Merry Christmas!

Do I celebrate Christmas? Yes.

Am I a Christian? No.

How is this possible, one might ask? Simple. I celebrate Christmas as a cultural holiday. Yes, just as I disbelieve in "Christ", well, at least I disbelieve in him as the born of a virgin, miracle-working, crucified and resurrected "Son" of the Creator of the Universe, I also disbelieve in goblins and leprechauns. But despite my disbelief in goblins and leprechauns, I still recognize Halloween and St. Patrick's Day as cultural holidays. Yup, I attend Halloween parties and I drink green beer, and I don't feel weird about it. For this reason, I do not feel that I and other nonbelievers are being inconsistent or weirdos for decorating a tree and hanging stockings for Christmas---IOW, celebrating the cultural aspects of the holiday.

While of course, belief in Santa and his reindeer-powered sleigh is no longer in the equation, it still brings back pleasant, childhood memories to put up lights and decorate a tree. There are a few things that I miss about my childhood at Christmas time..e.g...leaving cookies and milk for "Santa", making a list of the things I want, etc., just as there are things I miss about believing in "God". For instance, I miss the comfort that the thought of being reunited with my deceased loved ones gave me. I miss believing that "God" was looking out for little ol' me and would answer my prayers.....well, sometimes.

 But alas, my missing the cookie and milk ritual and having my prayers sometimes answered doesn't mean that "Santa" or "God" have referent in reality, nor does it mean that the right amount of will power will work in forcing myself to readopt belief in either guy. There is just no amount of will power that can get me to believe in that which I find unbelievable. Only evidence can change my mind. This, of course, will sound dogmatic and "closed-minded" to some readers. 'Sorry, I can't help that, other than to maybe prompt you to ask yourself what you'd say to the person who called you "closed-minded" or "dogmatic" for disbelieving that "Poseidon" controls the tides without any evidence that it is so, and actually, plenty of evidence that it is not so.

This is how we know that non-belief isn't always a "choice". When a "bell" rings, we cannot "unring" it. When we learn to recognize the misses as well as the "hits", we cannot go back to ignoring the misses. When we get the courage to put intellectual honesty ahead of "faith" and sometimes even happiness, we cannot go back to doing things the opposite way. When we understand what subjective validation does and how and why it works, we cannot go back to a "group-think" mentality. When we learn that we just can't trust our feelings or "intuition" 100% of the time when it comes to what is true, we cannot go back to trusting those things.

Anyway.....

Happy Holidays and/or Merry Christmas to all!

Caught in the Crossfire

collateral damage: noun Unintended damage, injuries, or deaths caused by an action, especially unintended civilian casualties caused by a military operation

 I am going to preface this post by saying that I readily concede that there are millions of good, kind, considerate, intelligent Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and people of other faiths, who inhabit this planet. IOW, there are millions of reasonable, smart, loving religious proponents out there, who, thankfully, are less stringent than their fundamentalist counterparts, and who, thankfully, have an innate sense of empathy and "right" and "wrong", in which case, these people then realize that it would be wrong and down-right dangerous to take any book that says that it is just fine to KILL anyone and everyone who opposes or who attempts to lead them away from their chosen Faith, literally. This goes for keeping and beating slaves; this goes for pelting rebellious kids with rocks; this goes for stoning to death any newlywed woman who is found to not be a "virgin" on her wedding day.... and generally, this goes for any other clearly moronic and insipidly harmful act found in any book.

Saying this, two books come to mind: 1) The Holy Bible 2) The Holy Qu'ran.

Since I live in a country that is predominately Christian; and since I was born into a family of devout Christians, which, subsequently, led to my being raised to be a Christian, I am going to focus on Christianity and its Christians, but in this case, the liberal variety, many of whom are the type of people that I just described above.

As I've said in the past, I have many friends and family who profess Christianity, people whom I love and with whom I get along just fine, no problems. We simply agree not to discuss religion or to attempt to convert each other. With that out of the way and brought to the forefront---and with my complete, on-the-record acknowledgment that these people are things like kind, compassionate, and yes, intelligent---I do, however, believe that each one of them compartmentalizes his or her beliefs, and I have no qualms about saying so. This is not....repeat, not ...some derogatory judgment with the intend to flame anyone. No, it is merely pointing out a demonstrable, observable fact about them, and about all Christians. It is precisely the same thing that I did in my former days as a believer in Christianity.

To encapsulate, Christians know, in a practical, day-to-day-living sense, that "Allah" has no referent in reality and that Muslims are mistaken. They know that the "God" that a Muslim prays to several times a day is a complete figment of the praying Muslim's imagination. Christians know that "Muhammad" did not sit in a cave somewhere in the Middle-East jotting down the Will and Testament of "The Almighty Allah", and afterwards, hopped on winged pony and flew off into the clouds. No, that is just myth and the ramblings of mere mortal men. Christians know all of this.

So, like it or not, there is a bit of a common ground between Christians and Atheists after all, specifically, that both take the same stance when it comes to "Allah" and the "Holy Qu'ran".

Now, where does the difference come into play? Where does the compartmentalization come into play?

It comes into play right here: Atheists feel the exact same way when it comes to the claims of Christianity as Christians do when it comes to Islam. IOW, Christians make an exception for their own brand of mythology, AKA, compartmentalizing.

So........

Dear, Liberal Christians,

This is precisely why, when your fundamentalist, Evangelical counterparts attempt to tell us with a straight face that they believe that a snake, donkey, and shrub at one time spoke the human language; that it rained frogs sometime in the distant past; that a "firmament" holds up the sky("water"); that "demons" cause mental illness; that bird's blood heals leprosy; that dinosaurs never existed(or hitched a ride on the "The Ark"); that all non-Christians will spend an eternity in a "Lake of Fire"(AKA "Hell")......and the final splintering blow to our intelligence, that the universe, the earth, and all life on it, were created "as is" just a few thousand years ago, it is for this reason that they get the reactions that they get from us Atheists/Agnostics/former believers.

As you know - or as you should know - the scriptures that delineate the above are all false, and demonstrably so. You, as a liberal Christian, must square-up the above falsehoods with your Faith(and they aren't the only ones, BTW). I know all-too-well how you don't want to "throw the baby out with the bath water", because I was there---I wanted to hang on to Jesus and (what I believed was) my relationship with him. The fear that this life is all there is, frankly, scared me sh*tless, albeit it, I'd never have admitted it back then, just like many of you likely won't admit the thought scares you now. Of course, there's nothing to fear, because when death comes, we won't know that we are dead, nor that we had ever lived. But this is for another discussion.

So, for those of you liberal Christians who harbor a conviction and who intend to hang on to your faith, unquestionably, I am sorry if, when discussing the issues, that y'all's more-lenient, broad perspectives of Christianity get caught in the crossfire when/if we Atheists are taking your fundamentalist counterparts to task for their assertions, beliefs, judgments against us Atheists, etc. However, you should know that this just isn't going to change, nor should it. There is a war going on, yes, but it's not some spooky, supernatural "Spiritual War" between a "God" and a "Devil"; it is a war against legendary thinking and willful ignorance. When we are in any other war, there is what's called "collateral damage". This is inherently part of war and it happens when fighting for what's right.

While such damage is unfortunate - and in this case, while good, compassionate Christians get caught in the crossfire(I contend that you don't need "Jesus" or Christianity to be "good" or "compassionate", but this, too, is for another discussion) - please do not expect things to change anytime soon. And furthermore, I really, really wish you'd take just 10% of the time you spend taking issue with us Atheists, and spend that time calling out your own fundamentalist counterparts, instead of tip-toeing around them or letting them go unchallenged. I realize that some of you challenge them, but it doesn't happen enough, and you are implicitly giving them a "thumbs-up" when/if you remain silent.

Sincerely, a concerned *Agnostic Atheist

* the two things aren't mutually exclusive, for anyone wondering. 

Drawing the line: Who, When, and Where?

When it comes to the topics of religion and politics, noting, some religious folks derive some of their political views directly from their religion, any blogger who's not reading their own blog, exclusively, knows that discussions can sometimes get very heated. After all, we are talking about our most deeply-held, core beliefs.

In some instances, the people with whom I discuss these topics claim to possess the knowledge that I will suffer, and suffer greatly, if I do not come to see things their way and adopt their views. Specifically, I'm talking about people who profess to be "Christian", and of those, I'm talking specifically about those of the Evangelical flavor. And of course, I refer to the doctrine of "Hell".

But today I'm not going to vent on or get into why I believe the doctrine of "Hell" is despicable and should be denounced on every level. No, today I'm going to talk about when, where, and why we should draw the line when attempting discussion with Christian Evangelicals, which, more often than not, leads to us having to listen to them call us things like "trash", "wretched", "dumb", "blind", "destined for Hell", "never really saved", "closed-minded"...and just today I heard a new one, "Satan's little choir". These are a few of their favorite things to say when ministering to us.

For those who know me and my disdain for the doctrine of "Hell", they probably know straight away that if someone attempts that sh*t on my own blog, that, while I may attempt to reason with them at first, that this benefit of doubt will soon wear off if they keep at it. IOW, on my own blog, I don't draw the line at the very first sight of the risk of coming across unkind or "combative". No. I will likely go back and forth until the proselytizing visitor just accepts that his or her arguments for why people like myself are going to go to "Hell", and worse, that we deserve it, aren't unconvincing, and that they do not scare me one iota. But again, this is me on my own blog. So, what if we're a guest on someone else's blog and we encounter the above-described type of Evangelical Christian?

The way I see it, I have two choices: 1) I sit back and say nothing, or 2) I take them to task on their assertions. For me? Choice #1 is something that I not only find extremely difficult, I would contend that it would be borderline immoral for me to just turn a blind eye to it, much in the same way that if I saw a child being abused and turned a blind eye. Devil's advocate: "Well, Boomslang, what if you're not on your own property?" Answer: I don't see a difference, from where I sit.

Of course, analogies are never perfect; they are only meant to illustrate a point. Make no mistake, I would, yes, bust up a child-abuse in progress, even if it wasn't on my own property. But in contrast, "You're going to Hell, you dumb, Satan-worshiping Atheist!", are just words, albeit, very insulting words. So, if I encounter the latter scenario while on someone's else's blog, where, then, should the line be drawn, assuming discussion between opposing views is permitted? Where is the line drawn between taking someone to task, and being "argumentative"? Where is the line drawn between not backing down, and being "combative"? Where is the line drawn between an Atheist voicing his or her opinion, and him or her being a "militant Atheist"? Where is the line drawn between discussing.... and debating? Anyone?

One of my new readership touched on the topic of the danger of "over-generalizing", saying that being "silent" and "over-generalizing" is a false dichotomy. I agree with this. There is middle ground there. I would never deny this. But if we can agree that generalizing for practical purposes is useful, then I'd like to know where the line is drawn between useful generalizing..i.e..generalizing, not to prove anything, but to make a point, and "over-generalizing". Who draws that line and how is it determined where it is drawn?

Disclaimer: This is honest inquiry meant for discussion. I'm not "baiting" or looking to "one-up" anyone. I genuinely believe it is important for Atheists and Theists to understand one another.        

Never Fear! Dr. Quantum is Here!

You've been waiting for it, so wait no longer and brace yourself, because it has now been scientifically proven that consciousness transcends the physical brain! And this isn't New Age mumbo jumbo, either; it's the real deal(this time). If you're wondering which evidence I speak of, then wait no longer.

Without further ado, I present to you, straight from an article on "Metaphysics" shared on Facebook , the clear and undeniable evidence that our personalities can exist independently of our physical brains(never mind that if our brains become traumatized or diseased that we can't recognize people we've known our whole lives....so, shhhhhh) .....

(Consciousness has had proven scientific influence on): The behaviour of quantum objects. Consciousness collapses the wave-form of a quantum object and brings it to a state of particle existence. When not observed, it smears out through space as a non-local wave. It is only once a conscious observer comes along does this wave-form collapse into a particle, and even THEN it can only be measured as probability.

Wow! Did you hear that?!?! He/she/they, said, "Consciousness collapses the wave-form of a quantum object" And not only that, but then it, "brings it to a state of particle existence"!!!!

My first concern would be, I wonder if this was cut 'n pasted, or if it's in the author's own words. If it's the latter, then I wonder what he/she/they have as a source, besides a YouTube video of a cartoon guy named "Dr. Quantum" illustrating the double-slit experiment:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

The author goes on....

(Consciousness has had proven scientific influence on): The behaviour and thoughts of other people. Not only does conscious intention effect individuals through what is called "remote influencing", when enough people get together and focus on one idea, it effects the social and psychological behaviour of entire cities and states. Mass meditation has been proven to even reduce crime rates in the cities the meditation is happening in.

Yes, "remote influencing", such as when the religious come together and "pray", we know that their collective "conscious intention" effects the target of their "prayers" with perfect success(except when it fails).

 (Consciousness has had proven scientific influence on):The flow of electrical currents. Collective consciousness has a provable and repeatable effect on the flow of electrical currents within random-number generators (REGs), as proven numerous times at Princeton university and published in peer-reveiwed journals time and time again:

I wonder if it was reviewed as well as the spelling was reviewed, above? Oh, well. Let's not nit-pick. On other hand, let's not accept Facebook pages as the "peer-reviewed" part, either.

(Consciousness has had proven scientific influence on): The behaviour of biology and DNA. Spiritual healing and the sending of conscious intention has had effects on plants, human DNA, and even animals. And no, this is not because of placebo. Animals do not know that positive healing energy is being sent their way, and neither does isolated DNA in a test tube:

And the evidence for this? Well, of course.....it's a pretty picture.....

(click or copy link into browser if you really want to see the unmistakable evidence)

 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=248998745240364&set=pb.171274739679432.-2207520000.1368586239.&type=3&theater

Well, I guess that settles it, doesn't it?

 (Consciousness has had proven scientific influence on): Self-healing and disease through shift in consciousness (placebo). You think you are going to get healed, move into the space and attitude of being healed, and then you end up undergoing biological and psychological transformation:

Positive thinking and power of suggestion, depending on the extent/severity of the ailment, can produce a positive effect on the subject. Tell them they're taking a sugar pill? Kiss those results goodbye. 'Nothing "metaphysical" going on.

 What does this all tell us about the nature of mind? It tells us that consciousness can NOT simply be the software of the brain. It cannot be derived from chemical and mechanical processes if it has causal effects on the external world. Consciousness is a non-local field that gets filtered through our brains and nervous systems, and that all of creation and matter arises out of. 

Spoken like a true disciple of  Deepak Chopra...i.e....throw in a few fancy, scientific-sounding words..e.g..."non-local", "quantum", and voila, meaningless "woo" for.... I don't except that this life is all there is, damn it!

And finally there's......

 You don't have consciousness. You ARE consciousness.

Yes, you ARE consciousness! Well, unless you're unconscious.

Convictions & Dogma: Not Just for the Religious

      Just like the religious have convictions and who dogmatically cling to their beliefs, there are people from the "metaphysical" camp who have and do the same. While it should be pointed out that some "metaphysical" therapies used in conjunction with modern medicine seem to work, there is, to date, zero objective confirmation that these therapies work independently(excluding placebo effect), and in fact, people can become sicker and even die from using alternative therapies exclusively. Considering this fact, it is beyond argument that such pseudo-science should be denounced on every level, despite that there might be a small percentage of people who aren't charlatans and who honestly believe that what they do "works". The former people know it's a bunch of bullshit, yes, yet, they choose to capitalize on bilking the gullible out of their money. Despicable? Yes. But for now, I want to focus on the latter group - that is, I want to focus on the small percentage of metaphysical practitioners who genuinely believe that their "powers" have a referent in reality and who passively give way to the former group. So, the reasons they believe it? Well, of course, because they want to believe it. But mostly, because of the testimonies of their "patients", which is subjective validation. When confirmation bias is wedded to subjective validation, it is a recipe for self-deception.

      As I said in the title, dogmatism isn't exclusive to the religious. Just like a Pastor or Minister is convicted to his or her beliefs and may have a vested interest in defending those beliefs, since, let's face it, their career and livelihood depends on it, the metaphysical practitioners have the same vested interest in defending their beliefs. For years and years I had engaged in conversation/debate with a Christian woman named "Karla". I eventually bowed out of the conversation because it was clear to me that she was deluded, and happily so. In 2-3 years, this woman's very best evidence for how she knew she was "right" about Christianity was that she had seen a family member's arm lengthened with her own eyes. There's no way it could be trickery/self deception, because her "feelings" confirmed it was "real".

      Well, for close to a year, I've been in an exchange with the "metaphysical" equivalent of "Karla". This woman, who calls herself "The Duracell Bunny"(but prior to this name she had taken a name that was highly suggestive of being one who has powers---think, "Miss Cleo"), is just as dogmatically attached to her beliefs as any religious person I have ever encountered. Sadly, this women creates more head-desk moments than "Karla" did. Why? Because she claims to understand what good and bad evidence is, but yet, at the end of the day this amounts to her paying lip-service to it because she offers the same horrible, flimsy, anecdotal evidence, over and over and over, ad nauseam.

Here is some of what she purports to do:

• claims to work with "energy" as it pertains to metaphysical practices such as TT(Touch therapy) and "distant healing", and even has the school credentials.('got Seminary?!).
• claims to "connect" with deceased people and various animals---and when I say "connect", I mean she claims to "communicate" using ESP. In other words, she claims to be a "spiritual medium".
• claims to diagnose various medical conditions..e.g..."kidney problems", and if the person is close to dying, she can "predict" when they'll pass.

      I attempted to point out to "The Energizer Bunny", heretoforth TEB, that her "evidence", which is largely her clients - IOW, other people who can testify that her powers "work" - is no more credible or convincing than the fact that Karla the Christian can testify that a man at her church lengthened her relative's arm. It is no more credible or convincing than when someone gets a reading from "Cleo" and says, "Wow!....how could she have possibly known that about me?!?!"

      To the critical thinker, of course the more likely explanation for the former example is that the man is a charlatan who uses and counts on subjective validation. In the later case, the more likely explanation is a cold reading, which again requires subjective validation. BTW, when I asked Karla why the spiritual healer she met hadn't reproduced his powers in a clinical setting along with a control, she made excuse after excuse after excuse..e.g.."You wouldn't believe it even if I had video or X-rays", yadda, yadda. Well, TEB's excuse is that there isn't enough time or money to prove her "powers" in a scientific setting. So, in lieu of the evidence that might actually change my mind, she's taken to writing daily posts on her blog(i.e..her online diary) describing personal anecdote, after personal anecdote, after personal anecdote. She even posted a YouTube video of a cat that is (allegedly) "soothing a baby to sleep" with its paw. And although it is written along side the video......

Please watch and tell whether this still has anything to do with natural and/or conditioned behaviour or not, 

...her mind is made up, a priori; she is convicted to her belief that certain animals have spirits with which they can communicate and relate to humans. 

       So, like clockwork, TEB has no credible evidence for her fantastic claims other than that which convinces the already-convinced. This "evidence" is useless to me, and since she cannot get that part through her cranium, I made my blog "invitation only" and I stopped attempting to break through to her on her blog(at least for the time being), which makes her "hyper".

      But where evidence is concerned, I need to back up, because I made proving her powers as easy as anyone could possibly make it. That is, in the past I offered, in the way of challenge, to have her tell me something about a deceased friend that only he and I would know. Welp, much to my unsurprise, she failed. She couldn't do it, citing a few general tidbits that could easily apply to anyone...e.g...."He played a practical joke once!"[paraphrased]. Next I wrote down a number between 1-100 and sketched an animal on a piece of paper and slid it underneath a desk lamp where it still sits, undisclosed, waiting for her to use her "powers" to disclose what's written. What did I get? More excuses.

      In closing, the following is how The Skeptic's Dictionary describes "Subjective Validation":

 Subjective validation is the process of validating words, initials, statements, or signs as accurate because one is able to find them personally meaningful and significant. Subjective validation explains why many people are seduced by the apparent accuracy of pseudo-scientific personality profiles. Subjective validation deludes everyone from the housewife who thinks her happiness depends on her blood type or horoscope, to the FBI agent who thinks criminal profiles are spot on, to the therapist who thinks her Rorschach readings are penetrating portraits of psychological disorders.

Subjective validation is an essential element of any successful cold reading done by astrologers, palm readers, tarot readers, mediums, and the like. The sitter in such readings must cooperate. Fortunately for the medium, most sitters are usually eager for the reader to succeed and are willing to work hard to find personal meaning in whatever the reader throws out. In a successful cold reading, the sitter will be convinced that the accuracy of the reading was not due to her ability and willingness to cooperate but rather to the powers of astrology, palmistry, tarot, or mediumship.

     

Animism: 101

  
      Those who know me or who might've heard me mention it from time to time, know that I like reptiles. I usually opt for snakes, and right now I have a Ball Python,  P. regius, which was originally a gift to a former g/f, a gift, BTW, that I was forced to repossess because when the novelty of it wore off, she began to neglect the animal. She wouldn't feed it, give it water, or clean the cage, so I have adopted this little guy(approx. 3.5. feet) and he stays in a 20 gallon aquarium. Living in my spare shower stall, I have a Short Tail Python, Python Breitensteini, which is about 7 feet long and around 40 lbs(pictured)

     Now, here's what I want everyone to know: My snakes have personalities! Not only that, but my snakes read my mind; they know my thoughts!

     You might be asking how I know this, and so, I won't make you wait another second. Here's how I know:  When I enter the spare bathroom with a live feeder rat(usually in a box or brown bag), "Thaddeus"(the short tail) sticks her head out from her hidebox. Note, I don't knock on the door, nor do I call her, whistle for her, or make hissing sounds---none of that. Yet, she knows when I have food! Isn't that amazing?

     If that's not astonishing enough, she also knows when I forget to put the locking screw back in the swinging, plexiglass door, because each and every time I do forget...voila!...she opens the door and gets out! It's really incredible, but truth be told, this ESP goes both ways, as I can telepathically communicate with Thaddeus, too. For instance, she rarely wants to be dominated(aka, touched/picked up), and in no uncertain terms, she tells me so. For instance, if I try to pick her up, I get the warning, "No, not now!", and then she strikes at me. If I reply, "Oh, come on. Just for a minute?", and pick her up anyway, she says, "Okay, have it your way!", and she sinks her teeth into my arm or hand(or one time my thigh).

     One time Thaddeus got out and wanted to play hide 'n seek. I looked for 30 minutes, but there was no sign of her. I told her, "Okay, I give up......come out, come out wherever you are!". Not a minute goes by and I hear...::rattle, rattle, rattle:: At that precise moment, my entertainment center started to wobble, and lo and behold, Thaddeus had gotten behind there and hid from me! "Great hiding place, Thaddeus", I told her. In a sassy tone, she said, "You know where I am, yes, but I'm not coming out!" I said, "What?" She replied, "You heard me, bitch, I'm not coming out until I'm ready! If you think I'm bluffin', come try to get me!". At that point I became enraged! Right then I managed to move the entertainment center away from the wall a few inches, and I grabbed her tail. "Gotcha!", I said. "Well, okay....you got me.", she said.

Now, if you are a sane person with good reasoning skills, you know that the above was a satirical piece; it was told tongue-in-cheek. Notwithstanding, there exist people who really do believe that they can communicate, telepathically, with their pets. Perhaps not snakes or lizards, but other, more appealing pets, such as a nice dog or cat.  There's actually a word for this, one that I discovered today. It's called, "Animism". Wikipedia has this to say about it.....

 Animism encompasses the belief that there is no separation between the spiritual and physical (or material) world, and souls or spirits exist, not only in humans, but also in some other animals, plants, rocks, geographic features such as mountains or rivers, or other entities of the natural environment, including thunder, wind, and shadows.

      So, again, there you have it, folks. Some people believe that (some) animals (as well as humans) have a "soul", aka, "spirit" - or to steer away from nebulous "metaphysical" jargon since proponents offer no coherent definition of either of those "things", or more appropriately, non-things(aka, nothing?) - some people believe that (some) animals have a "mind", intact with a *"personality".

*I am not going to go back 'n forth with anyone who feels compelled to argue that certain animals have behaviors/habits that seem to be unique to them. I already know and concede this. And it should be no wonder why, the more intelligent the animal, the more extroverted the "personality". But again, for another discussion.

 A bit of background:  Snakes have a brain roughly the size of a pea. Seriously, they are dumber than dirt.

 That said, let's apply a nice dose of reason and logic to the above satire:

• The more likely explanation for when/if I enter the bathroom and Thaddeus seemingly knows I have a rat, is that, while snakes do not have external ears, they feel vibrations and have an extremely good sense of smell, using their tongue. IOW, when I enter the bathroom, the snake feels the vibrations and knows I've entered. However, the snake, because it is reclusive, has no reason to come out of the hide box just because I enter the bathroom. So, how does the snake seemingly know when I've entered with food? Here's how: she SMELLS it. 

•  The more likely explanation for how Thaddeus seemingly knows when I've left the locking screw off, it that, she doesn't know any such thing. She slithers around the cage at night, and being 40 lbs, if she presses against the door and it's not locked, it opens and she escapes. This could happen the very same night I forget the screw, or it could be a week later. Now that I've provided that information, the notion that the snake "knew" each time I left the screw out and subsequently got out each time, disappears. IOW, I withheld details to make my story look more believable.

•  The more likely explanation for how I know that Thaddeus doesn't want to be dominated(held, touched, picked up), is my experience with snakes and knowing when they "posture". Their pupils dilate, they raise up the 1st third of their body, and they "freeze". This indicates(IOW, the snake is "communicating", but not with ESP) that if I mess with the snake, I WILL get tagged. A natural response; nothing "supernatural".

• The more likely explanation for Thaddeus playing "hide 'n seek" is that I forgot the locking screw, she rubbed up against the door, opening it, thus, escaping and slithering around the house and winding up behind the entertainment center. In fact, she likes to hide in dark places. It is a snake's nature to hide when not feeding.

 So, it's easy to see how we can trick ourselves into thinking that animal behavior, much of it based on habits and patterns, is more than what it actually is. Much of what contributes to this mindset, is, confirmation bias, patterns and pattern-seeking, and last but not least, group-think bullshit.

Thaddeus says, "Tanks for reading!.....Ssssssssss!"

Faith: Under the Microscope Again

          More and more I become disappointed with some of the things I see on a popular networking site. A good, long-time friend was recently talking about how her young daughter was to have a minor surgery to have some lymphoid tissue, aka, "tonsils", removed from the throat. While I don't know the specifics..e.g..why the tonsils needed to come out, I can make an educated guess that, since said tissue is prone to infection/inflammation, aka, "tonsillitis", surgical removal was recommended.  I had my tonsils successfully removed at age 3 or 4. So much for the "perfect human body" that the "Perfect Creator" created, eh? But that's for another discussion. For now, I want to focus on a paragraph-long written "prayer", but not because this person wrote the prayer, but because of what was not mentioned in the prayer. But first, it is perfectly natural for parents to do whatever it takes to give them comfort when it comes to their kids. If one is raised in a religious household, chances are, one will pray for whichever "God" they believe in to watch over their kids. Fine; no problem. The part that kind of sticks in my craw is when the doctors are not mentioned. There's "God (this)"; "Lord (that)", but the people who go to school for 8 years or more to learn how to treat and many times save these people's children's lives? These people don't even get considered in part of the equation, and if they do, it's "God" working through them. Well, no, actually it's not. If "God" was working through people to save other people, then we could yank a third grader out of class, dress them in scrubs, march them into an open heart surgery in progress, say a "prayer", and the child could save the patient by "God" working through them. But that - a true "miracle", by the way - will never happen and there's a good reason that this will never happen.

While "faith" can be good for providing comfort to people, it has its draw-backs, too, and one of those is that the people who are actually, physically present and doing the work, are overlooked. In extreme cases, people put their "faith" in "faith healers" and other quack-science alternatives. In even more extreme cases, people put their "faith" in "God", exclusively. IOW, they opt out of any other medical treatment, taking the position, "If God doesn't heal my son/daughter, then it wasn't meant to be and I accept God's Will". The latter example of "faith" is appalling and it amounts to homicide in cases where the subject dies. And IMO, the parent(s) should be charged accordingly.

Time and time again when people are healed, the proven(key) common denominator is hands-on, physical treatments often times in conjunction with proven(again, key) modern medicine. There is not one scrap of objective evidence that unseen forces are at work.

An Eerie Sadness

The popular networking sites are, IMO, good for mostly 2 things, and not much else: 1) Staying connected with family and friends, and 2) reconnecting with people from your past using the various search features.

Regarding 2, I've reconnected with people who I haven't seen since 1st grade. But today, I must report that it's not always a joy to find them. To recap, I had a friend with whom I attended high school, "Ted", who had a sister, "Deb", who also attended, but was a grade beneath us. While she and I weren't close friends, we were acquainted enough that we'd say "hi" in passing, which thrilled me, because, to say this young woman was stunning would be to seriously understate it.

Well, the other day I got a hankering to look her up. I first sought out her brother, and while the only matching name wasn't him, it did turn out that it was his son by the same name..i.e.. "Ted [.......] III".  So, I'm browsing his photos in the hopes of seeing a pic of his father, "Ted", or his father's sister, "Deb", and I notice a photo of a grave plate with flowers on it. Before clicking it, my heart sank. My intuition in those precise seconds told me it was "Deb", and I was right. I clicked the photo, and what expanded before my eyes was a grave plate with her given name, middle name, and married name. The year of birth, "1963", confirmed it, and I could no longer refuse to believe it despite trying.

After minimal effort exploring the net, it turns out that she was a fire-fighter and paramedic here in the same town where we attended the same high school. She left behind two sons, a brother, and mother and father. The cause of death was breast cancer, which, according to sources, she had defeated the first two times, but her third bout with it was one she could not overcome. It....i.e.. that despicable disease called "cancer", defeated her. There is an eerie sadness remembering her, being young, alive and well, traversing the school halls, and yet, now, gone. A life cut short at 48 years old.

There is No Matter!

Sadly, these are the types of refrains that we hear so frequently from the New Age and Metaphysical gurus of today, as well as from those who buy into their philosophies. Dr. Wayne Dyer, one such guru, asserts things like...

"There is no matter, as such"

and....

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds the most minute solar system together"

and...

"We must assume behind this force the existence of conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

Okay. Really? Really!?!? There is no matter? And what else?... we must assume that whatever "force" is responsible for all matter(which he just said didn't exist), it has a cosmic enforcer that is "intelligent"? 

Do you know what this is? It is a bunch of unfounded "spiritual" hocus-pocus with some "scientific" jargon sprinkled in. Lacing "woo"-based philosophies with scientific terms..e.g..."quantum", "energy", etc., doesn't make those philosophies credible or scientifically plausible.

Let's start from the top: 

We should believe that "matter doesn't exist" because said matter presumably comes from an invisible, disembodied *"Mind".

*upper case "M", because we know that what they really mean is "God" as a personal being, the being they used as a model when they project themselves onto the Universe.

What's being argued here, is that, since the "force" behind all matter is immaterial(nonphysical), then whatever emerges from this force is also immaterial(nonphysical), or at best, it is some sort of illusion. For practical purposes(AKA useful purposes), can we assume that you're really reading this right now? Assuming "yes", then for practical and useful purposes, matter exists. Yes, regardless of how/where/when matter emerged, matter exists. Now, if someone wants to be impractical and live as though matter is just an illusion? Fantastic; great! They are free to do so. But he or she cannot live impractically, 24/7. If they disagree, idk...then I guess they should try going without the material compound known as "H2o" for a week.

And particles of an atom vibrate, do they? Cool....and very interesting. But what should we conclude from that? I'm certainly no physicist, but the little research I've done tells me that there are two kinds of vibrations: 1) forced, and 2) free. Even if particles in atoms are examples of forced vibration(e.g..the plucking of a bass string), why must we conclude that what has caused the vibration has a "mind" and is "intelligent"? Entire galaxies are "vibrating" in such a way that they colliding into one another as I type this sentence. Now, are colliding galaxies an example or sign of "intelligence"?

Moreover, if the universe, in all its vast complexity, requires a "Mind" to exist, then surely that "Mind" is more complex than that which it brought into existence, which then begs the question, where did this "Mind" come from? If said "Mind" is self-existing and doesn't require a creator, then how/why are we so god-damned certain that vibrating particles haven't always existed and therefore require a creator? 

Here's another quote along the lines of the previous ones, straight from this whole "New Age" movement....

   "Its(sic) Consciousness…And there is an ocean of pure vibrant consciousness in every each one of us."

The evidence that is available to us via science and modern medicine tells us that "consciousness" requires a physical brain. The above quote, while colorful and poetic, seems to be suggesting that consciousness is something that exists independently of a physical brain - or more in line with what they are proposing - some non-thing that exists independently of a physical brain.

 Just because something is made up of vibrating particles doesn't mean it has "consciousness". Consciousness, while not a "thing", but a process, is still a process of a material, bodily organ..i.e..the brain. Similarly, "digestion" isn't a "thing", either, but also a process. But surely none of these New Age gurus would minister, "There's an ocean of pure, vibrant digestion in each and every one of us!". No, that would be ridiculous.

More...

"Oscillating a wine glass by playing sound at its resonance frequency, will cause it to move, change and liquefy its structure and eventually even break it."

Cool, and interesting. But again, what does it say or prove when it comes to the bodily process of being "conscious"? What does it say or prove when it comes to an afterlife or everything being interconnected?

and.... 

"Everything around us owns its existence to sound. Sound it’s a factor that holds all together. In the beginning there was a sound of a Great Cosmic Designer…"

Yes, we waited for it, and lo and behold, there it was..i.e..the "Great Cosmic Designer", which is an attempt to get "God" in under the radar---or at a minimum, it's the New Ager's attempt to divorce their conception of "God" from that of religion and all its baggage. And BTW,  anyone....... to what does this "Great Cosmic Designer" owe its own existence? What is more likely/more plausible, a) the idea that the most complex, most intelligent "Mind" has always existed and just decided to "create" everything at one point in time(before time existed?), or b) the idea that particles, gases, and atoms have always existed?

 To chose "a" is to employ special pleading. If complexity requires a cause, then the New Ager's "Great Cosmic Designer" argument caves in on itself. If we're going to learn science, then we first need to know the difference between how real scientists think, and how pseudo-scientists think.

Okay, then, Smarty-Pants Atheist....

•  if there's no God and no afterlife, what happens to us when we die? 

I don't know with 100% certainty what happens; no one does. Notwithstanding, all of the available evidence points to the theory that we simply lose consciousness and never regain it. Ironically, we won't know that we have died or that we have ever lived. For reference, it would be akin to the time before we were born. No one was sad or inconvenienced for the trillions and trillions of years before they were born, so, there you go.

• if there's no God, then where did we come from?

I can only speak for myself---but I entered this world via a birth canal from a womb. Now, if you mean, where did the human race come from, we evolved from lower life forms via Evolution by Natural Selection over millions of years.

• so, you're just accident, are you?

I don't claim to know every family's personal details, but speaking for only myself, I'm fairly certain that my biological mother didn't trip one day and fall on top of my biological father, who just happened to have an erection at that precise moment. No, I'm thinking that they deliberately engaged in sex, and I was the result of that little meeting

•  if this life is all there is, how is there any meaning in life?

 In many ways, I create my own meaning, and the people I love and who love me, contribute to that meaning. And speaking of meaning, I often wonder, if I couldn't find meaning in this very short life, how I'd find it in an infinite life. But of course, that's just me being a smarty-pants, again ; )

• how do you know right from wrong?

The same way you do---that which seeks to avoid unnecessary harm to others is "good"; that which causes unnecessary harm to others is "bad".

• but there's nothing to say that I can't cause harm if I feel like, so, I guess I can do as I please, right?

 Yes, you can do as you please. And in doing so, you risk going to jail, going to prison, or in the worst case scenario, death. Best of luck with that.

• okay, then....did you know that human consciousness can influence a glass of water?

Okay...and? So, what? Even if that were scientifically confirmed in a controlled setting, there is very little else to conclude from it. It certainly wouldn't prove the existence of invisible, conscious beings, nor would it prove that consciousness survives the death of the physical body.


(Author's note: I will be adding to this list of commonly-asked questions for us smarty-pants Atheists)

Shared Illusions(Delusions)

Recently, one of my readership raised a note-worthy question. Paraphrased, the question was this: Can two people share illusions. Personally, I think delusions is a better word choice. But at any rate, the answer, I believe, is a resounding yes, two people can most certainly share an illusion/delusion, but I contend that not only two people can take part in this, but thousands, even millions, can. But let's deal with an example of the former, first(two people):

 There was a popular board game when I was growing up called the "Ouija Board", or sometimes called, a Spiritual Board, which is a board game that consists of a flat board with the alphabet and the numerals 0-9 on it, along with the words "yes", "no", and "goodbye" on it. On a few versions, there are also some artsy "mystical" symbols on it such as the ever-popular pentagram and half moon, which I suppose sets the mood for what's (supposedly) about to come. There is also a plastic or wooden indicator by which the "spirits"(be they good, or evil) presumably communicate, speaking through the players as "mediums" by pointing to letters/numbers/words to get their "message" across, during what's called a "séance". In a nutshell, players place their fingers(hint) on the indicator, then ask the "spirit world" questions in the hopes that a disembodied "person"(AKA "spirit") will answer. 

Next: A Bigger Game

How about an example of tens of thousands of people sharing an "illusion"? I speak of the the Marian Apparitions(of Fatima). To encapsulate, this is where 3 Shepherd children in Portugal were reportedly visited by an angel. The angelic visits where allegedly to prepare the children for visitations by the "Blessed Mother" starting in 1917. In July of that year, the "The Virgin Mary", herself, purportedly promised that there would be a "miracle" on October 13 so that all would believe. 

On October of that year, a crowd as big as 70,000 people showed up to see the event. There were reporters and photographers, as well. Once the rain had subsided, it was reported that the sun "danced" in the sky. This, believers contend, was the "miracle"..i.e..the evidence that, in fact, "The Blessed Mother" did keep her promise.

Now, what in tarnation is really going on, here? Tell me something, on list of what mostly likely happened in the above-cited examples, do you put talking "spirits", "angels", "demons", and "virgin" ghosts on the top of that list??? Or are those things at the very bottom of the list? I mean, how can two people, and especially thousands of people, be wrong and deluded?  Just how is this possible?

Here's how: 

Regarding the first example, the two playing the Ouija Board go into it EXPECTING to communicate with dead people. An expectation is the first ginormous hint that the ordeal will contain partiality. The next elephant-sized hint is that the participants are touching the indicator. Duh? Hello? Next, factor in that, since one player probably doesn't want the other player to feel let down, that, in all likelihood, he or she would then be willing to consciously move the indicator, and naturally, this would convince the other player that "spirits" are speaking through them. 

Last but not least, there is the "ideomotor effect", and this is where the subject makes motions unconsciously, and in the case of the Ouija Board, they move their hand unconsciously. For instance, like under certain conditions when tears are shed, this isn't done consciously, but unconsciously.
 
Regarding the second example, the 70,000 people are EXPECTING to see a "miracle". After all, their "faith" depends on it. Next, consider that they are hot, dehydrated from waiting outside, and most of all, they are looking...where? Why of course, they're looking directly into the flippin' SUN, just as they were instructed to do. 

Now, isn't it highly likely that staring directly into the sun(since it can cause blindness, after all) can cause hallucinations? And perhaps most importantly, why didn't any of the rest of the world's population see this event? Hmmmm.....

Poor, poor Mother Mary. Whatever will she do with her gullible children?    

Why I Care About Other's Beliefs: Part (??)

The short answer to this frequently asked question is this: Because people's beliefs lead to people acting on those beliefs, and people acting on their beliefs have real consequences and affect the world we live in. And many times, this is for the worse.

To expound, examples will probably be the best. Here are a few:

• Kim Jong-il: Kim Jong-il was the supreme leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. He had absolute power over his country, and he wanted that power over the world, fully prepared to do whatever it took to have it. He threatened to "wipe out the US" several times. His beliefs make the world I live in more dangerous than it needs to be.

• Terry Jones: Terry Jones is a Christian Pastor in the US who burned a copy of the Koran in protest of another Christian Pastor being held in prison in Iran. Donning a shirt that *had "Infidel" printed on it, he ignited a copy of the Koran. Naturally, this upset Muslims, many of whom already hate the US, enough to want us all dead.  

 * The irony here is that the bible that Mr. Jones carries under his arm condones the killing of the infidel, as well, meaning, non-Christians in the bible's case.

So, both the "Holy Bible" and the "Holy Qu'ran" condone the killing of the "infidel"(nonbelievers). Fortunately, most Christians ignore that passage because they are at least smart enough to know that killing people for what they believe(or don't believe) is not reasonable/ethical. Sadly, there are sects of Muslims who take their Qu'rans literally and they want non-Muslims DEAD. Their beliefs make the world I live in a more dangerous place than it needs to be.

There are other beliefs that are more benign, but yet, still affect us. For example, many proponents of the "New Age" movement believe that things like "Homeopathy", "Crystals",  "Reflexology", and "Touch Therapy" can cure disease. Many patients who believe in and use these methods actually become more sick, and in rare cases, even die, opting for such treatments in lieu of the alternative, which is real, scientifically-tested medicine. 

Now, while these beliefs don't make the world I live in more dangerous, it is dangerous in other ways because they offer false hope. True, these things are claimed to "work" for some people, but in these cases, certain other things cannot be ruled out, such as placebo effect, real medicine used in conjunction with these things, and last but not least, pure coincidence. 

So, in closing, if someone suggests that it's no use to care about people's beliefs, I'd say that he or she would be wrong, at best. And note, caring about people's beliefs doesn't and shouldn't mean that we believe that these people's minds can be changed about their respective beliefs. No, not at all. Most people will go to their graves with the beliefs they'd been handed by their family, friends, Pastors, Priests, and spiritual teachers. But there is a small of percentage of people willing to admit their errors and change their minds, and I was(am) one of those. This is how I know that having these discussions matters, and why I know that caring what people believe matters.

Karma Chamleon, You Come and Go...

Actually, one thing that does not "come and go" is my conclusion on the concept known as "Karma". That conclusion is pretty much concrete, and in a word, I would say it's bunk. If someone asks me to believe in "Karma" - and to be clear, I'm talking about the Buddhist/Hindu philosophy that one's actions in life determine their fate in the next life - what they are implicitly asking me to believe is that a rape victim deserved to raped. They are asking me to believe that a victim of child molestation deserved to be molested. If someone got screwed over big-time? They deserved it.

Another really good clue that "Karma" is likely bunk is when we consider that really, really bad things happen to really, really good people(and vice versa). Things get more complicated when we examine the notion that someone can do something really bad, but yet, still be an overall good person. Things get more complicated, still, when we consider that, in rare instances, being "bad" is actually the moral thing to do, where "bad" means being deliberately deceitful..e.g..lying or omitting truth.

It seems, then, that determining who's "good" and who's "bad" must then be taken on an individual, case-by-case basis, along with the motives in question. Before I go further, it's worth pointing out that anyone with the slightest knowledge of the concept of "Original Sin" should now be able to clearly see(if they didn't already see it) that said concept spits directly into the face of the individuality that I speak of above. But that is for another discussion.

So, some examples of what I'm talking about when I say "deliberately deceitful? These:

An elderly lady asks her grandson, "How does my new perfume smell?" And let's say for sake of discussion that the grandson thinks it smells like a cross between mothballs, rotten eggs, and baby powder.

So, should the grandson be forthright and blurt out the truth? Or is it fine for the grandson to lie to spare his grandmother's feelings being hurt?

Example 2: A man hears scratching and whimpering at his front door. Upon opening the door, a bloodied, crying dog comes hobbling in. The man cleans the dog up and gives it some food and water. A few minutes later there's a knock at the door. When the man opens the door, a deranged looking fellow with a small section of chain in his hand asks, "Have you seen my dog? That son of a b*tch got away from me again!".

Should the man be forthright and return the abused animal to the owner? Or would it be fine for him to lie and say, "Nope...'haven't seen your dog, sir"?  

I think that the sane and compassionate among us know that, in both of the above cases - and as well, in life in general - lying or omitting the truth is sometimes the moral/right thing to do, provided that it attempts to prevent unnecessary harm to others. Even if Karma were true, I would wager that its proponents would be lenient on those who lie or omit the truth, provided that it prevents harm to people and/or animals. And even if I could somehow believe in Karma, I would still say that only those who deliberately set out to cause harm would be the ones deserving of punishment in the next life, not those who lie or omit truth to prevent harm.

Amoral Vs Immoral

Previously I touched on the idea that there can be people who do bad things but who are still good people, overall. Conversely - and what can be an unsettling thought - is that there can be bad people who are still capable of doing good things. So, the next question then becomes, how would we know the difference between "good" overall people and "bad" overall people, if individuals from both groups do bad things? For starters, wouldn't those people who feel badly and who feel remorse when they do bad things be more likely to end up in the "over all good" group? Wouldn't those who learn from using poor judgment in the past be better candidates for the "over all good" group? It seems that this group would also be more apt to look for forgiveness when/if they commit an offense(assuming forgiveness is available, because, let's face it, many times it's not).

On the other side of the coin, there are those who are incapable of empathy, and these people would have a harder time learning from past indiscretions, since these people lack the empathy required to feel the pain of others. I don't think it's a coincidence that people who lack empathy are generally self-centered. They only need worry about themselves, after all. Other people's feelings don't matter. People who lack a moral sense, AKA, people who are amoral, just don't care.

With all of that said, I think it becomes very clear that "Karma" is way, way too simplistic of a concept to be a credible solution for the injustice we see in the world. Yes, we want the "cosmos"(or "God") to mete out justice. That is natural, I suppose. But the way we want things, and the way things are, are two different things.  

"From Abracadabra to Zombies"

The title is taken from the The Skeptic's Dictionary, which is an online, "A to Z" dictionary that covers a whole host of supernatural/metaphysical terms and related jargon. Since much of the discussion lately has been centered around "energy", namely that of the "New Age" movement, I'll provide a sample of what TSD has to say on the matter....

 In physics, the basic idea of energy is the capacity of a physical system to do "work," the product of a force times the distance through which that force acts. In physics, energy is a term to express the power to move things, either potential or actual. Energy is not a thing itself, but an attribute of something (Krieg).

 New Age spiritualism has co-opted some of the language of physics, including the language of quantum mechanics, in its quest to make ancient metaphysics sound like respectable science. The New Age preaches enhancing your vital energy, tapping into the subtle energy of the universe, or manipulating your biofield so that you can be happy, fulfilled, successful, and lovable, and so life can be meaningful, significant, and endless. The New Age promises you the power to heal the sick and create reality according to your will, as if you were a god.

Of course, New Age energy has nothing to do with mechanics, electricity, or the nuclei of atoms: the stuff of physics. There are no ergs, joules, electron-volts, calories, or foot-pounds in New Age subtle energy, which will remain forever outside the bounds of scientific control or study. New Age energy expresses itself in terms like chi, prana, or orgone energy. New Age energy isn't measurable by any validated scientific instrument, though quack New Age energy machines abound that claim to do everything from aligning the vibrations of your cells to reading the digital frequencies of allergens to curing your cancer. All these machines are useless variations of the 1920s radionics device of Albert Abrams, "the quack of the century." They are based on the false belief that illness reveals itself in "energy fields" that can be measured and manipulated for health by some magical device. Generally, these devices are sold with the promise that they can cure multiple diseases, such as cancer and AIDS. All are aimed at vulnerable clients desperate for anything that promises hope. Newer models are likely to invoke quantum physics to attract the scientifically ignorant. There will be, of course, many satisfied customers of such devices, thanks to the widespread ignorance of placebo and false placebo effects.

 In addition to the quack energy healing devices, another attempt at making New Age energy medicine appear scientific is occurring at the University of Arizona. Under the influence of Gary Schwartz, U of A has set up what it calls a "Center for Frontier Medicine in Biofield Science." Don't hold your breath waiting for any grand discoveries, but do be concerned that this bogus field has been given research funds by our National Institutes of Health. At least one manufacturer of a quack energy healing device has made reference to the NIH grant to Schwartz to legitimize its product. In promoting its Advanced Bio-Photon Analyzer, EMR Labs, LLC, claims that the NIH adopted a new term – biofield – in 1994 "to describe a growing body of research showing a subtle field that permeates and extends beyond the physical body."

Energy medicine grew in part out of vitalism, a theory that has been dead in the West for over a century. New Age quackery, however, often maintains that the older a theory is the more one should have faith in it. Energy healers, in fact, resemble faith healers, but they've replaced religious jargon with New Age energy jargon. Energy healers claim that health depends on "unblocking," "harmonizing," "unifying," "tuning," "aligning," "balancing," "channeling," or otherwise manipulating subtle energy.

 Few things are more intimidating to the non-scientist than modern physics. Even an educated person has difficulty comprehending the most basic claims made about the entities and possible entities of the sub-atomic world, not to mention the exotic claims about entities and possible entities at the edges of the universe. Even the concepts of "sub-atomic" and "edge of the universe" boggle the mind. Perhaps it is because of the obscurity and inaccessibility of modern physics that many uneducated people scoff at science and find solace in fundamentalist religious interpretations of the origin and nature of the universe.

Another response to the seemingly transcendental nature of concepts in modern physics has been to interpret those concepts in terms of ancient metaphysical doctrines popular for thousands of years in exotic places (to the Western mind) such as India and China. This notion of a "harmony" between ancient metaphysics and modern physics is attractive to those who accept science but still have  spiritual longings and who reject the Christian sects they were raised in. Believing in this notion of  "harmony" between the ancient East and the modern West has the virtue of allowing one to avoid appearing to be an imbecile who rejects science in order to accept religion. As such, it shares in common at least one trait with "scientific creationism": it re-creates science in its own image for its own purposes. Science is the handmaiden of Religion and Metaphysics, as Philosophy had been for Theology in the Middle Ages.

 Acting much like nuclear accelerators on atoms, the New Age theorists smash concepts into bits, only the bits are interfered with in ways Heisenberg never foresaw. We may as well talk about "alternative" physics; for, what they have done to the concepts of modern physics is to refashion them into a metaphysics with its own technology and product line. Nothing demonstrates this more clearly than the New Age conception of "energy."

Some healers claim they can feel the energy of these elusive and ineluctable biofields, vibrations, auras, or rays. Therapeutic touch (TT) practitioners make this claim. Twenty-one practitioners, who knew from much experience that they could feel the energy around the bodies of patients, were tested. They had never been tested, however, in a situation where they could not see the source of the alleged "energy field." Nine-year-old Emily Rosa tested these energy healers to see if they could feel her life energy when they could not see its source. The test was very simple and seems to clearly indicate that the subjects could not detect the life energy of the little girl’s hands when placed near theirs. They had a 50% chance of being right in each test, yet they correctly located Emily's hand only 44% of the time in 280 trials. If they can’t detect the energy, how can they manipulate or transfer it? What are they detecting? Most likely they are detecting what has been suggested to them by those who taught them this practice. Their feelings of energy detection appear to be manufactured in their own minds. Dr. Dolores Krieger, one of the creators of TT, has been offered $1,000,000 by James Randi to demonstrate that she, or anyone else for that matter, can detect the human energy field. So far, Dr. Krieger has not been tested.

*Note, this isn't exhaustive, as there is another, altogether different type of "energy" that New Age/metaphysical proponents assert is accessible, too, and that is the disembodied "energy" of our deceased fellow human beings. Which "energy" would that be, you might ask? You need only have common sense to deduce that said "energy" would be that of the deceased individual's personality, because, naturally, (and  hopefully) no one would ever claim to have come into contact with a deceased person's "digestive energy" or "nervous system energy".

Also, TSD has an article on "Energy Healing", titled, Looking in All the Wrong Places. It's worth a read, too.

Ah-hah!.....gotcha!

Previously, in discussing "free will" - specifically, to what degree our "will" is actually "free" when it comes to actualizing the outcomes that we desire - one of my readership pointed out that when someone is told not to do something, that this, many times, is practically a guarantee that they will do it. But why is this? Could at least part of it be because of our innate curiosity, which is inherent in our being human? And can other factors come into play, too, like sexual attraction and/or the need for acceptance of others? And what about our past experiences? I say, "yes", to all of the above.

So, let's take another look at the whole garden incident and its two human prototypes and their overseeing protagonist, "God"---or more specifically, "Yahweh".

First off, Yahweh, who is presumably "omniscient", would've had to have known that the two prototypes would eat the "forbidden fruit". In other words, what we're talking here is a set-up, AKA, a sting operation. Yes, that's right, Yahweh knew damned-well that Adam & Co. would eat the "forbidden fruit", and for contrast, Yahweh knew this with even more certainty than Dateline and Brian Hanson knew that middle-aged man "X" was going to take the "bait",  jail bait, that is, when they arranged for said bait to personally call and invite middle-aged man "X" to her house. And it's interesting that, in the latter scenario, "X" can be arrested for mere intent; he need not actually "eat the fruit"(no pun), whereas, in the garden parable, the duo must act on their "will" to constitute an actual "trespass". In other words, "God" realizes that the subjects in his sting operation are going to at least contemplate doing what they were warned not to do. But this is for another discussion.

Entrapment

 So, when Yahweh placed the talking snake in the Garden to tempt the ill-fated duo, it's reasonable for us to conclude that this was nothing less than a set-up----**the two didn't stand a chance. To compound the unfairness, the penalty for the duo's "trespass" is all of humankind's penalty---that is, we are all labeled inherently "evil", and worse, we are all held accountable, according to Xian doctrine. But what about Yahweh's "Perfect Justice"? Even if we had all chosen to eat the apple of our own volition, how in the hell does a one-time offense make us inherently "bad" and not worthy of Yahweh's (or anyone else's) trust?!? What... you or I screw up royally one time, and that means that we're destined to repeat it? LOL! I don't think so, albeit, there are clearly some cases where people shouldn't be extended benefit of doubt..e.g..child molesters, serial rapists, etc.

**In a previous post, I talked about how/why "God" is actually dependent on "evil", and in which case, he was not only counting on Adam & Co. to eat the infamous apple, he needed them to eat it.

  So, to my onlooking Christian readership, this is an open invitation to put this into terms that make sense. And if the central tenets of Christianity don't make sense, in this case, "Original Sin", I think we are being reasonable to discard them, which is precisely what I have done.

Because History Proves It!

Today, two days before Easter Sunday, I read a post on a popular networking site that said that Jesus' crucifixion "firmly established an historical event". This friend went on to say......

"we should all bow our heads to reflect and praise the history of Jesus' passionate life and death"

Okay, well, in short, "history" cannot establish (or prove) outrageous claims, and in this case, outrageous, supernatural claims. We can learn from "history" what most likely happened(or most likely did not happen), but "history" doesn't establish or prove claims of the supernatural. For instance, we can learn from history that George Washington was our first President. And since Washington, himself, left autobiographical writings behind, we can take this bit of history and safely conclude that he actually existed and was our first President. But did he really throw a silver dollar across the Potomac River? History says he did. So?...does that settle it for you? It shouldn't. That is a fantastic claim, and you have every right to be skeptical. That little anecdote was probably started as an embellishment made by a supporter who sought to exaggerate Washington's physical strength to make people fear and/or look up to the President.

So, we can conclude from history that people exaggerated or embroidered the truth because they had an agenda.

Moving on....

The Empty Tomb

If there was an empty tomb at one point in history, the notion that a man came back from the dead(AKA, became a zombie) and walked(or floated) out of that tomb is at the very bottom of a list of what most likely happened. Xian: "Yes, but wait, this is the BIBLE we're talking about!" Me: "Yes? And?...so, what?"

Moreover, just because there was supposedly eyewitnesses to this event means practically nothing, since, well, dead eyewitnesses - in other words - eyewitnesses that we cannot question or interview, carry no weight. If a lawyer told the Judge, "Your Honor, the state would like to call an eyewitness to the stand, but he's dead, so now what?", that lawyer would get laughed out of the courtroom.

The outrageous claims in the bible can only be taken on "faith", and BTW, I have no problem with that. But we should all be skeptical of "history proves it" sphere of thought.

Free Will, or not

I was trying to figure out how I'd start this topic out, and then it occurred to me that in choosing the corresponding photo(just above) that I could have chosen from literally hundreds of photos that didn't have anything to do with feet, and yet, I chose the one with feet. 'Shocker. Well, sure, I was "free" to choose any photo, but was I "free" to choose against my most desired and sought end result? In retrospect, I don't think so. I'm not convinced that I could have picked something else over the perfectly shaped and beautifully painted toes, above. But even if I had thought to myself, "Nah, I like that foot photo the best, but I don't want people to think I'm a weirdo", that would still be in accordance with choosing the most desired end result...i.e...not wanting people to think "X" about me. So, in this instance, choosing the likable foot photo for my post on free will took precedence over giving a rat's patooty if people think "X" about me. 

What about if I wanted to fly to the grocery store instead of drive there? Can I just choose to sprout wings? No, of course not---I'm a human, after all; I'm not a bird. Or what if I wanted to become a tightrope walker or trapeze artist because, I don't know......maybe it would be a good way to come into contact with beautiful show-women. Could I wake up tomorrow and choose to forget about my fear of heights and just start prancing around on a high wire? I don't think so. 

So, is my "will" truly free? 

That is the question, and it demands an answer if we are to get to the bottom of the whole free will Vs determinism conundrum. The determinist believes that our past actions totally influence our future decisions. And really, how could they not? If a rape-victim finally gets the courage to leave her apartment 4 years after the fact, sure, she was free all along to leave, as in, she had the "freedom" and wherewithal to unlock her door, twist the handle, and walk outside. But she didn't do that. Is that not because her fear, directly based on her past, took precedence over leaving her house? Isn't it because feeling safe was her most desired end result? I believe so. 

I think we have naturalistic free will, but I believe that this free will has limitations. Think about it. We have competing thoughts pretty much from the time we wake up until the time we go to sleep. In order to make truly free choices between competing thoughts, we'd need to be devoid of any and all recall of the past. Fact: That is impossible. Also, if we can contemplate possible future consequences for our choices, that, too, puts limits on freedom. Christianity and its "carrot and stick" (Heaven and Hell) dichotomy is a prime example. No one is choosing freely if they firmly believe they'll suffer dire consequences for making the wrong choice. E.g., the mugging-victim is perfectly free to not give the mugger his or her valuables. But since the mugger has a .44 magnum pressed against the victim's temple, that would be a bad choice, assuming the most desired end result is to go on living.

Foot Worship

And now for something totally different: Fetishes, and in particular, the foot fetish. While I cannot speak for everyone with this type of fetish, for me, it started in second grade when my teacher, "Mrs. Addy", a tall, slender redhead, routinely wore spiked, strappy stilettos while teaching us the ABCs. Many times she would wear open-toed stilettos, which would reveal her exquisitely high arches and perfectly-painted red toes. Without going into too much detail, this produced a "tingly" feeling when I'd stare at them long enough, so I'm guessing that there must be some biology at play here. 

So, yes, from those days up until now, a woman's feet are the second thing I notice about her, her face, of course, being the first. And where I'm from, it's nearly always flip-flop weather, so, this makes sorting out the "yays" from the "nays" easier, should I happen to be doing some casual foot-watching. And again, I suspect that this must have something to do with choosing a mate--for instance, it's seems right in line with being drawn to women with curves..e.g..large hips, which are good for supporting her body during pregnancy; large breasts for feeding the child once it arrives, or so the theory goes. One neurologist even postulated that an attraction to feet, when sexual, is caused by the feet and the genitals occupying adjacent areas of the somatosensory cortex, which is the main sensory receptive area for the sense of touch. IOW, there might be some crossed wires involved. And while I'm not sure of the reason why I'd prefer to "touch" an attractive pair of feet over an unattractive pair - in fact, now's a good time to say that I would not only not touch an unattractive pair of feet, I'd run from them - I don't really care; it doesn't really matter if I ever know the reason.  

Atheism: Cross Examination

This time I'm doing a 180. That is, instead of putting Christianity(my former beliefs) under the microscope, this time I will be putting my current worldview, atheism, under the microscope. I intend to discuss where atheism is lacking, in my view. Why? For a few reasons: One, so that my theist readership (and/or critics) can see that I didn't discard Christianity and replace it with atheism for purely emotional reasons..e.g...."Oh, because I like atheism better!"

So, let's start here: As an atheist, I know that many times during my lifetime I am going to get the type of phone call that we all dread, and that is the phone call where someone is letting me know that someone I know has died. None of the relationships I have with the people I love are going to go on forever; those relationships are all going to end, most of them abruptly. As an atheist, I do not(and cannot) believe in a mind/body dualism. Or more simply put, I do not(and cannot) believe that our "personalities" survive the death of our physical bodies. And for every piece of reasoning that my spiritual, god-believing friends (or critics) offer in support of an afterlife, I can offer a dozen reasons why what they believe doesn't make sense. In fact, I contend that the concept of a mind/body duality is so nonsensical that it's highly, highly improbable if not impossible, and therefore, that it doesn't merit my belief nor anymore of my time wishing it were true. And trust me, I spent a lot of my time wishing it were true.

That said, let me tell you that being aware of this cold, hard reality sucks, and nothing...nothing makes up for it, in my view. Yes, I can(and do) focus on the time we have in this one life, and yes, the time that we have right now is precious precisely because it is limited. And, yes, of course when I am dead too, it won't matter or affect me then. But truth be told, it affects me now, and the above-mentioned things don't buffer, or at least, they don't buffer enough, the disturbing and inevitable reality that there will come a time when I will never see the ones I love/care about ever again. IOW, the above atheist principles, in my view, don't completely make up for the comfort that Christianity once provided on the subject of death.

Here's another:  Unless I have an accomplice, then I, and I alone, am responsible if I wrong someone. If I wrong someone, I need that person to forgive me. Of course, forgiveness has to be available, and let's face it, we know that it is not always is available, because some people are already so wounded from within that they can only think retaliation and hatred for the offender. But in any case, the idea that some third party can come waltzing into the situation and blurt out " you're forgiven!", is a bad idea, and it doesn't do jack' for the person I offended. And worse, a completely innocent third party taking my punishment for me is nothing less than scapegoating. In having a scapegoat, I have essentially dodged responsibility. But that is for another discussion.

So, while it would be convenient to, when/if I wrong someone, blame a "Devil" and then pile my guilt onto the back of an innocent man who claims that he loves and forgives me, I must put what is actually right over what is more convenient and what makes me feel better.

Here's another: being unpopular and not fitting in, Vs being popular and fitting in nicely with the majority. Atheists are very unpopular with most believers, despite being one of the fastest growing (non)religious groups. Coming out as an atheist takes courage. And let's face it, fitting in just feels better.  

So, there you have it---those are a few ways that I firmly believe that atheism is lacking in areas when compared to what Christianity has to offer. But alas, I'm not finished yet, and if you are an atheist reading this, you might know what's coming next. Yes, I'm talking about the non-sequitur that, 9 times out of 10, goes unrecognized by the believer. What I mean is that the believer invariably takes the erroneous position that, since atheism is lacking in comparison to what they already believe - and this is even according to some  atheists, themselves - then what they already believe must therefore be true by default. They are wrong when they take this position. Again, it is a non-sequitur....or in simple terms, it does not follow that since atheism doesn't provide all of the comfort and fuzzy feelings that Christianity offers, that it therefore cannot be the correct worldview. If you are a lurking Christian, I ask that you please remember that about atheism, if nothing else.

Guns: Shot Down in Flames

Okay, where to begin. Oh, hell, let's start here: Aaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrggg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, that felt good, but I still have more frustration to get out. What I'm seeing on Facebook, and one person's views in particular, is inducing so many *head-desk* moments that I may just have to start wearing a football helmet when I'm logged on. Serious sh*t.

So, in no particular order, I'm going to go through what I feel are some of the major problems with the  arguments I'm seeing from the people on the NRA/pro-gun side, the side that this person advocates, and I'm doing this in an attempt to illustrate why their mind-set and ad campaign is unconvincing at best; a steaming pile of guano, at worst.

The other day, the above-mentioned Facebook friend, who also happens to be a real life neighbor, shared and "liked" a pro-gun internet meme that consisted of a picture of about a dozen Latinos with guns. These guys wore bandannas, had tattoos, and wielded firearms of all kinds......you know, the whole stereotypical, "gang-banger" enchilada(no pun). Well, the point of this lil' internet meme was to attack the pro-gun control position, and oddly, the anti-gun control camp "think" that this position is this: Having stricter guns laws will get criminals to turn in their weapons!!!!

First question: Did the people who propagate this utter frickin' abortion-of-logic just score some crack?!?!? Seriously, did they just hit the pipe!? You've got to be kidding me! If you are reading this and you are an anti-gun control proponent, I ask that you please let this penetrate your cranium: No sane person thinks that having gun laws (or stricter guns laws) will get criminals to turn in their weapons! That notion is absurd. But thankfully, the astute among us know what's really going on here, and that is that the pro-gunners have concocted and propagated a completely caricatured argument of their opponent's position, and they've done this so that it's easier for them to "knock down" that position, AKA, erecting a strawman(fallacy).

Next, the dishonesty of the above-mentioned people continues when they propagate another meme that goes something like this: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people!". Their thinking on this is that, since guns are, oh, just inanimate objects with no conscience of their own, then guns couldn't possibly be part of the problem. This of course is false----guns can, and do, CONTRIBUTE to the problem, since said inanimate objects are made for killing and some of them are made to kill multiple people in a short span of time.

No one needs a flippin' machine gun to defend themselves against a cat-burglar or to hunt moose.

Lastly - and perhaps the most disingenuous of all - these people (pretend that they) cannot tell the difference between the following two terms:

1) gun-control

2) gun-ban(emphasis intentional)

Oh, they know the difference, alright, but again, it's easier for them (think shootin' fish in a barrel) to attribute something that very few if any pro-gun control people are proposing, and then turn right around and shoot it down and/or object to it. Not one single person I have encountered who is pro-gun control is advocating that guns be banned . That is simply a type of diversion tactic(red herring) that the pro-gunners are using, and it stems from an irrational fear that many of them apparently hold. This paranoid, delusional fear of theirs is that the government, because said government cannot be trusted 100%, have a plan to go door-to-door to take everyone's guns away, and this order, to them, will be per our current administration and Commander in Chief.....you know, that black, African-born, "Muslim" Barack Obama? Yeah, him. I guess it never occurred to these people that if our government does this and uses military force to carry out this dark, sinister plan, that people like me will be wondering how all these good 'ol boys are thinking that they and their AKs are going to be a match for an Apache helicopter? Maybe my neighbor will chime in and elaborate on how in the hell that he and his pro-gunner ilk intend to go about this. I think it goes without saying that I will not hold my breath.

UPDATE: The person who prompted this post and who is also a real life neighbor, has, more or less, since given me no choice but to delete him as a FB friend. Out of a base-amount of respect for him, which, BTW, I give to all people, I will not go into detail as to what he did that has led to this decision, simply because he is not here to defend himself. Notice that he hasn't not chimed in and defended his "pro-gun" stance, and I suspect that he won't. But on the off-chance that he does chime in, I will pull no punches in shredding his ignorant views, with a calm, cool, and reasoned smack-down.