Skeptico

Those Militant Stamp Collectors

The other week I got involved in a debate with a theist in the comments to this Depleted Cranium blog post. Commenter Jason insisted that atheism is a religion, to which I replied with “if atheism is a religion them not collecting stamps is a hobby.”  He replied with this:

If people organised groups around the theme of not collecting stamps, wrote books about the virtue of not collecting stamps and identified themselves as definitely not stamp collectors, while at the same time running around rubbishing stamp collecting as a deluded hobby practiced by idiots, most people would recognize the actions of somebody who has turned “not stamp collecting” into a hobby they have.

Jason’s reply is a fine example of someone who has thought part the way through an issue, but not all the way. It’s pretty obvious what he is missing. I replied that if stamp collectors demanded that people who don’t collect stamps obey their stamp collecting rules, started wars with groups who collected slightly different types of stamps, denied non-stamp collectors rights or discriminated against them, bullied them in school, claimed you had to collect stamps to be a suitable person to run for public office, tried to get stamp collecting taught in schools as science in opposition to real science, demanded that people be killed for printing cartoons that made fun of stamp collectors, claimed that non-stamp collectors lacked moral judgment, made up ridiculous straw man positions they claimed non-stamp collectors took, and then argued against those straw men positions etc etc, - then non-stamp collectors would probably criticize stamp collectors the way Jason suggested. And with good reason. Not collecting stamps would still not be a hobby though.

Thinking about Jason’s argument the next day, I had a feeling I’d heard it somewhere else recently. Then I remembered – I think Jason had been reading Dinesh D’Souza. That explained why his arguments were so lame. The thing is, if religious people just followed their religions without bothering anyone else, didn’t try to get creationism taught in science class, etc, I wouldn’t care over much. I’d still think they were a little silly. On the level of children believing in Santa Claus, perhaps. And I still wouldn’t want to listen to them prattling on about their delusions. (Look, the grownups are talking now. Go over in the corner and play with your bibles for a while.) But I wouldn’t care about it, not really. The problem with religion though, is that they can never just keep it to themselves. They insist that everyone respects their delusions and follows their rules. They are like militant stamp collectors. Join our stamp collecting club or else.  And that's the basic problem with religion.  That, and  the fact that it's mostly nonsense.

The rest of Jason’s arguments were against the convoluted straw man atheist he insisted we all are. Read the whole comments thread only if you are feeling masochistic.

Actually, it's called "Begging"

A Chihuahua has begun joining in daily prayers at a Buddhist temple in Japan.

He’s probably praying the monk stops the pointless ritual and feeds him already.  There's probably more chance that’ll come true than whatever the monk’s praying for.

Expelled from Expelled

Read PZ’s description about how he was not allowed in to see the new dumb creationist film “Expelled” – the one about how poor old Intelligent Design is being discriminated against in favor of Evolution because it (ID, not evolution), has not passed scientific muster. They wouldn’t let in PZ but did let in Richard Dawkins.  What morons.

Also read this account from a pro-ID person who supposedly witnessed the whole thing. Apparently he thinks that “anyone walking away from this film will be convinced that the merits of Intelligent Design should be on the same level playing field as Evolutionary Theory”. The comments to that post so far are critical (to be polite) of this guy, his account and his view of the film. Worth a read if only to marvel at the IDists' stupidity.

Vox Keeps His Readers In The Dark

Via the Bad Astronomer I read this absurd post from a blogger called Vox who seems to think that dark matter and dark energy are outside the scope of science which means that secular societies are “arguably insane”.  Of course, Vox’s argument is unarguably retarded.  He’s saying that because we don’t know exactly what dark matter and dark energy are, they’re outside the realm of science. But that’s obviously false: it’s only through science that we even know that dark matter and dark energy exist. There is nothing in the bible about the universe being 72.1% dark energy and 23.3% dark matter. Nor does it say on which day God created them.  They don’t exist, according to the nomadic goat herders who wrote the bibble.  Furthermore, if we are ever to understand dark matter and dark energy, that will only happen through the process of science, not by assuming it’s too complex and so Goddidit.  Vox's silly argument is just another lame Science Doesn't Know Everything appeal.

I did post a comment on Saturday, asking the assembled loons who support the blog’s author, what other method they would use to try to understand dark matter and dark energy. Unsurprisingly they had no reply.

God Fails

Newsflash: God failed tonight to get Huckabee elected President. Imagine my surprise.

We know Huckabee was God’s candidate. After all, the man himself said:

There’s only one explanation for it, and it’s not a human one. It’s the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people. (Applause) That’s the only way that our campaign can be doing what it’s doing. And I’m not being facetious nor am I trying to be trite. There literally are thousands of people across this country who are praying that a little will become much, and it has. And it defies all explanation, it has confounded the pundits. And I’m enjoying every minute of them trying to figure it out, and until they look at it, from a, just experience beyond human, they’ll never figure it out. And it’s probably just as well. That’s honestly why it’s happening.

I’ll repeat – Huckabee said of his earlier poll success: “There’s only one explanation for it”. Only one. What’s the explanation now then Mike? Did God change his mind? Or is he not powerful enough to swing a few measly votes? Or,  maybe your imaginary sky fairy doesn’t exist.

There’s only one explanation for it, and it’s not a supernatural one. It’s the same complete lack of power that proves again and again that prayer doesn’t work. (Applause)  And I’m not being facetious (actually I am, but who’s counting), nor am I trying to be trite. There literally were thousands of people across this country who were praying that a little will become much, and it didn’t. And it is totally expected and totally explainable. It has confounded the religious idiots (OK, some redundancy there).  And I’m enjoying every minute of them trying to figure it out. And until they look at it from a rational perspective (as if) they’ll never figure it out. And that's a pity. That’s honestly why it happened.

Honestly.

Your God was no use. Never was. Never will be.

More Intolerance from the Religious

Ron at The Frame Problem informed me of a University’s refusal to recognize an atheist group. The vice-president of the club, blogging in Cosmopolitan, has the actual response to the atheists’ application, from the Campus Clubs department:

While the Campus Clubs department understands the goals and visions of your organization, they are not compatible with the guidelines of what may be approved and incorporated into our department. While the promotion of reason, science and freedom of inquiry are perfectly legitimate goals, what is most in question in regards to your club’s vision is the promotion of “a fulfilling life without religion and superstition“. While this university is indeed technically a secular institution, secular does not denote taking an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of religious beliefs and practices. To be clear, this is not meant to say that the promotion of science and reason are illegitimate goals. But due to the need to respect and tolerate the views of others, the Campus Clubs department is unable to approve a club of this nature at this time.

I’m afraid they don’t understand the meaning of the word “tolerate”. To “tolerate” the views of others doesn’t mean you can’t criticize them, it just means you don’t prevent those views from being heard. Only by actually trying to prevent views from being heard – for example, by refusing to approve a club whose views you may disagree with – are you being intolerant. I guess they also need to look up the word “irony”.

Once again, despite the nice sounding wording (that it took them nine months to craft), what we have here is the usual intolerant attitude of the religious, whose only response to people who don’t accept their delusions – is to ban them. And yes I know, this group hasn’t been “banned”, strictly speaking. They can still exist (I presume); they just don’t get the freebies the religious groups get. But make no mistake, they would ban this group if they could. And this group isn’t even an in your face atheists’ group. Their name is the Laurier Freethought Alliance.

The Freethought group recently responded in an extremely conciliatory way, in an attempt to get the decision reversed, and it’ll be interesting to see what happens. But why should they have to kowtow in this way? Can you imagine a Christian group (in the West) having to explain itself in such apologetic and conciliatory terms to get approved? If you can, I’d like to hear about it.  

Sniveling Cowardly Christians

From PZ I learned today that MySpace is run by religious bigots who have deleted atheist users, groups and content:

Early this month, MySpace again deleted the Atheist and Agnostic Group (35,000 members). This deletion, due largely to complaints from people who find atheism offensive, marks the second time MySpace has cancelled the group since November 2007.

[…]

“MySpace refuses to undelete the group, although it never violated any terms of service,” said Bryan Pesta, Ph.D., the group’s moderator. “When the largest Christian group was hacked, MySpace’s Founder, Tom Anderson, personally restored the group, and promised to protect it from future deletions.”

What a bunch of sniveling cowards this Christian group must be. Rather than engage in debate with the atheists, rather than show some evidence to back up their beliefs, or even just ignore the atheists, they had to start an organized campaign to have the group deleted. Because Christians only feel safe when no one allowed to challenge their delusions. It’s a sad commentary on their pathetic excuse for a religion that their god is so frightened of a few atheists that even an atheists’ MySpace page can’t be allowed to exist. Remember this the next time you hear Bill Donohue’s professional victim act, or The Christian News Wire whining about some imagined insult. Remember this the next time someone tells the “New Atheists” that we need to be more accommodating to Christians, less aggressive, more understanding of the “moderate” Christians, or whatever. Where are the “moderate Christians” protesting the atheists’ group’s right to exist? This act shows the religious mindset as it really is – intolerant, authoritarian, cowardly and vindictive.

Other Sources

The Cleveland Plain Dealer: MySpace deletes hacked Web site for atheists and agnostics

Wikipedia page on The Atheist and Agnostic Group.

February 2, 2007 – Update

Podblack reports MySpace have restored the group.

.

Extraordinarily Mangled

After I had finished writing Monday’s Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence post, I Googled extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to see what else had been written about it: had I missed anything or got something wrong? Surprisingly, the first hit was the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM) – with a critique of the way atheists supposedly apply the extraordinary claims doctrine when examining claims of Jesus’ resurrection. Unsurprisingly, they managed to mangle the atheists’ position. Equally unsurprisingly it’s choc full of logical fallacies. It starts with a possibly unintentional statement that the Christian has already made his mind up about the resurrection, whether he has any evidence or not:

In Jesus' resurrection, for example, Christians presuppose that God exists and that He could easily have raised Jesus from the dead. The evidence of fulfilled prophecy, eyewitness records, and changed lives of the disciples is enough to convince many people who believe in God that Jesus rose from the dead. This is a logical conclusion based on the presupposition and the evidence.

The CARM’s position that “Christians presuppose that God exists and that He could easily have raised Jesus from the dead” is circular reasoning: they’re using the resurrection as evidence that Jesus was resurrected (and was therefore the son of God, etc), but their admitted presupposition is that God exists and would have resurrected his son. Of course, if you start from the position that Jesus was the son of God then your “logical conclusion” pretty much has to be that Jesus was resurrected. Who needs evidence?

They then misstate the atheists’ position to accuse atheists of doing what they just admitted to doing themselves:

Atheists, on the other hand, would negate the resurrection by default since their presupposition that there is no God would require that God involvement cannot occur. Therefore, for an atheist the extraordinary evidence would have to be "exceptionally" extraordinary in order to overcome his atheistic presuppositions.

No. It has nothing to do with “atheistic presuppositions”. It is because of the “presupposition” (actually, the extraordinary evidence that exists), that show DEAD PEOPLE DO NOT COME BACK TO LIFE. I’m not talking about people who were technically “dead” for a short while but who were brought back by heroic modern medicine. I’m talking about someone who was really dead, for nearly two days, without modern machinery to keep the organs working, who was resurrected by magic.

I find it telling that the CARM accuse atheists of presupposing their conclusion (they don’t), when that is exactly what the CARM just did. (Projection?) And remember, I used their own actual statement of what their presuppositions are, from their own article – not a straw man version of their presuppositions as they did with the atheists' supposed presupposition.

This is why the skeptic must require "extraordinary evidence." It enables him to retain his presupposition should the extraordinary level of the evidence not be met. Therefore, requiring extraordinary evidence effectively stacks the deck against the claim.

No. The absurdity of the claim – a dead person coming back to life - stacks the deck against the claim.

When debating skeptics, I often ask them to tell me what would qualify as extraordinary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Generally, nothing sensible is offered. Normal evidence would be written accounts. Extraordinary evidence would be a film, but we know that this extraordinary evidence is not reasonable since there was no film in Jesus' time. Therefore, can the requirement that extraordinary claims (Christ's resurrection) require extraordinary evidence apply to Jesus' resurrection?

It can and it should. It is not the fault of the atheist that Christians have nothing but lame second-hand anecdotes for this patently absurd claim. The burden of proof is upon the claimant, not upon those who doubt the absurd claim.

It would seem not. Since Jesus' resurrection is alleged to be a historical event, then it seems logical that normal historical evidence and normal historical examination of that evidence would be all we could offer. The resurrection is supposed to be an event of history and since it claims historical validity, then typical criteria for examining historical claims should be applied.

No. Unless the historical claims they refer to also involve raising the dead. Which they rarely do.

They go on to equivocate about how historic claims are judged differently because of the difficulty in testing events that happened a long time ago. But historians are generally evaluating claims such as who won a war, why they won (better tactics, better weapons?), who was involved in implementing legislation, etc. These things can often be inferred from a variety of sources. But they are not, in the main, extraordinary claims. One historian might say a war was won because of a better general; another might say it was bad weather than got the troops of one side bogged down in the mud. One or both of these explanations might be wrong. But neither requires you to accept some new and extraordinary claim such as (for example) that if you accept Jesus you will live in heaven forever. The CARM equivocate about this difference:

Furthermore, we cannot ascertain all things with absolute certainty. We cannot, for example, prove that Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.) ever lived by observing him. But, we have ancient writings from eyewitnesses concerning his existence. Skeptics readily believe in Alexander the Great without involving the scientific method and without requiring "extraordinary evidence" yet they will require it of Jesus' existence.

No. They have created a false analogy. When expressed properly, it applies to the atheist position, not the Christian one, as I will demonstrate. As with Alexander the Great, we cannot prove that a historic Jesus actually existed. However, we have ancient writings (not from eyewitnesses, but I’ll let that slide for the sake of argument), concerning his existence. I am prepared to accept that a historic Jesus could have lived, without involving the scientific method and without requiring "extraordinary evidence". What I will not accept is that he died, was resurrected, and now lives in the sky. That, is the extraordinary claim. It is absurd. And there is no rational reason for anyone to believe it.

Huckabee: Evidence Please

From PZ I learn that Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee wants to amend the US constitution so it agrees with his version of God’s standards:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Well OK, Mike. Just one thing – show us the evidence that the old book of myths you are relying on is actually the word of God. And remember, Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence, so extraordinary evidence only please, no references to The Bible itself to prove The Bible is the word of God. No appeals to popularity or ancient knowledge. I’m sure you must have the evidence if you’re willing to change the constitution to take account of it. Surely you wouldn’t just say it’s true without having the evidence to back it up? Didn’t you study theology? Well then – you must have found some pretty extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim, otherwise you would have been wasting your time all those years, wouldn’t you?

So the comments are open for Mike, or any of his followers, to post their  extraordinary evidence to justify why we should change the US constitution so it agrees with their holy book. Or to withdraw the idiotic idea. (Although we know they’ll never do that.)

D’Worst List

From PZ I found The BEAST’s 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2007. I have to say I agree with most of them, but my favorite was # 29, Dinesh D'Souza:

Charges: Wrote a book blaming 9/11 on -- who else? -- liberals, because if we didn't live in a free society, then fundamentalists wouldn't dislike us so. Even conservative nuts blasted D'Souza's empathy for poor al Qaeda. Lately, he's been engaging prominent atheists in debates, revealing himself to be a pseudointellectual ass, and then declaring victory. D'Souza's master plan for attacking atheism is the ridiculous Pascal's wager: Atheists could be wrong, and then they'd go to hell, but if the religious are wrong, then they suffer no ill effect -- aside from living their lives in delusion, of course. And possibly going to someone else's hell for believing the wrong religion. D'Souza seems to think that if he speaks more loudly and rapidly than his opponent, he is winning, but his arguments are weak and idiotic, and he never even attempts to truly debate the existence of any god, which is the ostensible point of these debates. Instead, he likes to compare body counts -- Stalin and Mao killed more than the religious leaders of their time -- rather than actually debate whether there is a God, or for that matter a Jesus. This, of course, is because there is no case to be made.

Exhibit A: "[Atheists] are God-haters... I don't believe in unicorns, but then I haven't written any books called The End of Unicorns, Unicorns are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion." But what if everyone you met did believe in unicorns, and not only that, but worshiped a unicorn, held a book about unicorns to be the divine truth of the universe, invoked unicorns in political contexts, and speechified about how non-believers were indecent people waging a war on morality, which could only be predicated on the unquestioning belief in unicorns? Then, maybe, D'Souza would think about writing that book. But of course, that's not really true, because if that was the world we lived in, then Dinesh D'Souza would believe in unicorns.