. Popularity is more important than content at some public radio stations.
3. Stations receiving government funding refuse to cancel this religion-advocacy program.
Templeton is apparently enabling their flagship To the Best of Our Knowledge program to sneak under the radar, rather in a similar fashion to how "creation science" advocates try to sneak religion into science class. Same smoke & mirrors.
Remember when KCPW lost 1010 AM to a Catholic radio station? I would imagine that the current owners of 1010 AM in Utah would be more than willing to their programs also on 88.3 and 105.3 FM in Salt Lake - for free. And I bet KCPW could find an audience for this. Or how about: Rush. Howard Stern. Sports. Or some other radio equivalent of porn? As long as it's popular, that's the most important thing, right? But, here's a more accurate and rational response to this Templeton-connected snake oil being foisting upon us:
By Dr. Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago:
"...I know I bang on about Templeton and its prizes and huge grants, but I see the Templeton Foundation as the #1 force in America devoted to watering down science with religion, thereby confusing the two and eroding habits of rational thinking..."
as from http://whyevolutionistrue.
Steve Paulson, a "journalist" on To the Best of Our Knowledge, has been honored in a high profile way by the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Program in Science & Religion. http://www.templeton-
So, what's the deal with the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Program?
"The Templeton Foundation organizes an annual meeting in Cambridge where science journalists are invited (and paid very handsomely, not to speak but to listen! When were you last paid to go and be a part of the audience at a conference?). A few years ago, when I was more naive than I am now (and not knowing that the audience were being paid to listen) I agreed to speak (unpaid) at one of these meetings (I described the experience in The God Delusion.) If I were invited again, I would decline – indeed I did decline when I was invited the following year. One of this year's paid journalists, Edwin Cartlidge, wrote a letter to Anthony Grayling and Daniel Dennett, soliciting their cooperation. These two distinguished philosophers shared their correspondence with a group of people, including me. Dan's and Anthony's reasons for not cooperating with Templeton seemed to me so good, and so well expressed, that I suggested that they should be more widely publicized. All three gentlemen gave their permission. In Mr Cartlidge's case it was especially gracious of him because he is obviously vulnerable to being tarred with the Templeton brush. I hope that commenters on this thread will reserve their fire for the Templeton organization rather than Edwin Cartlidge himself. I see him as in much the same position I was in when I agreed to go, a victim of exactly the kind of subversion of science that Templeton is making its specialty.
Richard Dawkins"
as from http://old.richarddawkins.net/
So, presumably this letter I am sending is reaching people who claim to be "journalists," right? Can you follow the money?
Dawkins claims that journalists get paid to go to Templeton sponsored conferences?!? And, their camel's-nose-under-the-tent radio program To the Best of Our Knowledge gets carried for free on KCPW & presumably on other so-called public radio stations? What's going on here?
From Gil Gaudia:
"The Camel Is Heading for Your Tentas from http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/
...
In October 2007, the Bible Literacy Project (BLP) reported that their glitzy textbook The Bible and Its Influence had been adopted by the Alabama State Board of Education, which unanimously approved it for statewide use as a comprehensive program. "This is major news in the field of education," said Bible Literacy Project Chairman Chuck Stetson. "While academic study of the Bible is legal in all 50 states, this decision means that any school in the state of Alabama can purchase our textbook with state-provided funds until 2013."
BLP is a study that was funded by the John Templeton Foundation, an organization that attempts to appear ideologically neutral, but nevertheless appears to be behind many efforts to "Christianize" American politics and education, indeed the country. A typical example of the type of funding The Templeton Foundation provides is one announced recently by the Baylor University News, "the Institute for Studies of Religion (ISR) has received a $378,862 grant from the John Templeton Foundation to fund ISR's Initiative on the Economics of Religion ... (F)our scholars [will use the funds] to investigate the connection between religion and economic growth and the effects of government intervention in religious markets on the practice of religion."
According to Media Transparency, an organization that tracks funding for conservative causes, a few of the recent top recipients of Templeton dough (and how much dough), are self-evidently connected to religion. They include "Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences" ($23,122,319); "Philadelphia Center for Religion and Science" ($4,811,892); "Science and Spirit Resources, Inc." ($4,632,933); "Metanexus Institute on Religion and Science" ($4,762,514); and the "Association of Unity Churches" ($3,509,971)..."
On a recent To the Best of our Knowledge program KCPW and KUER listeners were subjected to hearing a woman bemoan the fact that her son no longer believed in God.
Who's god?
Which god?
It's not up to my public radio stations to ask that I believe in any gods or any religion. That's what the Catholic station on 1010 AM here is for. It's what the other Bible beater stations are for.
Enough is enough. The religions have their channel he Bible Beaters have their channels. Rush has his. The sports freaks have theirs. And, the little spaces taken up by public radio are supposed to be for the rest of us - those of us who are children of the Enlightenment. Your taking on this program is a betrayal of that and of our trust.
----end of draft message
Further details via past blog posts:
Steve Paulson & Stuart Kauffman - god & religion apologists get angry at Dawkins - my response
Confirmation that KCPW receives a Templeton supported program for free: To the Best of Our Knowledge
more articles found on Kauffman, Templeton, and (ick!) William Lane Craig
Mr. Muffbrain blows more smoke about consciousness and (hopefully to him & to Templeton) non-overlapping magisteria
Krista Tippett, Templeton, and the denial of basic human rights
The Templeton Bribe to journalists & scientists who whitewash the problems of religion, and who conflate science and religion
University of Utah & KUER promotes rich conservative sugar daddy's god & his religion
The distortion of science via Templeton's chumps
Related videos:
More videos at: Mr. Muffbrain blows more smoke about consciousness and (hopefully to him & to Templeton) non-overlapping magisteria
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Yes-Bama! - you Ayn Randian Social Darwinistic Psychopaths!
He did it! We did it! Obama won, over the Ayn Rand & Ron Paul idiots, the social Darwinists, and the sociopaths and psychopaths.
Psychics are charlatans who prey on the gullible and uneducated
Psychics are, generally speaking, charlatans who use word games and common sense to prey upon the gullible and uneducated. Good work if you can get it, but let's not pretend that it should ever be taken seriously.
Good videos:
By Richard Dawkins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1ejmKC_DiM
Derren Brown - longer interview - part 1 of 6:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idVxRE8uM-A
Derren Brown on faith healers - similar charlatans to psychics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYjgeayfYPI
"...where hope is peddled at the price."
James Randi exposes James Hydrick:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc
BBC on the issue - exposes three mediums:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qGfNViVN8
Penn & Teller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQnqRaVT9tY
Psychics are leeches, sometimes self-deceived, often damaging, and always either wrong or right by fucking happenstance.
Similarly, we can easily replace the title "psychic" with "cultish religious founder." Same people. Same difference. Same result.
Good videos:
By Richard Dawkins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1ejmKC_DiM
Derren Brown - longer interview - part 1 of 6:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idVxRE8uM-A
Derren Brown on faith healers - similar charlatans to psychics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYjgeayfYPI
"...where hope is peddled at the price."
James Randi exposes James Hydrick:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc
BBC on the issue - exposes three mediums:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qGfNViVN8
Penn & Teller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQnqRaVT9tY
Psychics are leeches, sometimes self-deceived, often damaging, and always either wrong or right by fucking happenstance.
Similarly, we can easily replace the title "psychic" with "cultish religious founder." Same people. Same difference. Same result.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Hypocrisy and a pointed lack of morality with Mormon religious leaders
Fawn Brodie helped unearth info about Smith's horn dog and womanizing ways. http://wivesofjosephsmith.org/
He liked them young and also simultaneously married to other men. His second brain apparently gave him revelations all the time about women his "god" intended him to meet and marry. Brigham Young had a similar proclivity. Here's Mark Twain's comments on Young's wives:
http://www.telelib.com/authors/T/TwainMark/prose/roughingit/roughingit15.html
"...Brigham Young’s harem contains twenty or thirty wives. They said that some of them had grown old and gone out of active service, but were comfortably housed and cared for in the henery..." - from Roughing It chaper XV
Also "...Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter.
I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here—until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically 'homely' creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, 'No—the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure—and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence.'"
...as from Roughing It chapter XIV
http://www.telelib.com/authors/T/TwainMark/prose/roughingit/roughingit14.html
Maybe Young's wives were homely, although perhaps when they were younger they looked better. But in any case the morality of Smith & Young is a stark contrast to the crazed puritanism of people like Spencer Kimball & Boyd Packer, and Kimball's hate filled book Miracle of Forgiveness - used as a virtual bible for all young Mormons to help them learn to fear normal human sexuality.
Review: http://www.amazon.com/review/RTF9W8850RNTE
"This book is a negativistic, manipulative, hate-filled waste of paper and ink, written by a guy who had no professional training in Religion, Philosophy, Divinity, Psychology or any other field that might qualify him to provide counseling for individuals who are going through some sort of crisis. In short, Mr. Kimball is only capable of repeating lame nineteenth-century folk superstitions as solutions to real problems in life. This man's advice, as codified in this book, has ruined countless peoples' lives - some to the point where they completely lost hope and killed themselves. What kind of counseling is that? If you have a personal moral or spiritual dilemma, go to a trained professional: avoid this garbage and save your sanity and your life."
Damn fucking right.
Related bio on David Koresh:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0466205/bio
"...Koresh got married to a 14 year old girl but decided that he could have a 'harem of many wives' as he wanted..."
Carl Sagan is much more refreshing. Too bad many religions don't let you be intellectually and emotionally honest while simultaneously being a member.
He liked them young and also simultaneously married to other men. His second brain apparently gave him revelations all the time about women his "god" intended him to meet and marry. Brigham Young had a similar proclivity. Here's Mark Twain's comments on Young's wives:
http://www.telelib.com/authors/T/TwainMark/prose/roughingit/roughingit15.html
"...Brigham Young’s harem contains twenty or thirty wives. They said that some of them had grown old and gone out of active service, but were comfortably housed and cared for in the henery..." - from Roughing It chaper XV
Also "...Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter.
I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here—until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically 'homely' creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, 'No—the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure—and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence.'"
...as from Roughing It chapter XIV
http://www.telelib.com/authors/T/TwainMark/prose/roughingit/roughingit14.html
Maybe Young's wives were homely, although perhaps when they were younger they looked better. But in any case the morality of Smith & Young is a stark contrast to the crazed puritanism of people like Spencer Kimball & Boyd Packer, and Kimball's hate filled book Miracle of Forgiveness - used as a virtual bible for all young Mormons to help them learn to fear normal human sexuality.
Review: http://www.amazon.com/review/RTF9W8850RNTE
"This book is a negativistic, manipulative, hate-filled waste of paper and ink, written by a guy who had no professional training in Religion, Philosophy, Divinity, Psychology or any other field that might qualify him to provide counseling for individuals who are going through some sort of crisis. In short, Mr. Kimball is only capable of repeating lame nineteenth-century folk superstitions as solutions to real problems in life. This man's advice, as codified in this book, has ruined countless peoples' lives - some to the point where they completely lost hope and killed themselves. What kind of counseling is that? If you have a personal moral or spiritual dilemma, go to a trained professional: avoid this garbage and save your sanity and your life."
Damn fucking right.
Related bio on David Koresh:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0466205/bio
"...Koresh got married to a 14 year old girl but decided that he could have a 'harem of many wives' as he wanted..."
Carl Sagan is much more refreshing. Too bad many religions don't let you be intellectually and emotionally honest while simultaneously being a member.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Exmormon conference, PTSD, and angry Muslims protesting against atheists in Australia
Yesterday at the Exmormon Foundation
conference we heard a man speak about how his Mormon mission gave him
PTSD.
Photos: http://public.fotki.com/petcrows-October-2012/10-20-12/
video: http://www.56.com/u13/v_NzcwNzk3MzA.html
More info with conference audio coming soon:
http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/conference2012.html
--------------------
Angry Muslims protesting against atheists in Australia:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCfwcd_Ajg4
Notice how the Muslims want key atheists to burn in hell, or die.
What is the appropriate response to such threats? MORE SPEECH.
Here's a good example of such courageous and apparently appropriate speech - the recent Charlie Hebdo cartoons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4A5Y67Q5TM
It's worth noting that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live with round the clock security. Having to live your life with security guards around all the time does I'm sure tend to sharpen your perspective.
Her recent Newsweek article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/16/ayaan-hirsi-ali-on-the-islamists-final-stand.html
Photos: http://public.fotki.com/petcrows-October-2012/10-20-12/
video: http://www.56.com/u13/v_NzcwNzk3MzA.html
More info with conference audio coming soon:
http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/conference2012.html
--------------------
Angry Muslims protesting against atheists in Australia:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCfwcd_Ajg4
Notice how the Muslims want key atheists to burn in hell, or die.
What is the appropriate response to such threats? MORE SPEECH.
Here's a good example of such courageous and apparently appropriate speech - the recent Charlie Hebdo cartoons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4A5Y67Q5TM
It's worth noting that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live with round the clock security. Having to live your life with security guards around all the time does I'm sure tend to sharpen your perspective.
Her recent Newsweek article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/16/ayaan-hirsi-ali-on-the-islamists-final-stand.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)