Illinois May Not Fund Religion

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – Illinois should move carefully when awarding $40 million or more in state funds to religious organizations, two national activist groups warned Wednesday.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Anti-Defamation League told state officials that they’ve identified at least 97 religious organizations [my emphasis] that would get the money from the capital construction bill signed into law last month.

They pointed out in a letter to the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity that the constitutional separation of church and state forbids using tax dollars for religious purposes and that the grants carry no restrictions.

“When grants are made to religious groups with no safeguards whatsoever, the rights of taxpayers are clearly being infringed,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of the Washington-based Americans United. “No American should ever be forced to contribute money in support of religion.”

Without watchdog groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State, this news would never come to light and most of us would not know about it.

Gov. Pat Quinn signed a $31 billion infrastructure improvement plan last month aimed at improving roads and bridges, but also included millions in grants to local organizations. There could be more groups with religious affiliations than the 97 that the Americans United and the Chicago-based Anti-Defamation League counted because their names don’t immediately identify them as such.

Among grants that the groups want reviewed are $75,000 for capital improvements to the library at the Chicago Baptist Institute; $100,000 each for renovations at Mercy Home for Boys and Girls, St. Ann Catholic School and St. Paul Parish; and $50,000 for a housing project by the Lawndale Christian Development Project.

Citing numerous court cases, the two groups asked the department to review all the grants it releases to ensure that none support religious activities. They want the state to require recipients to sign statements that they won’t use the money for religious purposes.

The groups want the agency to ban grants to sectarian organizations or those that, according to court rulings, cannot separate their religious missions from secular ones.

According to Americans United,

The Chicago-Tribune reported that the bill earmarks $250,000 for renovations to the Friendship House of Christian Service in Peoria, awards $150,000 for “facility improvements” at the Salaam Conference Center of Muhammad’s Holy Temple of Islam in Chicago and assigns $700,000 for capital improvements at St. Malachy School, a Catholic elementary on Chicago’s West Side, among many others.

Sneaky religious bastards!

Scotland has freed the Lockerbie bomber, who is now terminally ill with advanced prostate cancer, on compassionate grounds. Americans pleaded to show no mercy for the man responsible for the 1988 attack that killed 270 people, many of whom were college students on their way home to spend Christmas holidays.

Scotland’s justice secretary said freeing the bomber was an expression of the Scottish people’s humanity but U.S. family members of Lockerbie victims expressed outrage.

“I think it’s appalling, disgusting and so sickening I can hardly find words to describe it,” said Susan Cohen, of Cape May Court House, New Jersey, whose 20-year-old daughter, Theodora, died in the attack. “This isn’t about compassionate release. This is part of give-Gadhafi-what-he-wants-so-we-can-have-the-oil.”

And the Scottish justice secretary believes that though the murderer of hundreds of people may walk away a free man for his final days here on earth, he will be judged by the never present imaginary friend.

“However, Mr. al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power.”"

However, Mr. Scottish justice secretary, al-Megrahi is going to be able to experience a much more peaceful end-of-life than he allowed his victims.

Rob Boston on FOX and Friends discussing Florida school officials prayer

“Rob Boston of Americans United is on FOX and Friends discussing, with Mike Huckabee, Florida’s Pace High School administrators who prayed in school after court injunction not to.” The religious people, including Huckabee just don’t get separation of church and state. And they do not respect the legal system. They will do what they want to do no matter what in order to promote their own agenda, then cry persecution when there are consequences for going against a court order.

So much controversy going on in the small town of Falmouth, MA which lies on the southwestern tip of Cape Cod:

First, a former town employee accused the town manager of sexual harassment. Then the local constable accused town officials of illegally disseminating sealed records containing his criminal history.

Now we learn that the selectmen recently voted 4-0 to allow four local churches to set up “a prayer station” in the public parking lot at Old Silver Beach in North Falmouth.

The “prayer station” occupies a parking spot and is open from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. every day. Volunteers from Heritage Christian Church in East Falmouth, First Baptist Church of Pocasset, Falmouth Church of the Nazarene and Bay Community Alliance Church in Buzzards Bay staff the station. No preaching or solicitation is allowed. The volunteers can only talk to those who approach them.

Is the board’s decision unconstitutional? Does it violate the separation of church and state?

Legally, no.

But what the selectmen have unwittingly done is create a public forum in a parking lot.

“The issue is whether or not the town has created a public forum,” said Joe Conn, director of communications for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State in Washington, D.C. “If you let this group use this space, you have to let all groups — religious or nonreligious — use this space. It could come back to bite them if they are turning a public parking lot into a free-speech zone.”

Gasp! What where they thinking? They might have to allow evil atheists and other godless groups to use the space!

In case you haven’t seen this yet, PZ Myers’ keynote speech at the Secular Student Alliance conference last week:

Counting Coup – PZ Myers – Secular Student Alliance Conference 2009

I stumbled across this shudder-inducing tidbit, and it is recent enough to be of serious concern:

Spiritual Mapping and Spiritual Warfare – Muthee and the "Transformations" Franchise / 1

A video starring Thomas Muthee as a prayer warrior and witch hunter was released in 1999. "Transformations" was the first in a series of videos that would soon become the heart of the Transformations franchise, a network of prayer warriors, ministries, organizations, and businesses, brought together for the purpose of promoting Christian theocracies. They share the goal of bringing their own communities and nations into the "Kingdom." These videos would play a major role in the teaching and promotion of spiritual mapping and spiritual warfare. Following is the story of those videos and how the Transformations brand has propelled the development of an emerging international belief system, the New Apostolic Reformation, and how it is bringing that movement into your community and your government.

Overview

The Transformations videos are advertised as having been viewed by 200 million people in 70 languages. A star of the videos is none other than Thomas Muthee – the same man whose anointing of Sarah Palin has become an issue in the 2008 presidential campaign. But the videos are important for far more reasons than Palin and Muthee. Muthee’s words, just prior to anointing Palin, on invading and infiltrating society and government are not aberrations. They reveal the disturbing ideology of a growing and powerful religio-political movement in the U.S. and around the world.

An international explosion in "taking communities" through spiritual warfare and expulsion of demons, from individuals and from entire geographic areas, has impacted denominations around the globe. The popularizing of these methods is sourced in the massive effort to evangelize the world in the decades prior to the year 2000. Much of the dissemination of these ideas was through parachurch organizations (religious organizations not associated with a particular denomination), that emerged from Pentecostalism and developed networks around the globe. In the 1990s, a missions and church growth expert named C. Peter Wagner found a way to coalesce these activities into an organized structure now called the New Apostolic Reformation. His colleague, George Otis, Jr. simultaneously developed the Sentinel Group which has produced the series of Transformation videos and resulting Transformations organizations promoting these spiritual warfare ideas. The videos have been a major factor in the global promotion of "prayer warrior" networks specifically linked to these efforts.

Are you getting pissed? Not to mention a little nervous? I know I am.

The franchise has been so successful that the "Transformations brand" has a distinct meaning to many worldwide. The videos, which have been used as the central teaching tool of the movement for nearly a decade, reveal not just another grandiose program of global evangelizing — but an explicitly theocratic political movement of consequence in a number of countries – including the United States. There are Transformation-related groups in almost every state and every major city.

I say you’ll pry my freedoms from my cold dead fingers first.

The New Apostolic Reformation and the associated Transformations "franchises" aim to unify the church around the globe and take control of the world for the "Kingdom of God." This movement has evolved into its own distinct structure with networks of Apostles and Prophets around the globe who believe that that Christendom should be restructured under their authority to accomplish the task of bringing together a unified end time church that will help to usher in the Kingdom of God.

Insane is the word that springs to mind. And the video highlights just how gratuitously horrible the end result will be.

These believers are not waiting for the Rapture but believe they must combat evil themselves through aggressively taking control of society and government. The Transformations videos have been used as a major promotional tool for the advancement of the methods for taking control – spiritual mapping and spiritual warfare. The videos demonstrate the taking control of communities and nations through large networks of "prayer warriors." whose spiritual warfare is used to expel and destroy the demons that cause societal ills. Once the territorial demons, witches, and generational curses are removed, the "born again" Christians in the videos take control of society. The videos then claim that these communities experience an "alignment with God" which allows for miraculous curing of poverty, disease, environmental degradations, and other societal ills.

Demons and Witches and Curses? Oh my! Seriously, we’re going to have to take some sort of action on this – because we’re  talking the Inquisition times ten.

And of course, the spin:

The video series glorifies the movement towards theocratic governance, real or imagined, in Uganda, Fiji, Colombia, and Guatemala, as well as the U.S. They are used as a tool for building "Transformations" brand organizations that in turn glorify the concept of authoritarian religious social engineering. The "stars" of these videos have already played a role in promoting witch hunts in Africa, endorsing death squads in Guatemala, the de-Catholicizing of Brazil, and the mythology of miraculous curing of AIDS in Uganda. The Transformations promote a complete merger of church and state and offer a glimpse of the "Kingdom" to come, when the world is purged of all other religion, and "Spirit-filled, born again" Christians take control of the leadership of all societal and government institutions.

Oh yes, and we know that these things tend to end badly.

In case this sounds esoteric and far away, it is important to underscore that this movement is influential and powerful enough to have encompassed not only the Governor of Alaska, but also Ted Haggard, the now disgraced but once nationally renowned head of the National Association of Evangelicals. These leaders are not the exceptions, but the rule, as the movement comprises hundreds of organizations and thousands of churches across the country. Their activities fly under the radar of popular media by operating through hundreds of stealth evangelizing programs, with the goal of fulfilling this dream. However, the movement is currently receiving more scrutiny due to the revelation of the anointing ceremony of Sarah Palin by Thomas Muthee and other ties between Palin and the New Apostolic Reformation.

There is no better term for this than terrorism. Monotheistic religions rely heavily on argumentum ad baculum, and there is no need to read between the lines of the rhetoric here: it is clear that these people have no other agenda than to force their religion upon any of us who don’t believe. And as there is no spelled out dispensation of punishment for those who resist, we can only assume the worst. Exile is the pleasantest we can expect at the hands of these zealots, and the mind shudders at the worst imaginations. Visions of strappado are dancing through my head right now, because this is no less than belief at gunpoint, and beatific love at the end of a branding iron.

And while I hope against hope that this post is misdirected, that this will never come to pass, that reason will have sway over the savage heartbeats of our fellow men, I would also suggest that it may be prudent to keep some firearms on hand, and get some combat training under our respective belts.

Again, it may come to nothing, but the adage of the ounce versus the pound springs to mind.

This is the Apostate, signing off.

“A neurotic is a man who builds a castle in the air. A psychotic is the man who lives in it. A psychiatrist is the man who collects the rent.” – Jerome Laurence

I have always been interested in psychology – and the human mind, regardless of ideology or epistemology, not only loves to be tricked, it will also insist that the illusion played upon it is reality incarnate,  and will fight tooth and nail to defend it. To be fair, I’ve encountered this with close to every group on the internet, and alas, atheists are not exempt.

Over the past few years, outspoken and vocal atheists have been going about deflating warm and fuzzy feelings, crashing castles in the sky, and in general blowing delusional fantasies to itsy bitsy teeny weeny tiny bits. So it stands to reason, that we’ve made more than a few enemies.

So when I chanced across this little temper tantrum, well, it was amusing enough to share and fisk:

Ever get into an argument with a skeptic only to end up
exasperated and feeling you’ve been bamboozled?  Skeptics are
often highly skilled at tying up opponents in clever verbal
knots.  Most skeptics are, of course, ordinary, more-or-less
honest people who, like the rest of us, are just trying to make
the best sense they can of a complicated and often confusing
world.  Others, however, are merely glib sophists who use
specious reasoning to defend their prejudices or attack the ideas
and beliefs of others, and even an honest skeptic can innocently
fall into the mistake of employing bad reasoning.

This distinctly sounds like somebody got spanked very badly, at least to me.

In reading, listening to and sometimes debating skeptics over the
years, I’ve found certain tricks, ploys and gimmicks which they
tend to use over and over again.  Here are some of ‘em.  Perhaps
if you keep them in mind when arguing with a skeptic, you’ll feel
better when the debate is over.  Shucks, you might even score a
point or two.

Take notes, people.

1.) RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION):  This trick
consists of demanding a new, higher and more difficult standard
of evidence whenever it looks as if a skeptic’s opponent is going
to satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn’t make it clear
exactly what the standards are in the first place.  This can be
especially effective if the skeptic can keep his opponent from
noticing that he is continually changing his standard of
evidence.  That way, his opponent will eventually give up in
exasperation or disgust. Perhaps best of all, if his opponent
complains, the skeptic can tag him as a whiner or a sore loser.

Skeptic:  I am willing to consider the psi hypothesis if you will
only show me some sound evidence.

Opponent:  There are many thousands of documented reports of
incidents that seem to involve psi.

S:  That is only anecdotal evidence.  You must give me laboratory
evidence.

Right here, we now have an insight into the plaintiff’s core complaint: this person believes strongly in psi/paranormal/parapsychology.

0: Researchers A-Z have conducted experiments that produced
results which favor the psi hypothesis.

S:  Those experiments are not acceptable because of flaws X,Y and
Z.

0: Researchers B-H and T-W have conducted experiments producing
positive results which did not have flaws X,Y and Z.

S:  The positive results are not far enough above chance levels
to be truly interesting.

0: Researchers C-F and U-V produced results well above chance
levels.

S:  Their results were achieved through meta-analysis, which is a
highly questionable technique.

O:  Meta-analysis is a well-accepted method commonly used in
psychology and sociology.

S:  Psychology and sociology are social sciences, and their
methods can’t be considered as reliable as those of hard sciences
such as physics and chemistry.

Etc., etc. ad nauseum.

So many problems to address on this. First, there’s three different definitions in sociology for meta-analysis. Secondly, which one of three formats does one use? Thirdly, who does the meta-analysis? I am far more likely to go for a series of  independent studies than say, control groups for Tarot card accuracy by the Divination By Cards society. Also, one human being alone contains so many hard-to-adjust-for idiosyncratic variables that it renders this approach…well, variable.

2.) SOCK ‘EM WITH OCCAM:  Skeptics frequently invoke Occam’s
Razor as if the Razor automatically validates their position.
Occam’s Razor, a principle of epistemology (knowledge theory),
states that the simplest explanation which fits all the facts is
to be preferred — or, to state it another way, entities are not
to be multiplied needlessly.  The Razor is a useful and even
necessary principle, but it is largely useless if the facts
themselves are not generally agreed upon in the first place.

Well, I invoke Occam when I encounter someone who’s ‘theory’ is all over the place. For instance, a Wiccan-Buddhist-Liberation theologist who blames UFO sightings for global warming (just an example: I doubt such a creature exists). But when someone claims they can read my mind, or pass a Rhine test with flying colors, well, it’s smock-and-lab time, baby.

And of course, something about being tested seems to make all these magical powers magically disappear.

3.) EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS:  Extraordinary claims, says the
skeptic, require extraordinary evidence.  Superficially this
seems reasonable enough.  However, extraordinariness, like
beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder.  Some claims, of
course, would seem extraordinary to almost anyone (e.g. the claim
that aliens from Alpha Centauri had contacted you telepathically
and informed you that the people of Earth must make you their
absolute lord and ruler).  The "extraordinariness" of many other
claims, however, is at best arguable, and it is not at all
obvious that unusually strong evidence is necessary to support
them.  For example, so many people who would ordinarily be
considered reliable witnesses have reported precognitive dreams
that it becomes difficult to insist these are "unusual" claims
requiring "unusual" evidence.  Quite ordinary standards of
evidence will do.

Oh yeah – like who? Edgar Cayce? Allison Dubois? Uri Geller? The list of frauds is long and odious, and in fact, there are so many of them, Houdini made a career out of debunking them.

4.) STUPID, CRAZY LIARS:  This trick consists of simple slander.
Anyone who reports anything which displeases the skeptic will be
accused of incompetence, mental illness or dishonesty, or some
combination of the three without a single shred of fact to
support the accusations.  When Charles Honorton’s Ganzfeld
experiments produced impressive results in favor of the psi
hypothesis, skeptics accused him of suppressing or not publishing
the results of failed experiments.  No definite facts supporting
the charge ever emerged.  Moreover, the experiments were
extremely time consuming, and the number of failed, unpublished
experiments necessary to make the number of successful, published
experiments significant would have been quite high, so it is
extremely unlikely that Honorton’s results could be due to
selective reporting.  Yet skeptics still sometimes repeat this
accusation.

Here’s a little bit on the Ganzfield experiments:

Isolation — Richard Wiseman and others argue that not all of the studies used soundproof rooms, so it is possible that when videos were playing, the experimenter (or even the receiver) could have heard it, and later given involuntary cues to the receiver during the selection process. However, Dean Radin argues that ganzfeld studies which did use soundproof rooms had a number of "hits" similar to those which did not.

Randomization — When subjects are asked to choose from a variety of selections, there is an inherent bias to choose the first selection they are shown. If the order in which they are shown the selections is randomized each time, this bias will be averaged out. The randomization procedures used in the experiment have been criticized for not randomizing satisfactorily.

The psi assumption — The assumption that any statistical deviation from chance is evidence for telepathy is highly controversial, and often compared to the God of the gaps argument. Strictly speaking, a deviation from chance is only evidence that either this was a rare, statistically unlikely occurrence that happened by chance, or something was causing a deviation from chance. Flaws in the experimental design are a common cause of this, and so the assumption that it must be telepathy is fallacious. This does not rule out, however, that it could be telepathy.

Shorter version: telepathy’s out unless it can be shown to score higher than the occasional statistical hit.

5.) THE SANTA CLAUS GAMBIT:  This trick consists of lumping
moderate claims or propositions together with extreme ones.  If
you suggest, for example, that Sasquatch can’t be completely
ruled out from the available evidence,the skeptic will then
facetiously suggest that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny can’t
be "completely" ruled out either.

That’s only an example (however, if it isn’t, then this cat’s got a baroque meritocracy the size of the great wide open spaces). The phrasing of course, is it ‘can’t be completely ruled out’, suggesting that the question is invoking an absolute that can’t be established.

6.) SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE:  The skeptic insists that he
doesn’t have to provide evidence and arguments to support his
side of the argument because he isn’t asserting a claim, he is
merely denying or doubting yours.  His mistake consists of
assuming that a negative claim (asserting that something doesn’t
exist) is fundamentally different from a positive claim.  It
isn’t.  Any definite claim, positive or negative, requires
definite support.  Merely refuting or arguing against an
opponent’s position is not enough to establish one’s own
position..  In other words, you can’t win by default.

Ah, no no no no. This is an argument from ignorance AKA shifting the burden of proof. The legal definition states it as ‘The process of transferring the obligation to affirmatively prove a fact in controversy or an issue brought during a lawsuit from one party in a legal controversy to the other party. ‘  You want to prove Bigfoot as fact? You need to prove it, I don’t need to disprove it. Simple as that.

As arch-skeptic Carl Sagan himself said, absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence.  If someone wants to rule out vistations
by extra-terrestrial aliens, it would not be enough to point out
that all the evidence presented so far is either seriously flawed
or not very strong.  It would be necessary to state definite
reasons which would make ET visitations either impossible or
highly unlikely.  (He might, for example, point out that our best
understanding of physics pretty much rules out any kind of
effective faster-than-light drive.)

Appeal to an authority the skeptic approves, then another negative proof fallacy.

The only person exempt from providing definite support is the
person who takes a strict "I don’t know" position or the agnostic
position.  If someone takes the position that the evidence in
favor of ET visitations is inadequate but goes no farther, he is
exempt from further argument (provided, of course, he gives
adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence).  However, if he
wants to go farther and insist that it is impossible or highly
unlikely that ET’s are visiting or have ever visited the Earth,
it becomes necessary for him to provide definite reasons for his
position.  He is no longer entitled merely to argue against his
opponent’s position.

I’d be happy to go the extra mile (and indeed, I’ve done so on different topics). I think it was George Carlin who stated, “We engage in necrophilia and kill each other, gee, wonder why aliens don’t visit us?” (paraphrase) There’s a multitude of reasons why ET’s don’t visit us, and among them is that opinion that is anathema to the highly incredulous: they may not even exist.

There is the question of honesty.  Someone who claims to take the
agnostic position but really takes the position of definite
disbelief is, of course, misrepresenting his views.  For example,
a skeptic who insists that he merely believes the psi hypothesis
is inadequately supported when in fact he believes that the human
mind can only acquire information through the physical senses is
simply not being honest.

Ah yes, the fallback position of the true atavism: if you’re a skeptic, you’re a skeptic about everything, including the fact that you’re a skeptic! Prove the human mind culls data from external sources, or STFU.

7.) YOU CAN’T PROVE A NEGATIVE:  The skeptic may insist that he
is relieved of the burden of evidence and argument because "you
can’t prove a negative." But you most certainly can prove a
negative!  When we know one thing to be true, then we also know
that whatever flatly contradicts it is untrue.  If I want to show
my cat’s not in the bedroom, I can prove this by showing that my
cat’s in the kitchen or outside chasing squirrels. The negative
has then been proven.  Or the proposition that the cat is not in
the bedroom could be proven by giving the bedroom a good search
without finding the cat.  The skeptic who says, "Of course I
can’t prove psi doesn’t exist.  I don’t have to.  You can’t prove
a negative," is simply wrong.  To rule something out, definite
reasons must be given for ruling it out.

Sure, you can prove a negative. No argument. Prayer doesn’t work. No one has proof that Bigfoot exists. 75% of UFO sightings are mundane explanations. The Exodus and the Deluge never happened. God ain’t there. There’s a laundry list of non-events and delusions that these people flock to.

Of course, for practical reasons it often isn’t possible to
gather the necessary information to prove or disprove a
proposition, e.g., it isn’t possible to search the entire
universe to prove that no intelligent extraterrestrial life
exists.  This by itself doesn’t mean that a case can’t be made
against the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, although
it does probably mean that the case can’t be as air-tight and
conclusive as we would like.

And again, the case can’t be made for the damn thing. It doesn’t NEED to be ‘air-tight’ – I’d settle for conclusive, though.

8.) THE BIG LIE:  The skeptic knows that most people will not
have the time or inclination to check every claim he makes, so he
knows it’s a fairly small risk to tell a whopper.  He might, for
example, insist that none of the laboratory evidence for psi
stands up to close scrutiny, or he might insist there have been
no cases of UFO’s being spotted by reliable observers such as
trained military personnel when in fact there are well-documented
cases.  The average person isn’t going to scamper right down to
the library to verify this, so the skeptic knows a lot of people
are going to accept his statement at face value.  This ploy works
best when the Big Lie is repeated often and loudly in a confident
tone.

Translation: “OOOH! Those nasty ole pseudoskeptics make shit up! Big poopy-heads!” Please. This is a poison the well tactic. Besides, the internet will allow the average joe (or josephine, if somebody nitpicks) 5 to 10 minutes to eviscerate any of these claims.

9.) DOUBT CASTING:  This trick consists of dwelling on minor or
trivial flaws in the evidence, or presenting speculations as to
how the evidence might be flawed as though mere speculation is
somehow as damning as actual facts.  The assumption here is that
any flaw, trivial or even merely speculative, is necessarily
fatal and provides sufficient grounds for throwing out the
evidence. The skeptic often justifies this with the
"extraordinary evidence" ploy.

That’s a strawman argument, but of course, this guy runs to the library to do research, so I’ll cut him a break.

In the real world, of course, the evidence for anything is seldom
100% flawless and foolproof.  It is almost always possible to
find some small shortcoming which can be used as an excuse for
tossing out the evidence.  If a definite problem can’t be found,
then the skeptic may simply speculate as to how the evidence
*might* be flawed and use his speculations as an excuse to
discard the information.  For example, the skeptic might point
out that the safeguards or controls during one part of a psi
experiment weren’t quite as tight as they might have been and
then insist, without any supporting facts, that the subject(s)
and/or the researcher(s) probably cheated because this is the
"simplest" explanation for the results (see "Sock ‘em with Occam"
and "Extraordinary Claims"; "Raising the Bar" is also relevant).

Ahem…SMALL SHORTCOMING? Are you kidding me? So, when do I get to see an actual telekinetic feat? Get someone to read my mind? Pick 10 out of 10 cards accurately? I mean, when it’s not a Las Vegas act?

10.) THE SNEER:  This gimmick is an inversion of "Stupid, Crazy
Liars."  In "Stupid, Crazy Liars," the skeptic attacks the
character of those advocationg certain ideas or presenting
information in the hope of discrediting the information.  In "THE
SNEER," the skeptic attempts to attach a stigma to some idea or
claim and implies that anyone advocating that position must have
something terribly wrong with him. "Anyone who believes we’ve
been visited by extraterresrial aliens must be a lunatic, a fool,
or a con man. If you believe this, you must a maniac, a simpleton
or a fraud." The object here is to scare others away from a
certain position without having to discuss facts.

Really, outside of the spelling errors, this is known as the Ad hominem attack. And really, this fella’s something else again. Bigfoot, UFOs, Psi phenomenon? How can I NOT snark at this person?

To be fair, some of these tricks or tactics (such as "The Big
Lie," "Doubtcasting" and "The Sneer") are often used by believers
as well as skeptics.  Scientifc Creationists and Holocaust
Revisionists, for example, are particularly prone to use
"Doubtcasting." Others ploys, however, such as "Sock ‘em with
Occam" and "Extraordinary Claims," are generally used by skeptics
and seldom by others.

Because of course, skeptics are usually less prone to cognitive dissonance.

Unfortunately, effective debating tactics often involve bad
logic, e.g. attacking an opponent’s character, appeals to
emotion, mockery and facetiousness, loaded definitions, etc. And
certainly skeptics are not the only ones who are ever guilty of
using manipulative and deceptive debating tactics.  Even so,
skeptics are just as likely as anyone else to twist their
language, logic and facts to win an argument, and keeping these
tricks in mind when dealing with skeptics may very well keep you
from being bamboozled.

‘Bamboozled’?  I don’t know abut that (it invokes an image of taking someone’s wallet)…but what is a ‘loaded definition’? Usually in any debate, the definitions as well as the premises have to be agreed upon. English is like Greek in one respect – one word has multiple definitions, which we all wrestle with on a regular basis.

Here is my issue:

I would love to live in a world where aliens dropped down from the skies for a bit of a natter, or there was a Bigfoot, or paranormal powers actually existed. And there are such worlds. Unfortunately, they exist in science fiction stories, graphic novels, movies, or in anime. The fact is that the human brain is a huge receptor, and it loves to be deceived. Especially by itself. So, yes, the bar by necessity HAS to be high. I for one do not require 100% certainty. I’d settle for 90%. Hell, I’d be ambivalent at 50%.

Sadly, such percentiles are not forthcoming.

Till the next post then.

Judge clears way for dinosaur park to be seized

A federal judge has cleared the way for the government’s seizure of a creationism theme park in Pensacola owned by a couple convicted of tax fraud. A ruling by U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers states that the nine properties that make up Dinosaur Adventure Land as well as two bank accounts associated with the park will be used to satisfy $430,400 owed to the federal government. Kent Hovind, who founded the park and a ministry, Creation Science Evangelism, is serving 10 years in federal prison for failing to pay the Internal Revenue Service more than $470,000 in employee taxes. He was found guilty in November 2006 on 58 counts, including failure to pay employee taxes and making threats against investigators. The conviction culminated 17 years of Hovind sparring with the IRS. Saying he was employed by God and his ministers were not subject to payroll taxes, he claimed no income or property. Hovind is incarcerated at the Edgefield Federal Correction Institution in South Carolina. His wife, Jo, also was sentenced to a year in federal prison for her role in the tax fraud. She’s currently jailed at the Federal Correctional Institution in Marianna. Rodgers’ 16-page order released late Thursday gives the government the green light to divide up the nine properties in and around the 5800 block of North Palafox Street and begin to sell them until the $430,400 forfeiture amount is satisfied. The properties have a combined value of more than what the Hovinds owe, according to Rodgers’ order, and any excess property available after the sales will be returned to the Hovinds.