The Truth Will Set You Free

But, don't try to tell anyone, or they're gonna kick your ass and call you names...

cur·mudg·eon n. An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions. kill·joy n. One who spoils the enthusiasm or fun of others. scep·tic n. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions. suck·er n. 1. One that sucks, especially an unweaned domestic animal. 2. (Informal) One who is easily deceived; a dupe.

At a recent staff meeting, it was once again pointed out that the latest stupid chain email being indiscriminately distributed was bunk, and that I was the one that had ruined everyone's fun by pointing this out. Yes, in many peoples view, it is more fun to indiscriminately distribute bullshit, than it is to actually think about what it is you are sending.

I have to admit, at times it's tiring being a skeptic. Societies pervasive credulity and lack of critical thinking is sad and demoralizing. We have become a society where phrases like, "Where's the beef?" or "Just Do It" are immortalized while precepts of learning like the scientific method get scoffed or marginalized. The appearance of wisdom is more important than facts, blind faith is valued more than reason, and those that do advocate reason over superstition, are accused of being educational elitists.

However, despite societies bias, and despite the tiresome conversations with the eternally credulous, I would still rather be called a killjoy or a curmudgeon than live my life in "Neverland".

Oh, and while I am talking about spreading the skeptic word, the 27^th Skeptics' Circle is now up at A Photon in the Darkness. See also annunci

Another Take on GOD or NOT

god n.

1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
3. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
6. A very handsome man.
7. A powerful ruler or despot.

I think the above is a pretty good definition of "God". Or, at least, it is a pretty good definition of how the term god is actually used by society. I have no doubt that some would take a narrower view of the definition, limiting it to something like, "The perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, originator and ruler of the universe." Still others might take issue with the gender specification, whatever.

Clearly, how we define "God" is directly related to how we perceive "God". Christians perceive "God" one way, Jews another, Muslims still another. Atheists, like myself, claim to not perceive any "God". Personally, my definition of "God" is:

god n.

1. a term used to describe an imaginary friend in the sky.
2. the king of all scapegoats

So, if there are so many different ways to perceive "God", how do we decide which definition is the correct one? It's really quite simple, we do what mankind has been doing for generations, we vote, then the winners impose their viewpoint on the losers, violently if necessary.

"What do you mean we vote?! That's ridiculous! The word of "God" was given to us by [insert scripture reference here]. "God" gave his [insert miracle reference here] to show us the "way". We don't have a choice but to follow his teachings."

Hmm, I think I hear some disention... Don't believe me? Let's look at just a couple examples.

The Roman Emperor Constantine "the Great" (274-337 CE) was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity and he needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered "holy" and thus "the word of God" and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the "word of God" into existence. The Church leaders didn't finish editing the "holy" scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic church pronounced the Canon closed. However, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not "God" but Constantine! One can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved, by a pagan emperor as a politically tool.

More recent Muslims have not always understood the Qur'an's Arabic, they might not catch allusions that were clear to early Muslims, and they were extremely concerned to reconcile apparent contradictions and conflicts in the Qur'an. Commentators glossed the Arabic, explained the allusions, and perhaps most importantly, decided which Quranic verses had been revealed early in Muhammad's prophetic career, as being appropriate to the very earliest Muslim community, and which had been revealed later, canceling out or "abrogating" (nāsikh) the earlier text. Memories of the occasions of revelation (asbāb al-nuzūl), the circumstances under which Muhammad had spoken as he did, were also collected, as they were believed to explain some apparent obscurities. Though I did not find any specific references to votes, I am certain that some system of ranking the commentators was also involved. Perhaps Muslims just skip the vote and move right to the violent imposition part.

Finally, the Torah is also thought, by many, to be a combination of documents from different sources rather than authored by one individual. The documentary hypothesis is proposed by many historians and academics in the field of linguistics and source criticism.

Several months ago when discussion first began on the GOD or NOT carnival, I suggested a more literal satire of the site that iwas the inspiration for the name of the carnival. That of course, being the original HOT or NOT site. My thought was to create a site that looks very similar to the original, populate it with a bunch of "Gods", and let people vote on which are "GOD" or NOT. The response to my suggestion was fairly tepid in the comments. Although some were amused, others thought that theists might be offended, and therefore it would defeat the purpose of the carnival. From the outset, the carnival goal has been to promote dialog between theists and non-theists to alleviate misconceptions and encourage tolerance. To that end I felt that humor could be a great contributor, but in the end agreed that perhaps a more neutral approach was in order.

Well, I still think that humor can accomplish good things. I think that religion takes itself WAY too seriously. I think the eveidence is pretty strong that the very definition of "God" and religion really just boils down to popular opinion. So, I have decided to go ahead and implement my version of GOD or NOT anyway. I call it Skeptic Rant's GOD or NOT. Pretty original huh? Alright, so what's in a name. Anyway the point is, it's up and running now. I have a handful of "Gods" in there now, and I will be adding many more. I hope that others will comment and make suggestions for additions.

My goal is not to prove anything, just to get people to take a look at just how many different views there are of "God". They can't all be right. In fact, odds are, none of them are. I hope that people can laugh at themselves, and more importantly, take their religion just a little less seriously. Maybe if people can laugh at themselves, they will be less inclined to be hostile to others.

Tags: Religion, God or Not

Whether you're looking for information about Asscher Cut Diamonds, Princess Cut Diamonds, or Emerald Cut Diamonds, you'll learn a tremendous amount visiting TruthAboutDiamonds.com for the best advice on the internet for the prospective diamond engagement ring buyer!

5 Random Links - On Self-Interest

There is only one moral absolute in this world, self interest. Every other "moral" position is a derivative of that. Anyone that disagrees is just stroking their own ego.

"But, my morals come from my belief in God..."
Yes, because you fear that if you anger "God" you will go to hell, and that wouldn't be in your self-interest now would it.

"No, God is just so great and wonderful that I want to be closer to him..."
Because, you think being close to "God" would feel really great, and it's in your own self-interest to feel great.

"But, what about Mother Teresa?"
Gee, I bet she felt really good about herself, and feeling good is definitely in your self-interest.

"But doesn't that attitude belittle charitable acts? Why would anyone do anything for anyone else?"
Because, charitable acts help society, a healthy society is always in the individuals self-interest.

"Then life is meaningless?"
Maybe, who knows, maybe the real purpose of life is to figure out the purpose. On the other hand, the purpose of life could be to see how many sardines you can eat. Bottom line, no one knows, get over it.

Of course, there are those that see it differently; on the nature of law, Clint Roberts says, "Now, do most of us agree heartily with the moral prescriptions that stand behind these laws? Of course - partly out of self-interest or 'utility,' but largely because we agree in principle w/ the moral prescriptions themselves." Based on my statements above, I obviously disagree. The principles are self-interest. I support laws against murder not because it is "morally" wrong, but because I don't want to be murdered.

Nature's Rebel asks, "How then can the manifestation of self-interest be so varied and inequitable?" As it happens, AJMAC has an answer, "Each person has his or her own unexamined assumptions that color the way in which he or she views the world, makes judgments, even interprets Scripture. These cataracts we call worldviews and they account for the different perspectives that exist between generations, between civilizations, and between different cultures within the same generation and civilization." Unfortunately, he then goes on to compare "great" civilizations and their philosophies, making a biased argument for those that have promoted a search for "Eschaton" (ultimate good) despite acknowledging the relativistic nature of moral world views. I prefer the conclusion of Nature's Rebel when he answers his own question by saying, "I perceive a faith in a two-faced god, like Janus. On the one side is individualism, on the other, equality. As principles by which people justify their own actions and critique the actions of their fellows..." I personally put no "faith" in Godlike images, but I agree that our self-interest is two faced by necessity. On the one hand we have pure self-interest (individualism), while on the other we have a more expansive understanding of community (equality) that must be supported in order to support the self.

David M reminded me of another example of self-interest that I should have included in the introduction. "Certainly a soldier going off to defend his country, even though he doesn't want to, qualifies as a selfless act?" Wrong. If he volunteered, he is probably doing it out of a desire to protect his family/community/country, this is a self serving desire. If he was drafted, then he is faced with a choice, capitulate with the orders of his superiors, or go to jail or worse. David raises the point that this type of service is undervalued these days. I would argue that service of this type has always been undervalued. Wars are rarely fought by the rich. They are almost always started by the rich, but the actual dirty work is usually left to the poor and under privileged. Should then their sacrifice be more highly regarded than others. I would say, only to a point.

Society relies on all of us to do our part. For some that means being a soldier, for others a doctor, and for still others, that means flipping burgers at McDonald's. I would argue that all of these jobs are of equal import to society, and that we need (perhaps want is a better word) all of them equally. Not everyone is cut out to be a doctor. Next time you're in a fast food joint, look at the person flipping burgers. Would you want them performing surgery on you? Maybe they're just working there to get through school, maybe not. Maybe, for the gifts that nature has given them, this is the best they can do. That is still better than stealing cars or otherwise draining society of resources, and is just as important as being a doctor or a soldier. Wait, I think I hear cries of "Bullshit!" in the distance.

Consider for a moment the doctor. If the doctor needs to eat and there is no one to flip burgers, then the doctor has to flip his own burger in order to eat. If then the soldier is injured, while the doctor is busy flipping burgers, then he may die of his wounds while waiting for medical attention. If an enemy attacks while the soldier is wounded and unable to fight, there will be no one to defend the guy flipping burgers or the doctor. And so on... Now one could argue effectively that of these only the soldier directly risks his life for the rest of us. That is the point I mentioned earlier. It does not cost us anything to honor those that risk their life for the rest of us, and that honor can encourage others to do so in the future.

So, what would Gingrich do? That is a question that I can honestly say I would never ask. Michael Duff however, perceives it as a valid inquiry. "I was utterly enthralled by Newt Gingrich. I thought finally, here is a politician who will put ideology above self-interest, here is a politician who really wants to change the world." I think he was missing the point. In this piece Duff discusses his disillusionment with politics. He goes on to say that though he still thinks Gingrich really intended to change the world, he got caught up in the game of politics, and that that was his downfall. I think that so many people are so self-centered that they fail to be self-interested. Acting in your own self interest means acting in the best interest of yourself and the community. Gingrich may or may not have started out that way, but he ended up just thinking about himself and his penis.

Tags: Religion, Politics, Random 5

The 26th Meeting --Skeptics' Circle

So while preparing for this latest meeting of the Skeptics' Circle, I stumbled across a mysterious document. At first it appeared to be nonsense and scribbles. The notes were in the same drawer and I think the PostIt note is particularly interesting. After some time I discovered the contents of the document. It seams to indicate a grand conspiracy to eliminate rational thought and promote superstition and credulity. The document itself contains clues as to how we might fight this conspiracy. Read it for yourself and discuss your findings as you see fit.

Flash Version | JPG Version | Text Version

PZ Myers -- Discovery Institute Uses Immense Clout, Kills Intelligent Design Course -- school in California...tried to teach a creationist "philosophy"...chewed out by Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute. Luskin's statement consisted of the usual folderol, but the outright fraud of several statements leapt out at me.

EoR -- I Hear Voices -- ...fascinated by past life regressions...all creatures are telepathic, able to send and receive non-verbal, non-physical messages...wonders why people always remember past lives as Cleopatra, Napoleon, or maybe Alexander the Great's Chief Eunuch, and why horses always remember past lives as horses, and dogs as dogs, etc etc? Is this some sort of Nietschean Eternal Return?

ORAC -- The Sociology of the Antivaccination Movement -- ...there are times when no amount of explanation and consultation can counter the resistance of some sectors of the public, often representing a strong current in society, to the most carefully crafted science-based advice...

ORAC -- Airborne: Created by a Schoolteacher, So it Must Work! -- If people somehow come to believe these "remedies" work, no amount of studies or data showing that they are no better than placebo seem able to convince them otherwise...

Skeptico -- No Idea of the Odds -- ...there is less that a 1 in 10²⁸² chance intelligent life would occur without a divine miracle? ...estimate the probability of a deity spontaneously poofing itself into existence, so that it is there to create the miracle he claims is necessary. Wouldn’t that probability be zero?

Bad Astronomer -- The War on Science -- “They have no respect for the information.” ...To a scientist, information is a means to understanding a problem...to a political operative, bent on power or forcing their point of view on the public with no regard to truth, information is only a means to achieving the desired result.

Austin Cline -- Equipose: Balancing Skepticism and Objectivity -- ...skeptical means engaging claims critically and with doubts...objective means not pre-judging a claim and allowing for the possibility of coming to accept it as true, if good enough reasons are provided...skeptical and objective...it's possible for them to come into conflict...

Mr. Danieru -- From Animism to String Theory: Forever in Search of Eternal Mystery -- If one assesses human history through the eyes of the natural theory that was prevalent at the time, it becomes obvious that reality perspectives walk hand in hand with cultural evolutions. So much so in fact that is it often hard to see which side affected which the most...."

The Crack Emcee -- Get Some Help -- The Alternative Fix...So, is there a cult growing in our hospitals? The battle lines have been drawn. Many Reiki practitioners have chosen to become ordained ministers, in the Universal Life Church, as a way to protect themselves from the Medical Practice Act (practicing medicine without a license). ...there has been an erosion in the protections that keep people from being taken advantage of.

Shrinkette -- "Indigo" Children? -- I have met some blue-hued children. They were desperately ill...a psychic discovered their “blue aura”...“Indigo Children” represent an advance in human evolution, and will bring peace to earth. Are there any studies of these children? No, say the psychiatrists. It is a fantasy, a fairy tale. It tells us something about the parents – their needs, their wishes.

Liz Ditz -- Delusional Parenting: Indigo -- The parents of  "Indigo Children" believe their children are new and special.   ..."the Indigo Child is a boy or girl who displays a new and unusual set of psychological attributes, revealing a pattern of behavior generally undocumented before."   The Indigo delusion has turned into a big industry, with books, meetings, and "channellings"...these children are arrogant,  impatient children who have not been guided to develop self-control...their parents are doing them no favors by avoiding the challenges of parenting, and or seeking competent medical care, in favor of new-age worship of the child.

beajerry -- The Million Little Lies Of James Frey -- ...factual content is not important in light of the author's impressionistic expression of their life...Yeah, you stand by your book like the despicable, money-grubbing, cowardly con man you are...

beajerry -- Oprah And The 10% Deliberate Unreality -- The problem is when people begin to lose their grasp on the fact that the sensationalism is just 10%, when they begin to think that the sensationalism is normal, when they lose sight of the real beauty and tragedy that exists in real life.

Lord Runolfr -- The Wine Jip Revisited -- ...wine passes through a magnetic field, a physical change occurs. The magnetic field has an effect on tannins which are suspended in the wine. The tannins are broken down into smaller tannins. We believe that the taste of many small tannin molecules are smoother than the taste of fewer large tannin molecules. There is absolutely no chemical change and nothing is introduced or taken away from the wine...When in doubt, just make your claim more vague and remove any testable statements.

Be Lambic or Green -- Coming Out -- ...desire for rewards or a requirement that we fear punishment, we can find plenty of that in the real world...moral compass points the right way most of the time and I don’t need the threat of fire and brimstone to keep it that way.

Justin Smith -- Evolution: Technically Random? -- ...evolution conceptualized mathematically as NS(RM,OS), that is, evolution is Natural Selection acting on Random Mutation and Other Stuff. Because RM is random (and some of the terms in Other Stuff are random), then evolution is random.

So ends the 26th meeting. We will reconvene February 2, 2006 hosted by A Photon in the Darkness.

*UPDATE 2* OK, well this second update is a little late, since this post has seen most of the traffic it's going to get. Noetheless, because I want to be able to incorporate Flash into future posts, I have modified my template so that visitors can toggle to the version (Flash, JPG, or Text) that they want to see with the links above.

*UPDATE* If you are having any trouble with the Flash there is a plain text version here and now a JPG version to get the flavor without the Flash.

Tags: Skeptics' Circle

God or Not #7

GOD or NOT #7 (Scriptural Literalism) is up at Back of the Envelope. Go. Read. Comment.

GOD or NOT #8 (Definition of God) will be hosted at The Uncredible Hallq on January 30. The submission deadline is Friday, January 27.

Tags: Religion, God or Not

The Skeptics' Circle Wants You!

The next meeting of the Skeptics' Circle, the forum to debunk superstitions and urban legends, apply critical thinking, and point out pseudoscience and quackery, is fast approaching. We want your best skeptical blogging to be a part of it. I have been a little remiss in not posting this request sooner. The deadline is next Wednesday, January 18, and the Circle will appear the next day Thursday, January 19 here at Skeptic Rant. Submit your best skeptical posts and share the joy of critical thinking.

For more information, the schedule and submission guidelines can be found at Circular Reasoning home of the Skeptics' Circle. If you are interested in hosting a future meeting, hosting guidlines are available at Orac's Respectful Insolence.

Tags: Skeptics' Circle

Scriptural Literalism

Personally, I take the errancy of the bible (or any other scripture) as a forgone conclusion. These are books written by people to control and influence other people. End of story. For this essay I will argue that this is self evident in the actions of those who would profess literal interpretations of the bible. Which is to say, if there were anyone that actually fully believed in the inerrancy of the bible, their behavior should reflect that belief. I would contend that there is no such person, and that if there were, society would not tolerate their existence.

Fundamentalists often argue, "if you undermine Genesis with the theory of evolution, then you undermine the entire scripture, if we can't believe that Genesis is the literal word of God, then why should we believe any of it." Hearing that statement most atheists will reply "YES! Exactly, Genesis is wrong, so why do you believe any of it?" This is at the root of the creationist/intelligent design/evolution debate and apologists on all sides continuously argue whether Genesis is or is not literally accurate with little or no common ground. Except, that they both seem to agree, that if part of the bible's inerrancy is brought into question, then all of it comes into question.

So, if fundamentalists believe that ALL of the bible must be interpreted literally, there is a whole laundry list of "Law(s)" they should be following that they aren't. The Law is contained in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Leviticus 1-7 has rules about the different kinds of offerings and sacrifices that were to be made in preparation for worship. LEV 8-10 has rules for the priests regarding offerings, sacrifices, and other priestly duties. LEV 11 has rules about clean and unclean foods. Pork and shrimp are abomination but beetles, locusts and grasshoppers are OK. LEV 12 has rules about purification of a woman after childbirth and circumcision of males. LEV 13-14 has rules related to skin disorders. LEV 15 has rules about purification of women after their period and for men with seminal discharges. LEV 16 has more priestly rules. LEV 17 has rules about not consuming blood. LEV 18 has rules about sex. LEV 19 has rules about dealing fairly with others, crossbreeding of animals and crops is not allowed. Mixed fabrics are out, no cutting of sideburns or trimming of beards, when you plant a tree you are to avoid eating its fruit for three years. LEV 20 has more rules about sex, a couple that commits adultery are both to be put to death! LEV 25 has rules about not lending money. And the hits keep on rolling....

These rules were to be taken as one Law, LUK 16:17 Jesus said: "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." All or nothing. So, if this is true, we aught to be seeing allot more blood sacrifices and unshaven fundamentalists. Odd, I never see Pat Robertson sacrificing sheep, and he's always clean shaven, what gives?

JAM 2:10 "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." Which, sense so many of the rules in the "Law" are punishable by death, there really should be allot less people in the world. Jesus said it's all or nothing, fundies say it's all or nothing, even many atheists say it's all or nothing, so why does anyone believe this nonsense? I think I smell a loop hole.

ROM 10:4 "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." Aahhh, that old chestnut, we can't get rid of the old out of date laws, because then we would have to admit that they were all gibberish to begin with. So, instead we'll cover our tracks by explaining away the old laws, and writing some new ones. I guess, it's kind of hard to believe that Jesus died for you, if you are bound by the Law and believe that you are an abomination worthy of death. (Though Catholics still manage it some how.) ROM 6:14 says that we "are no longer under the law but under grace." The concept of grace is very simple. It has nothing to do with what you did or do or will do. The concept of grace has to do with what God has done (*cough*, *cough*, cop out), JOH 3:16 "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Wow, that's great, so we can ignore all of the really negative Old Testament Law and just focus on Jesus, right? LUK 14:25-26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple." Oh my, that's not very nice. What happened to "honor your father and mother"? MAT 15:3-9 “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:” ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’” So much for the New Testament. (Thanks ~I AM~)

OK, so, fundamentalists say that ALL of the bible must be taken as literal truth, yet ignore much of it, thereby negating their own argument, while pluralisticly supporting their all or nothing doctrine in an endless loop of self denial. New Testament apologists say that the old law is no longer valid because of the sacrifice of Jesus, yet often quote Old Testament as valid rules from which to derive moral laws and governance, in yet another endless loop of self denial. Still other "Christians" claim that the bible is all allegory and that none of it should be taken literally. None of this even touches on those that believe that only the King James Version of the bible is truly inerrant and that any other version is heresy. Or, Mormons that have written addendums to the bible, or Jews that only believe in the Old Testament, or....

Scriptural Literalism, written/read which way, when, by whom, and why?

Wow, and they say atheist morality is arbitrary and subjective.

Tags: Religion, God or Not