Christian conditional love.

Click on the pic for more info…

Some of us may not like Valentine’s Day for reasons that it is too commercialized, just another “Hallmark Holiday” and a day for businesses to make money. However, this Muslim cleric, Hazem Shuman says that Valentine’s Day is “more dangerous than AIDS, Ebola, and Cholera” and that it’s an “extremely dangerous virus” to young people because this day of love, hearts, candy and roses destroys the relationship with their imaginary friend. Valentine’s Day is worse than blowing up cafes full of innocent people? Valentine’s Day is worse than famine, war and violence between nations? You never see these god botherers of any religion getting in such a tizzy over the real problems of the world.

Here is the video link and YouTube video below:

Tomorrow is Darwin Day, the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin. The Seattle-based Discovery Institute that pushes “intelligent design” theory and anti-evolution propaganda, plans to put its own spin on “honoring” Darwin this Thursday, calling it Academic Freedom day, which can also be described as Freedom to Teach Your Child to Be Stupid Day.

Americans United’s Sandhya Bathija says,

Instead of “Darwin Day,” Institute strategists will observe what they call “Academic Freedom Day,” promoting events that “give students and youth workers a way to express their support for free speech and the right to debate the evidence for and against evolution.”

The think tank, which was behind Ben Stein’s documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, masks its intentions to push a creationist agenda by working in the name of “academic freedom.” The Religious Right-backed outfit claims that students’ “academic freedom is trampled everyday” because students are “censored” from critiquing Darwin’s theory of evolution in science classrooms.

These creationist idiots just don’t get it. Their religious beliefs have no place in a science classroom. No one is “trampling on their academic freedoms”. If they wish to offer debate to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, then do it with sound science and not bring your “faith” into it. They have their churches, and they have their own church schools where their children are free to attend to be trained to be ignorant of Science and evolution. It’s very sad for the children who are brainwashed with lies and false information, but religious folks have the freedom to pump whatever crap they want into their children’s brains.

Because of the Institute’s influence, four states are already mulling “academic freedom” bills this year: Iowa, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Alabama. These bills seek to require science educators to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, or use other code language to push a creationist agenda.

It’s not enough for them to believe what they choose to believe, but these amendments are attempts to witness to all children and to push their religion into the public school classrooms.

Thank human reason there are other people who believe in the god fantasy who have managed to reconcile their faith and evolution.

That’s the message many religious leaders plan to send to their congregations this week in observance of Darwin Day. Nearly 1,000 clergy members will discuss the relationship between religion and science in an event called “Evolution Weekend.”

And from Ethics Daily.com:

With the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin occurring on Feb. 12 and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his work On the Origin of Species also happening in 2009, many religious leaders hope to use services that weekend to make “it clear that those claiming that people must choose between religion and science are creating a false dichotomy.”

“One important goal is to elevate the quality of the discussion on this critical topic–to move beyond sound bites,” explains the Web site for Evolution Weekend. “A second critical goal is to demonstrate that religious people from many faiths and locations understand that evolution is sound science and poses no problems for their faith.”

If the Religious Right dumbasses took time to understand what evolution actually is then there wouldn’t be any need to debate theology vs science. They are two separate things. Fortunately, many religious folks do understand this.

Long Live Physics!…

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you — Beer Dominoes…

I found a fairly amusing article entitled ‘Debunking the debunkers’  – it’s fraught with all sorts of standard biased objections, simply substitute ‘Islam’, ‘Judaism’, or or any other relusional ’system’, play the words, it becomes pretty much the standard recipe.

These quotes are just a few of the typical statements made by debunkers against astrology, printed every day in newspapers, magazines and books; voiced on the radio, the Internet, and in the classroom. Despite the widespread prejudice against astrology, most of us continue to practice our “forbidden” art. Within our own little community, isolated from the war being waged against us and our discipline by scientists, the media, and religious fundamentalists, we are content to mind our own business and preach to the choir. So long as we maintain our client-based profession or write articles for our limited audience, why should we be concerned about the relentless debunking of astrology that goes on in the real and much larger world?

Because, well, it’s not founded in reality. It costs millions of dollars of hard-earned human labor, and for what? Pseudo-psychoanalysis, that’ s what.

The surprising answer is that it will make us better astrologers. Astrologers can profit from a critical view. It is valuable for us to understand the objections made by debunkers because they raise important questions that we should ask about ourselves, our practice, and astrology itself.

This is actually a valid point.

First, we must distinguish debunkers from the other types of critics and opponents of astrology. Debunkers are not the historians and philosophers of science who are open to considering astrology as an alternative paradigm and recognize its importance in past cultures, but who believe it has since deteriorated.[5] Debunkers are also different from the revisionists, who were discussed in a previous issue of TMA.⁶ Religious fundamentalists are another special category which will not be discussed here. It should be noted, however, that despite the general lack of intelligence in their weak arguments, fundamentalists constitute a growing threat to astrology.[7]

Can’t help but chuckle at that last sentence.

True debunkers are the diehard skeptics who claim to be scientists using rational arguments, asserting their authority in areas where they have little knowledge. If we carefully examine the debunkers’ arguments, we find serious flaws in their “logic” which is ostensibly based on an “objectivity” which is supposed to be characteristic of science and the rational mind.[8] We find that their criticisms are based on misinformation and ignorance. Observing these flaws can lead us to a better understanding of both what is science and what is astrology.

Ah yes, the flawed logic of the 192 scientists who signed the famous Objections to Astrology?

In today’s world, science is upheld as the primary measuring rod, and any claim can be falsified or verified according to scientific criteria. According to this rather limited system of analysis, literally anything can be defined as either science or non-science. In most situations, unscientific claims are considered benign and are ignored (debunkers do not bother to “disprove” or “refute” music or the art of parenting, which are clearly non-scientific endeavors practiced daily throughout the world). So long as everybody minds their own business (i.e., scientists attend to science, musicians play their music, parents raise their children), there can be peaceful coexistence between the “two cultures.”[10] But in certain cases, debunkers feel compelled to define a non-scientific endeavor such as astrology as “pseudoscience,” a special category of non-science that carries the connotation of false, evil, and threatening to the goals of science.

A ‘rather limited system of analysis’ that has a far better track record than astrology itself. Note the conflation of ‘parenting’ and ‘music’, as if there are parallels here. Music is real, parenting is as well.

Just exactly how one is supposed to distinguish between what constitutes science, benign non-science, or pseudoscience is a very debatable topic.

Ah, no it’s not.

 Philosophers and social scientists have been arguing about this for at least fifty years, and the only consensus they really have is that “science is what scientists say it is.” Yet debunkers have decided they can determine not only what is science and what isn’t, but also what portions of non-science deserve to be attacked as pseudoscience.

Testable, falsifiable hypotheses? Claiming to be science when it meets none of the criteria? No, the only debate is whether or not we should allow these people a valid opinion without anything to back it up.

What are some of their methods of attack? (1) One is the “Let Them Eat Cake” argument, and it goes like this: Astrology is criticized for failing to design research and run controlled tests to supply evidence for its concepts.

There ya go. Pseudoscience. Argument settled.

 But ever since scientists threw astrology out of the Academy in the 17th century, astrologers have been outside the intellectual mainstream with no access to academic funding.

Oh please. There’s PLENTY of literature on the subject – centuries worth. It’s just a matter of whether it’s Western or Eastern, or Middle-Eastern. This is what – the third century or so that it’s been banned? Why hasn’t some intrepid researched proven it anyways?

Research is an extremely time-consuming and expensive endeavor. If academic scientists didn’t have corporate-supported funding and posh jobs (complete with tenure, sabbaticals, grad students to teach their classes, and all the rats or Macs they need to run their experiments), how many do you think would dip into their own pockets to finance the research that “justifies” their existence? Yet they demand that astrologers should somehow find the time and money required to prove the validity of astrology.

Uh, academia in the US is infamous for lack of funding. Jobs and Gates started in their own garages, why can’t you?

The catch-22 here is that even if you manage to get inside the academic establishment, astrology is generally considered a taboo subject for investigation, so who is supposed to be doing all the research demanded by the debunkers?

Howzabout all you star-stricken martyrs?

 Meanwhile, however, there is plenty of funding available for studying such matters as how goldfish behave under the influence of alcohol, or the effects of gravity on toilet paper.[11]

Or the reconciliation of quantum mechanics as opposed to the scalar laws of weak and strong nuclear forces, magnetism, gravity, etc? Note the lack of citations. Strawman.

(2) The “Pot Calling the Kettle Black” argument: Astrologers are also criticized for doing precisely the same things that scientists do.

My only response is that of hilarity.

 Debunkers claim that astrology is invalid because there is disagreement among astrologers over basic ideas such as which celestial configurations are relevant and how these are to be interpreted.

Duh, yeah, you have one thousand and one ways to interpret how one star in the sky impacts the individual, you have no standardization, no boilerplate, and no damn way to prove this is relevant.

Whereas, in science, a lack of mutual agreement over very basic premises is considered a healthy expression of intellectual debate and is called different “schools of thought.”

Note the distinct lack of applicable analogies.

 Astrologers using geocentric or sidereal or Koch house systems are accused of inconsistency, while in physics, one can discuss whether light is a wave or light is a particle; and in behavioral genetics, one can formulate competing theories like “nature-versus-nurture,” and in medical science, doctors can make a respectable income by giving second opinions.

Because light can be both, that’s a false dichotomy – and if you’re using a geocentric system in anything, well, it’s about time that person got wind that they’re in the 21st century.

Another way that Scientist debunkers project their own behavior is by accusing astrologers of using their art to control their clients’ lives.

Stupidly broad generalization.

 You can see how absurd this is if you try to think of some part of modern life that is not depedent on (controlled by) science/technology. Contrast this with humanistic astrology, which is devoted to the process of self-awareness. Science searches for order with the ultimate goal of dominating nature, while astrology searches for an order that connects man with nature. In this sense, astrology constitutes a much more environmentally-friendly discipline than science.

Really? Which scientists? Is this author drawing on some crazy Doctor Cyclops imagery or what? Dominating nature? Would that be the physicists, or the molecular biologists?

And speaking of mythologies, another method of attack is based on the (3) “Myth of Objective Consciousness.”[12] This is the idea that the scientific method or rationalism is the best way to gain knowledge about the world.

Because it shows patterns, it has a proven track record, and the supernatural fails the tests every time.

 There are just a few assumptions going on here. Debunkers have extended the meaning of best to indicate “only” and knowledge has been equated with Truth.

More strawman crap.

 The world is limited by scientific definition to mean the material, physical world, which in turn is assumed to mean “reality.”

More new age nonsense.

 Astrology functions in a much broader way like philosophy; it is an alternative form of perception that seeks knowledge of a reality that includes the metaphysical world, yet scientists insist on testing it with the scientific method. Analyzing astrology with the tools of science is as inappropriate as trying to measure consciousness with a spoon.

So, what? We’re supposed to take her word for it? Or the one hundred thousand other starry-eyed savants who can’t seem to agree on one thing?

Skipping a little bit:

Another reason the scientific method will not work with astrology is that the rationalist view assumes that the whole equals the sum of the parts.

Only if you’re Michael Behe.

 When the scientist tries to break down a person’s birth chart into separate components to test the individual parts (like whether sun signs can translate directly into specific, isolated, predictable behavior traits), the astrologer rightfully objects that this is ignoring the wholeness of a chart, and of the person. If psychology is allowed to acknowledge the complex unity of the Self, why can’t astrology be granted the same right?

Because you’ve pretty much admitted that this is not a science, for one thing. For another, if you divide an abstract concept into pieces, and all the pieces disappear, what’s the final verdict?

Scientists also insist on statistical analysis using random samples. But astrology cannot be “proven” or falsified by random statistics because astrology is based on the premise that conditions are never random. Take, for example, random conditions at the time of testing. Scientists might assume that any old time is just as good as another to perform a test of astrology, but what if you’re testing whether Pisces is less aggressive than Aries and it so happens that Mars is rising during the time of the test? Or suppose that a certain test is performed that shows some validity to astrology, but in a later attempt at replication, the Moon is void-of-course during the test, or Neptune is rising, and the results are all vague.

Because randomnicity is a way of testing for repeating patterns. For structure. Because when a pattern repeats itself, it’s no longer random.

But enough. Vaughan cites 10 points, all of which suffer in the morass of subjective bias. Further investigation shows that she uses astrology as three different revenue streams, therefore staining her protestations with observer bias.

Till the next post, then.

Just in case anyone’s interested, there’s a Passion for Christ Movement that wants to rid the world of — no, not poverty or war, but — masturbation:

When God wants to take His message of deliverance across the globe, there is NO stopping Him. Check out this feature of the EX Shirts on one of the fastest growing Christian Hip Hop magazines in the US: www.DaSouth.com. Also, hit up their new article, “Masturbation”. It breaks down the lies behind masturbation, explains how this is actually a sin, and how we can be freed through Christ. And if you need even more encouragement, check out ya girl Dameco’s latest blog entry, in which she fearlessly testifies to her struggle and victory over masturbation! We pray that you will join us in breaking the silence on an issue that has stayed silent for too long. Be the first to boldly rock your Ex-Masturbator shirt and let’s change the world baby!

The blog entry alone is disturbing — but you really have to see the store to get the full effect.

I’m just wondering what my colleagues and students would think if I showed up to campus with my brand-new EX-MASTURBATOR shirt. Man, those evals would TOTALLY ROCK that semester…

People waste so many precious minutes doing the fucking dumbest things…

In recent news, we heard about Palin’s church burning down, and now Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago sustained intense damage from a fire yesterday, and another news story points to a Mormon church in Nevada that was destroyed by fire. These are only a few of the church fires and destruction that are reported. These things happen on a regular basis even to the most devout and sanctified parishes. If I was a believer, I would wonder if this god hates churches!

For all blessings of churches, all the magical incantations for their protection and service to the community, etc. no god ever comes to protect these “sacred” places from natural disaster, fire, floods. And still the faithful still flock to other locations, other places that are blessed for services to keep praying their futile prayers that do absolutely no good at all.

I have been pondering this “faithfulness” of the sheeple this morning, and trying to figure out what keeps them believing in a religion when it’s quite obvious no god has intervened to keep even their sacred places safe. Taking my last post here into consideration, do humans just naturally love to wallow in suffering? Do most people actually enjoy feeling like helpless victims? It’s like an abused child or spouse who keeps going back and asking for more abuse. It’s like hoping an absentee parent will finally show up no matter how awful they might turn out to be.