Berlzebub's Inferno

Something I Feel the Need to Say

2012-01-05T06:00:00.000-05:00

I believe this post will be easy to write, but harder to publish. The content has been running around in my head for a while, but the words have been difficult to organize.

Anyway, this past November I made my fourtieth full orbit around the Sun. That didn't actually bother me, and the family didn't make a big to-do about it. The thinking involved with this post started after that, during the holidaze (spelling intentional).

This year I was able to take the time off between the hijacked holiday known as Christmas, and New Years. That gave me time to spend with my family, and give my wife some relief with having all three of our little ones home at the same time... all day.

During that week, when Munchkin, Monkey, and Bear were playing with the boxes their presents came in, I started thinking. I want my children to be honest about who they are. How can I do that when I'm not honest about who I am?

Everyone who regularly reads this blog knows I'm an atheist. However, offline I'm only out to a handful of people. My wife and a handful of my friends know I'm an atheist, but I'm not actually "out". While I'm not actually living a lie, since no one ever asks, I still feel like I'm being disingenuous.

Before I was telling myself that it was for the sake of my family. Since I left home, and even since I let go of my delusion, my parents have become more religious. Padre is actually an elder in a local Baptist church. I can hope that if he found out that we could have a rational discussion about it, but somehow I'm doubtful. Still, I'm avoiding the elephant in the room in order to accomodate and keep the piece. While my parents are important to me, and I love them dearly, that shouldn't stop me from being who I am. If they can't accept that their son is still the same person they tell me they love even though I don't believe in their god, then they're no better than the god they worship who says I have to believe in him, no matter how good of a person I am, or after I die I'm going to suffer eternal punishment.

With my wife, daughters, friends, and family in mind I've decided to be honest about myself. This will probably sound angry to some, but I'm writing this while feeling as calm as I have felt in a long time.

With what I wrote above you already know I'm an atheist, if you didn't already. There's more though, and I'm only scratching the surface here. I have found no reason to believe in any gods, and substantial reasons not to believe in them. I spent my youth going to church but never quite understanding what everyone was speaking in tongues about (yes, I periodically attended Pentecostal church during my formative years). I never felt that thing they all spoke of feeling though, except when I listened to a particual piece of music that I felt a kinship with. I just figured it would come in time, but essentially I was agnostic with deistic leanings.

Then, I got older, things happened, and I started to question. For quite a while I asked, begged, and then pleaded for some sort of evidence of its existence. I figured it was all-knowing and all-powerful, so it would know what evidence I needed. When that didn't work I started doing some searching. The internet is a wonderful thing, because you can find all sorts of arguments for a deity's existence. Unfortunately, none of them were evidence. At best they were hearsay, and at worst they were outright deceitful.

Well, it wasn't going to take that route to retain my soul, apparently. I decided to read the Bible, again. I'd read bits and pieces before, but only with someone telling me what page to turn to and what it meant, on Sundays. It wasn't easy to read, to say the least. It felt like the equivalent of reading the unabridged The Three Musketeers. I still worked my way through it, until I got bored and started doing those fast forwards you did in high school when the teacher assigned you a book to write a report on, and the book wasn't one you would have ever picked for yourself. That's when I stumbled on Leviticus. Yeah, apparently god wanted his chosen to be a baseball team, because he had them practicing hurling stones... A LOT. And I'm not sure what method was to be used for "put to death", but that was a popular one, too.

Well, maybe the Bible isn't real, but god does exist. That was my next train of thought. Fortunately, I was honest enough with myself to continue on to the conclusion that it was unnecessary. My faith didn't shatter. There was no defining moment when I can say, "That's when I became an atheist." At some point I simply did the mental equivalent of tossing the last shred of my belief in the trashcan, as I walked by it on my way to something more important.

There wasn't any earth shattering realization, no tears, and no cries of anguish. I just realized that somewhere along the line I'd gotten rid of it. I might have even given a little grin and shake of my head, and said, "Huh."

However, the gravity of the situation soon settled in. My wife was a non-practicing Roman Catholic (who has since told her mom that she doesn't consider herself Catholic), so that wasn't a huge concern. Some concern? Yes. Enough that I basically blurted it out one evening. She was shocked, but we worked through it.

Still, there was my parents, and I didn't want to address that particular issue. Princess even suggested just letting it go, since we rarely see them and they live several hours away.

Then, the Creation Mausoleum came to town, and I read some of the things on their website and press releases in the newspaper. To call it jawdropping is an understatement. They were either deliberately lieing, or stupid. I can't say ignorant, because when their errors were pointed out they stuck to their guns. That galvanized me to start an online personae, and I already had a nickname to use from a previous job.

Questioning and letting go of my tenuous belief in any possibility of gods led me to start questioning other beliefs. Gradually, I started examining and letting go of all sorts of supernatural beliefs. Since I'd already dispensed with the biggie, those weren't that difficult. Soon those beliefs started following the previous one into that mental trashcan, and then I started on what I came to know as pseudo-science. UFOs, AltMed, Cryptids, and various other minor but no less unfounded beliefs began to pile on top of the previous ones that had already lined the bottom of that trashcan.

Keep in mind that with questioning came research, and I spent quite a bit of time viewing both sides of several debates (a mild term in many cases). Then I started going back to look at several of the places I'd previously visited, because you can bookmark sites on the internet, you know. Most of those were religious, and I came to my own realization. Jesse Ventura was wrong.

“Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers.”

No, organized religion, and even mystical/magical/supernatural thinking is not a crutch. It's a broken leg. A crutch will still help you move forward, but what I was seeing impeded progress.

Organized Religion doesn't want people to question, without questioning there is no forward progress, and without progress nothing changes. With the supernatural people arrive at a conclusion that gives them the warm fuzzies, and they never try to learn more or continue forward. Fortunately, there are some, even inside religion, that are willing to question the status quo and come to their own decisions, but they are mostly a silent group.

I want things to move forward, to the point that I almost feel the need for it to. Not just for me, but for Princess, Munchkin, Monkey, Bear, and the rest of humanity. I don't want the following generations to have a better life, but I want mine to also. That's why I'm vehemently against religion, and all forms of supernatural/woo thinking.

The interesting thing is how opposite things have been from what most outsiders will hear about being an atheist, at least if they only listen to the blowhards in the pulpit. A few examples...

You can't be good without God.

Perhaps you can't, but maybe I'm just a better person than you. When I realized that no deity exists, I didn't start thinking about who I wanted to rape or murder.

An atheist just wants to be a nihilist and/or hedonist.

Actually, I'm just trying to find out the truth about the cosmos, and how to make it better.

Being an atheist is easy, because you can believe you can do anything you want.

Ummm... No. Your imaginary friend's lack of existence does not mean society doesn't exist. Even without society to keep a person from going completely homocidal, some of us are able to think for ourselves and come to our own decisions.

To me, being an atheist means thinking for yourself, and I mean truly thinking. Before you react to anything you have to think, which is counter to instincts (automatic and/or learned reactions). If your kneejerk reaction to something is negative, you have to stop and question why. Don't just allow your instincts and emotions to rule you, but force yourself to examine your instinctive reaction and then modify it to what is appropriate. Many of your instincts are related to your past experience and beliefs.

I'm a better person now that I've honestly examined myself and my beliefs, and I intend on being a better person still. I avoid lieing at any cost, but now I'm going to be more forthright. I realize that doing so may come to the attention family and friends, and may alienate some or all of the same. So be it. I'll deal with that when or if it occurs. I can only be who and what I am, and love and cherish those who accept me for that.

I can only hope that those who learn of this aspect of me are smart and decent enough to leave my wife and children out of it.

My name is Berlie Parks, and I am an atheist.

The Bad Book

2011-09-22T18:00:00.000-04:00

Hemant posted a few days ago about an atheist group who planned on ripping certain pages out of a bible in demonstration. I made a comment, and the comments and responses that followed got me to thinking.

Over 200 hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson decided the Bible needed fixed. He cut up a bible and pasted the passages that he kept into his own book, which came to be known as The Jefferson Bible. I like the concept, but something seemed lacking. Then, when Hemant talked about what the atheist group was planning, it clicked.

What if I made a book of the parts of the bible that pointed to why I couldn't worship, or even respect, God if he did exist? Many atheists talk about one of the first steps toward their non-belief being actually reading the bible. Perhaps pointing out the atrocious behavior of the supernatural being that they hold in such high regard will get the followers to questioning. Maybe they'll start reading the parts of the book that they haven't been told or taught about, and find out that their "loving" God is nothing of the sort.

Even then, I know there are some who will attempt to rationalize it, but those aren't the ones I'm interested in reaching. I'm not trying to deconvert anyone, although I wouldn't be opposed to it. I just want people to start thinking for themselves and questioning what they're being told. In the most recent exchange with my coworker, he said

He doesn’t want meaningless worship or mindless obedience.

Well, maybe his followers should actually do that. Stop saying they worship and obey, but look closely at the actions of the being that they claim to hold in such high regard.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to look around for a digital copy of the bible so I can start a cut/paste project.

Exchange with a Coworker: "It's Not About Me"

2011-08-17T19:00:00.000-04:00

My coworker responded to my previous letter. He actually responded in February, but other things have made me unable to start a response to him, and still others have kept me from blogging. Below the fold you can read what he wrote.

It’s Not About Me 2011-02-10

Why do I believe that God is worthy of my worship? Indeed a very appropriate question for anyone looking for answers.

I have to tell you since you asked your question I have thought about it and started to answer it several times. But each time my answers started with, “God did this in my life” or “He answered this or that prayer” or “I can see him working either in my life and other people’s lives”. All this is true and do I see lives changed and people who now have hope where once there was none. All these answers are evidences that God “is” and is active in the lives of people. We can discuss the details some other time if you want but each time I reviewed my answer, it just wasn’t right. The main reason God is worthy of worship was not in my answer. The point is it’s not about my life or anyone else’s life that makes him worthy of my praise and worship.

The reason God is worthy of my worship and the worship of all mankind is because he is who he claims to be. He is the all-knowing, all-powerful and ever-present creator God. He is God who created the heavens and the earth and everything contained within it. His Word tells us that He created the universe with the sun, the earth and the moon. He spoke the stars into existence and created every living thing. His Word tells us that His creation is evidence for all man to see and to know that He exists and that we are without excuse.

The Bible tells us He created man and that when he created man he said “let us make man in our image”. The word “us” of course refers to a concept which is difficult for us to get our heads around but the “us” is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. They were all there at the creation and all three are all one God. Man is made in the image of God was created with a soul which means he can live for eternity. The Bible states that after creating man He said, “It is very good.”

We are told that God created mankind for a reason and that is because He wants a relationship. He told the first man and woman to multiply. He looked forward to having a personal relationship with each person. But at the same time he chose not to force his will on us. We are given a choice because he wants people to love him for who He is and because they want to have a relationship with him. He doesn’t want meaningless worship or mindless obedience. In his sovereignty he graciously gives us the freedom to choose whether or not to submit to his rule.

Having made us in his “image” he has provided us with everything we need to know and understand him. He’s given us the ability to think and reason. He used several different men to deliver his messages throughout the centuries to pass along to us and had them write it down for all to know. This is His Word, the Bible. He gave us the ability to understand what he’s telling us in his Word but we have to read and study it in order to know him.

In his infinite wisdom he knew everyone would not belief in Him because they would be led astray by Satan’s lies. Many would forget Him and some would question that he even existed. He knew many would turn away from Him and device their own schemes to worship something else, some man-made object or themselves. So even before the world and man was created he had a plan save us. This plan was to send his Son to be the ultimate sacrifice for mankind to reconcile us to him. He sent his Son to earth to die for our sins and make a way for our willing submission to him. Because He is a God of grace and mercy He would offer his own Son as the perfect sacrifice and take our sins upon himself and nail them to the cross. He paid our penalty. After Jesus died on the cross he was laid in a tomb and on the third day he arose from the grave. His love for mankind, his grace and mercy is part of God’s character and who he is. That’s not all of God’s character but that is part of it. What he has done for us shows that he is worthy of worship. The only thing he asks us to do is to “believe in the one whom he has sent” and accept him as their Lord and Savior. Raising his own son from the dead proves that he can do it and he has promised to do the same for all who believe and are faithful to him.

The reason God is worthy of my worship is because of the Gospel…the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was foretold several times in the Old Testament that the Messiah was coming. The Gospels of the New Testament tells of Jesus’ birth, life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension. These along with the rest of the New Testament tell us the beginning of the early church and that Jesus is coming again one day and the dead in Christ will be raised to be with him in glory.

My worship and praise of God is because of who He is and the Gospel story of Jesus.
So, it’s not about me at all or what he has done for me physically on this earth. It’s not about us or any human being. Answered prayer, changed lives and everything He does for us is just evidence that He is there and that he cares for us. It’s not about us rather it’s all about God, his glory, his mercy and his grace. It’s about him loving us so much that he sent his one and only Son to die on the cross for us in our place. As Paul puts it, it’s about the Gospel or “Good News” of Jesus Christ. He is worthy of my worship because of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is worthy to be worshipped and worthy of all glory.

Part of the reason I haven't gotten around to this is the number of times I've read it. My coworker is a nice guy, but reading his "thoughts" has me slightly disturbed. The absence of personal responsibility for moral actions has me confounded.

Now, I'm trying to figure out a diplomatic way to point out the inconsistencies of the message my coworker is trying to convey. He seems to mean well, but it comes off as if he's endorsing tyranny. I'm going to have to be *very* diplomatic with my response.

How I "Get It"

2011-07-07T19:00:00.003-04:00

(For a backstory on why I'm writing this, see here.)

I'm not small in stature. I stand around six foot two in my bare feet, and weigh nearly two hundred pounds in less clothes than I'd be comfortable describing. However, I think I have some idea of the concerns voiced by the women on several blogs that I frequently visit.

It started in elementary school. The combination of a small frame and a short height made me a target of those sought power over those weaker than them. It didn't help matters that I did very well in math and science, and wore glasses. During trips to the restroom I had a mental stopwatch that told me how long I had before someone else came in, if there was no one in the hallway before I entered. However, even in the classroom I wasn't safe if the teacher had to leave the room for some reason. I did have some I could depend on for protection, but if they weren't around I was a target.

This went on for years. To my recollection, I spent the better part of five years constantly aware of how vulnerable and weak I was compared to many others in my school.

My first two years of high school was a nightmare. The high school I attended held the eighth through twelfth grade students. At five feet tall, and not even a hundred pounds, I was considered a target from day one. I had to deal with, which primarily meant avoid, all of the stereotypical bullies. The first month of school was spent figuring out which ones I could trust, which ones would provide protection, and which ones to avoid at all cost.

However, in the late ninth and early tenth grades things started to change. I got taller. I was still thin, but a great deal of physical activity gave me enough muscle tone for it to be noticable. Things got easier. It didn't become a cakewalk, because I still had to be aware of the ratio of those who didn't like me compared to me. If only one came into the bathroom I no longer flinched and started trying to figure out how to get by them and to the door, though.

Eventually, I made it through high school, and went on to college. There I found a group of people who were more concerned with what education could do with their future than intimidating and bullying those weaker then them. Granted, even there I found one instance of someone bullying another. It's one of my proudest moments when I told the one doing the bullying to not do that... ever again, in no uncertain terms.

Even though that time of weakness and vulnerability was over twenty years ago, I can still vividly recall it. Constantly checking my surroudings to see if I have allies or failing that at least an absence of enemies, having to juggle the joy of learning with the dread of bullying, and most of all -and this is really important- knowing that no one other than those previously mentioned allies will help me.

I grew up in a small rural community, so the advice and help I got for dealing with it was, "Stand up to them." To my credit, I figured out avoidance was a much better way to deal with it, but only after getting my ass thoroughly kicked twice.

All of that still effects how I view the interactions of those around me, and perhaps that's how I "get it". Those experiences only make up an eighth of my life so far, but most women have to deal with that their entire lives. Even worse, the only threat I faced was being beaten. I didn't feel threatened with the violations that they have to be concerned about from the time they're made aware of it until they die.

So to all of the women who have pointed out how the actions of others have been wrong, I support you. More than that, I sympathize with you. I'll be the ally to you that I had during those years to give me those moments of peace. At least, until we get the jackasses that don't "get it" to come around.

I guess that means I'll be your ally for a very long time.

Kinect Possibilities

2010-12-03T08:08:00.006-05:00

That is awesome. I know there're some privacy issues, but we're getting closer to that GUI from Minority Report (without the gloves, even).

The possibilities don't stop at GUI either. Since I work in 3D modeling my brain is still going through possibilities, and they are very far reaching. However, there are still some hurdles to overcome.

The main issue being the blind side. While it's able to give a 3D image of what it can see, it's still a camera. What it can see is limited to its line of sight. I believe that can be overcome, but the current hardware and software makes the issue very techincal (see here and here). It's not impossible though, and that is making me giddy with excitement.

This is just what the Kinect is capable of out of the box. If a way can be found to synchronize two Kinects then the capabilities will jump dramatically. If a way can be found ot synchronize 3 or more, the possibilities jump even more. There are hurdles to overcome, but if there is a market for it, I think those hurdles will be jumped.

Get Over Your F&%king Selves

2010-10-06T12:30:00.001-04:00

From

This is a picture of Peep and Boo at the doctor for their one year checkup. Peep's been walking for about three months now, and Boo is starting to take her hesitant, but rapidly progressing, steps. They laugh when we tickle them, play peek-a-boo, chase them through the house, or make funny faces. They cry when their steps falter and they fall, they bump their heads on something, or when we don't get their food ready fast enough. They look at the world with that first time sense of wonder that is so amazing to witness to parents.

It's amazing to think that they were conceived in a petri dish, in December of 2008. Then, about nine months later they arrived. Except for the method of conception and implantation, nothing was different than the pregnancy and birth of Munchkin. They are just as adorable, amazing, and frustrating as any other child.

On Monday the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Dr. Robert G. Edwards for the work he and the late Dr. Patrick Steptoe did for IVF. It's thanks to these two men that my wife and I were able to have Peep and Boo. However, you have those upset that no one consulted the Catholic church on the ethics of not needing the conjugal act in order to conceive, and then there are those who wonder if "a baby conceived in test tube is still a child in the eyes -- or mind or hands, depending on your theology/philosophy -- of God?" To both of those, I have a response. (Warning, very NSFW language to follow.)

Kiss my ass. Seriously. Not on the left, not on the right,... right square in the middle. Lickity split. Cry a river, build a bridge, and get the fuck over yourselves.

You know that thing you refer to as the "conjugal act"? My wife and I refer to it as sex, making love, and even fucking; We did both while we were dating, when we were living together, and after we were married; We used birth control when we didn't want to have kids, and when we did we stopped; We used the bed, couch, floor, kitchen and bathroom counters, and hood of a car for it; We used missionary, doggy, cowgirl, reverse-cowgirl, and pages from the Kama Sutra for positions; At some points we did it three times a day, and at others once a week; When we felt ready to have children we did our damndest to get to Carnegie Hall, and when that didn't work we tried fertility drugs, artificial insimination, and finally IVF.

However, at no point during any of that did we ask anyone their opinion. Neither friends, family, neighbors, strangers we passed in the street, Mr. Carrasco, Ms. Grossman, or the Pope were consulted as to how we should have sex or procreate. Princess and I are two consenting adults, and it's none of anyone's damn business what we decide to do.

Perhaps if Mr. Carrasco weren't celibate he would also know that by the time the majority arrive at the option of IVF they have had sex many times. The natural way of doing things wasn't working so we resorted to medical chemistry, and when that didn't work we went to medical procedures. I honestly don't give a rat's ass what Mr. Carrasco thinks, and if it wasn't for his ignorance on the issue I wouldn't have even known he existed.

As for Ms. Grossman, I don't believe in the existence souls. However, that's irrelevant. What she seems to be saying is that somehow those born through the IVF procedure are less than human, because one part of the process depended on medical intervention rather than a natural course. To that I have to say again, kiss my ass. 4 million, that's a 4 seven places to the left of the decimal, children have been born thanks to IVF. I'd be willing to bet that she couldn't tell the difference between an IVF conceived and naturally conceived human being if you stood them side by side, without any prior knowledge. However, just to get my point across I'm going to answer her questions

Do you think a baby conceived in test tube is still a child in the eyes of God?

I have yet to hear God's opinion on anything. The only thing I keep hearing is people saying what they think God's opinion is, and (not so)remarkably his opinion seems to parallel theirs even when their opinions differ. It's almost like he doesn't exist. Imagine that.

Does the science behind this merit a Nobel Prize, or ethical condemnation?

4 million children have been born thanks to IVF. I expect the majority of them would not have been conceived otherwise. That means 4 million children were members of loving families who wanted a child or children. Yes, I do think that deserves some recognition. As for as the ethical condemnation, you don't want to open that can of worms with me. Ethically, I can condemn the questions you've asked here, and I can give a helluva better arguments than your imaginary friend's opinion.

And what about the parents? Is their IVF choice selfish or loving? Are they creators -- or merely shoppers?

Hmmm...

Selfish or loving
Wouldn't that apply to any effort to have children? The difference between IVF and sex is the mixing in a petri dish and insertion. Everything else is exactly the same. Hell, if the couple aren't able to have children isn't that the equivalent of masturbation since the sex can't be for the purpose of procreation?

Creators -- or merely shoppers
There's no such thing as a Creator. We don't create life. My sperm and her egg combine, the cells start multiplying, the zygote attaches to the uterine wall, and roughly nine months later a child is born. The basic steps were the same, it's just that Princess and I needed some medical intervention to help it along.

From personal experience I can tell you that the only difference between an IVF baby and a naturally conceived baby are those few steps in the beginning. They are just as amazing, and frustrating, as any other child. They have all of the same qualities that other children have, and are even more wanted and loved than some who were conceived naturally. They are just as human and unique as any other person on this planet. However, if I have anything to say about it they will be better educated and more understanding than those like Ms. Grossman, who have a very narrow-minded view of what it is to be a living, thinking, loving, and loved human being.

We've Got You Outnumbered

2010-09-29T11:00:00.003-04:00

I took the shortened test that I posted about yesterday. You can read the full questionnaire here and a breakdown of the results here. I scored 13/15, which means 93% scored worse than, 3% scored better than, and (by process of elimination) 4% scored the same as me. I won't go into the questions I missed, because I don't want the two people who haven't taken it yet to gain an unfair advantage.

Still, even atheists are wondering and throwing ideas out as to why atheists did so well. I think many of them can apply to individuals, but I have another idea that has to do with the communication amongst atheists themselves.

While deconverting and often after deconversion atheists examine religious claims. However, we don't just examine, we often communicate what we found. We discuss it amongst ourselves, and this is often on the internet.

However, unlike the usual Bible study held in churches, these aren't restricted to what the "leader" wants you to read or discuss. We flip back and forth between topics. It can be subjects withint the religion in question that are contradictory, and quite often the similarities with other religions. While traveling from their original belief to atheism an atheist will often "experiment" with other religions, or at least investigate them. This gives many a broad range of knowledge in the differences and similarities between religions.

However, I think the main difference between atheists and believers is authority. There are some atheists who are more visible than others, but we have no leaders or authorities. Some are more respected, but if we disagree with them we won't hesitate to say so. It often happens on the post or during the discussion that they were having on the subject even. When was the last time you ever heard of a member of some congragation tell a pastor, preacher, or priest that there's another passage in their religious text that contradicts what the leader said?

In the atheosphere this leads to any discussion covering a broad range of knowledge, with everyone being able to contribute. We're encouraged to think for ourselves, examine what is being said, and contribute our thoughts to the discussion. However, if we disagree with what's being said we don't have to worry about being "excommunicated" from the group. As long as we have evidence to support what we said, and we're willing to change our minds if proven wrong, then no one has a problem with revolutionary thinking. It's how we grow, and, I think, one of our greatest strengths.

So I don't think atheists are more intelligent than the relgious, but I do think we're more open to exploration. Examining different religions doesn't challenge our faith, because we have none. Putting forth a different idea that contradicts the "leader" is encouraged if you find reason to believe they're wrong.

Atheism can be more than not believing in the existence of gods. To me, it's the sharing, discussion, and broadening of ideas. We don't depend on an "elite" to lead the discussion, we can all participate and put in our own ideas. Instead of only gaining what we have time to learn, we can share what we've learned with others and learn from them at the same time. If what is said is interesting to the individual they can do more research to add even more to the subject. It isn't restricted to the path the "leader" wants the discussion to take, but to the minds and discoveries of those involved.

Even in our everyday lives atheists listen to others beliefs. Sometimes, hopefully when circumstances dictate, we point out the inconsistencies or errors, but such beliefs also can create interest. We'll study what is said, not just from one source but from many. Looking for both the supporting and contradicting evidence. Even if the subject never arises with that person again, we still have that knowledge stored for later use and in many cases the subject will come up somewhere else. If it's among other atheists, we explain our research and what we found, pointing them to the relavent evidence.

For those steeped in organized religion it's the opposite. The "leader" will tell them what passages to read and explain to them what the passages mean, often ignoring the parts before and after the passage that can contradict the message. This goes for the sermon, as well as Bible study. There is no open exchange of ideas, and anything contradicting the lesson is either ignored, blown off, or outright discouraged.

Basically, it's not that any particular atheist is more intelligent than any particular religious person. It's just that the religious person only knows as much as their "leader", where an atheist draws upon the knowledge of other atheists, and everyone else he knows.

Show Me Your Divinity

2010-09-28T15:51:00.000-04:00

Today the Pew Forum released a survey on religious knowledge, and it's got the atheist blogosphere buzzing. Both Hemant and PZ have done posts on it, and no atheists/agnostics are surprised at the findings. However, it's the tangent that interests me.

Some atheists are critical of the Gnu Atheists for criticizing religion without examining the latest arguments for the existence of God. It boils down to the courtier's reply. Larry Moran throws down the gauntlet and asks for the "very best 21st century, sophisticated (or not), arguments for the existence of God." I'm not expecting anything even remotely resembling an argument, let alone evidence, but I think Dr. Moran, Dr. Myers, and the others are doing it wrong. I think they're calling on the wrong people to provide the evidence. Why not tell God/YHWH/Jehovah/Allah/whatever itself that it needs to prove its existence.

Christian and other apologists are constantly resorting to philosophical, teleological, and scientific cherry-picking to support their claim that their deity of choice exists. However, considering the claim itself I think that's going about it all wrong. The fact that they are the ones who have to defend its existence seems to be evidence that it doesn't exist. It's almost... well, actually exactly like it's a figment of their imagination and they're trying to prove the existence of their invisible friend.

The solution is fairly simple; God needs to show itself. I'm sure Princess wouldn't mind, especially if it did the whole water into wine, and multiplying a loaf of bread and some fish (sticks) into enough to feed my family. That would be ample reason for me to believe that it's actually a deity, but with the caveat that it doesn't stop at Kroger on the way to my house. After eating, it can show me some miracles, we can have a little chat about which deity it actually is, the authenticity of the Bible/Koran/Torah/whatever religious text it authored, and then have an in-depth discussion on morality and ethics*.

Think of it like proving the existence of any creature. The first gorilla was described in 1847, but one wasn't observed in the Western world until 1861. The panda has a similar story. However, once they were shown to exist denying their existence was an exercise in stupidity. Granted, a deity has to go a little further, but the basis is the same. Show up, give me evidence of divinity, and then we'll chat a while. It's that simple. However, I feel the need to add some rules.

Showing up and knocking on my door for entrance won't cut it**. I would actually prefer that it suddenly appear out of thin air in my presence***. It should already know my address, where I am, and other details so it can pick the right time and place to appear. Be aware, doing so in the passenger seat while I'm on my way to work earns it extra points, unless it makes me wreck. Considering it's supposed to be omnipotent, it should know the best circumstances in which to make its dramatic entrance.

Also, the miracles needs to be actual miracles. It has to be something that actually requires divine intervention in order to happen. If it points to my daughters as evidence of a miracle I'm throwing it out on it's ass. Considering the deity's imnipotence, it would know what I would require to believe in it, so I won't go into details here. Although, having Sarah Palin come out as a gay atheist in support of socialized health care would be a decent start.

All the apologists can just stop trying, for all I care. I can understand attempting to defend your god's position, but when you have to defend the very existence of your deity then it becomes an exercise in futility. If God can't make an appearance it seems to me that it doesn't exist, or it's dead. Either way it's a lost cause. Perhaps it did exist at one time, but if it can't show itself to me now then even the concept of God is wrong.

So there you have it. What it would take for me to start believing in God, or any god. It actually wouldn't be that hard for a supernatural deity to make me believe in them. The difficult part would be it explaining to me why I should hold it in high regard.

* - Or any other subject which said deity wants to discuss.
** - If you knock (or break and enter) and tell me you think you're God, then prepare for a padded room.
*** - Major points for appearing as Charlize Theron.

Much Ado About Nothing: Ground Zero Mosque, Book Burning, and Bieber

2010-09-24T19:00:00.001-04:00

This is the first of a series of posts I'm going to title "Much Ado About Nothing". They will cover, hopefully humorously, those non-issues that are just so ridiculous that I can't help but put in my thoughts on them. I hope to make people smile, chuckle, or laugh like I did when these thoughts occured to me.

Todays MANN covers the Ground Zero Mosque, book burning, and Justin Bieber. All are topics that would otherwise be relegated to the 'B' section of a local paper, except for people's propensity to over-inflate their egos.

The Ground Zero Mosque
Perhaps you've heard about the Proposed Not-Quite-a-Mosque Approximately Two Blocks from the Former Location of the World Trade Center. Yeah, I'm gonna call it Park51, because PNQaM~2BftFLotWTC is too long of an acronym. Anyway, it's apparently a big deal to a bunch of people. I'm not quite sure of the reason, but it seems to be... Aw hell, I won't even try to guess.

One thing talked about is the proximity of the mosque to Ground Zero. Unless you've lived under a rock for, or weren't born in, the last decade you'll understand some of the history. I have yet to hear if they decided on an actual area surrounding such an event that would make something acceptable. Perhaps they can turn it into a unit of measurement, like the Mark Twain. How about the "Mark Malefaction"? Crap, that would make it the acronym of "MM", which could be confusing. Let's make it the "Way Afar Hectares", then.

My view on Park51? I find it pointless, and calling it a community center is a bit misleading. Apparently, in order to be accepted you have to dress appropriately. I would think a community center would be accepting of outfits that fit with the legality of the locale. Other than that, I have no problem with it. I have as many issues with Park51 as I do with churches who spend a great deal of money on an overly loud sound system when that money could have been better used to help the needy.

Book Burning
In other news, a church down in Florida was going to hold a Burn a Koran Day. If people want to burn donated books, I'm not against it. However, as with Park51, I find it pointless for a couple of different reasons.

The main reason is the waste of burning the book. You can do what Jefferson did and go through the book, cutting out the parts that you find stupid, and turn it into something actually readable. Doing that is actually handy because you can then make a separate book of everything atrocious contained in it.

If there's no redeeming parts of the book, then burning it is even worse. All you're doing is replacing polution of the mind with polution of air. Try recycling, and hopefully the book will be reincarnated as something better.

Second is that in order for the burning of books to be legal, the books have to be purchased, or purchased and donated. In which case, the more people who buy the books the higher on the "best seller" list the book will become, even if no one is reading it. If enough people think a book should be burned, and mostly they haven't read the book either, it will push it up into the top ten, and then the rest of the nation will wonder why the book is so popular and start buying up copies that won't be burned. Next thing you know, an extremely bad book on sparkly vampires is on the best seller list, and no one quite understands why.

Okay, I jest, slightly, but do you have a better explanation for the Twilight phenomenon?

Justin Bieber
Speaking of Twilight*, have you heard about Justin Bieber? From what I understand, he's some famous guy who's friends with Usher. He also joked about dating Kim Kardashian, and she got death threats. It seems the best way to bring out the ire of the (pre-?)adolescent homo sapien female is to trash her romantic dreams that are based on a very loose grasp of reality.

Maybe a warning, like the "explicit lyrics" content one, should be put on Mr. Bieber's music.

Warning: "Bieber Fever" may cause delusions in "fan"atics.

Unless you actually hang around them, entertainers aren't your "BFF", "BF", or GF". Even if you did meet them, the odds are that you would be disappointed in the reality as opposed to the fantasy that you've built up in your head. So when you hear about them dating someone, don't be angry. Do what everybody does when they have to deal with someone they once liked moving on. Sell all of those momentos in a yard sale.

Let's review...

1) The Ground Zero Mosque is pointless but it isn't on Ground Zero and it isn't actually a mosque.

2) Book burning is a waste. Please recycle instead.

3) That entertainer you are so in love with may not be the person you think they are.

There you have it, some of my thoughts on subjects of no concern. Hopefully, I've brought at least a smile to your face, but if I've made you think, even better. Until next time, this is the non-news.

* If you don't understand the segway, please Google Team Edward Team Jacob.

Calling All Moderate Christians

2010-09-23T19:00:00.000-04:00

Whenever someone points to the stupidity, let alone ritual cannibalism, involved in communion you'll invariably hear a "moderate" claim that the majority consider it symbolic. When biblical literalism is criticized you have those who say that the majority consider the Bible symbolic. Criticize the WBH's stance on homosexuality and you'll hear that the majority of Christians are "live and let live".

In all of those cases, I call BULLSHIT. The easy way to get away with the claim is to say that you're the "silent" majority. It's impossible to verify what the majority believes if they don't ever talk, and judging by the woeful lack of criticism from within Christianity the majority must only speak while in a vacuum chamber.

If you ever hear someone say that most Christians don't believe that the eucharist is literally the body and blood of Christ, then they could be telling the truth. Why is that? Because if you don't believe that you literally "receive the very body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ" then you aren't Catholic. That doesn't necessarily mean you aren't Christian, but that isn't what's being criticized. The belief itself requires a degree of insanity that I find extremely troubling, let alone the disgust I feel at cannibalism. However, if you are a "moderate" Christian and sit idly by while the True™ Catholics spew vitriol and threats over a tasteless cracker, biscuit or whatever the hell it is, then you are useless.

If you consider the debate as to whether the eucharist is symbolic or not out of your league, what about formerly-Cardinal Ratzinger's stance on condoms and AIDS, homosexuals, etc.? Those directly impact actual people, and there's no question of it. The use of a condom helps prevent AIDS, and homosexuals are people, too. If you stay the "silent" majority through that then I have to wonder how "moderate" you truly are.

What about biblical literalism; why should the "moderate" Christian care about that? The answer is simple, and impacts a great many more than you would expect. Education. "It's just a theory" and "teach the controversy" have almost become a rallying cry for those who want to get Intelligent Design/Creationism taught alongside the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Plate Tectonics, and other valid scientific theories. The status of science in schools is already attrocious in the US, but if we allow religion to get a foothold into science then it will get much worse.

Plus, there's a big push to change the US Constitution to better mirror the Christian principles the country was founded on. If that happens then I doubt your "moderate" views will be allowed any more than my irreverance.

The stance of the Westboro Baptist Church, who I refuse to link to, is that homosexuals are the cause of everything bad. However, they take it to the extreme. They protest the funerals of servicemen. Why? I can only assume that they reason the acceptance of homosexuality is why our soliders are dieing. It may be another reason, but I know their main point is the US's so-called acceptance of homosexuality. When the WBC is criticized and lumped in with Christianity as a whole you get the moderates who say that the majority of Christians aren't that way.

Sorry, I don't buy it. If the majority were actually accepting of homosexuality then DADT and same-sex marriage wouldn't be an issue. In both cases politicians will bow to their constituents when it comes to such things. They'll listen to the majority of those who will put them back in office when it comes to reelection. Which apparently means that either the politicians aren't concerned with another term, or they aren't hearing from enough voters to dissuade them from fighting over something so stupid.

So I'm issuing a challenge to all moderate Christians. Stop confusing apathetic cowardice for "live and let live". If the majority of you don't like the way someone is being treated by any Christian denomination stand up and be heard. Tell them you think they're wrong, and do so in as public a manner as you feel comfortable. Whether it be on a blog, or going to a church and countering everything that the preacher says. Stop being the "silent" majority, because being silent makes you the "useless" majority.

The Math of Morality: Other Variables

2010-09-15T19:00:00.000-04:00

This is a continuation and expansion of my post "The Math of Morality". If you haven't read it, I would suggest doing so before reading on. This post covers the possibility of other variables in the equation.

I've already spoke of revisiting the 'P' variable, because something about it seems off. However, there is also the possibility of other variables needing to be added to the equation. There are also some unnecessary variables that some will want to add to the equation.

There are some variables that may need to be added to the equation. I've tried to account for those additional variables, but, at the moment, I can't think of what those variables would be. Of course, if I had already thought of them they would have been included. Regardless, the addition of those variable should not affect the internal consistency of the results.

This is partially due to me working on this for an extended period of time. I need to take a little bit to step back and do other things before coming back to this again. Hopefully, when I do revisit it I'll be able to clarify it a bit.

The main issue that I'm not going to worry about are the unnecessary variables. The primary ones being government, society, religion, and the individual. None of these are necessary for morality, and in actuallity seem informed by morality itself. The issue is the lack of internal consistency within them.

With government the morality is defined by enacted laws. As an example of inconsistency, the federal law requires that all drivers and children wear a safety restraint. The details of additional requirements and when violators can be fined varies, but the basics are applied through 49 states. However, helmets are a different story.

Helmet laws are left up to the state, and whether the rider has to wear one varies state by state. Some states require all riders to wear one, and other only riders below a certain age. The inconsistency is that they don't want you going through the windshield, but they don't mind if your head bounces (or worse) on asphalt.

The inconsistency of society involves moral zeitgeist. To give an example, how acceptable would interracial marriages or homosexuality have been fifty years ago? The moral result of an action should not change over time if it's consistent. I can see caution over not knowing what impact an action may have on a particular aspect, but if the result comes from a kneejerk reaction by society (most of the time it's a combination of superiority and the "ewww" factor) then it is morally inconsistent.

The inconsistency of religion involves the application. As an example, I'll use Christianity. I'm not picking on Christians, because I'm simply more familiar with it than others. Regardless, one of the Ten Commandments regards murder (or killing, depending on translation). It basically says that you shouldn't do it. Well, everyone, with the exception of psychopaths, would seem to agree with that concept. However, the application of it is inconsistent. That book that compiles the laws of Christianity, the Bible, says that you shouldn't murder people, but in Leviticus it tells you to. If you can change the result of an action if it's done against someone you don't like then your moral equation is inconsistent.

The individual inconsistency is more subtle. Much like religion people allow biases to creep in when their applying their moral math. From judging the moral result of others actions all of the way to their own moral actions are impacted by that persons biases.

For instance, if someone has a quality that you don't agree with you will often attribute a lower morality score to an action than if they agreed with you. You see every action as having an ulterior motive associated with that belief. This also applies when you start applying other experiences to a persons actions. If a person shows even slight similarities to previous experience, you will shift your moral result to better favor your expectations.

The shift can be even greater when it comes to performing or judging your own actions. Knowledge of someone who's ideals you don't agree with can result in a sort of confirmation bias to the morality of your actions. If you didn't know the people involved, and their beliefs compared to yours, then often your actions or judgement would be different.

I won't even pretend that what I'm attempting will be accepted by everyone, or even a significant number. Even if it does go somewhere there will be those who reject the idea. However, I would consider not attempting it to be immoral. After all, one of the aspects of morality involves and impact to knowledge.

The Math of Morality: Putting It All Together

2010-09-15T00:55:00.000-04:00

This is a continuation and expansion of my post "The Math of Morality". If you haven't read it, I would suggest doing so before reading on. This post covers the morality of a morally measurable action, which I gave the variable 'M'.

We've already covered 'E', 'N', and 'P', but this one is where they all come together. 'M' is the result of compiling the previous variables in an equation so you get a result.

We've already covered

E = L * I * A ^a + k * i

N = N - s

and

P = 1, or N sub-[X] +1

Now, let's look at those variables in more detail.

If you look at the ranges of variables for 'E', you will find a possible range of

-26 <= E <= 26

-26 could be the cold blooded murder of someone by pulling the trigger yourself without checking to find out they were actually innocent of the wrong doing you thought they'd done. 26 could be pulling someone from a burning car and having the knowledge of first aid to keep them alive.

For 'N' the value is only limited by population. That makes the current range

0 < N <= 6.7e+9

This could also be made to include animals, but that's a topic too deep for this post.

Lastly we come to 'P'. This one I've been thinking more about and will probably revisit to revise and refine. However, as it stands the range can be

1 <= P <= N sub-[X]+1

Theoretically that's the range, but the details are much more complex. That's why I'll need to revisit this one in another post.

So 'E', 'N', and 'P' combine together to give the result 'M'. The conclusion I've reached is that

M = E * N * P

Of course, this will need some refinement, and, as time allows, I intend on doing so.

The main reason I started this is my observation that people used a "quick and dirty" mental calculation to assess the morality of an action. Whether it's their own or the action of another. The best analogy I've been able to come up with is throwing a ball. If someone observes a ball being thrown, even for a relatively short amount of time, they can make a pretty good guess as to where the ball will be at a later time. It's how we can catch a ball thrown to us. The same seems true of morality. People will observe an action and do a mental calculation to cast a moral judgement on that action.

However, the analogy doesn't stop there. When calculating where a ball will land with math, it takes a larger number of variables than just speed and vector. Air resistance, wind direction, gravity, spin on the ball... Several things can affect the location of the ball at a given point in time, but, except in extreme circumstances, those additional calculations are unnecessary (and damn near impossible to do before the ball reaches it's stopping point). With morality many people will observe an action for a finite amount of time, and then declare the morality of it using only a small number of factors for their determination. Many times, they would include factors that had nothing to do with the action in order to reach their result.

This interested me. If basic morality is so similar, regardless of individual circumstances, how does it become so different when the scenarios become more detailed? Those doing the study I referred to in the inagural post referred to it as moral grammar, and I think I understand why. Much like language, influences in your life drive your view of morality. Where you were born, who you associated most with, your profession, etc. Many details of your life influence how you speak. With moral grammar you have society, government, religion, family, friends, and even your own experience driving your view of morality. Both end up with different languages, dialects, and even differences in word usage muddying the end result.

That's my reason for starting this endeavor. Math is considered a universal language, so it seemed reasonable to think that perhaps an equation would be better suited to find morality than using grammar.

The Math of Morality: 'P' for Proximity

2010-09-13T19:00:00.001-04:00

This is a continuation and expansion of my post "The Math of Morality". If you haven't read it, I would suggest doing so before reading on. This post covers the proximity of a morally measurable action, which I gave the variable 'P'.

'P' is the value that denotes whether the person(s) affected by the action would have been involved in the effect if they had taken no action themselves. This one could be considered obvious, but I'll explain it for the sake of clarity.

First let me say that it is wrong to pull someone into a situation against their consent. Whatever you were trying to accomplish is negated by your forcing them into the situation against their will. Any action is an individual choice, and unilaterally forcing someone into an action is wrong, regardless of how noble your reasons may feel.

Second is that even if a person has the ability to take the action, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a moral imperative that they do. Individual circumstances make such a decision a helluva lot more complicated than just personal sacrifice. Now, onto the details.

'P' is a multiplier. However, it's a multiplier that denotes a moral penalty for involving someone in an action that wouldn't have been affected if you had not done so. Also, the penalty must be greater than the reward you would have received if the person had been involved. As with many other variables, this one will require a detailed post of its own, but not here.

P = 1, or N sub-[X] +1

'P' equals 1 if the person was involved in the situation whether you had taken the action or not, and 'P' equals 'N sub-[X] +1' if your action involved them in the situation. 'N sub-[X]' denotes the number who received the opposite effect from you involving the uninvolved in your action.

To give an example to clarify it more, the study I spoke of in the first paragraph of my opening post on this talks about two situations. One involves a "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", and the other would involve putting someone into the situation against their will. With my 'P' multiple, there would be a moral penalty for the sacrifice with the "needs of many scenario" but still a positive result, but by including the one person in your action against their will you negate all of the positive result and end up with only the negative for including that person in your action against their will.

To break it down into "bite size" you can think of it this way. In the first case a group of people or one could have died, but you made a conscious decision to sacrifice the one. Since the group was six, this means the morality result would have been the same as if you saved five. However, in the second scenario six people would have died and one wouldn't have if you'd taken no action, so if you threw the one in danger onto the tracks you didn't save the six, you just killed the one.

I will explain this in further detail in my next post, but this, in essence, is how to define the value for 'P'. In my next post I'll put 'E', 'N', and 'P' together so you an see the equation as a whole, but it won't stop there. As I said, morality isn't as simple as the Pythagorean theorem.

The Math of Morality: 'N' for Number Affected

2010-09-13T14:24:00.001-04:00

This is a continuation and expansion of my post "The Math of Morality". If you haven't read it, I would suggest doing so before reading on. This post covers the number affected by a morally measurable action, which I gave the variable 'N'.

While this may seem straight forward, it, of course, isn't. Otherwise I wouldn't be doing a post on it. The number affected may seem to relate to the impact variable, but that variable only applies to the individual affected. To find the number affected you have to find out how many received the same effect.

The number affected is an interger. The number can be an individual, a group, a select population, or everyone on Earth. However, all of these numbers are quantifiable. It may be difficult to do so, but the numbers can be found. Even if 'N' is a percentage of a group, then you can find out the total number of the group and multiply by the perecentage to get 'N'.

'N' can even be an estimate, in certain circumstances. What if it will affect those not yet born? This could be projected with the caveat that the one calculating let it be known that it's an estimate. The best bet is to use the numbers available at the time that the equation is being done, though.

Another caveat is that the person performing the action is not included in the ones affected. In effect

N = N - s

Of course, this only applies to the effect that the person performing the action received. You wouldn't subtract the person from 'N' if they did not receive the effect.

Now, this part of the equation is fairly simple, but I felt the need to describe it because it will become important later on. Numbers matter, and large numbers really make a difference. As you'll see when I combine it all together.

The Math of Morality: 'E' for Effect

2010-09-13T13:00:00.001-04:00

This is a continuation and expansion of my post "The Math of Morality". If you haven't read it, I would suggest doing so before reading on. This post covers the effect of a morally measurable action, which I gave the variable 'E'.

The effect of a moraly measureable action is more subtle than right or wrong. Was the action positive, negative or neutral, did it require temporary or permanent influence, was it intentional or accidental, how much knowledge was involved in the action, what was the intensity of the effect, and what did the action affect? All of this impacts the degree of the effect. In the rest of this post I will break these down to give you a better understanding of what I mean.

Keep in mind that when I speak of effect, it doesn't necessarily mean what the actual effect was. As an example, I'll use murder. Attempted murder has a better outcome than murder, but the intended effect was still for someone to die. The only difference is the one who didn't actually accomplish the murder was unsuccessful. Now, on to what makes up the effect.

The first component is what I call the litmus test, similar to the one used to test pH in chemistry. I've given this component the variable 'l' in homage to it, even. The test I use are what I call the "4Hs of Morality". They are Heal, Help, Hinder, and Harm. If the action heals or helps then it's a positive one, if it harms or hinders it's negative, but if it does none then it's neutral. If the action is neutral then there's no need to continue examining it.

The secondary component is influence, which I've given the variable 'i'. How much influence did the person have on the effect the action caused? Pushing it along has a greater effect on where a ball goes than just starting it rolling, or even nudging it as it rolls by. However, regardless of how much influence you had you are still at least partially responsible for where the ball ends up.

The tertiary component is aim, which I've given the variable 'a'. Was the person's aim to cause the effect, or was it accidental? As with influence, even if their aim wasn't for the ball to end up where it did, they still hold a measure of responsibility for where it rests.

The quaternary component is knowledge, which I've given the variable 'k'. What level of knowledge did the person who performed the action have? The information a person uses to influence their action directly influences the result. If you're knowledge is completely wrong then it will subtract from it, no knowledge at all will not affect it, and in-depth or scholarly knowledge will add to it. Taking an action based on erroneous information is completely counter to understanding the subject.

The quinary component is intensity, which I've given the variable 'I'. Intensity can be a measure of time, monetary value, Was the duration of the effect measured in minutes, hours, days, months, years, or permenant? The intensity can also be measured in percentage. However, to really explain this one you need to know the last one.

That leads us to the senary component of aspect, which I've given the variable 'A'. This gives a value of the aspect of the person affected. It can range all of the way from character to well-being. There are a few levels in between, but hopefully you get the idea.

That's broken down the variables that make up the effect, but now we get to the hard part; Giving values to those variables so they can be used in an equation. Some are simple numbers, but others will be more akin to variables such as the coefficient of friction. This will make some difficult, but, as I've said, I've been thinking about this for a while. I've done quite a bit of work for you. Now, off we go again.

'l', the litmus test, is one of the easy ones. It starts the equation on its path of positive, neutral or negative. So

L = 1, 0, -1

In spite of my criteria, the 4Hs, this one only defines if the effect was positive or negative. A combination of other variables will move the result further from zero.

'i', influence, is a bit more difficult to find. If a person doesn't influence the entire process they may still influence it at one juncture, or even more than one. For this one I think of each juncture as 0.1, with the entire process being 1. So if a person influences an effect at one juncture the influence is 0.1, twice is 0.2, etc. until you reach continuous influence which is 1.0. So

0 <= i <= 1

Yes, this may be oversimplifying, but I'm refining the equation as I go. I'm also a fan of base 10 units.

'a', aim, is easier. At least, in some ways. The person could have caused the effect accidentally, through negligence, or on purpose. Each would still leave the person responsible for the effect, but accidental is less than negligence is less than on purpose. So

a = 0, 1, 2

Accidental would have the value of 0 which as an exponent would adjust the base to 1, negligence would have a value of 1 which would leave the base as the same number, and purposeful would be 2 which would multiply the base by itself.

'k', knowledge, is another difficult value to quantify. Here you have to examine the reasoning used by the person when they performed the action. I think of this as a percentage, similar to influence, but with a slight but important difference. The range of knowledge is

-1 <= k <= 1

Finding what the person said or wrote while they were 'supporting' the effect, or questioning them afterward, could provide a look into their knowledge. If you are unable to get detailed knowledge of the person's understanding, you may have to rely on assumptions in your examinations. Examine everything they said or wrote during the process of the action, and compare it to what is known. If everything they said was completley in error, or questioning them afterward showed all of the information concerning the action was erroneous, then you give them a 'k' value of -1 (-100%). However, if they have scholarly knowledge of the subject and examination of it shows no errors then their knowledge is 1 (100%). I'll go into this, and other values, further in other posts.

'I', intensity, is fairly easy to quantify. Did the action have a localized effect? Again, you can break this down into percentages.

0 <= I <= 1

Intensity applies to the aspect, which I'll be describing in the next paragraph. What was the percentage of the aspect that was affected? Of course, this applies only to the subject of the action, and not other parts, which will become important as I'll describe later.

Last but not least is 'A', aspect. What aspect of the person was affected? In order to be quantifiable there have to be restrictions. As such, I've broken the aspect down into five parts.

Knowledge
Character
Property
Equality
Well-being

This one will definitely have it's own, and extensive, post. Notice that emotion doesn't rank in the system, because I find it to have a value of 0. When I'm examining an action, I look more into the actual effects than the perceived ones. As such, a value has to be quantifiable, even if it's difficult to do so. Emotion is much like pain, because it depends on how much pain a person has experienced previously as to what answer you will get. However, we know that a broken arm causes more actual damage than a surface bruise.

I've just broken down all of the components, or at least all of those I have thought about, that influence the effect. Just so I have them all in one place they are

Litmus test:
L = 1, 0, -1
Influence:
i = 0 <= i <= 1
Aim:
a = 0, 1, 2
Knowledge:
k = -1 <= k <= 1
Intensity:
I = 0 <= I <= 1
Aspect:
A = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Now comes the fun part. How do all of these fit together in an equation to give a value to the effect? For that we have to look at how each value will affect the result. Granted, this will mean that the variables I've shown won't be included in the equation in the order of introduction, but I also told you that what you're reading is in "real time". Basically as I work it out in my head you're reading my conclusions. So off we go, again.

The conclusion I've come to is the litmus test, impact, aspect and aim are directly related to each other.

L * I * A ^a

Then the result gets adjusted slightly according to the person's knowledge and influence.

L * I * A ^a + k * i

E = L * I * A ^a + k * i

That makes up the part of the equation that concerns the effect, 'E'. Next I'll be covering the variable 'N'. As with 'E', things are not as simple as they seem, so stay tuned.

The Math of Morality

2010-09-09T19:00:00.006-04:00

Basic morality is simple. All those things that hurt others are wrong, and all of those things that help others is right. It's even been shown, in a relatively recent study, that almost everyone has the same basic morals. Those studying it refer to it as a "moral grammar", but it seems to me that it's an equation. There's a finite number of details involved that form the variables, and the end result is either positive (X), neutral (0), or negative (-X).

However, for each individual variables get added to the equation as they mature. A combination of governmental laws, religion, society, family, and friends add variables until the equation becomes different for each person. In many cases the end equation isn't even internally consistent, because some variables can override others.

I'll admit that I have a preference for math over grammar. Math is precise, and its language doesn't have problems with translation, dialect, and definition. Regardless of the individual characteristics of a person the Pythagorean theorem still has all of the same variables, and everyone will get the same result when calculating it correctly. When trying to get a result you don't have to change any of the variables to fit with what those around you understand. (Note: Yes I understand that explaining an equation would require language, but I'm referring to the equation itself.)

The reason I think math can better define morality than grammar is the issue of internal consistency. When I visit my parents my dialect shifts. It's subconscious, but I use words differently, in ways that those where I grew up better understand. However, regardless of whether I'm at work, at home, or where I grew up equations remain the same. I like consistency, especially for something as important as morality.

I've done quite a bit of thinking about this. Since I became an atheist I've become much more introspective. One of the criticisms of atheism is that it provides no moral objectivity, which is true. However, I've come to realize that atheism itself is amoral. Actions, not beliefs, define morality, and atheism is simply the belief that no deities exist. Recognizing that, I started breaking down actions to figure out what components of an action shift the result on my moral scale. Here is what I've come up with.

The primary component would be effect, which I've assigned the variable 'E'. This value would also range from a negative to positive number, and it would correspond to how limited or extensive the effect is.

The secondary component would be number affected, which I've assigned the variable 'N'. This value is simply a measure of how many received the effect.

The tertiary component would be proximity, which I've assigned the variable 'P'. This value denotes whether those affected could have receieved the same effect if you had taken no action. Did your action involve them in the effect, or would they possibly have received the effect if you had taken no action.

Finally, the result would be the action's morality. I've assigned this the variable of 'M'. The value of this component would range from a negative to positive number. Since 0 would be an amoral result, then the further from zero the value is the more immoral or moral the action would be.

There you have it. My basic equation for morality. Of course, it's more detailed than that, but I intend on going deeper into each variable/value in future posts. With each variable I'm going to build the equation until I reach the final post where I'll give examples of how it applies.

I also fully expect that some will be insulted at this idea; that math can be applied to right and wrong. I'm also half-vulcan. Morals are a phenomena of interest to me, and regardless of what I find it will make them no less important. Besides, a fair number of people are already subconsciously doing what I'm attempting to quantify. They're applying math to morality, just in a more vague way. Otherwise, why would they use the term "v a l u e s"?

External vs. Internal Terrorism

2010-09-07T19:00:00.000-04:00

The simple definition of terrorism is

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Basically using fear as a tool for control. If you asked someone in the US for an example of terrorism I believe the most likely answer would be flying planes into buildings. If you asked for multiple examples then planes, suicide bombers, and car bombs would probably come up. All of those are terrorism, but there's a more subtle version of terrorism that most don't think about.

All of the examples above involve external terrorism, an act of terrorism exercised against those outside your group. While heinous and inexcusable, external terrorism is nevertheless very effective. After it's used every parked car, every other person in a shopping mall, and ever plane you're about to board becomes a source of fear. However, in order for external terrorism to be possible you have to first resort to internal terrorism.

Internal terrorism is the use of fear to control those inside your group. Instead of car bombs, airplane missiles, and human grenades you use the fear of "The Other" (an outside group). For those terrorist acts listed above fear of the US, also referred to by some as the Great Satan, was used to gain volunteers for the suicide missions necessary to carry out those acts. Mix an unhealthy level of fear, a massive dose of brainwashing, dilution of free will, and X number of virgins and you have an internal group who's willing to carry out those external acts of terrorism. Without internal terrorism it would be impossible to execute external terrorism.

Internal terrorism doesn't have to result in external terrorism, though. Instead of physical acts of violence against the other, internal terrorism can influence social acceptance. Using internal terrorism to these ends has to be more subtle, at least to those inside the group. Say allowing it will take away your rights, they're a threat to family/Christian values, make some other bullshit up, and the flock is influenced to deny a whole group of "The Other" the right to marry.

Another difference between the two is the tools used. External terrorism is fairly obvious. The use of bombs, whether conventional or makeshift, guns, knives, or any other weapon to instill fear in a group outside your own makes it external terrorism. The tools for internal terrorism are more subtle and numerous.

Fear of stereotypes
Giving your group all of the information won't incite fear as much as only telling them what you want them to hear. Those of us who've studied philosophy and morality term this "lying through ommission", but perhaps the internal terrorists think of it as "plausible deniability". Take something that has a grain of truth if you squint, turn your head sideways, and stick your fingers in your ears and tell it to your followers/fellow members as if it's a fact. Such as

[Some] Homosexuals [and heterosexuals] are child molesters.

Anyone not for [government proxy led] prayer in [public] schools is an atheist [, or supports the First Amendment].

There was a study done that shows a corrolation between autism and vaccinations [, that was later shown to use falsified data].

In those cases there's a hint of truth, but when the details are added then it's shown there's no reason to fear. Of course, the internal terrorists want fear, so they leave the important parts out. That leads us to the next one.

Fear of knowledge
Almost everyone has a comfort zone, and few are willing to explore any distance beyond it. That comfort zone encompasses those with the same beliefs and ideals, and lets everyone else remain a mystery. If they don't know any details about "The Other" then the internal terrorist can utilize that ignorance to instill fear. The internal terrorist can make up anything they want and be fairly confident that those inside of the group won't investigate, or even question, the claim.

Homosexuality is a choice.

Atheists don't believe in anything.

Vaccines contain toxins.

A little investigation, or even contemplation, would make an individual question these claims. Is heterosexuality a choice, too? Do theists only believe in God? Apples contain cyanogenic compounds, but the amount is low enough that an apple a day won't make you call Poison Control. That leads us to the next tool.

Fear of questioning
I'm referring to some people questioning the basis for their morals. It's much easier to have someone of authority tell you right from wrong than to take the time to examine it yourself. If they have a book that codifies the rules then that's even easier, because you can also read the passages they cite as reasoning. However, it takes mental effort to get off your psychological ass and examine the basis for those rules. Why should that particular authority person more moral than others, what basis is used for claiming that book is actually a source for morality, and what if you discover something that conflicts with what you previously knew? When you spend your life basing your views of moral and immoral actions on a source outside of you then if that source is brought into question all of your past moral decisions become a house of cards. Look at them too closely and the entire stack can come tumbling down, leaving you with having to start over from scratch. It's much easier to not question and continue on in self-inflicted ignorance/denial, than to risk finding out you're wrong.

Fear of leaders
Perhaps you're familiar with Thomas Paine's saying, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." Humans are social/pack animals. As such we look for those with leadership skills. We tend to undervalue our own decision making abilities and overvalue those in authority. Inside of a group we usually either follow their lead if we agree with them, or stay out of their way if we don't. The reasons for active participation or apathy can usually be attributed to socialization. Even if you stay out of the way you'll still belong to the social group, just on an outer perimeter. That's better than being completely cut off. That brings us to...

Fear of being singled out
As I said, humans are social animals. We don't just like interaction with others, we actually crave it. The more we insert ourselves inside of a group, and depend on them for acceptance, the more difficult it is to bring ourselves into conflict with them. Can you imagine anyone standing up at a gathering of like-minded people and asking, "Why do you think this?" Especially if they've invested years of their lives in those beliefs. What reaction would the others have to the one asking the question?

Fear of being rejected
Outwardly questioning or criticizing the beliefs of a group can have drastic effects, especially if you're inside of it. A huge portion of your social circle will suddenly become off limits, and all of those relationships you've spent years developing will suddenly disappear. In some cases you'll no longer be able to partake of a tasteless wafer and fruit juice on Sundays, but in others it can cost you your job. It's a sort of blackmail that relies on us not being willing to be alone.

This is probably a partial list, but these are the major tools I could think of. All of them have one thing in common, using our own fears against us. However, they take the small fear of the unknown and escalate it into a phobia.

I'll admit that external terrorism isn't as immoral as internal terrorism, but both are still immoral. Spreading a rumor about someone isn't as bad as beating them up isn't as bad as killing them, but all of those actions are still immoral. As with anything immoral, I also feel the need to point it out and criticize it.

Don't follow blindly. If someone in authority uses fear as a means of making you take action, question their motives. Shrug off that cloak of comfort and expose yourself to something new. In the process you'll likely find out that there's no reason to fear, and the leader you look up to is just as fallible as you are... maybe even more. Don't be afraid to stand up to them, either. The only way they can utilize your fear is if you allow it.

Fear, either subtle or overt, is the weapon of the terrorist, and if we give into it they win.

Scientific Misunderstandings #1: How Far Away was that Lightning Strike?

2010-09-02T12:30:00.002-04:00

Picture this:

[There's heavy rain outside, with periodic flashes of lightning followed in a few seconds by the low rumble of distant thunder. One particular flash occurs five seconds later there's another rumble of thunder]
Person #1: It's getting closer. That was five miles away.
Person #2: I know it's getting closer, but why do you think it was five miles away?
Person #1: [Smiles at Person #2 like they are passing on some important knowledge] The thunder came five seconds after the lightning.

I've read a few things similar, and even been present a couple of times when it was actually said. The thing is, it's wrong.

As with anything like this, the truth is much more complicated than it appears. You can guess at how far away the lightning was by how long it took the thunder to reach your ears, but Person #1 in this story doesn't know what they're talking about. Either they don't know the distance of a mile, the speed of sound, or either.

In the case of a mile I've already covered that, so I'll make it simple. It's 5,280 feet. I won't hold that against them, since most people don't know it anyway.

The speed of sound is more complicated. It's used as a measurement of speed, called Mach, but in reality that speed actually varies. If you just want to know the answer don't expand the post, but this is where it gets interesting.

Sound is vibration. Something starts the molecules vibrating in a localized area, and those vibrations spread out from that localized area. If there's someone around, those vibrations reach our ears and our brains translate the vibrations into something we can comprehend. (Scientific philosophical note: when a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, it does make a sound. There's just no brains around to translate the vibrations.)

To produce vibrations into the air something has to interact with the air molecules. In some cases, the object itself vibrates. Like a guitar string, or even your layrnx. However, in the case of lightning and explosions it's the rapid change in localized pressure that create the vibrations.

For details you can go here, but essentially the air around a bolt of lightning is really hot. So hot that we use the term super-heated. The approximate temperature is around fifty-four thousand degrees fahrenheit. Yes, you read that right. That fifty-four has three zeros that follow it. To give you a comparison, that's about six times hotter than the surface of the sun.

When you heat air up it expands. In this case, it expands really fast. That expansion of super-heated air transfers to the surrounding cooler air producing a shockwave that creates the vibrations your ears translate into sound.

Calculating the speed of sound is complicated... really complicated. Fortunately, all we're concerned with is the speed of sound through air, so it's much simpler. The equation basically breaks down to:

v = 331m/s + 0.6m/s/C * T
v = speed of sound
T = temperature in celsius
(Don't like metric? This website will show you USsom units.

So the only variable you have to know is temperature, but why does temperature affect the speed of sound?

The answer is that sound and temperature are related. Vibrations and heat are both forms of kinetic energy. Since the higher temperature means the molecules contain more heat they are able to vibrate faster, so they can transfer the sound vibrations more efficiently. As an example, from 0 degrees F to 70 degrees F the speed of sound increases by about 78 feet per second (53 mph). That may be nearly highway speeds, but when you take into account that the actual speed of sound at 70 degrees F is 1,129.5 feet per second (771 mph), that's slightly less than a 6% change. Not negligable, but not drastic either.

All right, if you're an aerodynamicist having an accurate speed of sound, which they refer to as Mach, can be very important. However, we're only trying to figure out how far away that lightning actually was.

So, we'll divide the speed of sound (1,129.5 fps @ 70 deg. F) by the number of feet in a mile (5,280), and we get a result of about 4.7. That's how many seconds it takes sound to travel a mile under these circumstances. You can round it to five which makes it easier to calculate, because then each second is two tenths (0.2) of a mile.

So, using our opening example, Person #1 thought the lightning was 5 miles away, but now you'll know it's less than a mile away. Not only are you now better educated than they are, but you also know to get somewhere safe. There's a storm almost on top of you, for crying out loud!

The Awesome Bad Universe

2010-09-01T12:25:00.001-04:00

This past Sunday night, at 10 pm locally, Bad Universe finally aired. If you haven't heard about the show, or what it's about, let me fill you in on some of the backstory.

Phil Plait, the host of the show, is an astronomer. He's also the author of Bad Astronomy and Death from the Skies, a blogger, and a debunker. I first discovered his original Bad Astronomy website several years ago, and have been a regular reader ever since. This past year, my wife bought me both of his books, and I devoured them in three days. I even stood an egg on it's end just after Christmas (read Bad Astronomy to get the reference).

So when I heard he was coming out with a TV show, Bad Universe, I was overjoyed. When I saw the previews, and the similarities to Mythbusters, it was like discovering that not only was Santa real, but you're his favorite nephew.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to watch it on Sunday night, but I have a DVR. As soon as I got my chores done on Monday, I sat down in front of the TV to watch BU. Well, the twins were having none of that, so I postponed it for when we put them to bed. Finally, we fixed Peep and Boo's nightcap and Princess and I sat down on the couch to be enterained by the Bad Astronomer while waiting for them to fall asleep.

I wasn't disappointed. The show is based on his last book, Death from the Skies. In the book he goes through various astronomical phenomena that could have a drastic effect on us Earthbound bipeds. One of those scenarios was a meteor/asteroid/comet impact. That was the topic for his first show.

It starts off with a cartoon style title sequence. For those who've read DftS, you'll recognize several of the scenes there. The art itself has the feel of dark but humorous, which I think could also accurately describe the show itself. I thought it was a great lead-in to the show, and even though I'd seen it before I still watched it to see the little details I missed.

The show itself deals with scientific subjects, but isn't heavy on science. I think of it as sneaky-science. You're entertained but you also learn something without actually realizing it. I won't go into any spoilers, but he does several experiments to show the effect of an Earth impactor, as well as the effects of different methods of NEO deflection. Including the one that just doesn't work.

There's more detail to the show, but I would recommend that you watch it to see it. I'm assuming (and hoping!!) that the show will actually air again, though. Even better would be more episodes. I'm a big fan of science shows (Wonders of the Solar System is one of my current faves), and the sneaky-science shows like Mythbusters. Having another one to look forward to watching won't bother me one bit.

Now, as I said, Princess watched it with me, so what was her take on it? Paraphrasing:

"I enjoyed it, but he isn't as enthusiastic as Adam [Savage]." (Yes, my wife enjoys Mythbusters, too.)

I have to agree with her. Perhaps it was the hectic schedule, or even nerves, though. If I remember correctly, even Adam was more subdued during the first episodes of Mythbusters. However, now Adam's enthusiasm has become an integral and entertaining part of Mythbusters, and has only added to an already awesome show.

I can only hope that Phil gets his chance to show his personality more, and his enthusiasm (passion) for all things astronomical. In order to do that Discovery Channel needs to air more shows. I know I'd be sitting down to watch it.

Why I Prefer SI, or Using and Working With UOM

2010-08-24T12:05:00.000-04:00

(Note: Where bold numbers are used the units are exact.)

How many feet are in a mile, how many square feet are in an acre, and how many cubic inches are in a gallon? These are the units used to tell you how far it is from New York to LA, the amount of land you own, and how much milk you're buying. Still, you're average American wouldn't know that the answers are 5,280, 43,560, and 231. Yet, there are people vehemently against the "metric" system. This is what Daniel said:

“Hundreds of millions of liters”?????? What in blazes is this talk about LITERS????? You claim to be an American, so TALK American! The stupid, filthy, idiotic, no-good metric system has no place in this country, and you should be ashamed of yourself for using it. (And just to clarify, I am most emphatically NOT joking.)

For the past two decades I've worked on projects that used USsom, SIdU, and even some that combined the two. That experience has led me to prefering SIdU over USsom for several reasons. It has also given me the impression that those against SI being used in the US use the measurements but don't work with them. When they are used the person only thinks of them as numbers, but when you work with them you have to know what the numbers actually mean.

One way to find out how important a number is to a particular person is to ask them. Ask a layman how long an inch is and they'll hold their fingers a distance apart, and if I don't have a scale or measuring tape handy I'll do the same thing. However, if you ask someone about a foot, yard, and mile afterward you'll get other references. For a foot you'll usually get hands held a distance apart, and for yards you'll either get the answer of "three feet" or hands held to what the person thinks is three times the distance they held their hands apart for a foot. If you ask them about a mile, then you'll usually get an answer of two locations that they think are a mile apart. With the mile they may be guessing, or have used an odometer on their car to find out.

However, I work with measurements. If I don't have a scale I'll hold my fingers apart as an approximation of inches, but from there on I'll give you exact numbers. A foot is twelve inches, a yard is three feet, a mile is 5,280 feet. Unless I have a scale, yardstick, or map handy, those are the answers you'll get from me. To go further, I know that the index of my right hand is just a little over 3.5" or about 90mm, and that a casual gait will give me a distance of approximately 2.7 feet or 0.82 meters. Why do I know these things?

I know the approximate length of my index finger out of curiosity, but I once worked for a mining company and had to take measurements in feet. A couple of times I forgot the wheel that I used to measure the distance, and took the time to measure my stride so if it happened I could use my steps along with a calculator to give me a distance. I did this by measuring five different distances with the wheel, and then pacing the same distances. The 2.7 feet is accurate enough to measure the distances well within the five percent that was required of my job. I preferred to use the wheel for better accuracy, but knowing the length of my stride meant not having to go back to get the wheel if I did forget it.

Now, what does all of this have to do with the SIdU, most commonly known as the Metric system, and why does it make me prefer it? The answer is "ease of use". The converting of one SI unit to another only involves shifting the decimal to the left or right a certain number of places. Converting millimeters to meters means shifting the decimal place three places to the left which means my 90mm finger is 0.090 meters long. I can do that easily in my head, but converting that 3.5" into feet is more difficult. To do that I have to divide 3.5 by twelve. Try doing that in your head? The answer actually is .291666667~, and that leads me to my next issue with the USsom.

If the lower unit of the metric system is an interger not divisible by 10, then the worse you'll get is a number that has to go out to the number of decimal places required by the conversion. So if something is 9mm, then it is 0.009 meters. At 10mm you can elimiate the extra decimal because it's 0.01 meters. Now, if my finger was half inch shorter, 3" long, I could have told you that it is 0.25 feet, or 1/4 of a foot. However, what if it was a half inch longer? 4" is 1/3 of a foot, which is 0.333333~ (and the threes repeat out to infinity). That's why architects use [feet]'-[inches]" in their drawings. If a distance is 6 feet you'll see a dimension that says 6'-0", but if it's six feet one inch you'll see 6'-1" not 6.1667'.

SIdU has another advantage over USsom. Conversions from USsom to SIdU. This is why I noted that all bold numbers are exact. When converting USsom to SIdU the numbers come out exact. For length the number to remember is 25.4. That's how many millimeters are in an inch. So an inch is 25.4mm, a foot is 304.8mm, a yard is 914.4mm, and a mile is 1,609,344mm. Once you have those, it's easy to convert them to the appropriate SI unit. Say you don't like you're units being over 100, then they become 25.4mm, 30.48cm, 0.9144m, and 1.609344km.

So converting USsom to SIdU doesn't have any conversion issues, but what about the public? They're used to seeing USsom in their daily lives. Roadsigns will read "Cincinnati 120" which tells them miles, Kroger sells milk by the gallon, and Lowes sells 2x4s. It's even called the US system of measurement, so what about the patriotic aspect?

My answer to this is pretty standard for these sorts of arguments.

Me: "So?"

In the case of mileage, the distance is still the same, all that changes are the units used to measure it. If the car is doing 60mph then the 120 means it'll be about 2 hours before you reach Cincinnati. Still, are you going to the exact spot that mileage is referring to, or is Cincinnati just the closest point to your destination? What if you're doing 70, how does that change it? (Hint, it shaves about 17 minutes off your time... or about 1 hour and 43 minutes.) People who will use the numbers more often, such as truck drivers, will adapt within a fairly short time. Everyone else will still guess wrong on when they're going to get where they're headed.

What about milk, then? How difficult will it be if it goes from 1 gallon to about 3.8 liters? About as difficult as it is buying about .53 gallons of Coke, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, or whatever other soft drink/soda/pop that they buy. In case you haven't figured it out, .53 gallons is about 2 liters. Gallons are nothing more than cubic inches, 231 actually, and liters have been used for automotive engine displacement for several years now. Motorcycles engines have used cubic centimeters for even longer. In all the cases, it only takes a number comparison to tell you what you want to know. How much am I getting for the price I'm paying. If you know how to shift a decimal, then you can figure that out much easier with the SIdU than with the USsom.

Now what about carpentry? How will the SIdU affect 2x2s, 2x4s, 2x6s, 4x4s, etc.? Not really that much. Those are just numbers to tell you the ratios of one dimension to another, and further they aren't even accurate. Where you see a two the dimension is actually 1.5" if the board is dry (1.5625" if green). 4 is actually 3.5", 6 is 5.5", etc. With that in mind the SI equivalents could be 50x50, 50x100, 50x150, 100x100, respectively, with no affect on the consumer. The new numbers would even be marginally more accurate than what is used today, because 1.5" is 38.1mm and 50mm is closer to 38.1 than 2" [50.8mm].

That leaves the patriotic aspect, after all it is called the "US" system of measurement. I honestly don't see how the ideals of our country would dictate that we stick with an outdated and overly complicated system of measurement. Such narrow thinking would keep the US from competing in the global economy, and as such many of the projects I work, and have worked, on use SI units. Mostly to avoid errors that can happen when conversions aren't done. With todays CAD software it's actually extremely easy to convert something done with USsom into SIdU. The conversion even works so well that anyone with experience in both can see when a part is being used in SIdU that was originally done in USsom.

Those who are so opposed to SIdU do not understand the past, and are disconnected from the present. US automakers, industrial engineering firms, consumer goods companies, and NASA us the SIdU without any adverse affects on the American public. It allows us to communicate effectively with non-domestic vendors and partners, compete in the global economy, and also spend less time doing conversion calculations. So for those of you who think the "stupid, filthy, idiotic, no-good metric system has no place in this country", I have news for you. It's already here, and has been for far longer than you realize. You may not be joking, but you have definitely, if unwittingly, made yourself a joke.

Asking for Special Treatment

2010-08-05T08:48:00.006-04:00

Prop 8 has been banned. Well, at least temporarily. The judge's decision was another step towards something that irritates the piss outta me. The fight for gay rights.

Yes, you read that right. I'm sick of people asking for special treatment. Go below the fold to find out what I mean.

It isn't the gays asking for special treatment, it's the straight couples who are complaining. For some reason, some straight couples feel that they should receive special priviledges that a minority group shouldn't. It gets even worse when you look at the arguments against gay marriage.

"Traditional marriage is between a man and woman."
Only if you narrow you're timeline and locality to a point where it matches your biases. Polygamy, concubines, and surrogate mothers (when the wife(s) couldn't conceive) were also traditions.

If you think that's traditional marriage you need to study history.

"Gay marriage cheapens my [heterosexual] marriage."
Seriously? Two consenting adults, that you probably don't even know, getting married somehow affects your marriage? I thought marriage was between you and your wife. You didn't marry everyone, and the only ones who can ultimately affect your marriage are you and your wife. If gay marriage affects your marriage, what about the divorce rate?

The ultimate responsibility of the marriage is between the two people married. If those outside the marriage can affect it then you're in a polygamist marriage.

"If gays can marry then people will start marrying children, animals, and vegetables."
Yes, I've actually heard this as an argument.

Any idea what's wrong with this one? None of the results listed can give consent. In some states adolescents can get married, but they still need the consent of a parent or guardian until they are 18. Allowing all consenting adults to get married to the person of their choosing wouldn't change things at all.

Hold tight onto your sled, your slippery slope argument is making you approach the speed of stupidity.

I'll stop there, because those are the 'good' arguments. The rest devolve into religious conviction and the 'ick' factor. Still, the only reason this fight is going on is that the majority want favoritism over the minority. All of the arguments are emotional appeals without any consideration of fairness.

So yes, I hate the fight for gay equality. The reason I hate it is because it should be unnecessary. Homosexuals aren't asking for any special treatment. They just want equal treatment. Why should they have to fight for that?

How Do I Not Fear Death With No Afterlife

2010-07-06T12:58:00.013-04:00

We're all going to die. It's a part of reality, and we just have to deal with it.

The above is simplistic, and I'll admit callous, but it's the truth. Eventually there will come a time when our brains cease to function, and our organs stop functioning. Following that our bodies will decompose, unless you're like me and then it'll turn to ash, and the only thing that will remain are the memories of us retained by those who had contact with us are still alive. If you're lucky you've done something that causes a large number of people to remember you and your name will go into history books so everyone knows what you did (good or bad). If you're unlucky, no one cares that you died. Regardless of your standing in the community, the world keeps turning. Got all that? Good.

That's my basic views on death. I've dealt with death before. Granny died several years ago, and I've recently had friends die. When you start examining and questioning what you believe, it's inevitable that eventually death will become the subject you start to think about. Greta Christina has written about it (more than once), Cassie of TeenSkepchick wrote about it, and so has Hemant Mehta. If you're a vocal atheist it is something someone will eventual bring up, so you have to think about it.

What comforts does my lack of belief in the supernatural give me when it comes to death? None. Yep, that's right. My non-belief in the supernatural doesn't give me any comfort concerning what happens after I die. Nor should it.

My non-belief has nothing to do with comfort. I arrived at my atheism, and disbelief in the supernatural, through examination of evidence. Some of what I discovered didn't provide any comfort, but that's what happens when you start examining with reality. The degree to which you want something to be true has no effect on reality.

No, my non-belief doesn't provide any comfort for the knowledge that one day I will no longer have direct interaction with the world around me, so what comfort do I have?

The answer may suprise you. I remember the funeral for Granny. There was some talk of her "being in a better place", and other empty platitudes. However, there was much more talk of her life and stories from those there who knew her. The memories of her giving me a blanket to fold up and use as a boat on her living room floor when I was little, the story of her finding a corset so uncomfortable that she made her younger brother wear it until she got home, and other humorous and touching anecdotes that reminded us all of the effect she had on our lives.

Human beings are social creatures, and that interaction influences future generations. When the time comes that I no longer draw breath or have a heartbeat I will find no comfort in the thought of going to a better place. The comfort I will find is in my efforts to make the one I'm leaving better.

Lightning Rod Jesus

2010-06-15T08:31:00.006-04:00

Some of you may have heard of the construction officially called the King of Kings. Although, you may have also heard it called the Big Butter Jesus, Touchdown Jesus, or several other nicknames it's come to be known by. Well, as of June 15 at 11:15 P.M. it has earned a new nickname. Lightning Rod Jesus.

Well, my first response to the news was laughter, but then the curious side of me began to wonder. What was it made of that it burnt so completely? The church spent half a million dollars for a sculpture of foam with a thin layer of fiberglass supported by a steel structure.

So, let's review:
Taller than the surrounding structures
Conductive steel support frame
Covered with flammable materials

Seriously? I'm surprised the thing has lasted the nearly six years it has. I found some pictures of it on a local news sight. The first one shows it intact, but the second and third show it on fire. When I say 'on fire', I mean completely engulfed in flames. The fifth picture shows the 'Y' shaped support structure inside of it (post fire).

To paraphrase one of my favorite fictional characters, I've never credited religion with an over-abundance of brains, but this goes well beyond poor judgement. They spent half a million dollars constructing a flammable lightning rod.

Atheism and When to be a Vulcan

2010-02-12T11:49:00.010-05:00

Have you ever heard of the term straw vulcan? It's a fairly common TV trope in shows such as Bones and House MD. When we start debating the lack of evidence for deities and other supernatural phenomena it's also a common misconception of atheists, because love is something that science can't explain. As such, we could be viewed as being too logical and lacking emotions.

The truth is that nothing could be further from the truth. Skeptics are human, and as such we experience emotion. The difference is that most of us have found out when the use of emotion is appropriate.

As I've said previously, I'm looking for answers. Why? Partially because I like learning about how the world around me functions, but also because I have three children that I can pass the knowledge on to. I didn't just look at a rainbow and say "How pretty", I wanted to understand the mechanisms behind its formation. I didn't just look up at the sky and think about the weather, I wanted to understand what makes the sky blue and how do clouds form. In my early teens I started looking at how the gears of a bike work, because I wanted a gear ratio that I considered optimum for my style of riding. It's rare that I see a phenomenon that I don't already understand the basics of or search to find the answer to.

Still, understanding how things are formed and work doesn't prevent me from staring in awe and amazement at the simple (visually) beauty of a rainbow, staring up at a clear blue sky or figuring out what shapes the clouds resemble, and it sure as hell didn't stop me from wearing out that bicycle through years of enjoyment.

And in case you were wondering about that abstract thing we call love, it's a helluva lot more complicated than just something we feel and we've probably just scratched the surface, but that doesn't mean the smile from the hot blooded latina nurse that I'm married to has any less of an emotional effect on me.

Knowledge of how things function doesn't just bring the warm and fluffy emotions either. Someone trying to justify bigotry in the case of homosexuality causes me to feel anger, pity and other negative emotions. Why is that? The person is using irrational means to keep their own delusion and intolerance going, and ignoring rational and scientific evidence. When someone claims that the scientific consensus on the explanation for the diversity of life on earth is a lie because their multi-millenia old book written by superstitious, ignorant, bronze age pseudo-authorities says it's wrong I get pissed off, mostly due to the perpetuation and willful ignorance (stupidity?). When a billboard goes up in Cincinnati and nearly 80% of those asked are offended by it, when it only said

Don't believe in God? You are not alone.

my emotional response is "What the fuck?!"

So yes, even though I'm an atheist/materialist/rationalist/skeptic I do experience emotions. All of those things have also taught me when emotion is appropriate, and even necessary. Here's a hint... If you find yourself using an emotional argument to explain a natural phenomenon I'm not going to give your argument any credibility. Emotional arguments are what people resort to when they don't have an evidentially supported and rational one.

What it all boils down to is logic and emotion are both tools. Logic should be used in examination of the phenomena, but emotion should be used in experiencing it.

Exchange with a Coworker: Continued

2010-02-11T10:43:00.003-05:00

I finally got around to responding to my coworker's letter. I was immensely disappointed with what he wrote, as was another reader (and also my wife, and another coworker). It was virtually identical to the groupthink that I've always gotten from fundamentalists. "It's how I was raised", "I read the Bible", and "I examined the evidence". I can say all of those, too. I haven't read the Bible as many times as some believers, but part of my response to him explains that. Regardless, what I was mostly interested in was why he believes.

Since he didn't explain why he thinks his version of God is worthy of worship, I asked. I even explained why I couldn't worship the Biblical God even if I thought he did exist.

Thanks for the compliment from your first paragraph. I've spent a great deal of time in the last few years organizing, analyzing and questioning my beliefs and personal philosophy. However, I would like to point out that it was Dr. Albert Schweitzer, not Einstein, that is attributed with the quote. You know how much of a stickler for accuracy I am.

Our histories are actually very similar. Several previous generations, and most of the current one, identify themselves as belonging to one Christian congregation or another. Mostly Pentecostal and Baptist. I'm even named after my paternal grandfather who was a Pentecostal preacher, my father is an elder at a Baptist church and his brother is a Pentecostal preacher. That may give you some idea of what I was taught when I was growing up, but to tell the truth that is irrelevant.

As you put it, you read the Bible and examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that Christianity, and in particular the Church of Christ, was the "universal truth" as I've heard you state previously. While I, of course, disagree that's not what I'm interested in hearing about.

Before I continue though, I feel the need to clarify something. You asked me to read what you wrote as from someone who cares about me, but I'm going to ask you to read the following knowing that I'm genuinely curious. Finding what someone believes is relatively easy, but finding out why they believe it can be immensely difficult. Often, especially in the case of religion, they haven't really thought about why they believe what they believe. When asked the person questioned can be uncomfortable, defensive, or even angry. From what I've experienced this sometimes comes from someone being taken outside their comfort zone when they have to think about the answer, especially if the answer drastically affects their beliefs. I can't even say that I'll apologize, or even feel guilty, if this happens. I have no desire to go through life thinking I have the answer because it makes me comfortable. I want to go through life periodically being uncomfortable, because I'm looking for answers. Now, onto the question.

According to the list you gave, quoted from President Garfield, you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. For the sake of discussion, let's say the Bible was actually authored by those who God spoke to, and the entirety of the Bible is truly its word. What reasons do you have for believing that God is worthy of your worship?

The reason I ask this is mostly out of curiosity, but also because I've read the Bible and found it not only uninspired but uninspiring. If I were to find God did exist, I could not in good conscience bring myself to worship a being that not only condoned but ordered genocide (1 Samuel 15:2-3), set up rules for slavery (multiple instances), and gave some truly heinous reasons for execution (various passages of Leviticus).

That's the only thing I'm going to ask, because that's the biggest question I have. I can understand someone believing in a higher being (sort of), but I have difficulty understanding how they can find that being worthy of worship based on a book filled with such attrocities.

Now, I just have to wait for a response. I'm hoping it's quicker than the last time, but considering how much I'm making him think I'm not betting on it.

Exchange with a Coworker: His First Response

2010-02-05T10:44:00.009-05:00

Earlier, I sent an opening letter on a discussion I'm having with a coworker. On the second of this month he sent his reply. I've edited his response to take out personal information, but everything else is intact.

[Berlzebub], I appreciate you taking the time to share with me your thoughts and beliefs. After having read your brief explanation, there’s no doubt you’ve done a lot of reading and research and have given a great deal of consideration to what you believe. That’s good. It shows you’re a thinking man. Albert Einstein was once asked back in the 1950’s, “Doctor, what’s wrong with man?” He was quoted and answering, “Men simply don’t think.” By simple observation, it would appear a fair number a people seem to go through this life giving little to no thoughts about what they really believe as their basic values and deepest beliefs.

Before going too much further, I’m sure you know I come from an entirely different view point than what you have expressed. My background is one of being raised up in the church. My dad was raised in the Methodist church and my mother joined that church when they married. My dad’s family on both sides had Bible believing, church going Christians for generations. So it would seem only logical that my brother and sister and I would grow up be taught the Bible and learning about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, I do believe in God and his eternal existence. I believe that Jesus is the Christ, Son if the living God and I believe that he gives the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who believe in him and claim him as their Lord and Savior. For the last forty plus years, I have been a member of the [Local] Church of Christ. I have served as a teacher, a deacon (servant of some particular ministry), and as an elder (a position of leadership responsible for the church working together alongside other elders).

Perhaps James A. Garfield, former President of the United States, summed up best what Christian churches and Churches of Christ believe. Quoting from an article written for the Christian Standard publication November 14, 1993, it states that:
“President Garfield even served as a “lay preacher.” To answer the many questions he received about the group of believers with whom he worshipped, he wrote a classic statement:

1. We call ourselves Christians, or Disciples of Christ.
2. We believe in God the Father.
3. We believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and our Savior. We regard the divinity as the fundamental truth of the Christian system.
4. We believe in the Holy Spirit, both as to His agency in conversion and as indwelling in the heart of the Christian.
5. We accept both the Old Testament and the New Testament Scriptures as the inspired Word of God.
6. We believe in the future punishment of the wicked and the future reward of the righteous.
7. We believe that the Deity is a prayer hearing and a prayer answering God.
8. We believe the institution of the Lord’s Supper on the Lord’s Day. To this table we neither invite nor debar; we say it is the Lord’s Supper for all of the Lord’s children.
9. We plead for the union of God’s people on the Bible and the Bible alone.
10. The Christ is our only creed.
11. We maintain that all ordinances should be observed as they were in the days of the apostles.”

With that said, I need for you to do something for me. As you read what is being shared, I want you to read it as though your read a letter from a good friend from back home, someone who you know cares about you. If the words are read in a different manner or taken wrong, one could get the feeling of animosity or that someone is shouting at you. That’s not at all what I want to portray. I want you to know if a sentence or phrase that gives you that kind of feeling, that is certainly not my intention. Our agreement was to share our ideas, thoughts, beliefs and values with one another. As a believer in Christ and the written Word, we are told to share the Good News with others. Sharing the Gospel or Good News and it’s called is what we are asked to do in God’s Word, the Bible. It is not for us to convict someone else or to “save” anyone. We are simply to share the Gospel with anyone who might be willing to listen. The Bible says it takes that which man thinks is the weakest and uses it for His work. The Holy Spirit takes the written Word and uses it to build God’s kingdom. If a person is willing to listen to what is being said (or read the Bible for themselves), and consider the facts and evidence, then we believe the Holy Spirit will work with that person. Christians also understand the Bible when it says the Lord gives us freedom to choose Him or reject Him for ourselves. In so doing He knows that many will reject Him even though there is evidence to support His claim.

In your writing you mentioned a number of individuals who have influenced your thinking. Just as I mentioned my background and why I believe what I now believe, perhaps we can agree you believe what you believe for the same reason. You have read and studied what different individuals have learned and written about and you agree with their assessment. In this, you and I share a common approach to our belief system. I think the people we are closest to while growing up, our teachers we had in school from the early years to college, preachers if we went to a church or place of worship, the authors of books we read. All these are our influences that have led us to where we are now. I think everyone is influenced to a large degree by these factors. Most of what we consider our basic values and core beliefs don’t just appear. It takes years of love, care, of teaching, nurturing and mentoring from those around us. Along with this, we include the experiences we had along the way. One day we get to a point and look at what’s going on in the world around us and we say to ourselves, “Well, this isn’t right,” or “that ought to be this way”, or “they should/shouldn’t be doing that to those people.” Suddenly, however young or old we may be, we actually have a belief about certain things. We realize there are people and things and ideals that we value deeply. And when we look at others around us and the rest of the world, we suddenly realize that not everyone believes the same things that we do. We find ourselves asking what, how, why and why not about both good things and bad things going on all around us.

Well, that’s probably enough for now. It may be what you were wanting to know or expecting or maybe not. But perhaps it’s some food for thought.

Thanks for sharing,
[Coworker]

I know it really doesn't matter, but I wrote my opening in one day. It took my coworker 73 days to send this response. According to his letter, I'm assuming (and I've emailed him to confirm it before I respond) that his philosophy copies that of the Church of Christ. Considering the quote from his first paragraph, I find that interesting. I also found it slightly humorous that it wasn't Einstein, but Dr. Albert Schweitzer who the quote is attributed to, but even then I can't find a reference to the article the quote appeared in.

I'm working on a response to send him, but you're just going to have to wait to see. I don't want to spoil the surprise [wink & smile].

What No One Tells You About Pregnancy

2010-02-05T09:02:00.003-05:00

I've told the story of what the mother has to go through for IVF, but there's more to it than that. Elyse, over at Skepchick, has a list of things that you won't be told. Going down the list I was able to check off everything, except the pooping. I don't recall that happening, but then again I had other things on my mind. Plus, my wife's a nurse, so that can sometimes be the topic of dinner conversation.

Now, if you are one of those who thinks that pregnancy is the most wonderful thing in the world, that a swollen belly is the worst side effect pregnancy has, or that pregnant women don't deserve some amount of consideration then you really should go read it. Also keep in mind the article only covers what occurs in an average pregnancy, and doesn't cover possible complications that a mother-to-be might have to endure.

So, if you want to get pregnant go read it to see what to expect, because the others who also want you to get pregnant won't tell you this shit. If you don't want to get pregnant, go read it so you can make a list of the things that you don't want to go through before you have to deal with sleep deprivation for a few days, weeks, or months.

Dress Codes and Bullshit

2010-01-29T09:10:00.012-05:00

How often have you heard that a male with long hair, anyone with tattoos, someone who wears non-conservative clothing, etc. are "non-conformist", "anti-establishment", or "attention seekers" (these are only the semi-polite words)? Interestingly, that judgement seems to be slipping except among the conservative populace. Hopefully people are beginning to realize that appearance is only a fraction of the person, and none of those things listed above actually say anything more about the person than that specific thing (e.g. he has long hair, (s)he has a tattoo). It's interesting that a common saying is "never judge a book by its cover", but everyone expects the person to look a certain way.

The thing that got me to thinking about this was when Princess brought home her workplace's regional dress code, the other day. Basically it covered everything from head to toe, but not just "dress". It also included limitations in artificial hair colors and haircuts, fingernail polish colors, piercings, and tattoos. I started looking through it and making margin notes, and found some things that pissed me off.

First off, and this wasn't in the regional dress code, is the uniform restriction. Princess is required to wear scrubs. You know those blue pajamas that doctors and nurses wear on TV? That's what Princess wears to work. Guess what management decided about those uniforms? Cartoon characters and the like aren't allowed. They can wear something like a floral pattern, but if they have any with Mickey Mouse or Taz on them they have to stay in the closet, now. So the ones who actually have to deal with the patients that come in with projectile vomiting, explosive diarrhea, alcohol addiction, drug addiction, overly enthusiastic (and I'm being nice here) families, combative (physical and verbal) personalities, and/or every other nightmare that keeps nursing a career for a select few very stoic personalities can't wear a uniform that lets them have a moment to feel some sense of pleasure. Why? Because the executives thinks the cartoons are unprofessional.

Just to warn you, I'm a bit pedantic when it comes to the writing of company policies. When the writer uses phrases such as "neat and clean" and "alter or change", it drives me nuts and causes me to wonder at the intelligence of the writer. Perhaps with "neat" the reasoning they used is it's association with "interesting" or "cool". Unfortunately, that use seems to be in decline, and no one expects it to be used that way in a professional document. So "neat and clean" are redundant. As far as "alter or change"... To alter means to change! Okay, now I've got that off my chest. Let's move on.

Next on the list is Jewelry. An employee is allowed up to four piercings per ear, but no "facial or tongue" piercings. I'm guessing this goes for males too, and they don't say anything about bellybutton, clit or other less traditional piercing locations. Since the only jewelry they allow is the conservative standard of the ear, I'm guessing this has to do with perception. Although, to be fair, I'm sure many conservatives would raise an unpierced eyebrow at seeing four earrings in one ear... especially on a man. The last time I checked though, the number of non-natural holes in a persons body didn't correlate with their competency.

Then we get to fingernails. No fingernails are allowed to "extend any longer than 1/4" inch from the tip of the finger", and artificial nails aren't allowed at all. That I can understand because of safety issues. However the part about fingernail polish has to be a "natural color, and not chipped". I can understand making sure the polish is in good repair, because of patients with open wounds, etc. What I'm trying to figure out is what fingernail polish color is "natural"? All fingernail polish colors are unnatural, even clear. That's the point of nail polish, for crying out loud. I want to know what their basis is for telling their employees that they can't paint their nails.

The next section talks about odors. Body odor, bad breath, strong perfumes or colognes are "unnacceptable". They state those can cause problems with the "well-being and recovery", but the wording is a bit off considering the earlier part of the sentence talks about the "patient or resident". What is the resident recovering from, working there?

The restriction on hair involve "neat and clean" (don't get me started), hair coloring, hair styles, and how the employee can wear their hair. The "neat, clean and trimmed" part is subjective. Whether a particular hairstyle is viewed as such is more about perception than anything else. Hell, the Doctor's haircut can be viewed as unruly (at best) by someone with conservative taste. With hair coloring (not hair color) they expect natural hues. Technically those highlights that are so popular right now could be used as a reason if they are looking to send a particular employee home. Then, they say "spiked hair or semi-shaved heads" are unacceptable. What do they mean by spiked? Hair cut short enough (for me it's about 1" long) that it stands up when you run a comb through it backward, or the longer spikes that were at one time popular in the punk circuit? For the semi-shaved heads I'm assuming that they mean you can't have any 5 o'clock shadow on your pate. So if you shave your head you'll have to take an extended vacation before you come back to work if you don't like it. The next, employees wearing their hair up, only applies to those in patient care areas, and is a safety and patient health issue, so I can understand it.

Next is facial hair, and the only limitation is "neat, clean and trimmed" (again, dammit). On the plus side, since they separated out facial hair from "hair", I'm assuming this means you can color it however you like.

The one that really piqued my interest was the section concerning tattoos. The document said

"Existing tattoos must be covered while at work in a manner consistent with infection control standards and requirements."

Well, I did an online search (since they didn't provide anything saying what those requirements are) and could only find information concerning the practices of tattoo parlors. The only information I could find from the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) was a blog that linked to a topic page concerning the risk of disease and contamination during the tattoo process. All of the information I could find about caring for tattoos after leaving the parlor only talked about keeping a bandage on it for a couple of hours, and then using lotions or ointments. If an infection occurs they advise seeing your doctor, but they don't say much of anything else. Doing a search of NIOSH for tattoo and hospital didn't reveal anything either. I get the feeling that the employer is expecting that they can just tell the employees what they should do and no one will question it. At least, that's the impression I get from the obtuse wording.

The next is a jump to hats. Why they didn't include that with the other outerwear sections I'm uncertain, but it's also vague. The employees can only wear "surgical hats or those with an approved logo". Perhaps an employee can wear one of the approved hats while they're letting their shaved pate grow out.

The final section covers Religious Practices. Basically, it says head coverings are allowed due to the "religious conviction" of the individual, but "any other exception" needs to be submitted to HR. So one group automatically gets an out, but others have to go through the bureaucracy. Granted, considering their tendency to clarify that neat is associated with clean I wonder if religious could mean a strongly held belief? Perhaps if the employee believes that appearance has nothing to do with competancy they could petition for the employer to have aeronautical intercourse with a revolving pastry, and let them do whatever they want with their body.

After the religion section they go through the disclaimer that they "reserve the right to amend, alter or change (stop the redundancy, dammit)" the policy at any time. These clauses irritate the hell outta me. In this case, I suspect that they would change it so they could stop employees from using a loophole or to change it to better meet public opinion. Especially since public opinion seems to drive a great deal of the policy to start with.

So, to all hospitals (and other facilities) who enforce such dress codes for the employees, please stop. If I'm in need of medical care I could care less if the one caring for me is dressed in a grass skirt with coconut bra and sandals, have every possible piercing on their face, wear "fuck-me" red nail polish, bathe in their favorite perfume or cologne every morning, have rainbow hair with 10" spikes (or are showing an 1/8" of hair), have sleeve tattoos on both arms and their face, and/or wear an unapproved hat. I'm looking for someone who is competent at their job.

I'm concerned about going to a hospital that I'm trusting my life with when they seem more concerned with appearance than competency. Forcing someone to follow some arbitray dress code that seems to be based on public bias, stereotypes, and bigotry is as assanine as trying to find the best people for a job by having everyone sign a statement of faith. According to your "dress code" you don't want the best person for the job unless they are willing to conform to some arbitrary list of appearances that seem to meet the majority concensus of public approval. If something is a health and safety issue then it's understandable, but things that have to do with appearance only further the negative stereotypes that society has needlessly ingrained in a populace so they can keep oppressing them.

Hell, if public perception of appearance is what you're striving for, I have a great idea. Instead of having all of the nurses wear pajamas, have them all buy their "uniforms" at Victoria Secret. Granted, most might not find it professional, but you'll end up with a high number of hypochondriac cases. The benefit is that you'll have a high number of repeat visitors, and your staff won't have to be competent.

Can You Handle the Truth?

2010-01-11T09:46:00.009-05:00

In my 10 Questions post question number 5 asked a question about truth.

Am I able to hold what I believe is truth lightly in the interest of dialog?

My answer was "Absolutely not", but the reason for such a vehement answer was the phrasing. The wording came off as asking if the one being questioned is closed-minded, or asking them to be open-minded. However, the more I examined my reaction, the more I understood why. The the words "believe", "truth", and "lightly" along with "in the interest of dialog" were what caught my attention.

Believe
A belief is someone's opinion of what the truth is. Belief can actually be on a scale, much like the Dawkin's scale of god belief. It can go from complete belief to complete non-belief, with varying levels in between. Basically, it's based on the individuals opinion.

Truth
Truth is reality. Where belief is a scale, truth is binary. Something is either true or false.

Lightly
The adverb means to treat with "little weight or force", or "indifference or carelessness".

In the interest of dailog
Adding this to the end seems to imply that the person questioned is being asked to make sacrifices in order to keep communication going.

When you break it down like that it translates as:
"Am I willing to treat my opinion of reality carelessly in order to keep talking to someone?"
Basically, the question seems to be asking if I'm willing to lower my standards in order to keep the conversation going. Guess what? Given that phrasing my answer is still negative, but I change it to "Oh hell no".

As I noted, beliefs (opinions) go on a sliding scale. The more evidence that supports something the more likely that belief seems to be truth (reality). Since my opinion of reality is based on the evidence for my belief someone will need to provide an amount of evidence at least equal to the evidence that supports my conclusion.

The entire reason that I debate a subject is my effort to arrive closer to the truth. Asking me to treat my beliefs carelessly in order to keep the conversation going demeans that effort. If I do have a belief that I'm willing to treat lightly, then that belief isn't important enough to debate to begin with.

If it is necessary for me to lighten up in order to keep dialogue with someone, then that person isn't interested in finding out what the truth is. All they want is for all possibilities to be given equal weight. This negates the reason for the debate to begin with, and also seems to imply that they can't handle the truth.

Exchange with a Coworker: My Opening

2009-12-18T10:31:00.009-05:00

In a previous post I talked about a conversation, and eventual email exchange, I had with a coworker. Eventually I asked him if he would like to do an email exchange concerning our views, and he accepted.

I have a general idea of my coworkers views, including biblical literalism, intelligent design, an interceding deity, etc. However, I didn't want to make assumptions based on overhearing conversations, so I made each of our openings about giving more information. That way I wouldn't be making assumptions.

I sent the opeing on November 20th, and he told me that he's now working on a response. If he agrees to it, I'll put his up after I receive it.

Now, for my opening:

As I said, my views are most closely associated with secular humanism. You can find a description of secular humanism here: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what&section=main

A brief overview of secular humanism is:

A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

As with most other people, this is a decent general idea of my views but the details are more involved.
For clarity’s sake I’ll break my views down into individual parts. If you need clarification on some parts, or want to ask about things I don’t discuss please feel free to. I’ll start with the broader aspects and we can go into more detail as we go along.

Since some issues are referenced in others, I’ll include an outline of what I discuss.

1) God
2) Religion
3) The Bible
4) Morality
5) The Supernatural
6) Science
7) Intelligent Design/Creationism
8) Evolution
9) Miscellaneous
10) Conclusion

God
For full disclosure’s sake I’ll go ahead and tell you that I’m an atheist. However, as with most “labels” the term isn’t black and white. Richard Dawkins came up with a scale of belief in the existence of a god or gods. The scale goes from 1 to 7 and is as follows:

Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there

Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'

On that scale I am a 6. I can’t know for certain that God doesn’t exist but I haven’t seen anything that inclines me to believe that it does. Therefore, I live my life according to values and morals that I’ve developed through introspection and exploration.

With that being said, even if it were to be proven in the future that God does exist that doesn’t necessarily mean that I would follow its tenets. Authority and power do not make any being moral, and I would expect it to explain to me why I should follow any particular rule that I didn’t agree with.

Religion
As I stated earlier I prefer to refer to it as personal philosophy rather than assume a stereotype of a religion. A person may identify most closely with a particular branch of religion, but I expect that their views would differ from some aspects of the religion if they were honest. Still, as with any philosophy it’s a way that a person establishes their moral values.

Even though I don’t believe in a deity, I have nothing against religion per se. However, I do have issues with what some people do in the name of their religion. All too often religion is used as a reason for ill treatment and discrimination against others who are different. If a person believes that they have to behave in a certain way in order to make it to a happy afterlife I don’t have a problem with that until their beliefs start having a negative effect on other people.

The Bible
In 325 BC a group of Christian authorities was gathered in Nicaea by Emperor Constantine I in order to reach consensus. The result is a collection of some of the existing books from the Jewish Tanakh, the teachings of Jesus as told by his apostles, and other gospels. Basically, the entire collection was done by a committee over 3 centuries after Jesus himself could have had any say so.
To me the Bible is simply another book. It was written by people, and as such contains biases toward their views of the world. However, unlike most other books it has also had two millennia for errors in translation and copying (both intentional and unintentional) to be propagated.

Basically, I question why anyone would base their philosophy and beliefs on the world as it was viewed by people two millennia ago. I believe that a person should examine not only what we’ve discovered about our surroundings (both immediate and cosmic) until today, but also examine the evidence that has supported those discoveries.

Morality
Simply put morality is the way a person views right and wrong. Since morality is based on a person's views they are also subjective. One person's idea of right and wrong does not necessarily equal another's. Of course, the major influence on a person’s morality is their personal philosophy.
My view of morality, in simplistic terms, is three different types of actions. Of course, there’s more detail to it but this the general description of it.

Moral: Actions that have a positive effect on the lives of at least one person other than yourself without having a negative effect on anyone else.

Amoral: Actions that have neither a positive or negative effect on the lives of others.

Immoral: Actions that have a negative effect on the lives of others.

There are some scenarios of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few that can still be moral actions, but not as moral as actions that have no negative effect on anyone else. Consider those sorts of actions as being at 1.5. (If you’d like, we can discuss this further, later.)

The Supernatural
When I speak of the supernatural what I’m referring to is anything that relies on magic as an explanation. This includes such things as astrology, numerology, psychics, homeopathy, traditional acupuncture, angels, demons, deities, an afterlife, and reincarnation. As I discussed above about God, I don’t know that any of these don’t exist but I haven’t found anything that gives me a reason to give them any credence. The late astronomer Carl Sagan once said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The more unlikely the assertion is the greater the need for evidence.

Science
When I refer to science I refer to the scientific method and its findings. Science is simply a method of investigation. What it finds is neither right nor wrong in a moral sense. It’s simply the answer that was arrived at through the evidence found. Sometimes, the answer is wrong or incomplete, but further investigation is used to correct that.

In order for a hypothesis or theory to be scientific it has to meet three criteria. It has to be testable, falsifiable, and reproducible. If it fails at any of these three then it does not meet the criteria and is no better than a guess.

Intelligent Design/Creationism
Intelligent design and creationism both imply that there were supernatural forces at work during the creation of the universe and life as we know it. The supernatural is not a proven or falsifiable assumption, so neither ID nor creationism is a scientific explanation. This was even supported by a court in Kansas (Kitzmiller vs. Dover).

The other day you spoke of complexity as a reason that you don’t believe in ToE. Taking that view, then God would have needed to be designed since he must be more complex than us.

There’s also the fact that every vertebrate on Earth develops in the same way that people do. They start out as a small collection of cells, slowly grow more complex, and then come out into the world and continue growing until they have (hopefully) passed on their genes and died. This is a continual occurrence and science has even found the “triggers” that cause many parts of development.

Evolution
Evolution is the change in generations of organisms caused by natural selection. The individuals with the most beneficial traits will be more likely to survive until the age that they can reproduce and will be more “attractive” for mating. Therefore, the genetic traits of those individuals will be more numerous in the next generation and eventually those traits will become dominate.

Evolution is one of the best supported (by the evidence) theories in science. Everything from findings in the fossil record to actual observations done in recent years has supported and furthered the understanding of ToE.

One example is a fossil found by the paleontologist Neil Shubin. There were fossils of amphibians and later fossils of fish, but none had found the transitional form between the two. So Dr. Shubin and a colleague happened upon a geology textbook and found that there was an undeveloped area where no one had looked that fit the criteria of what was needed. So they got the funding to go to the location and look. They found an area where the rock strata that they expected to find it in was exposed and started their search. What they found has been named Tiktaalik. It’s a fish with a bone structure that allows it to “do push-ups”, as Dr. Shubin described it.

The criteria that Dr. Shubin and his colleague used was that the rock strata should date to the middle time between the dates of the fish and amphibian, and the area should have been in shallow water and on the edge of an ocean at the time. Using findings from chronology, geology, paleontology, and evolutionary biology they were able to not only find the fossil, but also figure out where it should be found if the theories were correct.

Miscellaneous
During our discussion the other day you said something about thinking of my view as a horizontal worldview and of yours as a vertical. Personally, I think that description is too limiting in both cases. Both of those adjectives describe being linear and as such one dimensional.

Conclusion
This is an overview of how I view the world and what guides my actions, but by no means is a complete explanation. As with anything things are rarely as simple as they may seem on the surface. I look forward to receiving your reply and continuing our discussion.

10 Christian Questions Answered by an Atheist

2009-12-10T13:46:00.010-05:00

Hemant Mehta of The Friendly Atheist found a list of 10 questions asked of Christians by David Hayward. As an exercise, Hemant posted the same questions and asked them of atheists. You will find the questions [in italics, and with a '*' at the end to denote those asked by Mr. Mehta] and my answers to them below the fold.

Do I truly believe that everyone has the right to their own beliefs or lack thereof?

Can I respect the person, even though I may not respect their ideas?

Do I have the capacity to recognize my own fallacies?

Will it kill me if I were wrong?

Am I able to hold what I believe is truth lightly in the interest of dialog?

too important

Can I overlook and maybe even appreciate the idiosyncrasies of others in order to hear what they have to say?

Am I willing to discern the deeper currents rather than being distracted by the surface ripples?

deepity

Can everyone play? In other words, will I not ostracize someone because of their beliefs or lack thereof?

Is personal harm to others the only prohibition I am willing to make?

Do I love all beings, and if not, am I willing?

At what point is being right more important than being approachable/likable?*

Is there any time it’s ok to cede “points” to the other person just to keep the relationship strong?*

I'm hoping someone will develop a similar set of questions without the esoteric meanings that are in this one. While I agree that getting both sides to answer questions is a good way to get a dialog going, if the questions aren't clear to both sides then they are all but useless.

Dove Deepity #2: Thank Those You Love

2009-12-09T12:45:00.005-05:00

I got another Dove chocolate, today. This time Princess had put it into my lunch, but I still opened it with slow trepidation. What I read wasn't as "Wait... What?" as the last time, but it still leaves me feeling glad that there was at least real chocolate.

Express your gratitude to those you love.

This one didn't have an attribution, so I expect that they just included it because it's a common enough saying in our culture. Still, there are a few reasons why I consider it a deepity.

Excessive Purple Prose:
Notice my title compared to what the quote actually was. Sometimes, to make something seem deep and insightful people will use a string of 50 cent words where a penny word will suffice. Such as "express your gratitude to" instead of "thank".

It's too limiting:
Instead of "those you love" what about "everyone who has helped you". I would expect that means you would thank those you love, and those you meet sometimes just in passing. The message they are giving implies just thinking those you love instead of everyone who's aided you in some way.

Why not "love" instead of "gratitude"?
Instead of thanking them, shouldn't you actually tell those you love that you love them? If all you ever do is show gratitude then you would have to assume that they know you love them. I have actually seen people who have difficulty in expressing affection, and instead "thank" those they love. Sometimes they do so without using words, such as giving gifts. However, if they were to actually tell someone they loved them, it would mean even more since it is so difficult for them to admit.

I've actually submitted something to Dove, but I'm going to see if they actually accept it. I'll keep you posted, and if they do you can decide if it's a deepity.

Xmas Ideas

2009-12-08T14:26:00.003-05:00

Since I know Princess reads this, I'll put up some ideas for (tongue in cheek) Xmas gifts.

Here's the first one:

From Blog

The only thing better would be having Summer Glau to recite:

"We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5000 species of mammal on the same boat."

And here's another one:

From Blog

Isn't this much more thought provoking than that other version?

Greed as a Tool

2009-12-07T16:45:00.017-05:00

A few years ago a few coworkers applied for a job that had been posted online. When they told me about it I knew what the result would be, but none of them seemed to care. More recently, an elderly husband and wife, Patricia and Jerry Tackes, used up all of their savings, to the tune of more than $78,000, in an attempt to accomplish the same thing.

With my coworkers it was more mundane. For a $5 "processing fee" they could get a job compiling spreadsheets provided by some big name companies. Each of the spreadsheets would take a relatively short amount of time, less than 8 hours a week, but they would receive a $5,000 paycheck for their work. When they told me about the amount they would make flags went up in my head, but when they told me about the processing fee blaring alarms started going off.

Each of them blew it off, saying that it would only cost them $5 which wasn't much. They tried to convince me to join, but I just shook my head and told them I wasn't going to waste my money. The day came when the spreadsheets were supposed to be emailed to everyone, but nothing came. I managed not to say "It was only five dollars" when they started complaining. Apparently, several of them had been making plans for how they were going to use the 5K that they now would never get.

The monetary investment had only been five dollars, but they had an emotional investment that went along with it. Some planned on paying off their houses and other bills using the money, others planned on buying a house or replacing a car, and still others planned on going back to school.

My coworkers used "It's only $5" as reasoning to justify their greed. The couple in the article?

"We're honest," she said. "We were raised Catholic, and we just believe everybody. It's just torn up our whole life."

Yes, I said that even the 83 year old and her husband were being greedy.

Websters defines greed as: "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed". However, I think there's more to it than that. Greed is not only wanting more than you need, but also getting it in a way that requires less effort. Why work a few years of 40 hour weeks to get $100,000 in installments when you can rob a bank and get the entire amount in a few minutes?

With my coworkers the $5,000 a week carrot dangling in front of them made the $5 "processing fee" less questionable. The woman who'd been organizing the work disappeared that day and took the money with her. It's unknown how many people had given her $5 for the fee, but she was supposedly looking for 500 employees. I'll save you the math and tell you that's $2,500, but you also have to wonder if she actually stopped if the list reached 500. Some how, I doubt it.

With the Tackes, the end payout of millions made them less questionable of the mounting fees that they were being asked to pay to get it. However, it didn't seem to occur to them that they were being conned until their savings was entirely cleaned out. This was even after a Moneygram employee told Mrs. Tackes that it was a scam.

In each of these cases the tactics used were illegal, but there are even legal ways of using our greed against us. Casinos are able to make the big payouts to small groups of people because the majority loose more than that amount to the casinos. Everyone playing is trying to get the big payout, but the loosers are paying the casinos and the winners. Every lottery and raffle their is works on the same principle. The intent is to offset the amount that the winner makes by taking the money from the loosers. The additional money goes to those organizing the gambling.

Have you ever noticed that high volume sale items, such as milk, are located towards the back of a grocery store, or that those end cap advertising sales in grocery stores have items that you wouldn't normally think about buying? When you walk in just to grab a gallon of milk you have to walk by all of those other items that you weren't thinking about buying, and you may start wondering which of those you need at home or remember something that you would have waited to buy later. When you're doing your regular shopping they put the low-volume items on sale where they are the most visible, which is at the end of every aisle. Normally you wouldn't give them a second glance but now they're very visible and on sale. In both cases the grocery store is angling for an impulse buy, and this goes back to my proposed addition to "greed".

In the case of the additional items while you're just picking up the milk you may think "I'm already here anyway", even though you may be able to find it cheaper somewhere else. In the case of the end-caps they're hoping for you to think "hey this is cheaper than it normally is". In each case it's a way of preying on our inclination to put forth less effort for a greater result.

Now the question is what causes us to be greedy? If you include my proposed aspect of putting forth little effort it could be an evolutionary trait. Many predators go after weak prey, and that's their best option. If they go after a healthy and strong one they'll get better meat, but a fit prey is more likely to injure or elude the predator.

Being "greedy" is a good survival trait. An early human hunting with a spear has a much higher likelihood of providing a meal and much lower likelihood of injury than a human trying to take the prey bare handed. Trapping is even a way of using the greed of other animals for our own ends. Unfortunately, this trait can be used against us, too. Get-rich-quick schemers, swindlers, and businesses employee quite a bit of psychology when developing their ideas. In essence, their greed entices them to use our own against us.

Another thing I've noticed is that the "greed" trait is dominate as long as the carrot is being dangled in front of the person. As long as the $5,000 a week paycheck, or the millions in lottery money were still possible the people reasoned away the idea that they were wasting their time and money. However, after it became completely clear that they'd been conned they felt angry and hurt. They refused to listen to anyone trying to tell them they were being had, but then expect sympathy when it's all over.

My coworkers seemed irritated that I didn't give them any sympathy. When they first told me about it, I explained why I thought it was a scam. When they finally lost all hope that it wasn't a scam (the woman disappeared with their money) they couldn't believe that someone would do such a thing. They tried to play on emotion to develop sympathy for their stupidity. They only lost $5 to the woman, but they wanted something emotional reciprocated from someone for their feelings of betrayal.

Mrs. Tackes is apparently surprised that people would do such a thing.

"We're honest," she said. "We were raised Catholic, and we just believe everybody. It's just torn up our whole life."

PZ thinks that this implies that she was raised a victim, but I'm not so sure. I wonder if it is a way to generate sympathy. Perhaps by identifying herself and her husband as Catholic other Catholics will take up a collection to help alleviate the financial impact? This is purely conjecture, but would anyone be surprised?

Also, there's another thing that she said that raises a flag:

"We were going to move into (a) retirement home, but now we don't have the money. I just want to help other people who are in the same predicament."

Patricia is 83 and I'm assuming her husband Jerry is about the same age, they had enough money to move into a retirement home, and I'm also assuming that their intent to move into the retirement home meant they had enough that they could live there comfortably for a time. Why did they risk all of that in order to get more?

Their pleas of innocence (or gullibility, depending on how you look at it) just doesn't seem to fit. Perhaps the Tackeses (sp?) are as kind and innocent as they make themselves out to be, but being a person who actually knows about 419 scams I'm skeptical. It seems that they had enough money before the lottery offers came in that they could have lived out their lives comfortably, but now they're going for sympathy.

In both cases those who were looking to make the money used their trust in the kindness and honesty of others as an excuse (notice it's not a reason) for their gullibility. Since I didn't join my coworkers, and I've ignored and laughed at hundreds of lottery and 419 email scams does that make me a cynic?

No. I used the trait that we've evolved to balance our greed. Skepticism.

In the case of the job opportunity, I questioned why anyone would have to pay in order to work. I've worked for companies that will find you jobs (headhunters), and even they take the money from the company that they lease your services to. You don't have to pay a dime. Also, the $5,000 a week for 8 hours of work raised a flag. Our economy is based on supply demand. I'm sure that the companies the woman was supposed to get the work from could get the work done cheaper by those who actually worked for them, and it would have allowed them better control of their own information. Plus, every question I thought about the woman had supposedly answered in her email. Everyone was gung ho to accept her explanation, but to me it was as vague and evasive as a newspaper horoscope.

Now, how has skepticism kept me from trying to get the millions (or perhaps billions, by now) of dollars promised to me by international lotteries, people overseas who's money is being held up by their governments, or the inheritance that comes to me from a distant relative in Nigeria?

I know how lotteries and such work. If a person who never entered can win the lottery then the lottery is either very badly thought out, or a scam. Add to that the request for money in order to pay out, and it moves directly into the scam category.

Requesting my help in getting money out of a governments hands while I only have a pay a few thousand in order to get millions is a little shady. Why? Anyone who has a few million they are willing to share would probably know someone more wealthy than me who could help them out, and sending out a random email (with multiple misspellings and bad grammar) to someone named Berlzebub makes me really question your intelligence.

I have a large family. It's large enough that I still have to explain to my wife how I'm related to some even after she's been involved in my family gatherings for a decade. Further, where I grew up relations have a form of bragging rights. Thanks to that I found that I'm related to a hero of WWI. By related, I mean that he's so distant that the amount of heredity I share with him might as well be homeopathic. Still, if someone that distant from me in geneology is known to be my relative I'm pretty sure that a rich uncle in Nigeria would be big news among the family. If not, then it would be much more likely that he would email closer relatives first. And why don't they contact me through a lawyer? Again, sending the email to Berlzebub does not inspire any confidence in your intelligence or honesty.

Oh, and add to all of those that I have the fucking internet and I WASN'T RAISED IN A COMMUNE!

Around us are all sorts of cautionary words about our greed. Edgar Allen Poe wrote the poem Eldorado concerning someone searching fruitlessly for promised riches, you'll often hear something like "the safe way to double your money is to fold it over once and put it in your pocket" and "if something's too good to be true it probably is", and see news articles about people who have been swindled. However, we still have people such as Mrs. Tackes who fall for the cons, and give the swindlers a reason to continue the cons. Until people start to practice their trait of skepticism, the greed trait will remain. That also means that the greed trait will continue for the con men who utilize it in others.

This is yet another reason to endorse critical thinking and skepticism. As long as there are those who's greed makes them easy prey there will be the greedy who prey on it. The harder it is for the greedy to find targets for the scam, the less lucrative the scams will be. Granted, this just means that the swindlers will probably adapt to another scam, but critical thinking can help overcome those, too.

Also communication can play an important part. The communication has to go two ways, though. My coworkers told me about their job opportunity, and I explained why I thought it was a scam... they didn't listen. When the Tackeses tried to wire money through Moneygram an employee there blocked the transfer and told her it was a scam, but she continued the effort anyway. In both cases the parties being had were told by someone that it was a scam, but they continued on with it, anyway. They ignored the alarm bells that anyone who uses their noggin for something beside a hatrack would have going off.

While I feel bad for those who are the victims of these crimes, I have difficulty in feeling sympathy. If someone ignores the "BRIDGE OUT AHEAD" signs, the worker screaming at them to stop, and then sails into a river I'm not going to give them any sympathy over loosing their car.

Atheist Analogy #6: Prayer

2009-12-07T08:16:00.005-05:00

This atheist analogy is about prayer. Prayer is the way that some address their deity. Most often, it involves asking the deity to intercede in some way. It can be asking the deity to directly influence an outcome, or give the person strength or insight to resolve a situation.

Since I see no reason to believe in the existence of a deity prayer is no different than thinking of, wishing, or meditation. I have never heard of a prayer being answered in a way that requires a bonafide miracle. That is where the only possible explanation is a supernatural action.

Thinking of
Since I recently had two friends die and often heard or read "You're in my prayers" or "I'll be praying for you". If you change those to "You're in my thoughts" and "I'll be thinking of you" it becomes the same thing. Something I did notice is that in very few cases was the prayer the only thing that was offered. In both cases a collection of money was taken up to help the families until they could get things straightened out. In the case of my childhood friend he didn't have any life insurance so the family was going to have to absorb the cost of the funeral and burial. In the case of my mentor it takes time for the paperwork to go through so that the family will get the supplimental finances coming in to help with the bills.

Wishing
It's football season, so you'll no doubt hear about the deity of choice supporting one team or player over another. Some teams even have pre-game prayers asking for the deities help in winning the game. Of course, there are also those who pray for help in curing, or alleviating the symptoms of, their disease. When the outcome coincides with their prayers they conclude that their training and determination takes a backseat to their deity of choice when it comes to the outcome of the game. The doctors expertise and the advancements in the medical field are largely ignored and the result is claimed to be an answer to their prayers when it comes to their medical condition.

Meditation
A few months ago a coworker told me that she prayed for something, and then found that what she was praying for had been before her all along. She attributed it to the prayer being answered, but if what she had been looking for was right in front of her why did it take the prayer for it to be shown to her? Meditation is a calming technique. It's used to relieve stress and as a way to clear you mind when you're trying to seek answers. The difference in mediation and prayer is that meditation doesn't seek a supernatural influence. I do find one similarity, though. The answers that the people get always come from themselves. It's the little voice inside their heads that everyone has when they seek answers from themselves. In the case of those who pray, they attribute the voice to their deity of choice instead of their own ability to find answers when they calm down and actually think the problem through.

People often cite instances where they believe a prayer was answered, but ignore the more mundane natural explanation for the result. Instead they claim that it was an intercession from their deity of choice and give it all of the credit. In the process they ignore the efforts of those who actually caused the outcome that the praying person had wished for. This can include doctors, friends, colleagues, and even the praying person themselves. They also ignore the prayers that don't get answered and only point out the ones that they think have been.

Phil Plait once wrote something that I liked.

"One pair of hands grasping a shovel will do far more good than a thousand hands closed in prayer."

For the faithful, praying or being prayed for may make them feel better, but it does nothing to actually help. Instead, take action, because that can have a real effect on the world around you and the people who live on it.

Dove Deepity #1: Fall 7, Get Up 8

2009-12-04T15:18:00.004-05:00

You know those annoying deepities I was talking about yesterday. Well, my coworker and friend gave me a Dove chocolate during lunch today, and I couldn't resist the urge to see what wisdom the wrapper held. Getting ready to read the wrapper felt similar to holding a lottery ticket. You hope for the best outcome, but the odds are you will be disappointed.

So, I popped the chocolate into my mouth and then smoothed out the foil wrapper to read Dove's version of deep thoughts.

Before my eyes was one of the finest examples of a deepity that I've ever come across.

If you fall down 7 times, get up 8.
Deborah - Crown Point, IN

If you had to read that twice, don't feel bad. So did I... And I still didn't get it. Hell, it still makes no sense to me.

Are we supposed to fall down one more time, on purpose, and don't count it just so we can make the effort to get back up again? Are they considering that we'll "get up" out of bed in the morning, or "get up" from a seat at some point? Hell, I don't fall down seven times a day anyway, or even seven times between moments when I sit down.

Are they trying a variation on "giving 110%" (although 8/7 is 114%)? It's still a fail. If that was what they were getting at, they could have said so.

You want to know something even worse? What Deborah sent in isn't even original. It's an "old" Japanese proverb. According to that website:

"Basically if you fail 7 times, you should recover from those events and be prepared to rise an 8th time. This is also applies if it is the world or circumstances that knock you down seven times...
...just remember that you have the ability to bounce back from any kind of adversity."

Hmmm... Sound familiar? I'll give you a hint to get you started.

Everybody Now!

If at first you don't succeed...

Good grief. It's like the Golden Rule. It seems that every major philosopher who ever existed has posited it at one time or another, they all just said it in slightly different ways.

However, with the "7/8" someone decided to make it more complicated and add a logic loop. If they want to make something uplifting, make it uplifting. This is like Chicken Soup for One Hand Clapping.

But do you want to know what's really irritating? The next time I eat one I'll still look inside the wrapper, hoping that the next one I read will actually say something meaningful.

The Annoyance of Deepities

2009-12-03T10:24:00.011-05:00

There's a new word that's possibly going to become an integral part of skeptical, and even atheist, vocabulary. The word is deepity. It came to my attention when Daniel Dennett gave a presentation at a recent AAI meeting. According to Jerry Coyne's coverage of the speech a deepity is:

"a statement that has two meanings, one of which is true but superficial, the other which sounds profound but is meaningless."

(You can watch -and I highly recommend- the hour long presentation by Mr. Dennett here)

I have to give a huge thanks to Mr. Dennett for giving a term to describe something that annoys the shit outta me. Ever since I let go of religion and started working out describing my own personal philosophy I've become more aware of what others say concerning philosophy. Periodically, someone will say something that they think is deep and profoud, but when I play it back in my head it comes off as shallow and evasive. Dennett calling it a deepity is perfect for me, for that very reason. The statement is a characiture of a deep thought, but only superficially resembles anything substantial.

I've seen and heard numerous deepities that range from the standard "God is Love" to some of those annoying quotes that come with Dove Promises (I recommend using LIST VIEW). I end up feeling like the wiseass kid in SMBC and have to find something to get the bad taste out of my mouth.

The most recent deepity I heard was from a coworker. Admittedly, it might have been a bad idea but I had a discussion with the coworker who sent the recent evolution email. My response to him clued him into my trust in evolution, and that led to a slightly more in depth discussion on philosophy.

During the discussion I said (paraphrased) I see no reason to use a 2 millenia old book as a moral guide, or base my philosophies on a being that very well may not exist. Admittedly, he didn't say something as stupid as "God is love" or some other cop-out. Instead, he said something that he apparently believed to be profound. I'll have to paraphrase from memory, but it's close enough:

I believe your worldview is horizontal, but mine is vertical. I look up toward God for my morals.

Make no mistake, this pissed me off. I had to take a few seconds to calm myself before I made any response at all.

After my silence, I gave a little smile and said "I look up all the time. At the blue sky, clouds, stars and moon." Whether he got my subtle insinuation that by looking up I'd never seen God, I'm unsure but he was unable to come up with a response.

However, it doesn't end there. Since having verbal discussions on such things, at work, are difficult I asked him if he would be interested in an email exchange. I thought it might be a way to clear him of some false misconceptions of atheists that he seemed to hold, because I seriously doubt that either he or I are going to be swayed toward holding the others belief.

He accepted, and I wrote a small essay of my views on various things. Perhaps later I'll publish the complete essay, but for now I'm going to give you what I wrote in the Miscellaneous section of the essay.

"During our discussion the other day you said something about thinking of my view as a horizontal worldview and of yours as a vertical. Personally, I think that description is too limiting in both cases. Both of those adjectives describe being linear and as such one dimensional."

Granted, I may be giving him too much credit, and he may base his entire morality on the words supposedly written by his imaginary friend. However, it was insulting for him to insinuate that my philosophy and worldview is one dimensional. I've drawn on many sources to figure out my views of right and wrong. I just haven't used a being that I don't believe exists as a starting point.

Now, back to the subject of deepities. My impression of those that say such things are that they haven't delved into why they actually believe the deepities they utter are insightful. As with the infamous Edward of the now defunct Christian Cross Talk, they put forth these statements that they find irrefutable. Then, they have to tie themselves in knots (or drop the conversation altogether) in order to defend themselves when others point out how badly thought out their ideas actually are.

So thank you Mr. Dennett for giving me an appropriate word to describe something that irritates me so. However, I'd also like to submit a layman's definition for it.

Deepity (noun): The irritating answer you get when someone hasn't thought the question through before you asked it.

Feelings of Loss

2009-12-01T11:44:00.005-05:00

This past weekend I lost two people who were close to me. One was a childhood friend who I ran around with for a decade named James. The other is a coworker who I've known for about a decade named Gary. Mama called on Friday to tell me that James had died of a heart attack, and my friend and coworker called me on Saturday to tell me that Gary had died of a heart attack.

James and I became best friends not long after we first met. I was in the seventh grade. He lived just up the road from me, and we got together quite often to do things together. Some things were the mundane that boys do, and others were those that boys do that I won't mention just in case either of our parents ever read this.

He was a year younger than me and a grade behind me in school, but even during my first year of college we still hung out together. Then, after he graduated, he joined the Air Force. It's at that point that our commonality diverged. By the time he'd served and returned home I'd moved away from home. Our interests no longer overlapped as much as they did, and we didn't have anything to talk about. We grew apart.

Gary and I both started at around the same time with the company I currently work for. I was a drafter and he was a product designer. When I showed interest in becoming a product designer he instructed me in the programs and eventually my title changed. During that time some shuffling of management occured and Gary became a manager. More important to this story he became my manager.

Unfortunately, at the same time the company wasn't going in a direction that coincided with the direction I wanted to go. I got a job offer from another company and ended up taking it. Gary wanted me to stay but the offer was too good for me to pass up.

Eventually, I realized that what I'd been told by my new employer and what was actually occuring weren't coinciding. It was at that point that I was contacted by Gary about coming back. After a little back and forth I was rehired by my present company.

This time things were different. Gary and others had set up a plan and were sticking to it. It would give the designers and others a chance to grow and be challenged. It was exactly what I was looking for.

Even better was Gary's role. He was arguably the best boss a person could ask for. He stood behind you when he thought you were right, and stood beside you if you made a mistake. He was understanding and supportive while Princess and I were going through IVF, and was willing to give me and others a flexible schedule in order to help our personal lives.

Now they're both gone.

All I'll ever have of James are the memories of him and the times we shared. We'll never be able to see if we can find those common interests we once shared that made us so close.

I last talked to Gary on Wednesday before Thanksgiving holiday. He was excited that his son was coming home on leave from the Air Force for the holiday. We wished each other a good Thanksgiving and said we'll see each other Monday. But we didn't. I'll never be seeing him alive again.

Now I'm working through my grief. I missed the funeral of my childhood friend because of timing (I didn't find out it was on Monday until Sunday evening), and tomorrow I'm going to the funeral of a friend and mentor. Perhaps the funeral will bring me closer to closure in both cases.

I Wish it was 2013

2009-11-24T08:51:00.003-05:00

A couple of weekends ago Princess and I went to see the new movie 2012. I went to see it with two things in mind.

They would get the science wrong.

The effects will probably be awesome.

I was right on both counts. They twist the science in knots in order to further the plot, but the special effects were freakin' awesome. Major geologic events culiminating in the eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera, and tsunamis of unreal proportions. Entire countries even turn into vast lava fields.

When we left the theater I wasn't disappointed, but I also wasn't wondering if what was shown could happen. In other words the effects were spectacular, but the science wasn't nearly as good as say... Deep Impact.

Still a movie is a movie. The writers and directors take a certain amount of artistic license in order to bring the viewer in (both into the theater and into the movie itself). Unfortunately, the movie itself is based upon the belief, by some, that the world is going to end on December 21st, 2012.

Last week at work we had a bit of a discussion about the movie, and one of my coworkers brought up the 2012 doomsday prophecies. If it had been just a topic of discussion I would probably have enjoyed talking about it, but this coworker had a note of worry in his voice and talked about what he'd heard as if he'd read it in Scientific American. Here's a hint. He didn't.

Oddly enough, I was able to supply more information about the prophecies than he could. He could only go by what the grapevine had supplied, but I'd actually done some reading on it. Granted, my study was out of curiosity but he actually showed a hint of fear. He brought up the "science" (and I use the quotes because the science was virtually non-existent) in the movie and I explained the reality. I debunked everything that was brought up, but by the end he was still giving the prophecies (and the movie) infinitely more credibility than they deserve, since they deserve no credibility at all.

Then yesterday Phil Plait wrote a post about 2012. In the post he links to a 2012 article by Information is Beautiful. It's a terrific article to link to if you know someone is genuinely concerned about the world ending prophecy. It takes each aspect of it and gives the believer's view and the skeptical findings.

Unfortunately, no amount of information will convince some that there's nothing to worry about. It won't be until December 22nd of 2012 that they'll breathe easier, and even then there will be another end-of-the-world scenario that'll gain attention and it will all start over again.

Nonexistent Skin

2009-11-13T11:57:00.013-05:00

There's an idiom about someone "having a thin skin". It refers to someone that you find "to be insensitive (or acutely sensitive) to blame, criticism, insults, etc." Recently, some people have voiced opposition to things that show their skin to be not just thin, but nonexistent.

My last post was on the CinCOR billboard and the accompanying poll. Unfortunately, there's more to the story. The billboard was originally erected in Over-the-Rhine, but the owner of the property received so many threats that the billboard company moved it to the Queensgate area. What was the wording on the billboard that allegedly caused the owner to receive threats and for 79% of those in the internet poll to feel offended?

Don't Believe in God?
You are not alone.

WOW! I can see what's got people so worked up.

Wait... no I can't.

Is it offensive for them to find out that others don't buy into their particular brand of delusion and dogma, or is it that others like me had the audacity to put such a message up on a billboard? Either way those who are "offended" seem as intolerant as they are constantly accusing atheists of being.

If the billboard had said something like

There [probably] is no God, so get on with your life!

Need God? Then you need a psychologist even more.

Theology: What happens when mythology meets gullibility.

Having trouble justifying your hate and bigotry? We've got a passage that'll help.

Give me about $4,000 and I'll show them something really offensive.

Just a little ways north of Cincinnati is the Butter Jesus. According to 79% of those polled I should be offended at it. However, I'm not. It's an eyesore and a waste of money that could have been better spent on other things, but it's not offensive to me.

However, AiG has a billboard that I find offensive. It shows a child pointing a gun at the camera and asks:

If God doesn't matter
to him, do you?

If they hadn't included the child holding the gun, I probably wouldn't find it offensive. It would actually make a great conversation opener.

Those who are offended by the billboard are probably offended by everything that doesn't fall inline with their particular mythol... personal philosophy. That could probably include other sects of Christianity that doesn't fit with their view of what Christianity should be. Since they seem to find my existence offensive, it may comfort them to know that I find their views depressing. Of course, they could find that offensive, too.

Atheist Billboards in Cincinnati

2009-11-13T10:46:00.004-05:00

There is an atheist billboard up in the Over-The-Rhine section of Cincinnati (video here), put up by CinCOR. There's also a poll.

Are you offended by an Atheist or Agnostic billboard?

Yes
No

Thank you for participating in our poll. Here are the results so far:

Yes 79%

No 21%

Perhaps the poll should be Pharyngulated.

Atheist Analogy #3: Religious Experience

2009-11-10T13:37:00.003-05:00

Due to an influx of SPAM on the original post, I had to duplicate it in hopes of clearing up my email.

This atheist analogy is about religious experience. Religious experience can take many forms for different people. For some it's just a euphoria that fills them when they are listening to their pastor or praying, for others it involves speaking in tongues, and for others it involves the use of hallucinogens.

Growing up in a rural town in the Appalachian Mountains I got to witness quite a few examples of the first two. However, the only common local drug was cannabis, and that was used for recreational purposes. Keep in mind that where I grew up the Pentecostal and Baptist religions were virtually the only regional religions for many years. In such a culturally isolated location it wasn't very difficult for the fundamentalist and evangelical churches to thrive.

There wasn't a time that I didn't go to church and see someone nearby standing, holding their hands up, and saying "Thank you, Jesus" or some other platitude. Usually this involved a slight swaying to their stance, reminiscent of seeing someone inebriated.

Speaking in tongues was also fairly normal. There were few churches in my localized area that didn't have occurences, and most had them with each service. For a few, the platitudes that I spoke of above would be replaced with an inarticulate babbling, and quite often with trembling. Others would run around among the pews and people, holding their hands up and loudly making noises similar to the babbling of the more sedate group but higher in volume.

Since I grew up with these sorts of occurences, I found them normal when attending a service. It wasn't until I in my teens, and attended a few churches further removed from my locale that I noticed that not everyone did it. Later examinations of the occurences in the churches I regularly attended seemed to show some correlation between the self-viewed "piety" of the person and the severity of their experience.

Like many others I found myself wondering why I didn't share the same experience as the others. I prayed and "listened" for any sort of response, but I never felt the euphoria that the others seemed to experience. However, I did find that other things could give me a similar experience.

Some of you may have listened to music that elicited an emotional response. It was music that caused, and causes, a catharsis for me. A song with just the right combination of tone, rhythm, and "message" can bring on that euphoric religious experience that I witnessed so often growing up. I've even found that simply standing in an isolated location with a wonderful view, which there is no shortage of where I grew up, can cause me to feel calmer and more at ease and peaceful.

In the ~20 years since my discovery I've had several "religious experiences", but none of them have occured inside of a church or during prayer. Anything that can cause a strong emotion causes the same reaction from me (minus the running around and babbling) that I witnessed in those who I attended church services with. However, I don't find it necessary to call upon the supernatural to have a religious experience. I just allow myself to experience the beauty of the world around me.

Another Annoying Email

2009-11-06T11:57:00.006-05:00

With the twins still not sleeping and most of my mental faculties being devoted to work, feeding, and diaper changes I haven't had much time or inclination to post. However, the coworker who sent out the Death Panel email sent me another one last week. This one wasn't about health care, though. Instead it was about evolution.

SOMEBODY'S RAISING THEIR KID RIGHT!

One Nation, 'Under God'.

One day a 6 year old girl was sitting in a
classroom. The teacher was going to explain
evolution to the children. The teacher asked
a little boy: Tommy do you see the tree
outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.

TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.

TEACHER: Did you see God up there?

TOMMY: No.

TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. Possibly he just doesn't exist.

A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions.

The teacher agreed and the little girl asked the boy: Tommy, do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?

TOMMY: Yessssss!

LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?

TOMMY: Yessssss!

LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?

TOMMY: Yes

LITTLE GIRL: Do you see her brain?

TOMMY: No

LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in school, she possibly may not even have one!

(You Go Girl!)

'FOR WE WALK BY FAITH, NOT BY SIGHT'

II CORINTHIANS 5:7

Don't forget to pass this on! I love this one.
Everyone should send this to everyone they know, especially today with prayer restricted in schools. Forward if you believe in GOD!!!!

Perhaps it's the lack of sleep or just my irritation at people forwarding falsehoods, but I took a little bit of time to respond. Of course, I also have to work with this person (and share a cubicle with him) so I tried to keep it as diplomatic as I could.

E Pluribus Unum “ Out of many, one” – The original motto for the United States.

Biology is not being taught to 1st or 2nd graders. Evolution isn’t covered until middle to high school, depending on locale.[I found out since that it's only taught in high school]

The fictional teacher in the story didn’t even cover anything pertaining to evolution.

Any teacher in a public school would have been fired (or at least suspended) for such an act. Teachers are there to teach their classes, not to put forth their views on religion. If a student were to bring up their religion during a study of evolution, the most the teach could say is that the class is about biology not theology.

Matthew 6:6
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

The only restriction on prayer in schools is that a school official (teacher, principal, etc.) cannot lead, require, sanction, schedule or suggest that any students pray. Each student is free to devote their free time (time not participating in classes) in any way that they like. However, the students do not have the right to impose prayer on others during school hours. Think of it this way. What if the teacher was a Pagan, Wiccan, or Muslim? Would you want them leading your children (or in your case, grandchildren) in prayer?

This is my blog, though, and I don't have to be so diplomatic.

Perhaps someone will eventually come up with an original theme to this glurge. I've heard variations of it before. From the violence of a Navy SEAL to a piece of unbreakable chalk. The only difference with this one is the age group. And that leads me to my next point.

The protagonists in these stories are getting younger. It used to be college students, and now they have a six year old one-upping a teacher. Their delusions must be getting stronger since the adult cdesign proponentsists lost a court case in Pennsylvania.

Also, the girl's response was fallacious. The teacher spoke in a coherent manner. In order for a person to do so takes a functioning brain. We can't see the wind, but we can see the effects that it has. The same goes for the brain. If a person is able to voice ideas and move about with purpose then it stands to reason that they have a brain. However, if they insist that there's an invisible friend watching over everything they do and telling them what to do it's questionable how functional their brain is.

It's subtle, but when you get to the end you find out what the entire email is about. It's the fear that while the children are away from the parents that the indoctrination they receive at home and in church is being undermined by our secular school system. Apparently, anyone who believes that evolution is the best natural explanation of the diversity of life on earth is a non-believer. Unfortunately, they don't realize that a number of Christians think that God is the one who authored the process.

As you may have guessed, I'm not going to be forwarding this email on to anyone. It may be some feel good superiority endorsing glurge for the believers, but for me it's an irritating lie. There are so many holes in the story that it's telling that it has went around enough to eventually make it around to my inbox (FYI, one of the people who sent the email is in the public school system). Do the forwarders and writer actually believe that is how evolution is approached, do they really think that evolution is so ingrained in schools that it's taught to primary school children, or is this just a way for them to feel superior over those who've actually followed where the evidence leads instead of a two millenia old book of mythology?

The only positive that I saw to this email, compared to others, is that it wasn't touted as a true story. Other than that it's an epic fail. It gives an "either with us or against us" message, doesn't even address the topic of the email, perpetuates the lie, by insinuation, that prayer isn't allowed in schools, and promotes ignorance over examining the evidence. The entire email is a collection of bullshit written to make evolution denialists feel better about their beliefs. After all, if a six year old can outsmart her teacher, shouldn't they be able to outsmart the overwhelming scientific consensus?

Team Building, My Ass!!

2009-09-09T15:44:00.004-04:00

Rebecca just put up a post on Skepchick about some members of a football team who were taken to be baptized. Among those present at the baptism were the coach, superintendent, and a few of the parents.

In the comments of the post, owheelj said:

I can’t say I understand the outrage that much. If you actually believed that it had some power perhaps, but all that really happened was the kids in the football team got dunked in water. No harm in that. The kid with the Catholic dad is still free to choose whatever religion he likes.

I have to correct owheelj on one aspect. I'm not outraged, I'm fucking livid!

What parent wouldn't be outraged at their child being taken somewhere without their consent.

When Dannie Ammons' 16-year-old son, Robert, left on a school bus bound for a neighbouring Kentucky county two weeks ago, he thought his son's high-school football team was off to hear a motivational speaker and enjoy a steak dinner.

So the father wasn't even told where his son was going.

Instead, Robert was baptized and, along with eight other members of the Fighting Tigers football team, accepted Christ as his saviour.

Mr. Ammons, who is Catholic, said his son received the religious sacrament without his knowledge or consent.

Some of the parents weren't told of what the trip actually entailed.

Robert, a sophomore who plays safety, told his father that his coach, Scott Mooney, said partaking in a baptism would be a team-building experience. "He said it would bring the team together," Robert told the Louisville's Courier-Journal.

The coach abused his position of authority and trust, along with peer-pressure.

Roughly half of the team's 40 players participated in the excursion on Aug. 26 to Franklin Crossroads Baptist Church, the coach's church, for which permission slips were not required. That night, Robert and eight of his teammates -- all minors -- swapped their jeans and T-shirts for white robes, and were submerged in baptismal water during a 20-minute ceremony.
[emphasis mine]

None of the players were required to have a permission slip to go on a field trip across county lines? Things must have changed drastically since I was in school. If it wasn't known to the parents, such as going to play at a game or the daily trip to the vocational school, there was a permission slip to be signed.

"I believe the faith was pushed on my son," Mr. Ammons said, adding that he and his wife, who is a Baptist, hoped his son would wait until he was older to decide his faith.

"I think the coach used his faith as a weapon, and my son followed along. We feel like he was brainwashed.... I asked my son if he even knows what it means to be baptized as a Baptist, and he has no clue."

I'm pretty sure that Mr. Ammons is correct on this one.

Superintendent Janet Meeks, who is also a member of the church and who witnessed the ceremony, said she thought parents were aware the event included a church service and said participation was voluntary. "The coach requested the use of a school bus," she said in a statement released last night. "The cost of the fuel was donated, and the driver volunteered."

Superintendent Meeks should have been sure that parents were aware, and damn well shouldn't have allowed the use of school property. If they wanted to get the boys there, they should have provided private transportation.

Although Mr. Ammons said most parents were "kept in the dark," a handful of parents knew their sons were heading to the revival service. In fact, some parents travelled the 40 kilometres to the Baptist church to attend the event.

Who wants to bet that the ones who actually knew were Baptist. Only letting certain parents know what was going on only supports Mr. Ammons suspicions.

"We had invited the coach and his team for a night of encouragement," said Rev. Ron Davis, who baptized the players. "Those boys made the decision in that moment to be obedient and know Christ."

My bullshit detector just went into overdrive. The church is 40 kilometers away, and in another county. I suspect that the reverend was only thinking about proselytizing. I've never met a religious authority figure who was more intent on getting a team to win a football game than preaching the word of their deity.

Also among the 700 congregants was the coach's daughter, who was also baptized at the service. Although Rev. Davis typically seeks parental consent for baptisms involving minors, he said the boys were "bulked up" and looked older than their 16 years.

Wow, they looked older than 16. Perhaps the reverend should have asked to make sure before going through with the baptism.

"I didn't check their IDs," he said, adding that Mr. Mooney -- who has brought players to church services in the past -- did not pre-arrange for the boys to accept the sacrament.

Did any of the ones before get baptized, and where their parents aware of it? Mr. Mooney's judgement has been seriously called into question, now.

"If I had known his mother and father would be upset, I would have tried to persuade him to wait."

Tried? How about, "Not until your mother and father give their permission, or you're a responsible adult." The last of which means the coach isn't ready to be baptized yet, either.

Indeed, Mr. Ammons and his wife, Michelle, are planning to consult a lawyer. "I want something done, this whole thing is just wrong," said Mr. Ammons, adding that his son thinks he is overreacting and fears ruffling feathers among the team. "This doesn't happen every day."

It doesn't matter if this never happened before. It should never happen again. The primary blame goes on Mr. Mooney, and disciplinary action should be taken. He has a responsibility to the parents of the kids on his team. His responsibility concerns football. The conditioning, discipline, and rules of the game should be his concern. Not what religion the members of his team accept.

I don't care if the field trip is to the Creation Museum, or the Museum of Natural History. The school authorities should obtain the consent of the parents, and be honest with the parents as to where the trip is going and what is there. They are there to make sure our children learn. Be it a football coach or biology teacher, their responsibility to our kids is teaching first and religion last. If they get their priorities screwed up, they're too dumb to be in their job.

And I have one other question. Did the boys actually get their steak dinner?

Munchkin and the Twins

2009-09-03T09:13:00.005-04:00

Everyone in our household has had to make adjustments to the twins' arrival. For Princess and me, it's been the late night feedings and logistics. However, the person who's been impacted the most by the twins' birth is Munchkin.

For five+ years Munchkin has been an only child, and the youngest grandchild on both sides. When family came to visit, she didn't have to share attention with anyone else, and even when there were other family around she was always the youngest. Being the youngest meant that most gave her more attention. However, now that Peep and Boo are in the picture, all of that has changed.

We are having to spend a great deal of time with the twins. Since they can't eat their own food, change their own clothes, take their own baths, etc. they require attention. Munchkin is used to having that attention available to her, but now she's adjusting. Having my in-laws, and soon Mama and Padre, here has helped tremendously. It's also given Munchkin the chance to get attention from someone else when we aren't available.

We've made an effort to spend time with her, even if the twins were wearing us out. I get up early enough that I can see her onto the bus, and we both spend time with her in the afternoons going over her kindergarten homework. If the twins are sleeping we put them down and give her our undivided attention for a while, doing something that she wants to do with us. We've also found ways to keep her occupied when we're busy with her sisters.

If I'm changing one (or both) of the twins, she helps me get the diaper, wipes, ointment, etc. If one of us needs to do something we let her hold the less fussy of the twins while we do it, and we're working on setting up a way that she can help feed them.

However, one evening we had a conversation on the difference between "love" and "attention". It went something like this:

Munchkin: “[My friend] said that now you won’t love me as much because you have the twins to take care of, but that's okay.”

[Princess looks at me with surprise]

Me: "That's not true, Munchkin. We love you just as much as we did before we had the twins, but they need more attention. They can't put on their own clothes, eat their own food, or tell us what they need like you can, so we have to spend more time with them. That doesn't mean we love you any less."

Princess: “Do you remember what I told you about when you make me mad?”

Munchkin: “Even when I make you mad, that doesn’t mean that you don’t love me.”

Me: “That’s right. We will always love you, even when you drive us nuts, just like your sisters probably will sometimes.”

Munchkin: ”…”

Munchkin: ”But daddy, I can’t drive.”
...
Munchkin: ”What's so funny?"

Since I don't live in the household of Munchkin's friend I can't say for sure what made her friend say it, but Munchkin's friend has a little sister that isn't quite preschool age. Her father also has health problems, so that would probably play a part in it.

The next time Munchkin's friend visited I sat down and talked to both of them about it. I told Munchkin's friend that if she feels her mom and dad don't love her to talk to them, and if she didn't feel comfortable doing it to come tell me and I'd do what I could to help her.

Thanks to our reassurances, and probably moreso to our actions, Munchkin is coping quite well with the change. She even volunteers to help when I'm changing diapers. Although, I suspect and ulterior motive to helping me change them. She was at the hospital when Boo pooped on me (I won't go into details, here), and I'm pretty sure Munchkin is just waiting for it to happen again.

Atheist Analogy #5: Spirituality

2009-09-01T10:07:00.009-04:00

This atheist analogy is about spirituality. Aaron, who I wrote about in my last post, did a more recent post on Atheist Spirituality.

Aaron saw a tweet by Leonard Sweet that said:

most atheists now claim to be "spiritual;" has spirituality become a shopping bag in which to collect the ultimate in fashion accessories?

My first thought was to question where Mr. Sweet got his information. All too often the term "atheist" is used as loosely as "spiritual". People will use the words, but not actually contemplate what the terms actually mean.

However, instead of questioning what Mr. Sweet actually means by "atheist" the comments had me thinking about the term spiritual.

As I wrote in the comments, if spirituality means "disconnected embodiment of self" then I am most definitely not spiritual. The term "spirit" is often used interchangably with soul, and as I wrote in that piece I don't believe in a soul in a supernatural sense.

The belief that the spirit can transcend the present plane is prominent in many different religions. Even some non-theistic religions, such as some forms of Buddhism, are spiritual in nature. The belief that there is more to a person than just their physical body and mind permeates religions of all types. Without including something "spiritual" that lasts beyond the lifespan of the body most religions would be impossible. An afterlife, reincarnation, transcendence... All would be moot without the inclusion of something insubstantial to benefit from the ideas.

So how can spiritual apply when you don't believe there is anything beyond the physical plane in which we currently exist? If the soul is simply "a byproduct of society, consciousness, and beliefs", then of what use is spiritual?

Perhaps it's spiritual when you look up at the night sky with awe and wonder knowing that there are billions of galaxies up there that only appear as pinpoints of light along with billions of other stars in each galaxy including our own, perhaps it's spiritual when you see your own children born knowing that you not only helped to create a new life but will have a responsibility in making sure that newborn will grow up to become a real person, or perhaps it's just an experience that fills you with emotion. Any of those could be considered spiritual, although in a very loose sense.

However, I have quit using the term "spiritual". The main reason is that it's become so overused that it's became a buzzword. Each time someone says it they seem to be expecting the people around them to react as if they've said something profound. Here's some news. If everyone and their brother, from the New Age movement to mainstream religions, are using the same word it isn't profound. It's boring.

The Lamb Among the Wolves

2009-09-01T09:01:00.004-04:00

Via Mixter I found out about a Christian who attended the Creation Mausoleum with the SSA. As I wrote in an earlier post there was some concern about fanatical Christians joining our group as a fifth column. Fortunately, Aaron (the writer of the post) didn't join the group to cause problems.

"What would it be like to be a Christian and a fly on the wall as a group of atheists peered at exhibits that attempted to prove them wrong? How would the creationist lecturer react to challenges and would he gloat when he wins a point?"

Aaron writes from the perspective of a believer mingling with the heathens, and some of what he says is quite interesting.

I was surprised at the number, and visibility, of the security people, but since Aaron's wife had been there before she had a different perspective. Most places I've been effort has been taken to make the security personel blend in. However, at the Creation Mausoleum the purpose of security seemed to be intimidation instead of keeping of order.

I also caught some of the stares, and was ignored by some if I nodded and said "Howdy" (sue me, I'm southern). I honestly expected it, and it didn't bother me. When you come from a town where everyone knows everybody there are those who know things about you that they disagree with, and if they are of the civil sort they will ignore you. I also never heard the whispers, but then again I was more interested in the displays.

I have to commend Aaron for doing something that not many would even think of doing. He walked a mile (although it seemed like ten to me) in secular shoes, and was disappointed in what he found. His disappointment didn't stem from the actions of the secularists who attended the tour, but of how his own treated his fellow man.

While I don't agree with everything Aaron has written (and I've only read a few of his other posts) I do find his writing thought provoking, and he does seem to be open to conversation and debate. That's why he's soon going to appear on my blogroll.

The Issues of Arrival

2009-08-31T12:26:00.006-04:00

In "The Expectation Came Unexpectedly" I hinted at at least one issue during the birth of our twins (the oxygen mask shown in the second picture). However there's a couple of other things that readers might find interesting, or at least helpful if they find themselves in the same position.

I talked about Princess's back labor and how that influenced her decision to go with a c-section. Well, after they had pulled the twins, and their placentas, out there was some internal bleeding. Not enough to be life threatening, but enough that the doctor felt they should give her fluids and keep an eye on her. I'm not sure of the technical term, but they were afraid that the placenta had grown into the uterus. However, the evidence didn't add up, and a second opinion confirmed that it was something relatively rare but not life threatening. It did require some internal stitches (along with the additional blood loss), but not much more than that.

Princess also became violently ill once again. This time the nausea came prior to the medication. This suggests that it is the labor that caused her vomiting. Now that some time has passed, we've termed it "an allergy to labor". It's funny now, but 36 hours of being unable to eat wasn't very humorous at the time.

Princess had some problems breastfeeding Munchkin. Basically, we switched to formula to keep Munchkin from screaming from hunger. She chalked it up to inexperience, and since I had no experience in the matter, we left it at that. However, the same problem occured this time. This caused some distress in Princess, since we know of several people who were able to. It doesn't help that there are some (although it seems a small but vocal minority) who are fanatical that a mother who doesn't breastfeed is tantamount to child abuse. It turns out that Princess's mother wasn't able to breastfeed either. Both produced the milk, but were unable to express enough to feed the children. Perhaps there's a genetic predisposition to being unable to breastfeed.

Boo had to be given oxygen when she was first born. She wasn't able to expel the fluid from her lungs very well, so they gave her some oxygen to help her breath until she could get clear her lungs. It didn't take long for us to know that she was going to be the most vocal of the two.

We also have to take Boo for an MRI in about a month. She was breech for quite some time, and that means there's a possibility of hip dysplasia. The nurses and doctors who've examined her aren't that concerned with it, but MRIs are a standard procedure in those cases (read CYA). Judging by how well Boo and Peep kick when we're changing their diapers, I'm not that concerned either.

Peep and Boo were originally Peek and Boo. They both would lift their arms and cover their eyes, but then lower them when it came time to let us know that they needed fed/changed/held etc. Since Boo is the less... reserved of the two, she would almost always be the one to cry first. However, when Peep got the hiccups she made this adorable little "peep" sound that cemented the change to her nickname.

The week passed and we were beginning to get into a rhythm. Granted, the rhythm we're getting into is conflicting with our circadian rhythm, but we're getting a rhythm. Princess is very surprised at how well I can function with lack of REM sleep, but several years of late nights and early mornings (involving alcohol, of course) might have prepared me for it.

Where was I going with this? Sorry, lack of sleep makes it easier for me to go off on a tangent. Anyway, last night Princess's incision started leaking. By leaking I mean we thought Boo had pooped on Princess. There was a smell to it that supported the crap hypothesis, but when Princess went to check on it she found that it was leaking from her incision. We called her OB-Gyn, and she asked a few questions. Since there was no fever, and the leaking subsided there didn't seem to be that much of a problem. They still saw her today and examined the leaking. It turns out not to be a big deal, but last night I prepared myself for a late night ER visit and a phone call to my boss telling him I might be a little late.

Now, things have settled down, at least until the next bit of drama occurs. Everyone is doing well, and Princess is now capable of driving. Grandma and Grandpa will be at the house until Friday, and then Mamaw and Papaw will come to relieve them (and Papaw will become Munchkin's jungle gym).

My intent is to next make a post on some suggestions on preparations on twins. It has more to do with what I found besides the list of things to bring with you to the hospital.

"Your Name"

2009-08-31T11:47:00.003-04:00

A reader sent me an email with a link to a youtube video. It's a song sung by Gory Bateson called "Your Name". At first, it seems to be a typical country-western/gospel song until you listen closely to the words. Expand this post to see the video.

Gory gets extra points for using the word "fuck".

(Tip o' the trident to Nick at CSUS)

The Expectation Came Unexpectedly

2009-08-31T09:16:00.007-04:00

On Friday, Aug. 21st, I wrote that Princess and I were getting closer. Well, as John Lennon once said:

"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."

John Lennon, smart man, shot in the back very sad.

Okay, I'm rambling a bit. Sue me. I'm only getting about an hour and a half of sleep at a time.

On my way home from work on the 21st, a little after 5 pm, Princess called. Just as I answered I hit a dead zone (yes, they do exist even with Verizon) and had to wait a couple of minutes to call her back. When I did, she told me to all a wonderful, amazing, stupendous friend who had volunteered to watch Munchkin when Princess went into labor.

A couple of weeks earlier, Princess's phrasing had almost made me panic and run home from work early. So this time I verified that she meant what I thought she meant, and then completed the final three minutes of the trip home in about a minute and a half. Apparently, I also called our friend.

We grabbed all of the bags containing our clothes, toiletries, etc. and piled into the minivan. Well, I actually had to help Princess to the minivan because she was having back labor, again. We picked up Munchkin, who was playing at a friend's house, and headed to the hospital.

We made it there in record time, and that was with Princess attempting to crush my hand every two minutes. Munchkin helped carry some of the items, and we grabbed a wheelchair so Princess wouldn't have to walk. About ten minutes after we arrived, our friend's husband arrived and took Munchkin to their house to play with their two daughters.

Princess used some very colorful language to tell them to give her some chemical help in dealing with the pain. She also found out that Baby "B" was still breech. Her original intention was to attempt a VBAC, but elected to go with c-section when she found out that Baby "B" may need an emergency c-section anyway.

Actually, I think it went something like:

Get the fucking scaple.

The medical personel started to work then Baby "A", hereafter referred to as Peep, was born (click on picture for stats).

From IVF

Then, a minute later Baby "B", hereafter known as Boo, was pulled out into this world.

From IVF

(Notice the oxygen mask. I'll give some additional details later)

So for the past week plus, I haven't been able to get online, return phone calls, sleep, have any coherent thoughts, or sleep. Yes, I know I mentioned sleep twice, but there's a reason for that.

Now, the week has passed, and I'm back at work. My M&F-I-L are visiting to help, and after they go back to their home my Mamma and Padre will be coming by to help, so we do have help for now. We also have several close friends who have volunteered to help in any way that they can.

That's the story for the past week. If you'll excuse me, I'm now going to paint eyeballs on my eyelids and attempt to get some rest before I go home at 5 pm.

Getting Closer

2009-08-21T08:22:00.004-04:00

As some of you know, Princess and I are expecting twins. Well, unless they decide they don't want to wait, they will be born on Monday, Aug. 24th.

Princess says that she must have a comfortable womb, because no one who's been in there has ever wanted to come out. For Munchkin labor was actually induced a couple of days after her actual due date, because of pregnancy induced hypertension. Even then there was an issue that prevented Munchkin from being born naturally, and she was eventually delivered by c-section.

To give you some idea, we arrived at 6:30 am, they started the drip for the induction medication, Princess's labor actually started around noon, and Munchkin was finally delivered via c-section at 11:05 pm. That doesn't include Princess's adverse reaction to the pain medication given to her.

There are some signs that Princess won't make it to Monday, but we're going to have two more girls in our lives by this time next week.

What is "Traditional" Marriage?

2009-08-20T09:42:00.008-04:00

Recent articles by Rebecca and PZ talk about some in the Bahama's protesting a bill that would outlaw marital rape. Why are they protesting?

"It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don’t think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one – one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?" asked Mr. Sutherland.

...

Elvis Russell told the Journal that he does not support the bill either because there is no such thing as rape within a marriage.

"Even if a woman says no to her husband it still can’t be considered rape because she is his wife. He already paid his dues at the church and she already said ‘I do,’ so from then on, even if [a man] forces sex on his wife, it isn’t rape," he said.

And it's not just the men...

Deanne Sweeting said that she strongly disagrees with the bill and does not understand why so many women are supporting it.

"I disagree with the bill because I disagree that a man can rape his wife. The Bible tells me that a man’s body is his wife’s and her body is his. How could he rape her?" asked Ms. Sweeting.

...

Coralee Clarke told the Journal that although she is not married, she believes that a man is entitled to sex from his wife whenever he feels like it.

"If a man wants to have sex with his wife he is supposed to [have sex with her] regardless of what the circumstances [are]. I don’t see why he should be charged with raping his own wife, she is never supposed to say no," said Ms. Clarke.

"If I were married and my husband wanted to have sex with me I wouldn’t stop him, [because] I’m not supposed to, even if I was tired or feeling sick, I wouldn’t tell him no."

There are some who support the bill of course, on grounds that rape is rape.

Reading the comments of the protestors, and thinking about objections to gay marriage has gotten me to thinking. My marriage is by no means a "traditional" marriage.

Calling our marriage "traditional" is a stretch, unless the only criteria is "one man + one woman". Otherwise, there are several aspects of it that go against tradition.

The most obvious is probably my non-belief and her self-identification as a christian. There are some who consider that aspect opposite of the purpose of marriage.

Malachi 2:15 informs us that an important purpose of marriage is to produce godly offspring—

According to this, our marriage wouldn't be "traditional" even if we were both atheists. We're more interested in teaching our daughters to think for themselves, and give them the tools to choose their own paths.

According to the protestors in the Bahama's, ours isn't a traditional marriage because Princess is not my property. We're equal participants in our marriage, and we purposefully kept "obey" out of our vows. We both work (although she's off work now because of the impending births of our next two girls), we share the responsibilities of child rearing, and we both do the house and yard work. We talk over decisions that need to be made, and her input is just as important as mine.

Then there's the ceremony. At the time we got married, in late 2000, I was a non-practicing Pentecostal (i.e. agnostic) and she was Roman Catholic. In order to prevent making some of my family uncomfortable she elected not to have mass during the ceremony (something my MIL couldn't understand). As I wrote earlier we kept "obey" out of the vows, and the participants were a bit non-traditional.

In our party, we had a mixture of "witnesses". On my side I had my "best man" (I'll explain the quotes later), my two cousins (twins and Pentecostal), and a friend who is a child of Arab christian parents. On her side it was the "maid of honor" (again I'll get to this), a former co-worker of Princess's who was the matron of honor, and a bridesmaid who has been her friend for many years. Basically, our party was a mixture of friends, and some happened to be family.

Now for the part that was non-traditional, and caused some confusion among the attendees. The "best man" was a female friend of mine that introduced me to Princess, with the help of her mother. The "maid of honor" was Princess's brother. She wore a black dress of the same cut as the bridesmaids, and he wore a tux. My "best man" was willing to wear a tux, but only if the "maid of honor" wore a dress. Unfortunately, the open bar at the reception was after the wedding, so we couldn't convince him to do so without including money. Needless to say the duties of both of them didn't exactly fit into the normal niche.

So there are many aspects of our marriage that are "non-traditional", and it starts at the ceremony. However, I have never heard anyone complain that she and I should not be married. I have heard a few complain that we seem too happily married, but I have no idea what that means.

My point is that a marriage is a marriage. There is no such thing as a "traditional" marriage. Throughout history marriages have been about politics and power, convenience and appearances, and sometimes love has been involved. Sometimes its one man and one woman, except in the cases of multiple women, additional concubines, and sometimes an understanding that they are allowed to see other people. The purposes and participants in "traditional" marriage are so varied that it makes the very concept of a "traditional" one defunct.

Traditional has come to mean "I like it the way it is, and I don't want it to change". The problem is the reasoning behind their opinion. People keep tagging onto the end, "... even if it doesn't affect me and benefits others."

What if I'm Okay with Dieing?

2009-08-18T13:31:00.008-04:00

If you haven't been living in a bubble for the past few weeks, you've heard talk of the Death Panels. Of course, it all seems to be the opposition crying "the sky is falling", when all it's all really just a few drops of rain.

My biggest confusion is why talk of living wills and the option to die painlessly is such a big topic of discussion. As Mrs. Lemming said in a letter to the Cincy Enquirer,

"No one ever gets out of here alive."

Why is it such a bad thing to be able to be given the options and then choosing our exit?

Death is inevitable. Even religions acknowledge that eventually our body is going to stop functioning. In order for your soul to go to heaven (or hell), your body has to die, in order for your soul to be reincarnated in another body (whether human, mouse, or cow) you have to die, and in order for you to make it to Valhalla you have to die (in battle).

Death is more inevitable than taxes. Every body has a finite number of heartbeats, breaths, and exchange of electrical charges between neurons. You can't file a complaint with the government to keep it from happening, you can't hide your heartbeats through creative bookkeeping, and you can't move to a land where death doesn't exist. Eventually, all that will be left of us are a conglomeration of organic molecules that no longer function as they did when we are alive.

The only thing you can do is live your life, and prepare for the eventual end of it. No, I don't mean attempting to cover your bases on an afterlife, but making sure that if you have fewer heartbeats than you allowed for that you've covered everything you can.

In the past couple of years, my wife and I have been going over such things. We've both updated our life insurance policies so the one that survives has enough capital to go on, and if something happens to both of us Munchkin (and now her soon to be born siblings) have a guardian and some financial help with their upbringing. We've filled out a living will and DNR giving some legal clout to our wishes should we be incapable of telling a doctor the extent of life support that we want, and made sure that the other knows of our wishes. There's still a few more 'i's to cross and 't's to dot, but we're taking the steps.

As much as I would like to bounce my great-great-great(ad infinitum)...grandchildren on my knee, I know that is very unlikely to happen. The best I can do is make sure my family will be taken care of after I'm gone, and that I can make my wishes known for how my final days/hours/minutes will be dealt with.

If at the end of my life my organs are failing, I'm going to be unable to talk, or listen, to my wife and children because my brain isn't aware of the rest of my body let alone the outside world, and I won't be able to leave a bed because it's only the machines hooked up to me that are keeping me alive then I want the plug pulled. If someone else wants to be put onto life support until even the machines can no longer keep their body alive then that's up to them. However, whether I'm kept alive artificially or not should be my choice.

And that's what it comes down to. Everyone should be given the choice, and, just as important, everyone that may get into such a situation should have it explained to them what their choices are. Contrary to what the opposition would have you believe the Death Panels are not going to tell you how you'll die. A representative is going to tell you what your options are and let you choose the one that most appeals to you.

It's not about the government gaining the ability to euthanize. It's about giving everyone the liberty to die as they wish.

Health Care (Bill) Warning... Hoax

2009-08-12T14:04:00.031-04:00

Last week, on August 6th, I received an email from a coworker. It was the day before the SSA trip to the Creation Mausoleum, and I was a bit busy so I didn't worry to much about it. However, the coworker made a few errors.

The email pertained to the subjects of politics and religion (double whammy).
The email was sent to the "everyone" address of our company, and the two sister companies that share the building with us (triple whammy).
After I did a quick check of the first seven points mentioned in the email, I didn't find that one of them wasn't misleading (hat-trick whammy).

If anyone else receives and email titled "Prophet warning in Health Bill", I have two words for you:

DON'T PANIC

Below is the email that I got from my coworker. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll do my best to translate the legal speak in the actual bill.

For clarity, I'm going to use this layout in going through it:

The text of the email in italics

The actually wording of the bill in quotes (if applicable)

My comments underneath

Now, away we go.

Subject: FW: Prophet warning in Health Bill

Good Morning Everyone,
Pleasant enough start, but seeing the word "prophet" in the title raised a red flag.

I am forwarding a message I received from a good and well respected
friend of mine whose opinion I value highly. Even before receiving it I
heard about it from my daughter and son-in-law who is a physical
therapist and a family medical doctor. The message is about the Health
Bill being proposed in congress and what it really means to us as
individuals and as a nation if this were to pass. After reading the
e-mail I decided that I must share this message from Rick Joynor and
Mathew Staver with as many people as possible.
It starts off with an appeal to authority. Not a good sign.

Once you read down a little more, you'll find that he (and the person who sent the email to him) got one of the names wrong. It's Rick Joyner, and when I read this article about him my BS meter pegged at its highest reading.

Then I did a search for Mathew Staver, and got this. Yes, Mr. Staver is dean and professor of law at Liberty University. Yes, that Liberty University, the one that "trains champions for Christ".

First of all let me say I have never sent out a mass e-mail because I
don't like to waste time, mine or anyone else's; however, this message
is of the utmost importance to us all.
Actually, it was a waste of time on everyone's part, but I'll get to that when we get to the point by point included (that goes on forever).

Second, this is a long message and will take some time to read and
digest. Please forward the message to your home e-mail and read it
there or read it at lunchtime. As important as this is we all still
have a job to do and we must maintain good work ethics.
Speaking of work, he really should have paid more attention to the employee handbook when it talks about what we can and can't use company email for.

Thank you for taking the time to read this later and understanding the
gravity of what is happening in Washington. We can do something about
it and make our voices heard by doing what Mr. Joynor asks at the end of
his e-mail.
If I agree with what Mr. Joyner says, sure. However, I'm not just going to take his word for it.

Thank you and God Bless,
[Name Redacted]
I hear a bell tolling.

Now, onto the rest of the email.

-----Original Message-----
Subject: Prophet warning in Health Bill
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:01:08 -0400

Rick Joynor, a prophet in his own right has sent out this important
message. We must pray for its defeat and take some action in the natural
by contacting our representatives.
Still didn't get the name right. Some "prophet" he must be. I have to admit that I am impressed that they didn't start calling for prayer warriors, though.

SPECIAL BULLETIN
NATIONAL HEALTH SCARE

By Rick Joyner
Mr. Joyner must have signed this himself, since they finally got the spelling right.

When I read the brief on what was contained in the National Health Care bill that is now being presented before Congress, I could not believe I was reading something that was actually being considered in the United States of America. This is not about money or government mismanagement-this is about something far more diabolical than that. As incomprehensible as it may seem, this is about euthanasia, the power to determine who lives or dies in America. Hitler and Stalin would have loved to have had a means such as this for dispatching the millions they killed-it would have made their job much easier, and probably given them the ability to kill many more than they did. THIS BILL IS THAT SINISTER. This is not a joke-this is actually the nature of what is being proposed in the National Health Care legislation, and it is the obvious reason why the Obama Administration wants to ram it through Congress before anyone gets a chance to read it.
Wow. The first paragraph and he's already bringing up euthenasia, Hitler (see Godwin's Law), and Stalin. After reading about Pastor Joyner, I'm expecting to be more entertained than scared.

The paragraphs following aren't much better, and the ones I scanned didn't contain any useful information. Mostly complaints about bureaucrats and talking about praying, quite often specifically praying for President Obama.

The following is a brief outline of this bill put together by
Mat Staver of the Freedom Foundation and Liberty Counsel (contact info
is at the end). The comments by the brief are Mat's, except where I have
noted my own by putting them in italics. The bold is also mine.

After reading, please do not wait to contact your representatives to
protest this. If you don't get through, keep calling, send emails, but
do not stop until you know your voice has been heard.
Now, keep in mind that the bill itself is 1,017 pages. So Mr. Staver was able to find fault with quite a few sections. However, my reading of it didn't feel as "SINISTER" as Mr. Joyner (or Mr. Staver) found it.

Since I talked about finding errors in the first seven point, I'll keep them in here.

Obama Health Care Plan Details

HR 3200 currently under consideration in the House of Representatives
I linked to the bill above, but if you want to verify that I have put in the right wording you can find it here.

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Government will audit the books of
ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
9 (C) The financial solvency and capital re-
10 serve levels of employers that self-insure by em-
11 ployer size.

Since he doesn't actually give any details, I'm going to assume this is the section he meant. However, if you read pg. 21 (starting on line 26) you'll find that this section pertains to a "...study of the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets. Such study shall examine the following:"

First of all, a "large study" does not imply "ALL EMPLOYERS". Second, unless such a company had something to hide, why would they care? Don't they have to pay taxes and such to the government on their earnings anyway?

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC Bill - YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

4 (A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-shar-
5 ing incurred under the essential benefits pack-
6 age with respect to an individual (or family) for
7 a year does not exceed the applicable level spec-
ified in subparagraph (B).
9 (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable
10 level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is
11 $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a
12 family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded
13 to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year
14 by the annual percentage increase in the Con-
15 sumer Price Index (United States city average)
16 applicable to such year.

Again, if you read the part before it says "(1) NO COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES.—There shall be no cost-sharing under the essential benefits package for preventive items and services (as specified under the benefit standards), including well baby and well child care."

He may even be right on this one, but I have to ask, aren't we currently rationed, anyway? As David Leonhardt of the New York Times put it:

...rationing is an inescapable part of economic life. It is the process of allocating scarce resources. We ration spots in good public high schools. We ration lakefront homes. We ration the best cuts of stake.
Healthcare, I realize, seems as if it should be different. But it isn't.

If you go to visit your general practioner for something you feel is wrong, does he keep you there until he finds out what is wrong? Nope. He rations you to about 15 minutes or so to explain your symptoms, and then he gives a diagnosis and possibly medication. If that doesn't work, you have to call and make another appointment.

That's rationing, and we deal with it every day.

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC Bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that
decides what treatments/benefits you get

11 SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri-
14 vate-public advisory committee which shall be a
15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as
16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec-
17 ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
18 and premium plans.
19 (2) CHAIR.—The Surgeon General shall be a
20 member and the chair of the Health Benefits Advi
21 sory Committee.
22 (3) MEMBERSHIP.—The Health Benefits Advi-
23 sory Committee shall be composed of the following
24 members, in addition to the Surgeon General:
(pg. 31)
1 (A) 9 members who are not Federal em-
2 ployees or officers and who are appointed by
3 the President.
4 (B) 9 members who are not Federal em-
5 ployees or officers and who are appointed by
6 the Comptroller General of the United States in
7 a manner similar to the manner in which the
8 Comptroller General appoints members to the
9 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under
10 section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.
11 (C) Such even number of members (not to
12 exceed 8) who are Federal employees and offi-
13 cers, as the President may appoint.
14 Such initial appointments shall be made not later
15 than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
16 Act.

Wasn't Mr. Joyner earlier complaining about there no medical knowledge being needed? I'm actually impressed with the idea, but I'm going to reserve judgement on how it will work in reality.

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your
benefits for you. You have no choice!

4 (a) DUTIES.—The Commissioner is responsible for
5 carrying out the following functions under this division:
...
15 (3) INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS.—
16 The administration of individual affordability credits
17 under subtitle C of title II, including determination
18 of eligibility for such credits.

The benefits are chosen by your income. There's a table on page 137 that helps to clarify it. It starts at 133% of the Federal Poverty Level, and continues up to 400%. Anyone below that 133% is considered to have income of that 133%.

So, in essence they base your benefits on your income. Now we're forced to do that anyway, because a persons income and expenses affect which benefits package we can afford. However, with this it means that those who are at or below the poverty level can still get insurance. The horror.

Pg 50 Section 152 in HC Bill - HC will be provided to ALL non-U.S.
citizens, illegal or otherwise

21 SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly per-
23 mitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations con-
24 sistent with this Act, all health care and related services
25 (including insurance coverage and public health activities)
(pg. 51)
1 covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to
2 personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of
3 high quality health care or related services.
4 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—To implement the require
5 ment set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health
6 and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after
7 the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such
8 regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that
9 all health care and related services (including insurance
10 coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act
11 are provided (whether directly or through contractual, li-
12 censing, or other arrangements) without regard to per-
13 sonal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high
14 quality health care or related services.

Someone who doesn't fear every word written by the "Obama Administration" could also be taken to mean that coverage can't be denied, no matter what the persons race, sexual orientation, or any other bias may be present.

Also, Mr. Staver must have skipped section 246, on page 143, in his reading.

3 SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED
4 ALIENS.
5 Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
6 for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
7 not lawfully present in the United States.

Pg 58 HC Bill - Government will have real-time access to individual's
finances and a National ID Health Care Card will be issued!

5 ‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real-
6 time) determination of an individual’s financial
7 responsibility at the point of service and, to the
8 extent possible, prior to service, including
9 whether the individual is eligible for a specific
10 service with a specific physician at a specific fa-
11 cility, which may include utilization of a ma-
12 chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi-
13 fication card;

Currently, the government has a record of every cent I make. Sometimes, they even give me money back. According to this, W-2's are some sort of conspiracy.

Also, I right now carry an insurance card in my wallet that tells any medical facility how much my copay is. Big whoop.

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your
banks accounts for electronic funds transfer.

21 ‘‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in
22 order to allow automated reconciliation with the
23 related health care payment and remittance ad-
24 vice;

You mean like we can make an electronic transfer of money to pay our various bills, now? Or possibly the debit card that I use to buy groceries and other items?

Welcome to the 21st century, Mr. Staver.

(NOTE FROM RJ-This really does mean they can take your money at any
time. Who will have this authority?-a government bureaucrat.)
If they could, this would mean that the clerk at Shell, or the "bureaucrat" at my electric company could clean me out.

For some reason, I'm picturing Chicken Little here.

Pg 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their
families in unions and community organizations (ACORN).

12 SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES.
13 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
14 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after
15 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
16 of Health and Human Services shall establish a tem-
17 porary reinsurance program (in this section referred
18 to as the ‘‘reinsurance program’’) to provide reim-
19 bursement to assist participating employment-based
20 plans with the cost of providing health benefits to
21 retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses
22 and dependents of such retirees.

He read that and immediately thought of ACORN? I read that and think of the Teamsters, UMWA, and health insurance plans for those who retire from a job.

And for the record, I don't think ACORN is the devil they make it out to be.

Now, I'm going to skip ahead to the points that deal with "euthanasia".

Pg 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance [Death] Care Planning
Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life.
(Perhaps Mr. Staver read an earlier version. In the one I found online it's lines 3-11)

3 ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad-
4 vance care planning, including key questions and
5 considerations, important steps, and suggested peo-
6 ple to talk to.
7 ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of ad-
8 vance directives, including living wills and durable
9 powers of attorney, and their uses.
10 ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the
11 role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

The government mandates that the practioner tell them what their options are. I have trouble seeing that as a problem.

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct and consult regarding
living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

12 ‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list
13 of national and State-specific resources to assist con-
14 sumers and their families with advance care plan-
15 ning, including the national toll-free hotline, the ad-
16 vance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal
17 service organizations (including those funded
18 through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

Actually, the "practioner" will give them a "list of national and State-specific resources... (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965)." So it's mandatory for the practioner to tell you where you can find the resources. Somehow, I don't believe this section is as nefarious as Mr. Staver makes it out to be.

Pg 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of
end of life resources, guiding you in death.

19 ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
20 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail-
21 able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene-
22 fits for such services and supports that are available
23 under this title.
(page 426)
1 ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
2 orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
3 orders, which shall include—

They don't guide. They tell you your options. Also, notice that line three continues:

4 ‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of
5 such an order is beneficial to the individual and
6 the individual’s family and the reasons why
7 such an order should be updated periodically as
8 the health of the individual changes;
9 ‘‘(II) the information needed for an indi-
10 vidual or legal surrogate to make informed deci-
11 sions regarding the completion of such an
12 order; and
13 ‘‘(III) the identification of resources that
14 an individual may use to determine the require-
15 ments of the State in which such individual re-
16 sides so that the treatment wishes of that indi-
17 vidual will be carried out if the individual is un-
18 able to communicate those wishes, including re-
19 quirements regarding the designation of a sur-
20 rogate decisionmaker (also known as a health
21 care proxy).

Basically, this is to make sure that the wishes of the person are carried out. You fill out the paperwork, and your wishes are carried out. No one else has any say on how you are treated when the time comes that your body is failing.

Pg 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of
life. The government has a say in how your life ends.

13 ‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such
14 orders to physicians and other health profes-
15 sionals that (acting within the scope of the pro-
16 fessional’s authority under State law) may sign
17 orders for life sustaining treatment;

Umm... Line 17 says "life sustaining treatment". In other words, withing the limits of state laws doctors and other health professionals can override a living will under certain circumstances.

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "adv. care planning consult" will be used
frequently as patient's health deteriorates.
(in the copy of the bill I found, it starts on page 428)

17 ‘‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with re-
18 spect to an individual may be conducted more frequently
19 than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant
20 change in the health condition of the individual, including
21 diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a
22 life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening
23 injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a
24 long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or
25 a hospice program.

I cannot find anything bad about this. As the patients health gets worse, they consult the patient to make sure the patients wishes are followed.

Pg 429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may include an ORDER for
end of life plans. AN ORDER from Government.

1 ‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may in-
2 clude the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining
3 treatment or a similar order.

Actually, the order is from the patient, and has the weight of the government behind it when it comes to following the patients wishes. From page 429 lines 17-20:

17 ‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s
18 preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, in-
19 cluding an indication of the treatment and care de-
20 sired by the individual;

So the preferences can include anything from do everything possible, to just make the patient comfortable. It's up to the patient, but the government order is to follow the patients wishes.

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The government will specify which doctors can
write an end of life order.

8 ‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as de-
9 fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care
10 professional (as specified by the Secretary and who
11 is acting within the scope of the professional’s au-
12 thority under State law in signing such an order, in-
13 cluding a nurse practitioner or physician assistant)
14 and is in a form that permits it to stay with the in-
15 dividual and be followed by health care professionals
16 and providers across the continuum of care;

Actually, State law decides who has enough authority to witness the patient's wishes. Still, it's up to the patient how their care will be done.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The government will decide what level of treatment
you will have at end of life.

4 ‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara-
5 graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat-
6 ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified
7 interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may in-
8 clude indications respecting, among other items—

No, the government will order the caregivers to follow the patients wishes, as outlined in paragraph (A) (ii), which I quoted above (page 429 lines 17-20). The patient gets to decide and put their wishes in writing, and the government backs their decision. The government no more gets to decide a patients healthcare than they get to decide who a person votes for in an election.

(NOTE FROM RJ: The above really does give the government the authority
to determine who lives and dies, and when. A government bureaucrat
really will be making this decision for you and your loved ones.)
I'm calling bullshit. It doesn't give the government authority. The government backs the wishes of the patient.

The rest of the email is virtually identical. Take issue with everything involved, and make it seem like the government is going to take everything out of the hands of the individual. It's a scare tactic.

Mathew D. Staver*
Founder and Chairman Dean and Professor of Law Liberty Counsel
Liberty University School of Law Offices in Florida, Virginia and the
District of Columbia, Lynchburg, Virginia
(800) 671-1776 - Telephone (434) 592-5300 - Telephone
www.LC.org

www.law.liberty.edu

*Licensed in Florida and the District of Columbia

Now do you understand why we have to stand up today against this bill
and declare with all of the courageous souls who are sounding the
alarm and let us say to the bill-
"YOU SHALL NOT PASS."

Click here to search for your local Representative

Click here to search for your local Senator

The entire email is full of misrepresentation and cherry-picking. As an example, they completely skip over the section that starts on page 170:

19 ‘‘(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.—
20 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall
21 not apply to any individual (and any qualifying
22 child residing with such individual) for any pe-
23 riod if such individual has in effect an exemp-
24 tion which certifies that such individual is a
25 member of a recognized religious sect or divi-
(page 171)
1 sion thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and
2 an adherent of established tenets or teachings
3 of such sect or division as described in such sec-
4 tion.

So if you have a religious objection, as Mr. Joyner and Mr. Staver apparently do, not only do they get to opt out but they can also opt out their "dependents". Somehow, I don't see the holocaust or the purge in Russia being as effective if it was voluntary.

Expanding Post Test

2009-08-12T13:33:00.004-04:00

If this works, and you want to be able to compress your posts for easier viewing, you can thank...Bronze Dog by going to this link.

What I Learned At the Creation Mausoleum

2009-08-11T09:00:00.008-04:00

On Friday, August 7th, I attended the Creation Mausoleum with over 300 other atheists. Actually, it was a mixture of atheists, agnostics, and secular people of varying views but to the Mausoleum anyone who doesn't believe the way they do are atheists.

I arrived a little early. I pulled into my parking space at about 9:15 am, and signing in and picking up your ticket was to start at 9:30 am. I was directed to my parking spot by what appeared to be officers of the law, but in reality they were just the security for the Mausoleum. Before I saw their arm patches, I thought that the museum had possibly had the local sheriffs to come in just in case us rowdy atheists wanted to make some trouble.

Not long after the lines started forming, and everyone got in place to go and get their tickets. Since my last name is in the last half of the alphabet, I was in the line that passed closest to the mausoleum. While in line I struck up a conversation with the No Guy In The Sky and Mixter. This was the first time that I've had a real world conversation with someone as irreverant as me, and it was a refreshing experience.

After getting my ticket I had a gentleman, Mike from Kentucky, take my picture with PZ. Others were waiting to get their picture taken with the atheist celebrity, so I went on my merry way to see what the mausoleum had to offer. I also took off the armband, because I now had the SSA nametag and nifty pin on button.

Once in line, I met a history major who happened to be working on some research in Cincinnati. I can't remember his name, but I remember his research was on radiation effects. He mentioned Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl (and a glowing forest near it). Unfortunately, before we could get deeper into the conversation we saw a kid sitting near a couple of velociraptors.

Him: What's wrong with this picture?
Me: There's no running, screaming, and dieing.
Him: Those teeth weren't made for eating leaves.
Me: Nope... Haven't you heard. They were made for cracking coconuts.

After this, things went downhill. If not for the other rational thinkers, I believe I might have ran out screaming in pain before I reached the display of Martin Luther.

The kid and velociraptors were on display while we were in line for the Walk Through History. While in line, there was a plaque that the 7 C's in God's Eternal Plan. They were:

Creation
Corruption
Catastrophe
Confusion
Christ
Cross
Consumation

However, 2, 3, and 4 were the only ones that seemed to aptly describe the mausoleum.

I first "Twilight Zone" moment was the display of two paleontologists. Well one paleontologist that follows the evidence, and another who considers the Bible to be the only evidence he needs. This was the beginning of a trend. Find a passage of the Bible that could be referencing something like real science (if you close one eye, tilt your head three degrees to the north, and scream "LALALALALA" at the top of your lungs), and try your damndest to make the evidence fit your pre-selected conclusion by cherry-picking.

Another theme was putting "Human Reason" in one column and "God's Word" in another. Also, don't worry about the order that scientific consensus has established for how things came about. They utilize section 4 article 6 of their Statement of Faith to it's fullest extent all through the mausoleum.

Early on, they concluded that coal didn't come about the way geology has explained. Their explanation (I kid you not) is a floating forest. My first thought was those forests would have to be huge. Coal seams in the Appalachian Mountain range of Virginia can run through several counties. Not to mention that there is usually several feet between coal seams, with some existing so close to the surface that the floating forests would have been noticed by early explorers, if not, in some cases, in recent memory of the current habitants.

According to the mausoleum's explanation for strata, rock layers are a result of the flood. However, the mass of solid minerals shows, in kilograms per cubic meter, 1346 for bituminous coal, 1506 for anthracite coal, 2611 for limestone, and 2323 for sandstone.

In water heavy materials settle first. That means that the layers should have the heaviest at the bottom, and the lightest at the top. E.g. limestone, sandstone, anthracite, and bituminous. However, coal seams can be found in between layers of sandstone in virginia. In most cases, there's more than one coal seam in any given area, with tens of feet of sandstone separating them. According to the floating forest hypothesis, the FFs would have needed to drop the "bark peat" at random intervals, over a vast area in exactly the same time period to boot, in order to create those seams in the way that we see them today.

The ignorance and misrepresentation doesn't stop there. Continuing on the walkthrough, you reach a section that becomes darker and more sinister. This is the beginning of the "Reason and Atheists" (R&A) section, as I would like to call it. In this one, they use infidel philospher as an adjective to describe Voltaire, they have a large newpaper article printed on the wall calling a self-professed agnostic an "atheist", and following the newspaper graffiti they have the book that the agnostic wrote about his agnosticism.

Honestly, when I saw Charles Templeton's name I immediately thought of the Templeton Foundation. However, the two are apparently unrelated. Still, there seems to be a bur under the dinosaddle that a onetime evangelical Christian would eventually begin criticizing his former faith.

After that they begin blaming Adam and Eve for all of the world's woes, that is until they get to a display that is supposed to represent modern times. Then it starts reiterating the blame of R&A. Once I made it through that, things were pretty much a blur. All I did was take pictures, and continue on my way. The mind can only take so much stupidity before it goes on autopilot, I guess. Kind of like the way a person will faint when pain gets above a certain threshold.

The next thing I remember is smelling food. I was able to make it to the Palm Cafe area to have my lunch, and listen to others in our group discussing what they had seen so far, and even just everyday humdrum things. Then one of our group came up to tell me that the next room had the saddled triceratops. Like a few others, I was debating getting my picture taken on it, but was informed by other attendees that no one over twelve was allowed on. I don't recall seeing any sign near it (see the picture at the last link), but I just decided to move on. Then I saw two pictures that disturbed me more deeply than anything I had up to this point. I almost felt like running, but kept my self discipline enough that I made it to the Dragon Hall Bookstore.

Once there, I took a little time to browse and try to calm down. A DVD caught my eye. The title was Genesis: Today's Answer to RACISM. Vaguely, I recalled the Tower of Babel section of the tour, and shuttered to myself. However, when I turned it over I read this:

Racism has infected our culture, and evolutionary beliefs have dehumanized our perception of different people groups.

Thoughts of slaves being brought to the New World, having their progeny continuing to be enslaved for two hundred and fifty years, and then the passing of the 13th Amendment six years after the publication of The Origin of Species. I stumbled my way outside, either to get some fresh air or throw up, and saw the Botanical Gardens.

I took a few calming breaths and thought a walk among the flowers and trees would do me some good. I resolved to not look at any of the plaques, and to just enjoy seeing the pond, flowers, buzzing bees, and listen to the breeze through the leaves. Just as I was beginning to recoup my sanity, I saw something out of place over top of the leaves. With a groan, I walked around until I could see for myself that it was what I thought it was. Yes, it was a T-Rex among the trees, and to further push my sanity to the breaking points I saw it decorated with green Christmas lights.

A low groan may have escaped, but I trudged on hoping to find some semblance of sanity on these delusional grounds. There were some waterfalls that were beautiful, if you ignored the pump station that was so visible among them, the pond was teaming with pan fish and koi, pink blooms were blossoming from the lily pads at the edge of the pond, and another waterfall greeted my eyes and calmed my senses.

However, it was not to last. On my way back to the museum I took a path that dead ended at the edge of the pond. Beyond the leaves I saw something that caused me to question my sanity once again. Moving back to the first spot that I took a picture of the gardens, I saw what my mind had subconciously blocked out before.

The mausoleum had stuck Nessie into their pond. Memories of PZ's recent post about Nessie vs. evolution popped up in my head. The world started spinning, and I'm not sure if the laughter I heard was from others or from myself (either outloud or inside my head).

Regardless, I glanced at my watch and saw that the time was only a little after noon. For a split second, I debated walking around some more to see what other insanity and delusion the mausoleum had to offer, but that laughter inside my head changed to a chuckl and I decided that I was pushing my limits of tolerance of ignorance.

I regret that I didn't continue to explore and talk to the other secular folks who attended. However, my mind has limits on the amount of stupidity that it can take, and I learned the threshold when I went to the Creation Mausoleum.

Mausoleum Tour Pictures

2009-08-09T19:16:00.004-04:00

From Creation Museum

I've met PZ, and had my picture taken with him. There's also an album of the pictures I took. Sorry some are blurry, but laughter made the camera shake a little.

Things have been a little busy, this weekend, but I hope to give a few highlights in the coming days. Just wait until you hear about how "infidel philosopher" can be used as an adjective. It's priceless.

Skeptilove

2009-08-04T09:06:00.004-04:00

Allison Smith, known to some by her founding of SAPS, has started a blog called

Skeptilove
Reporting on the selfless, generous acts of non-believers.

The cause?

SkeptiLove is devoted to reporting on the generous acts of non-believers (and differently abled believers), and to bringing skeptics, critical thinkers, agnostics, atheists, humanists, and secularists together to participate in charitable projects.

Are you an atheist, agnostic, Bright, or free-thinker that is tired of hearing the canard "You can't be good without God"? How many times have you heard someone claim that without religion and churches nothing would be donated to the needy?

Skeptilove has done an articles on a non-believer working with Habitat for Humanity, Kitty Mervine who made wool hats for people in Afghanistan, and JREF donating shirts to an organization that educates children of low-income families.

Techskeptic did a post on Atheist Charities a while ago, and now we have a blog that gives examples of individuals giving their time, and sometimes platelets, to help others.

I think the idea is wonderful. Promoting "Be good for godness sake", and even taking suggestions for charities that atheists might feel more comfortable about giving money to.

(Via Skepchick)

Fifth Column Concern

2009-08-03T11:34:00.008-04:00

With the upcoming trip to the Creation Mausoleum many have voiced concerns about everyone in the group behaving themselves. The most likely scenario involves a skeptic who gets fed-up with seeing/hearing the propoganda coming from AiG and blows their top. However, another concern is the possibility of fifth column attendees.

Fifth column refers to having people in the group who are there specifically to undermine the group's efforts. While I agree that the underground popularity of the event could make it a target, I don't think it's likely.

However, I thought of a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Ask them a few simple questions that I would expect anyone going on this trip would have an answer to.

What is the current scientific concensus for the age of the Earth, based on scientific evidence?

What is the current scientific concensus for the age of the universe, based on scientific evidence?

or even

Can you give a description of the Theory of Evolution?

In most cases the answers I've seen from creationists to the first two will be off by orders of magnitude, and for the last it often starts with cosmology (Big Bang Theory) and goes on to abiogenesis without ever touching on the actual definition of ToE. However, I would think that anyone skeptical about creationism would have knowledge of at least one of those questions.

During my contemplation of this other thoughts occured to me. The foremost being why are we concerned about this in the first place? Do we really have so little trust in mankind that we think they need told to behave in an appopriate manner, or that they will actively try to discredit our group? Unfortunately, the answer for that is yes.

The reason for mistrusting those who actually belong in our group is human nature. Some people are just unable to keep their heads when listening or seeing fallacious arguments or listening to people spout complete ignorance. Some people are willing to listen calmly, point out the errors, and then laugh when they are at a more appropriate place. However, some can't keep their heads for long enough to make it through the claims by the creationists. Of course, some people are also just assholes.

Mistrust of creationists is even more common. Considering the descriptiive caricatures that creationists, and even those who are simply believers, often misrepresent us with it's hard to dismiss the idea that some are zealous enough in their beliefs to actively cause trouble. It's not difficult to envision someone fanatical enough in their beliefs that they attempt to discredit the group by posing as a member and then causing a problem. However, as I pointed out above, I don't think they could fit into the group well enough to make it very far into the tour with us.

The highest possibility that I see is a protest group. Even then, I don't expect there to be any sort of confrontation, at least if AiG upholds the policies as they were explained to PZ. I expect that all of us who registered will go on the tour, listen calmly, and hopefully get the chance to ask questions of the staff at an appropriate time. I don't expect a battle between Ken Ham on a T-Rex and PZ on a giant squid, but I don't see AiG's claims made during the tour going unchallenged when the time comes that we can ask questions.

Honestly, I only expect that I'll wake up Saturday morning with nothing having changed, except that I will have finally met PZ Myers and several other free-thinkers and skeptics.

Want To Meet PZ... and Me?

2009-07-29T08:13:00.006-04:00

On Friday, August 7th, there's going to be a large group of people going to the Creation Mausoleum. The event is sponsored by the Secular Student Alliance, and PZ Myers is going to be one of the chaperones.

I've been debating on taking a tour for a while, and the combination of the $10 tickets and the knowledge of how limited my time will be after the twins are born brought me to the decision to join this group. If anyone else would like to go, you can register for the group rate here.

If you'd like to tag along, I've also got three seats available in my car. I won't even ask you to pay gas money. You have to pay your own entry fee, though.

I'll be wearing an armband. I'm not sure what color, yet. It depends on what I have available. I'm also intending on decorating it a little.

However, on a side note, I do expect everyone to be on their best behavior. If you attempt to cause any sort of disruption you will be asked to leave by the members of our group, and you will also have to walk home if you ride with me.

I'm not going to be able to make it to the SSA conference, later that day, but I look forward to spending time with like minded people.

Atheist Analogy #4: Signs and Omens

2009-07-24T07:43:00.007-04:00

This atheist analogy is about signs and omens. Signs and omens are similar, but omens most often "foretell" while signs are either related to past, present, or even future events.

Signs, in the supernatural sense, are often used to make the person who witnesses them more comfortable with a decision. They may have been thinking about doing something, then something occurs that is related to the idea and they take it to mean that the occurance is a sign that they should do it. It also can make them feel that a decision that they already made is the right one.

If it is something that they are thinking of doing, then most often the sign is related to their idea. For instance, I've been thinking about writing this post for a little while, and a post on Skepchick appears talking about Eclipses and Omens. Was this a supernatural sign that I should write this post?

As I said, I've been thinking about writing on this for a little while. I'm not sure of the amount of time, but it's been more than a week ago that the idea started working around in my head. Visiting quite a few skeptical blogs, and the superstitions involved with eclipses, made it much more likely that I would read something that started those thoughts to coallesce into this post.

Some may have taken it as a sign or omen that they should write the piece, but for me it was just a reminder which resulted in the post you are reading now.

In the case of a sign justifying something that has already been done, it can be almost anything. An example of this is a colleague who's church helped build a church in India. My colleague was one of those who got to travel to the country for the opening of the church, and while there he went on a "safari" with a guide who was also a member of the new church. During that time my colleague saw a black bear and a deer escape from a tiger. His interpretation of these events was that God was giving him the sign that helping build the church was the right decision.

His "reasoning" about the bear was the guide saying that he'd only seen a black bear one time in the last twenty years. The guide also gave him the "statistics" that a tiger will catch prey in one in ten attempts, but is "99% successful" once it has actually caught the prey. My question was that if it is known that the bears are in the area, and it is also known that prey sometimes escapes tigers, how is that a "sign"? Since this was in a work environment, and he sits very close to me, I kept the questions to myself.

Seeing the bear, while interesting and very cool, I'm not sure if they are as rare as the guide said. There's also some suggestion that prey escaping a tiger once attacked isn't that rare of an occurence. I also wonder if their proximity to the tiger when it ambushed the deer was a factor.

Basically, if someone wants justification for a decision any "sign" seems to fill that need.

What it comes down to is that in the case of something I've been thinking about a reminder of it, or an opportunity to do it, is most likely to cause me to go through with it. There's no need for a supernatural "sign" that I should do something.

In the case of a past action people seem to consider any "rare occurence" as a supernatural Post-it note that says, "Good job". Is their need for gratification so great that they need to interpret some event as a "sign"? For me, seeing a positive effect from my efforts is enough a reward.

Signs and omens are peoples way of trying to make predictions when they don't have the knowledge to examine the evidence. Like many superstitious beliefs, it gives them comfort to have an explanation or prediction for something that is beyond their control.

My personal philosophy is more accepting of the fact that the only actions I can control are my own. Any prediction has some degree of error, and assigning an arbitrary occurence as the prediction won't change what will happen. I also don't need to see a rare occurence to find out if a prior action was right or wrong, because the end result itself will tell me if it was.

Elephant Email

2009-07-21T12:20:00.002-04:00

I recieved and email on my post on the Buddha and elephants story. Apparently, the link I provided got the attention of one of the admins for the site it came from. The email was very polite and quite understanding of my views.

Hi Berlzebub...

I came across your blog (http://berlzebub.blogspot.com/2008/11/elephant-apologetics.html) when I traced back the link you'd given to one of the stories we have on www.spiritual-education.org. It was the story of the blind men and the elephants and I read, with interest, your answers to the questions we asked at the end of that story.

I just wanted to drop you a line and say, first, thanks for the link. ;) and, second, I like your answers to the questions. They're refreshing and informed. To be fair, though, the story was aimed at a religious audience, so perhaps it wasn't so much an attempt at apologia, but rather a simple way (for simple folk) to try and understand that what they feel they know / see / feel isn't the end-all and be-all of "truth"... the implication being that we ought to stop trampling on one another (physically, or mentally, or emotionally) simply because of perceived differences (at least in ideas and concepts that are not subject to rational understandings and proof like love, politics, the stock market, and religion).

For what it's worth, I'd encourage you to take a look at the lesson that story was used as a way to give some support to my claim about the intended audience. Because, after all, as we say on the intro page of our site, "Our children will not be able to live in peace until a majority of the people of the world adopt an all-inclusive view of religion and spirituality. The increasing turmoil in the world demonstrates that our lives depend on a unified understanding of the concepts of God and religion that can offset the rampant brutality and devastation caused by sectarian and religious prejudice." The operative notion here is that we say people should adopt an "all-inclusive view" *of* religion, and not an all-inclusive religion.

Best regards,
[SL]
for spiritual-education.org
(Sender referred to as [SL] for privacy reasons)

I honestly didn't expect to get an email, let alone one so polite, regarding that post. The purpose of spiritual-education.org is noble, and I honestly agree with what they are working toward. If everyone would treat religion as a private matter without letting it affect their interactions with other individuals, races, religions, etc. then the world would be a better place.

The moderates of the world's religions (both the moderate religions and the moderate individuals) would most likely agree with the goals of the site. However, the hardest to reach, and the ones who get the most press, would be the fundamentalist extremists. Each one takes their theology more seriously than the moderates, and their books don't allow them to see other religions as being acceptable. Most of those religions actually see at least one other as being an enemy.

Another thing that got my attention was a similarity to something Techskeptic and I discussed on my post about "good".

"...we ought to stop trampling on one another (physically, or mentally, or emotionally) simply because of perceived differences (at least in ideas and concepts that are not subject to rational understandings and proof like love, politics, the stock market, and religion)."

If people would look at their beliefs critically, those perceived differences would be minimalized. They might even disappear altogether. Unfortunately, some have such an investment in those beliefs that questioning them never enters their minds. In some cases, having those beliefs questioned causes an irrationally defensive response. The world does seem to be very slowly moving toward the moderate scale of religious and other beliefs. Unfortunately, those beliefs are so ingrained in our cultures that it will take a great deal of time to overcome them.

Now, while I can understand why those who run the site don't see the elephant story as apologia, I would like to explain why I do.

In the story the six blind men describe the elephant as a tree trunk, a wall, a fan, a piece of rope, a spear, and a snake. Yet still in the end the audience proclaims that "All of them are right".

No they weren't. What they were touching was an elephant. Each was too lazy to examine further than the feature their hands first touched. None of them said it was an elephant, and the only animal described was a reptile (and elephants don't have scales). All in all, the parable only seemed stereotypical of the intellectual laziness of theologians in general.

I'll admit that I haven't done much studying of Buddhism, but if that is an actual parable from Buddha I'm disappointed.

Atheist Analogy #2: Morality

2009-07-09T09:49:00.008-04:00

This atheist analogy is about "morality", or right and wrong. Different people have different views of what is moral, amoral, and immoral depending on their personal philosophy.

Where do we get our personal philosophies? The primary answer from most, I would expect, would be religious affiliation. However, it's not that simple. Society, our upbringing, friends, exposure to other religions, and even education can influence our personal philosophy. Our personal philosphy influences how we view the soul of another person.

Most of all, morality is subjective. Each person or group of people has their own views of what a moral or immoral action is. You can base your personal philosophy on objective standards, but when moral and immoral between people are subjective it renders the idea of morality as being objective useless. I can say why I consider an action amoral (i.e. actions not pertaining to morality) but it's only by my standards of morality that it is immoral. As an example, I consider drinking coffee as an amoral action, but someone who has the LDS church as primary part of their philosphy would probably consider it immoral.

It's this difference that makes it almost impossible to debate the morality of an action. In order to have a debate you have to agree on the definitions of the terms involved, and if the definitions of right and wrong cannot be agreed upon then debating whether an action is right or wrong will never be resolved.

Atheist Analogy #1: The Soul and the Afterlife

2009-07-07T11:03:00.010-04:00

As I mentioned in the previous post BD has already done a wonderful post on What the Soul Means, but I wanted to add something to that.

When I speak of a soul I'm not talking about something supernatural. It's not an entity to itself that magically combines with our body after birth. To me the soul is a byproduct of society, consciousness, and beliefs. It influences our lives, and part of it even continues on after our demise. The soul influences the thoughts, actions, and behavior that makes us who we are. The things and people we love and hate, what we're willing to stand up for or against, who we enjoy spending time with, and even the books and music that we prefer are all influenced by it. The term "soulmate" can even be taken to mean someone who shares beliefs and/or interests.

The "good" soul is one that tries to help make the world a better place than when they came into it. They support the rights of everyone, make an effort to improve the life of the current and future generations, and understand that their actions now will influence the future. Thanks to the information age, they even have a way of sending their message to a large audience without having to spend finances on travel and publication.

Then there's the "bad" or tarnished soul. They spend their days hating those different than (or in some cases the same as) themselves and/or work to make future generations retain the same bigotry, live for themselves and not for the rest of the world or future generations, and in general try to set the world back by endorsing ideals that are detrimental to society.

Both of those lead to the afterlife. Of course, I'm not refering to a Heaven, Valhalla, or Hell (or Hel) of religous nature, but to what happens after our demise. Our actions and beliefs have an effect on those around us. Our offspring in particular are affected by our beliefs and how we've lived our lives, but also anyone who's observed us. Anyone who's had any authority over another influences how those people think and act. Someone respecting you even gives you an amount of authority over them. Particularly, it influences how they remember you and "honor your memory".

After you die they'll follow your example. The influence your actions and beliefs had on them will affect their interactions with the world around them. Perhaps they will start a charity in your honor, make donations to an existing charity, start a scholarship for students who show promise in a field that you were passionate about. Conversely, they may spend the time after you die furthering all of the things that you got wrong but now have no way of correcting since you're pushing up daisies.

Some of you reading may recognize my concept of an afterlife as a legacy. How we influence future generations is at least as important as how we influence the world around us while we're still walking on it. Once we're dead there's no way to change what we've said and done while we were alive, so don't waste the time you have.

Atheist Analogies Index

2009-07-07T10:33:00.012-04:00

The first time I heard the term culturally Christian was from Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. The term applies to those who grew up in a Christian environment and understand the biblical references, but who do not follow the Christian faith.

The more I thought about it, the more things that I find analogous in everyday conversation. Heaven, Hell, spirit, soul, and even God still means something to me. However, now it's as a shorthand way of speaking of something that has nothing to do with Christianity, or even anything supernatural.

Bronze Dog just did a terrific post on What the Soul Means and explained how he views it. It's very eloquently written and does a very good job of explaining how something normally viewed in a supernatural way can be used in a naturalistic definition.

So I've decided to go with my idea and start a list of atheist analogies to terms that Christians relate to. As always, my definitions and explanations only apply to myself and other atheists are welcome to give their views.

Listings:
Atheist Analogy #1: The Soul and the Afterlife
Atheist Analogy #2: Morality
Atheist Analogy #3: Religious Experience
Atheist Analogy #4: Signs and Omens
Atheist Analogy #5: Spirituality
Atheist Analogy #6: Prayer

Fiasco Finale

2009-07-07T08:52:00.006-04:00

Someone going by Anne of GG left a comment on an old post concerning the P-Momma fiasco/boondoggle/clusterfuck/etc.

Hi Berlie,

Congrats on the twins!

Thank you. That's why I haven't responded to you sooner. Things are a bit hectic with the approaching births.

P-momma just posted some pics that lead to some albums with pics of her frolicking in the sun and water.

Which definition of "frolicking" are you using? It appears she's amusing and enjoying herself, but I don't see any where she's playing and running about happily.

Is she cured?

Lupus is treatable but not curable, at least for the time being. The primary symptoms also come and go. Like rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases there are good days and bad days.

I don't see any protective clothing and she looks happy and very healthy. Go Here. Hope the link works.

As far as the protective clothing, I don't cover my arms and legs when the temperatures get warmer. If I'm concerned about sun damage I wear sunscreen of SPF 30 or higher.

Of course she's happy. She's spending time with her four children in a beautiful setting. I would expect that makes most parents happy.

Now, I want to ask how does a person look "very healthy"? She's standing, moving about, and smiling. If she's having a good day, as I mentioned above, she probably would look healthy to a person who's only seeing a snapshot of a split second in time. Thanks to modern medicine people with chronic diseases can function in a day to day setting, but that in no way makes them healthy.

I responded to this assuming that Anne of GG (I wonder if she has red hair?) is not a griefer or a troll. As far as I'm concerned, any further commenting on the fiasco/boondoggle/clusterfuck/etc. is beating a dead horse. I've got much larger issues to deal with, and this has become a waste of my time.

Argument from Ultimate Authority

2009-06-18T11:17:00.009-04:00

In November of '07, I wrote a post about Understanding Atheists. In it I touched on the difference between believing in the existance of God and following the same God.

Before and since that I've heard several times that God is necessary for an "ultimate standard" of morality, whatever that means. The arguments against this attempt at reasoning usually involve the one contending that morality depends on God is assuming God exists (and that it is their specific god providing the morals), that they know what God intends, and even asking where God obtained his own morals. Of course, those are just a few.

I can understand the arguments against the believer conclusion, but what strikes me is the release from responsibility that the believer's view provides. Instead of examining the evidence and circumstances they are only for and against what the voice in their head or what their interpretation of the book supposedly based on God tells them to be. Each time I hear them say that morals come from God as an excuse for their point of view, I picture a child in front of their parents defending their actions by saying "He told me to do it".

Prop. 8 in California, and other instances across the U.S., are prime examples. The argument's I've heard mostly consist of "marriage has always been between a man and a woman", or "if we let man marry man or woman marry woman people will be marrying their pets, vegetables, and children". However, when you point out the history of polygamy and confront them on their fallacious use of the slippery slope argument they try to bullshit their way through it.

We're all fully capable of thinking for ourselves. The problem is that so many don't have the desire to do so. Instead of coming to their own conclusions they either interpret their book in the way they can keep their bias, just accept what an authority figure says, or just listen to the voice in their head.

While I don't agree with everything Anne Lamott believes, there's one quote by her that I think sums it all up nicely.

That's how you can tell you've created God in your own image is if he or she hates all the same people you do.

New 419 Variation

2009-06-17T10:35:00.009-04:00

The last few months have been spent preparing for the arrival of our twins. Between the nursery and restocking newborn supplies, general work that needs to be done around the house and on our property, and my workload at my job I haven't had time for blogging. However, things are starting to slow down a little now.

One thing I have been doing is consistently checking my Gmail. In between the comment moderation notices and subscription emails a piece of SPAM periodically slips through. Most are just advertisements for things that I have no use for (Princess and I have a wonderful love life, thank you very much). However, one came through today that actually made me grin.

from Mrs Tara Muldock
reply-to taramuldock@live.co.uk

to
date Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:51 AM
subject Finally Your Compensation Is Here
mailed-by iis.com.br

Dear Friend,

I am Mrs Sara Bagwell. I am a US citizen and i am 34 years Old. I reside here in Dripping Springs, Texa and i am thinking of relocating since I am now rich.

I am one of those that took part in the United Nations Compensation program in Nigeria many years ago and they refused to pay me. I had paid over $20,000 while in the US, trying to get my

payment but all was to no avail.

So I decided to travel down to Nigeria with all my compensation documents and I was directed to meet Mrs Tara Muldock, who is the member of COMPENSATION PROGRAM COMMITTEE, and i contacted

her and she explained everything to me.

She said who ever is contacting us through emails are fake. She also took me to the paying bank (ZENITH BANK) for the claim of my compensation payment.

Right now, i am the happiest woman on earth because I have received my compensation funds of $5,000,000.00 more over, Mrs Tara Muldock showed me the full information of those that are yet

to receive their payments and i saw your email as one of the beneficiaries who have not yet received the payment under CASE FILE 54AC003 and that is why I decided to email you to stop

dealing with those people. They are not with your fund, they are only making money off you.

Therefore, i would advise you to contact Mrs Tara Muldock for assistance and inform her that your CASE FILE is 54AC003. Contact her directly via the information below.

UNITED NATIONS COMPENSATION AWARD PROGRAM
Name : Mrs. Tara Muldock
Email: taramuldock@live.co.uk
Phone: +234-802-132-9323.

You really have to stop dealing with those people that are contacting you and telling you that your fund is with them because it is not with them. They are only taking advantage of you and

they will dry you up until you have nothing.

The only money i paid after i met Mr. Pitt Parker was just the bank transfer charges, which is only normal and legitimate as it is in all banks in the world. So please take note of that.

Mrs Tara Muldock shall ensure that you deal directly with the bank(ZENITH BANk).

Once again stop contacting those people. I advise that you contact Mrs Tara Muldock so that she can help you in the collection of your transfer payment instead of dealing with those liars

that will be turning you around asking for different kind of money to complete your transaction.

Thank you and be blessed.

Mrs. Sara Bagwell.

When I read these, it's almost like playing Where's Waldo?, but finding Waldo means trying to find something that might be plausible.

What's really ironic is when I did a Google search on buta@iis.com.br, the email address. One hit gave me a site listing the exact email address (translated from Portugese). When I did some further digging, it gave me a listing for the person (also translated from Portugese). Under the listed name was "Lawyer".

I'm wondering if the account was created just to try to lend credibility, or if the person's account was hijacked for the same reason.

Oh well. Regardless, sending an email for such a thing to my Gmail account automatically discounts it's viability. There are much easier ways to find me than my pseudonymous email account.

Update:

I tried contacting the email address used to send me the message and it failed.

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

buta@iis.com.br

Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 554 554 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown (state 14).

Things that make you hmmmmm...

X-Rays for Alzheimer's

2009-06-16T08:23:00.003-04:00

Scientists think that plaques, called amyloid beta (Abeta), are the cause of Alzheimer's. The problem has been trying to find a safe and non-invasive way to track the Abeta's number and size. The Abeta plaques are very small, with the largest being 4 microns. For comparison, human hair is about 100 microns wide and red blood cells are 7 microns in diameter.

Enter diffraction-enhanced imaging, DEI. DEI has a high enough resolution that scientists and doctors can get the information they need on the plaques. It's currently only in the early stages, but hopefully they can find a way to make it safe for use on humans (the current work was done on a mouse).

DEI itself can't be used to treat Alzheimer's, but it will help in comparing the efficacy of treatments. With DEI researchers can compare the size and number of Abetas in the brain before and after treatment.

Pizza and Porn

2009-02-05T08:24:00.010-05:00

The University of Cincinnati (UC) Wellness Center and Pure Romance are promoting an event at UC called Sexploration. Sexploration is a week long sexual education event with events planned with names like Pizza and Porn, Got the Hook Up?, and America's War on Sex: The Attack on Law, Lust and Liberty. All are free and open for the public to attend.

According to the radio, the titles were made as an attempt at humor. The organizers were hoping that making the title humorous would alleviate some of the discomfort associated with talking about sex. For instance, those who attended Pizza and Porn didn't sit around eating LaRosa's and watching Debbie Does Dallas. Instead, according to a student who attended, they had a debate about porn itself while eating pizza. No porn was shown, there was only a lively but civil discussion about the topic. Since even the Supreme Court has had trouble deciding what pornography is I would expect the discussion to be interesting indeed.

However, to the general public sex is a taboo subject, and UC promoting such an event has created some controversy. Enter Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk who received a PhD in Classics from UC in 1969. According to Mr. Pilarczyk:

“I find the ‘Sexploration’ program … to be profoundly disturbing,” Pilarczyk said. “The gross disregard of the moral sensibilities of many in the university community is troubling in the extreme.”

When it comes to speaking about morality those who live a glass house shouldn't be throwing rocks. I expect that Mr. Pilarczyk wouldn't approve of anything greater than abstinence. However, the reality is that "75% of UC students have had one or more sexual partners within the past year." Mr. Pilarczyk has decided to remain ignorant of sex, but 3 out of 4 UC students need to know more about it. Reality takes priority over "moral sensibilities".

The archbishop, who earned a doctorate in classics from UC, said he is offended as an alumnus and as a leader of the church. He said university money and resources should not support a program that has no academic value.

Neither does sports. Does that mean those should be done away with, too? Sexploration isn't "academic" anyway.

UC officials said the program focuses on sex education and is a response to student demand for more information on the topic.
...
Wellness Center program director Regan Johnson told The Enquirer last week that the center had received requests from students for a sex education program and that it made sense to combine all of the events and activities into one week.

The UC Wellness Center doesn't use tuition or tax dollars, and is just responding to student demand. Those who might feel offended at the content aren't required to attend. Perhaps those complaining, like whoever sent the email to Mr. Pilarczyk, think that sex should be left to the parents. If that's the case students wouldn't be demanding more information from their school if the parents/clergy/whoever were giving the students the information they seek.

In some respects, I find myself also feeling profoundly disturbed at Sexploration. That students of college age demand such information from institutions of higher learning should tell us something about the sex education they've received before. Whether that be from school or their parents, that information has apparently been sorely lacking.

Our educational system and parents need to wake up. Young adults are having, and will have, sex. Not explaining to them methods of pregnancy prevention is ignorance at it's worst. This goes for the parents, teachers, and students. Perhaps some parents often reject the thought of teaching anything but abstinence, but their children are not them. I remember the "sex education" I received in high school, which involved showing what STDs can do. While sickening, the pictures had about zero effect on stopping the students from engaging in risky behavior.

If you are one of those who is upset by the number of abortions and pregnant teens there are, as I expect Mr. Pilarczyk is, you should be explaining condoms, birth control, and every method of contraception, including abstinence. The ones who are being taught are the ones who will have to deal with the consequences. If you don't give them all of the information, then you are as, or maybe even more, liable as the one who's taking the risk.

Fear and disgust, like the pictures I was shown in high school, can be an excellent deterrent under normal circumstances. However, you have to realize that endorphins override both of those emotions.

What I've Been Doing

2009-01-26T13:08:00.015-05:00

Some of you may have noticed that I'm not blogging, or even interacting with the internet in general, as much as I used to. Well, starting work again for my old company has made me more busy, during the day (Notice the drop-off on the number of posts per month starting in March of '08). So I haven't had the time to do as much research as my old job gave me. Of course, that's one reason why I left my old job, so I'm not complaining.

There's also the time that I'm spending with my little girl. When the days got shorter and colder, Munchkin began spending more time indoors. She's been very inquinsitive for quite a while, but being stuck indoors has increased that dramatically. We've spent a great deal of time with her doing everything from construction (Leggos, Lincoln Logs, and your standard wooden blocks), reading (helping her learn to sound out words), learning to tell time, playing cards (Uno Attack is her current favorite), various computer learning games, and quite a bit more. That brings me to the main reason for my absence.

When Princess and I first got married in 2000, we weren't in a hurry to enlarge our family. We didn't feel like we were stable enough to raise a child. Eventually, we met our goals and started trying to conceive.

Unfortunately, it wasn't as simple as a night of passion and nine months of waiting. Instead, we spent a year trying before we sought professional help. Tests were ran, chlomid was prescribed, and a month after Princess started taking it I found out she was reading What to Expect When You're Expecting. From that point until March 1st, 2004 we spent our time getting everything in order for the arrival of Munchkin.

For the next couple of years we spent the time getting used to being parents, and learning things about being parents that aren't printed in books. Eventually, we started attempting to conceive a sibling for Munchkin. However, this time things didn't go as well as they did with the first attempt.

According to what I understood there were conception problems with both of us. No single problem with either of us would have necessarily made conception impossible, but when you add them all together it made it much more difficult. After a few months of Chlomid it became clear that wouldn't be enough this time. Eventually, the doctor suggested IVF.

(Note: the following might be TMI for the more conservative, so you might want to skip to the end.)

Most people, at best, understand a simple definition of IVF. An egg is, or several eggs are, retrieved from the female, the male's sperm is used to fertilize the egg(s) in a petri dish, and then the fertilized egg(s) are transferred back into the female's uterus. Then, nine months later you have your own bundle of joy. Of course, the actual details involved makes that idea of IVF similar to saying that the sky is blue because of light refraction. While the overall idea is true, it barely scratches the surface of the details.

For the average attempt, those details for the men aren't too bad. A period of abstinence, hoping that the magazines and movies supplied meet your tastes, and a few days of taking over the wife's workload. The last part is actually the most difficult, and the most humbling.

The normally expected period of abstinence is about two weeks. Part of it is building up your sperm for implantation, and the rest is to prevent interference with the eggs implanting into the endometrium layer of the uterus. Two weeks may not seem like a long time, but my wife and I aren't conservative when it comes to sex. Add to that over a year of trying to get to Carnegie Hall, and the sudden shut off can be frustrating. However, it made it much easier when I thought about what those two weeks would help to do.

The magazines and movies were a completely different issue. While the sight of a naked female body, either in still or moving pictures, can be stimulating it takes much more to bring me all the way.

There were several magazines that seemed to cover the various fetishes. Coeds, big breasts, and girl-next-door was a common theme. Most of the time, the title of the magazine would give you an idea of the content, and even if that was too vague the cover photo or article listing would suffice. Unfortunately, none of those magazines had anything to do with a hot-blooded latina RN who can make my blood boil with a kiss.

So I was left looking at the possibilities of the movies. I'd heard rumors that porn-with-a-plot had come a long way since my teenage years of flipping to the Playboy channel while the house was empty. Unfortunately, the plots had improved, at least in the descriptions on the DVD covers, but the acting still kept my imagination from becoming involved enough for it to really work. Eventually things did work, but even those times when Princess and I "weren't really into it" were stellar by comparison.

Fortunately, the first time I had to deal with this issue was when I was giving a sample for testing. Since this was a worst case scenario, I thought that if I could find a way to improve it for the "final exam" it would increase our chances. So, I asked Princess if she'd be willing to make a video, with or without me. We have a camcorder that can download directly to a laptop, so I thought this would be a great use for it. If it was too uncomfortable for her, she could even make the video alone. Nope, she didn't buy that either. I can almost still hear the laughter and "Good try though" involved in her response. The eventual promise of a reward and the description of it, no she didn't let me record that either, indeed psychologically helped with the process.

I appreciate the "behind the scenes" work Princess does in order to keep everything in order. Taking on those duties just makes me appreciate her even more, and humbles me at the same time. However, things happened that extended my taking on of these responsibilities. There's a relatively rare side effect of IVF called ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, or OHSS for short. Princess's OHSS was of the mild to moderate variety, and didn't last the 10 weeks that it can last for some. She did go from her normal look to looking about 6 months pregnant in less than a week. Before the fluid retention started to recede, she seemed to look about 8 months pregnant.

For those who may not fully understand the effect of OHSS think of it this way. Normally, looking six months pregnant takes six months. In the case of OHSS the body had to deal with those changes in a matter of days. The skin doesn't have time to adjust to the swelling, and the pressures inside the body make things extremely uncomfortable. Not only could Princess not do anything around the house, but she had to miss work and was put on "desk duty" when she returned to it. So on top of dealing with the OHSS symptoms, she was stuck not being able to do anything. As someone who knows her, I can tell you this went over as well as my video idea but not with the humor.

Well, eventually the OHSS subsided and she was able to start returning to her normal routine. She had to take it slowly, because her body still had some residual side effects from the OHSS. One day, she was able to finally get back onto her elliptical for some exercise. Unfortunately, this resulted in a severly twisted ankle, more time off from work, and more time being unable to do the things that she's used to doing.

On a side note, nothing that I had to deal with holds a candle to what Princess had to go through. The only invasive procedure I had to deal with was giving blood, where it seemed that every step involved something being stuck into her. My advice for any partner is to be supportive of the one going through all of this. When you combine the emotions involved when she finds out that it's extremely difficult for her to naturally conceive with the implements that they have to use on her you're getting the good side of the deal.

On December 26th Princess had a blood test that confirmed that she was carrying at least one child (her sprained ankle occured after this). I say "at least" because there were three embryos implanted. To give you some idea, there were 20 eggs retrieved in a not comfortable procedure. After my contribution was introduced we received a phone call the following day telling us that 15 eggs had become zygotes. However, of those 15 only 3 were viable 3 days later.

The end result was finding out on January 14th when an ultrasound was done that two of those three survived until that point. Somewhere around September 1st our household is expecting the arrival of twins, so we're preparing our lives for that.