This is apparently 'proof' to Islamists?

Response to: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234974450-imam-sadiqas-debate-with-athiests/

Someone on twitter posted this link to be and said "You might enjoy reading this".

Actually, believe it or not, no... I don't enjoy long strings of ignorance, lies, misrepresentations and logical fallacies.

Let's take a quick look at these:

(1) "Juad Ibne Dirham, a leader of atheist sect had kept some mud and water in a glass bottle. After some days worms grew in it and he claimed to be their creator"

How completely ignorant is this strawman? First of all, any given atheist might be completely ignorant of science. If this was a real person they clearly are ignorant of science so this ENTIRE string is built on the logical fallacy of the strawman and is therefore completely invalid. Next.

Reason/Logic/Science 1, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0

(2) "There is a verse in Quran that is according to our belief and which goes against your faith...nd He it is Who is God in the heavens and God in the earth…( Surah Zukhruf 43:84)"

and they say "nuh huh". Ooooooookay. So what is this supposed to prove? Another strawman. It's really easy to setup completely weak strawmen and knock them down, this proves nothing. Next.

Reason/Logic/Science 2, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0

(3)"One day Abu Shakir came to the Imam and said, “Prove to me the existence of God.” Imam (a.s) told him to be seated..."

This should be good, haha.

"...inside which flow two seas of gold and silver. But neither can the yellow mix with the white nor the white can merge with the yellow"

Obviously they have never heard of a scrambled egg. What kind of stupid argument are we looking at here?

"...No one can even know whether the newborn would be a male or a female"

Utter and complete nonsense - we can insert very fine instruments into the egg, extract a tiny DNA sample and sex the chicken.

"...Can your reason agree that all this happened without a designer or a maker?”"

Ah, the absolute FAVORITE of religion, the Argument From Ignorance. If you don't know how something happens naturally then surely God must have done it. Nonsense. In fact, we have EXTREMELY detailed knowledge now of exactly how evolution works and why it gives the mere APPEARENCE of design but doesn't require an actual designer. The need for 'God' in the production of natural biology ceased to exist 150 years ago and the evidence supporting it now exists in volumes that fill hundreds of thousands of pages.

Reason/Logic/Science 3, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0

(4) "One day an atheist from Egypt came to Imam (a.s) who asked his name. “Abdul Malik,” replied...It is surprising that when you do not have any knowledge about the earth or the sky, the east or west, how can you deny the existence of God?"

Another Argument From Ignorance.

"Don’t you ever reflect on the earth and the sky that why the sky does not crash on the earth?"

The 'sky' crash on the earth, LOL. Are you #*$&ing kidding me? It's these Biblical 'firmament' idiots who used to think the sky was a great dome because they FAILED TO GRASP COSMOLOGY. Ignorance, Ignorance, Ignorance -- a 'divine' being would know better.

"Why the earth does not sink below itself?"

Displays an utter ignorance of cosmology and physics, it's not even a valid question.

Reason/Logic/Science 4, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0


One of the comments on that page: "Have you guys/gals noticed how amazing these debates are?"

No, but I noticed that they are shameful & dishonest.


One final example, from a comment (again with the egg analogy):

"Imam (to the man): Tell me something. Is it possible to keep two different colours of liquid in one container without any barrier and yet they don’t get mixed?

Man: Impossible."

First of all the egg contents CAN be mixed, secondly the egg contents ARE mixing slightly, even in the egg, and thirdly OF COURSE THIS IS POSSIBLE, IT IS TRIVIAL.

Reason/Logic/Science 5, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0



So once again, Ignorantly pretending to know shit on "faith" is an utter failure. OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER again it fails but each new moron thinks they have the magic words from the skydaddy.

All these thousands of pretend 'gods' are the SAME Bullshit, over and over again: http://krankypanz.blogspot.com/2012/06/list-of-gods.html

I'll tell ya what is 'Impossible', the laughable idea that YOU finally got it right.

When Cells Divide: the argument from uniqueness

MYTH: A zygote, formed during conception, is when a unique set of human DNA is created

FACT: This is FALSE. Just about every cell copy (mitosis) produces a 'unique' DNA variant (due to mutations, copy variations, duplications, transpositions, mitotic crossover, etc) and this is especially present during the production of gametes (spermatozoa and ovum) when DNA recombination shuffles the alleles between the different pairs of chromosomes (segments of DNA are sliced and randomized between the pairs of a chromosome).

Even 'identical twins', which are produced when the morula splits after the zygote has begun to divide into multiple cells, do not have IDENTICAL DNA - there are already differences in the copies at those early stages (both genetic and epigenetic differences).

So every gamete, while being haploid (having only one full set of our human DNA chromosomes, unlike our diploid cells which have 2 full copies), is a completely unique set of human DNA, unlike either of the originals but a complex mixture of the two. The Zygote is just the combination of these two, already unique, sets of chromosomes.

References:

Genome-wide single-cell analysis of recombination activity and de novo mutation rates in human sperm
Cell Division
Genetic Recombination
Mitotic crossover
Chromosome
Allele
Gamete
Scientific American: Identical Twins Genes are not Identical



MYTH: Life begins at conception / first breath

FACT: Life began only once (so far as we have evidence for) approximately 3.6 billion years ago - it is ridiculous to argue that it 'begins' at conception.

Furthermore, we know now that every cell in your body could be potentiated to become a new and unique 'human being', should we decide to do so.

And there are even **single-celled** humans (see HeLa), does each of those unique cells get full voting rights?

A human being is simply NOT a cell -- it is what a very large collection of specifically differentiated cells working together in concert create, and specifically there has to be a working human brain involved. This also applies to end of life, when there is no more brain function we recognize that we need to allow the body to cease functioning as well. The mere POTENTIAL to form a working human brain isn't sufficient or we would try to save every cell before death and potentiate it to be a full human being because it HAS that potential, so this is disproved reductio ad absurdum.

Also consider carefully that human beings seem to all have the POTENTIAL to do harmful things to other human beings. If the potential for something is the same as that something then should we preemptively incarcerate all human beings for their potential to do harm? Again, that would be absurd - reductio ad absurdum. You'd have to show why your 'potential' argument deserves special treatment or you're committing the Special Pleading fallacy.


References:

Timeline of evolutionary history of life
HeLa



MYTH: Gametes aren't 'alive'.

FACT: Then please explain how there can be 'dead' spermatozoa (see necrospermia) and why they don't create babies?

See Also:

http://sperm.abc.hu/en/fenymikr.htm

What I would do...

My comment over on Forbes: If The US Spends $550 Billion On Poverty How Can There Still Be Poverty In The US?

The ignorance of privilege and prejudice shown in this article (and some of the comments) is just appalling.

First of all, the measurement of poverty is not to say where people are after they have received assistance but to measure the underlying problem. The money spent doesn't magically make things better - we often actually refuse to spend funds on root cause. Instead, we've decided as a nation to only treat the symptoms at the absolute minimal level we can possibly get away and still let the 'rich' sleep at night.

Saying things like "many of your disadvantaged poor people are just lazy free-loaders", as elmer did, shows just how deep this ignorance runs. This is an inexcusable cheap shots at people whose lives elmer clearly knows nothing about. I've lived in those shoes personally, I managed to get out but I don't make the mistake of misattributing that success. I'm not better than anyone else -- I got lucky, period. And I'm thankful even for the woefully inadequate job the government did in assisting my family during our hardest times (I remember shopping with food stamps). When my mother was working multiple jobs, for substandard wages, to try to feed us. When we had to move because we couldn't afford the rent. When that forced us to move into an area with an inadequate school system. When that trashed my education and I had to work jobs during the day and finished High School through a program I attended at night). I went from a highly progressive, loving, caring school system into one that almost despised students.

You carp and moan about it while doing EVERYTHING in your power to continue and worsen this atrocious system.

The people I know even now are working 4 jobs and trying to get an online education (the only one they can afford, as insufficient as that is). But the institution of the United States has decided that women aren't worth paying fairly and they don't want to give people actual jobs -- they want to pay below poverty wages for back-breaking and mind-numbing labor.

I would take 1 of them over 100 elmers.

Disclaimer: I now (happily) pay more in TAXES than about half of those in the US make in total income. I welcome more taxes if they actually go to improving the situation. I want to HELP people and I can see with MY OWN EYES that they desperately need it. It's not easy to help others, most often issues run psychologically deep due to abuses of the past. But I refuse to turn a blind eye and let others suffer without doing what I can.

What we need to do is simple:

1) end the drug war, full stop -- and put every person in prison for ONLY possession (not including those pleading down from violent offenses) into a program where they are released once they get a degree. This will also end that source of funding to terrorist and organised criminal organizations. This will also put a stop to ripping apart families (that are, DISPROPORTIONATE TO ACTUAL DRUG USE, minorities). The ignorant drug war is a massive source of the problems in this country.

The entire drug war is founded on racism and lies.

There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." - Harry J. Anslinger, Federal Bureau of Narcotics, testimony to US Congress supporting Marihuana Tax Act, 1937

and later used by Nixon as a political tool:

"You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this all while not appearing to." - Richard M. Nixon, about the War on Drugs to Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman, according to Halderman's diaries


2) Anyone who wants to attend a brick&mortar community college for a 4-year degree should have every class and book paid for. They shouldn't have to jump through massive hoops that are practically designed to prevent people from getting aid. Just cover it.

3) We need a way to intervene earlier and more compassionately for those who are suffering mental and physical abuses. We need MORE intrusion and intervention into people's personal lives -- but, in exchange, we need to do so with an eye towards improving our future. You CANNOT simply throw everyone into prison -- that exacerbates the issues ten-fold. To borrow a recent metaphor, we need to OCCUPY the lives of people who, probably due to abuses in their own past, are abusing those in their current lives. If we do this with love and compassion and a desire to improve the lives of the next generation we can, step-by-step, crawl out of the current psychological deficit we have in the world.

This also means we need to stop yanking kids out of homes on the slightest pretext. The outcomes for such children are just as bleak as the abused (and they offer suffer worse abuses in foster care).

Except in the extreme cases, don't imprison, separate, & destroy -- OCCUPY, HEAL, SHOW COMPASSION.

Note that this is NOT saying that someone who harms a child gets off Scott Free. Violent acts against others should be tried. I'm talking about what do we DO when someone is found to be a threat to the family? Locking them up in prison punishes the family as much as the offender - this is STUPID.

I'm saying, take however many we can afford (let's say 10,000 for starters), and put someone on them 24x7. Watch them, educate them, make them do the things that must be done. Show them how to care for and treat children. And educate them on how to help the next generation in turn. Let those that are successful participate and lead the next generation.

Or you can take the only father figure those children have out of the home, leave the mother alone to care for 2 or 3 kids -- giving her jobs that don't cover child care. That's surely been a recipe for success for the past 50 years (NOT).

4) we need to ensure those in need have adequate shelter, clothing, food, education, and medical care. We do the bare minimum palliative care today and we do almost nothing to actually try to improve the situation. Cut 1% of the military budget every year for 10 years and move it into funding education -- not just more of the same but we need research programs to guide development of an improved educational system.

We have some of the best education in the world in some cases and we have a LOT of education that is bottom of the barrel.

We should produce a series of programs that teaches deep, key concepts and critical thinking skills. This should be developed by the best of the best and made available online to everyone along with a promulgation program to encourage people to participate (btw, things like iTunes U is already an incredible resource for free education programs -- more of that is good but I'm talking about programs more targeted at the currently disadvantaged). The majority of this is a one time cost! This is low-hanging fruit.

For example, memorizing a bunch of historical dates is PURPOSELESS and utterly worthless -- what needs to be taught (broadly) from history is why things are the way they are today -- how we got here and the mistakes we've made. And, if done properly, that makes history vibrant and interesting. Most of what passes for 'History' in schools today is actually harmful to an education.

And hey -- maybe I'm wrong about some things -- I wouldn't propose we do anything without setting metrics for success or failure and, when things are failing we need to try something else. Why don't ANY bills have clearly defined metrics for success? This is standard business practice: set goals, define metrics, measure results.

Meandering musing on Social Issues

I figured I would start a list of the issues of our day and see if History will some day support my view of the world.

Let's first look at a couple issues of the past:

#1 Slavery: the ownership and treatment of a fellow human being as chattel. This is well established as being categorically wrong now.

#2 Universal suffrage: giving all adults the right to vote. In the past both women and minorities have been denied this right.

#3 Worker's Rights: in the past workers had almost no rights, worked in dangerous and deplorable conditions for unreasonable number of hours, millions died from poisons, exhaustion, poor work conditions and other work-related deaths. Sadly we face a degradation of these rights today. The Constitution grants US citizens the right of free association and in some states like Wisconsin this right has been infringed by making it illegal for workers to form a Union.

Looking forward...

#4 Marriage Equality: rights in the US are individual rights and we're guaranteed EQUAL protection under the law. This means that if one adult has the right to marry another adult, that right must be applied equally. It is just inexcusable, on the basis of small-minded prejudice, to deny gay people the right to marry and enjoy the rights, benefits and responsibilities that come with such an endeavor. Watch this video for more information (from Republican Ted Olson).

#5 LGBTQ* Rights: A broad term covering marriage, but also legality of sexual activity, recognition of relationships, adoption rights, military service, anti-discrimination, and gender identity & expression. Eventually the mistreatment, bullying, harassment, physical assault and denial of rights to people who are merely different in whom they love will be anathema.

#6 Minimal Standard of Living: giving a level of dignity and recognition of the human condition over living standards including: a decent place to live, adequate food & water, education, necessary clothing, and medical care. I think this will also lead to a policy of full employment, where everyone who wants to work will be put to work. This will require some serious rethinking of how an economy should work because the disgusting truth is that, in our capitalistic system, full employment leads to a collapse of the system.

#7 Bodily Autonomy/Abortion: You simply cannot force someone to carry a child to term, the consequences of denying bodily autonomy are horrific, millions of women suffered through it in the past and many of them died. Advances in birth control will probably reduce it close to medically necessary abortions.

#8 Animal Rights: I think we will find that higher animals are sentient, feeling, beings and we will be required to extent to them certain Rights.

#9 Death Penalty: will be abolished, partly on the basis of neurological findings.

This isn't a complete list obviously, post some of your thoughts.

The Lies Have It

I couldn't let this one pass...

http://apapromotions.com/commonsense/2012/02/10/were-the-founders-wrong-obama-and-progressives-really-don%E2%80%99t-like-our-constitution/

Obama also stated that what is frustrating is that “I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008.” Let that sink in for a moment. What Obama is saying is that he believes the President of the United States should be allowed to force Congress to do his will.

Either this person has zero reading comprehension skills or they are maliciously trying to misinform the reader. You'll have to decide.

The actual quote of what Obama said is "What's frustrated people is that I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008." Which makes it clear that it isn't Obama manically wishing to have ultimate control but rather he's saying change takes time in our system of government and that this is what is frustrating those who wish he had done everything he wanted to do back in 2008.

As for the Ginsburg issue, MediaMatters covered it very well.

So, more bullshit. If you read what she said in detail this is clearly taken out of context.

And let's talk about the failings of said document.

Slavery - DISGUSTING

Denies Suffrage to women and African people - DISGUSTING

And unfortunately we're still fighting both those battles today, against people like 'Mr. Common Sense' I fear.

The Hate Blog

A collection of a few of the Hateful things I see Christians saying around the internet. If I had an easy way to add things to this it would be thousands of entries long.

Note to Christians: "you are going Hell" sounds a lot like "I'm gleefully hoping you will be tortured for all eternity, because I'm right and you are wrong". I condemn anyone wishing or thinking another human being is deserving of torture or death. And no, I do not believe in the death penalty either.

Most of this is just silly stupidity. When does insulting cross over into bullying? When someone in a position of power over someone else (either by virtue of physical strength or otherwise) uses that position to intimidate or harm the other person. At some point bullying would cross over into straight up harassment (which is a matter for the courts). But one adult merely insulting another adult, in the course of a discussion/argument, really isn't bullying and it undermines our concerns for real bullying when it is misportrayed as such.

But don't EVEN try to pull those "Why are atheists so angry" or "Why are atheists so rude" tropes. See also: What's The Harm

But even given all this, and all I have seen that isn't posted here, and how hateful I find Christian doctrine, I STILL DO NOT PAINT ALL CHRISTIANS WITH THE SAME BRUSH. To do so is the ugliest form of bigotry. I judge each person on their own merits.

Atheist Activists are hate filled jerks that have nothing better to do than get involved in other people's business #dps #tcot #tlot
— @BodiazRising (@BodiazRising) December 6, 2012

Some might be, but this commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. He will probably get some nasty replies which will only confirm this position in his mind (Confirmation Bias at work).

Oddly, a Liberal's small mind is never at a loss for insults.
— Janie Johnson (@jjauthor) November 27, 2012

Don't ya just love the smell of irony in the morning?

@ladyatheist @daboybanks i treat other women much different then how i treat u fuckin atheist
— Khalid Salad (@KhalidSalad_) April 9, 2011

What a charmer.

@ladyatheist you're not funny you ugly bisexual you're confused enough, you dont even believe in god but you will when you burn in hell
— Abdullah Omar(@AO30s) April 9, 2011

Wielding Jesus like a sword.

To all atheists who want public Nativity scenes banned: You better not accept or give out any Christmas presents
— Alex Hey (@A_R_Hey) December 6, 2012

What does Nativity scenes on public property have to do with the crass commercial enterprise that is American Christmas? People seem to be unaware of the Pagan origins of the holiday they co-opted. Maybe they missed these verses?

Jeremiah 10:1-25 Hear the word that the Lord speaks to you, O house of Israel. Thus says the Lord: “Learn not the way of the nations, nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens because the nations are dismayed at them, for the customs of the peoples are vanity. A tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move. Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, neither is it in them to do good.”

Or

Deuteronomy 12:29-32 “When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, take care that you be not ensnared to follow them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do the same.’ You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.

Where does the Bible tell you cut down a tree and decorate it with silver and gold? Oh right, it tells you NOT to do that.

But this is just irony, the fundamental position has nothing to do with your Bible. It has to do with the US Constitution that enjoins the government from ESTABLISHING a religion. Any access to public places must be done fair and equitably -- if that is done then secularists would take no issue with it. But that isn't what happens, what happens is one specific sect in a town will be granted a favored position.

The activist #atheists who go to war against #Christmas and to erase #God, the basis of morality, do great harm to society. - @dennisprager
— Mike Robbins (@MikeRobbinsUSA) December 6, 2012

Yawn

@adamizer1 Atheists are funny, screaming from rooftops ‘there is no God!’ Ur more of a zealot than most Bible-beaters. Irony is delicious.
— Shady (@snipershady) December 6, 2012

Whoa, that's SO meta.

@adamizer1 @blueskyhippie @toddkincannon I love how atheists think they understand what's written in the bible & twist scripture #clueless
— Cindy Sheets (@IscrewThingsUp) December 6, 2012

Most of the ones I know are atheists because they studied the Bible fairly deeply. It's easy to make such sweeping statements, and sometimes she is probably even right, but not even close to always.

@toddkincannon @adamizer1Give atheists credit for excelling at their own misery over NOTHING rather than simply disbelieve and SHUT UP!
— Robert Pennington (@Rbupp) December 6, 2012

If I have to endure 500 channels of religious programming, churches with pithy sayings on nearly every block, being told I'm going to hell, and all the rest of it you'll just have to deal with my being vocal.

The one thing I'm NOT going to do is "shut up".

Some of you are atheists because you think its in fashion, Its actually sad that you'd let the crowd dictate your beliefs.
— Somandla Forbes (@Sntuli_ySL) December 6, 2012

Not sure I can bear this much irony all in one tweet.

And this one is a website which proclaims in all caps:

ATHEISTS STEP UP WAR ON RELIGION WITH HATEFUL CHARLOTTE BILLBOARD MESSAGES

what I am unequivocally stating as a person of faith is that their message on these billboards is bigoted and hateful

Bigotry is a form of prejudice, for there to be prejudice there has to be some pre-judging going on. Non-believers have investigated the claims these various religions make and are just calling them out on their nonsense.

Not once in the article do they refute the claims posted on the billboards or show them to be false. They are simply factual representations of the religions, that they make the religions look ridiculous is not bigotry.

They also pull the "except of course Muslims ('cause that will get you killed)" bit. And you want to accuse others of Bigotry. REALLY?

One such message was:

"Mormonism: Magic Underwear, Baptizes Dead People, Big Money, Big Bigotry"

They do in fact have super-secret special underwear which is stated "when properly worn...provides protection against temptation and evil". This is why it's referred to as 'Magic' underwear. They do in fact Baptize dead people. They heavily funded a fight to prevent gay couples from getting married in California. THAT is Bigotry. How would you feel if a group was funding a fight to prevent Christians from being allowed to marry? Wouldn't that seem rather shitty to you?

So, please tell me where the untrue statement is on that billboard? Does it ridicule these things? You bet. That does not equal Bigotry -- again, Bigotry must be based on a prejudice and to be a prejudice it must be false or fallacious thinking. Finding your silly nonsense to be silly isn't bigotry. If you can demonstrate that your claims are factual then I'll change my position.

The article goes on to wish that "common human decency [...] demands that it should expressed without hate or disrespect towards others". Sorry, but respect is earned. I'll defer to one of our founding fathers...

Thomas Jefferson, on the concept of the Trinity, wrote in a letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. If it could be understood it would not answer their purpose. Their security is in their faculty of shedding darkness, like the scuttlefish, thro' the element in which they move, and making it impenetrable to the eye of a pursuing enemy, and there they will skulk.

One last bit on the article where it talks about being a Christian nation and ridiculing the idea that the US is not a Christian nation.

First of all, the Constitution itself says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". We are formed as a SECULAR nation that does not establish a religion, but allows the FREE exercise thereof. That goes for ANY religion except, of course, the ones that groups of Americans have constantly deemed unworthy of this protection like the religions of the NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE who have been shat upon repeatedly in every regard. And when there has been physical hostilities it has most often been at the hands of other Christians, such as the Philadelphia Nativist Riots of 1844.

Secondly, the Treaty of Tripoli clearly states ""As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen".

@rickygervais @UberFacts Fuck you Ricky and Fuck the liberal Jewish media pushing their atheist agenda. I am on to you. Praise the lord.
— Tim (@tdcm27) deleted

He's on to us! Is he going to go Biblical and start torturing us to death again?

@matt_simpson @cherokee_autumn @Brentrou Burn in hell Atheist heathen.
— Tim (@tdcm27) deleted

Jesus couldn't have said it better.

youtube.com/watch?v=4xhTw_…Did Jesus reveal the name of the anti christ Barack Obama.
— Debbie Hafer (@cwatergirl55) December 4, 2012

@alliancedefends I hope the courts do the moral thing in these cases. So tired of the gays and athiests tryin to morally destroy America.
— Debbie Hafer (@cwatergirl55) December 7, 2012

Now, did you see how that nasty 'athIEst' [sic] instigated this? Must be one of Fox New's "Illterate".

Oh, this next Christian is a real treat, can you feel the "love of Jesus" coming out of his pores?

AIDS was created by Satan and used to kill many homosexuals and straight sex addicts alike. #truth
— Jesus loves you (@JesusTalks2) March 8, 2013

Show a person with AIDS that didn't deserve it. #truth
— Jesus loves you (@JesusTalks2) March 8, 2013

@jesustalks2 what about babies born with aids?
— Shane Wilson (@Immoral_Compass) March 8, 2013

@immoral_compass The parents sin effects the child they conceive.
— Jesus loves you (@JesusTalks2) March 8, 2013

This is a mind that is so very clearly poisoned with the religion-virus.

Some Islamic love:

@soloatheist @francosoup do this world a favor kill yourself

— Shahzad Zafar (@Sh3zzY) March 31, 2013

Drugs - Towards a sensible policy for legalization

When you think of 'drugs' are you excluding alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine? All of which are consciousness altering to various degrees and have a highly addictive profile (physiologically and psychologically).

I'll assume you exclude drugs like aspirin, antibiotics, and other run-of-the-mill medically approved pharmaceuticals. Our language is really inadequate in this area. There are also many legal and oft abused "medically approved pharmaceuticals" (like Oxycodone).

Even within the (currently) 'illegal' drug categories there are vast differences being lumped together.

My legalization interests lies primarily in the group of chemicals that are profoundly mind-manifesting and consciousness altering (each of which requires individual consideration and treatment as to how it should best be legalized and regulated - some only under a doctors supervision, others available to all adults).

My thoughts are roughly:

• Cannabis:
  all adults, similar to tobacco/alcohol, self-grown, small collective or licensed small commercial. Encourage vaporization/ingestion over smoking
• MDMA:
  all adults, licensed producers, medical-grade, limited availability - possibly require medical approval
• Psilocybin/Mescaline/LSD/n,n-DMT/5MeO-DMT/Ayahuasca/salvinorian A:
  prescription, medical-grade, under controlled circumstances but not doctors care (I envision 'trip centers' where people can go have safe experiences under educated supervision, eg, Ayahuasca contains an MAOI, so there are dietary and drug interactions to be careful of, but millions of people take it safely every year throughout the Amazon basin)
• Ibogaine:
  medical-grade, only under doctors care & supervision, something like 1/year recreational limit unless medically indicated (e.g., for opioid-addiction treatment)

Those are the ones I think can profoundly help mankind should we choose to use it properly -- all have indices of harm far below alcohol and tobacco and all are profoundly different from most other illegal drugs.

And, while I don't advocate that methamphetamine be made fully legal, it should be legal and available for researchers and if medical applications are found we have no business or interest in blocking them. Doctors educated in the field are the ones in a position to make those judgements. And it should not be a criminal violation to be caught using methamphetamine -- it should be an intervention, medical and psychological care should be given to the individual, they need help not imprisonment. All imprisonment is going to do is ensure that their life is utterly destroyed and give them no path to get back on their feet, which often destroys their families far more profoundly than the drug abuse itself.

Addicted individuals should also be given treatment even if that means the BEST we can do is give them a safe source for their drug of addiction and a safe place in which to use it -- but this treatment should be medically determined on an individual basis.

The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world. - Carl Sagan

Christian Epistemology Challenge

I see this kind of thing a lot so I figured it's time for another blog post:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/17/us/andy-stanley/index.html#comment-714468638

Charles... please site where science has disproven God

My response, which goes out to all similarly thinking Christians:

I fear you have your epistemic compass pointing stolidly backwards. Do you REALLY believe in ALL things until they are disproved?

Where has science disproved that Invisible Pink Unicorns created the universe? Where has science disproved that aliens created human life? Do you believe those things? Or are you cheating here when you appeal to lack of disproof and only apply it to that which you have already decided to believe?

Morality of Human Interaction

Morality of Human Interaction

Some short and sweet thoughts on morality...

In the human sphere, moral interactions have a common thread of all participants being Informed, Consenting, and Empowered. To be uninformed is to be exploited. To be nonconsenting is to be forced. To be unempowered is slavery [empowerment has to do with recourse]

We need to be educating (age appropriately) about the ethics of Informed, Consenting, and Empowered activities, including how it applies to human relationships and sexuality.

• Informed (STDs, pregnancy, intimacy, feelings, real risks, appropriateness, expectations during and after)
• Consenting (doesn't need to be forms signed in triplicates but it DOES need to be explicit and all parties have a burden to ensure the willing consent of all others, not just assume it, NOT force it, NOT put it under stress or pressure or to account for such stress and pressures where they do exist)
• Empowered (empowered to say NO, and have NO mean NO - and have it recognized and respected by the law)

Someone forcibly kept in the dark about the facts of sex is therefore being treated IMMORALLY, by their parents and by anyone exploiting this uninformed state.

Make it your mantra: Informed, Consenting, and Empowered -- and don't just ensure it for yourself, take the moral responsibility to help ensure others are equally Informed, Consenting, and Empowered in your interactions with them.

The curious case of Sri Sathya Sai Baba

My intent here is to show that most Christians and Muslims (et. al.) are deeply and profoundly hypocritical when it comes to what they accept as claims and evidence.

Sri Sathya Sai Baba of India claimed to be God until his death only in 2011, tens of thousands of miracles are attributed to him (including raising the dead, appearing to his followers after his death, appearing in distant locations instantly, producing objects including their holy ash, vibhuti). There are literally millions of living eye-witnesses to these "miracles". So we have the benefit of knowing with unquestionable certainty that this individual actually existed and claimed to be God and what the claims of his followers are.

If you reject that evidence and accept anything lesser (such as the mere claims from the Bible or Quran) then you are an intellectual hypocrite - there is no way around that that I can see.

You can say you feel emotionally that the 1 god out of thousands you've decided to believe in is the real one, but that is all you have at the end of the day.


We know for a fact that human testimony and subjective experience can be extremely unreliable, especially under altered states of consciousness in which "personal experiences" happen (see cognitive biases, memory biases, logical fallacies, etc).

And you would think that a God would know better than to rely on such extremely unreliable testimony.


And unless you believe that EVERY religion is completely true in its foundation then you must understand, on some level, that just because a group of people start believing something does NOT make it true -- especially when it comes to deeply superstitious and supernatural claims.

The human brain is wired by evolution to accept false positive detection of intention and agency.

The 'skeptic' who waited around to see if the rustle in the bushes was really a predator/enemy didn't tend to fair very well. And when there was a rustle and you figured out there was no animal you then would misattribute it to some other invented agency, ancestors or spirits and eventually gods -- precisely because we know that we falsely attribute agency where there is none.

That works out fine for our hunter-gatherer ancestors (more or less) but it is inexcusable to KNOW these things and ignore them and fail to account for them in your epistemology and claim about reality.


A couple of more quick points to consider...

I ask Christians to read 1 Kings 18 and ask themselves if they *really* believe they could set bull meat on fire with prayer and if they failed to do so, should they then be slaughtered as their holy book claims was done to others?

And before you come back with any moral arguments you'll first need to account for why the Bible clearly endorses slavery and never once condemns the practice and why the Bible never speaks on the age of consent and indeed, has numerous relationships we would today label as illegal conduct with underage children.

Then ask yourself, since it is lacking in the Bible, how is it that you come to know that an adult having sex with a child is wrong? Is it possible that you ARE able to make moral determinations even when you are lacking a directive from on high?

What we do know is that our sense of empathy for others is absolutely critical for the advancement of our ability to live in larger groups (and we can see in those lacking empathy that they are sociopathic or psychopathic).

People often incorrectly view 'natural selection' as cutthroat -- but if you actually look at nature you'll find EVERYWHERE evidence of symbiosis (your cells only work because of a symbiotic relationship with mitocondria), cooperation, and interdependence because these traits allow the whole to be greater than the mere sum of the parts.