Not surprisingly, Orac does a nice takedown of it. You'd be correct if you guessed mass media made fools of themselves in reporting on this story. They're such creative folk!
OK, Marc...why does this editor keep inserting youtube references when I try to embed non-youtube videos? I'm entering this directly through the HTML editor, and it appears to then reformat my html and throw in the broken youtube parts. Not cool.
Marc said 14 minutes later
It's the stupid YouTube plugin for the rich text editor I installed. I think it assumes all Flash content is YouTube (Which is a poor, but usually correct assumption here). I'll see if I can hack it or find a better version. I fixed it through the database manually though.
GJ said about 1 hour later
Thanks, man. I keep forgetting about editing these things in the DB. Duh.
See why they call folks who wrote the first two articles cranks?
PS. You irridate your food every time you microwave it--you're just using a different wavelength of radiation. And no, microwaving food doesn't wipe out food nutriets any more than a conventional oven does.
SciFi Channel is running Derren Brown's Mind Control series. Now, this is no John "Cold Reader" Edwards--but he does what Edwards does, what Sylvia "I talk to your angel in heaven" Browne does, and what James "Ice Cold Reader" VanPraagh does...only he does it without claiming that he's psychic. He'll show you just how easy it is to fool the human brain into thinking magically, when there is really nothing magical occurring at all.
I watched some of the episodes online. When he was taking the stuff from those people on the street, I couldn't imagine doing that, same thing with the paper money. The hand raising in the mall seemed ridiculous too... definitely going to have me watching. I wish he would explain what exactly he's doing to cause the misdirection.
Geoff said about 7 hours later
I watched this first episode...are they trimming the clips down, because I don't see any mind control tricks. He walks up, asks them how much money they have, and boom he has it right....?
Ok.....seems stupid to me, I'm not impressed, other than the taking of wallets. I'd rather watch Blaine.
Mind tricks. Go to youtube and watch him emulate John Edwards. He left 'em crying...they said he was the most accurate psychic they'd ever dealt with.
Go to youtube and catch the out-of-body trick they played on a gal. Boy, what the power of suggestion can do to someone with magical beliefs.
GJ said about 9 hours later
And as far as the guessing of how much cash--he's doing it to show that it's really not that hard...but people are still shocked at how accurate he is. He must be "psychic!"
The court ruling I'm referring to is reported here. You may think that religion is my favorite target of scorn (or second-favorite, since it's obvious the disdain I have for all things related to mediums, astrology, talking with the dead, etc.). Nope...it's medicinal woo that drives me insane. Why? Because ignorence is a killer.
A little background. Autism appears to be a growing phenomenom, although whether it is because we recognize it more now, or that it's actually occuring more is a hotly debated. Of course, the loonies are certain that it's on the rise, I mean, after all, THEIR kid got it, for crying out loud. This leads into the next realm of disaster:
What causes autism? Truth: not known. Theories: lots of them, none even remotely proven yet. Falsehoods: thermisol (contained in the MMR vaccine until recently as a preservative) causes autism.
Mercury, as you probably know, is a poison. Some doctors with the surname of Geier have taken on a life mission of trying to prove that there is a link between mercury poisoning and autism. Never mind that....the amount of mercury in a vaccine is very small; that there has been no proof to date that this level of mercury causes *any* harm, let alone autism; and that the Geiers have shown themselves to be less than reputable scientists (I use that term loosely). Their priorities are likely different than they appear, if you catch my drift. Now go reread that article, and notice the details about the large fund at stake. This starting to make some sense now?
Much like a medium, the Geier's (father and son) play to what their audience wants to hear. Parents of autistic children have a strong need to understand why their child has the disease: they (rightly) figure that if we can find out what causes it, we can both figure out how to prevent it, and possible correct the disease in affected children.
Now, of course, is where this gets dangerous. A lot of these parents came away from the Geier's research with two nuggest of info: any mercury in a child's body is bad, and that vaccines are bad. Believe it or not, even though thermisol is no longer in the MMR vaccine (it's still in flu vaccines), they are still being discouraged from getting vaccines. As a result, things like POLIO are making a comeback. Read up on herd vaccination theory to see why lettting a few knuckleheads that decide vaccines are a bad thing can muck everything up for the rest of us.
Then, we get to removing this nasty mercury from the child. They recommend chelation therapy: this is a method to cleanse heavy metals (like mercury) from the body with the use of chemical like DMSA. As you'd guess, this is a legit method to remove heavy metals from someone who has heavy contamination. As such, it has risks and must be done by qualified personnel. Well, surprise, a lot of altie clinics will do this for you. Never mind it has never been shown to have a demonstratable effect on a child's autism. Worse...in August 2005, a boy died due to improperly applied chelation therapy. He may have been the first, but he won't be the last. Like I said, it's a risky procedure and does have significant side effects...with no demonstrated benefit.
So what's my point in all this? First, the court case. The anti-vaccine crowd has realized they can't win in the science world, where facts rule supreme. Instead, they're trying to win in court, which is often only partially based on fact--much like the antivax crowd's science.
Second, some or all of us will have children, or already do. There is a lot of antivax literature out there that *sounds* good. If you are at all considering not getting your kids vaccinated, I urge you to research that with the utmost diligence and base your decision on fact, not emotion. Word to the wise--anything that references Big Pharma is a red herring. I'll point you to one of my favorite bloggers, Orac, who has frequent columns on this whole autism - vaccine controversy.
Remember me mentioning that the rate of Autism has climbed supposedly, but we're not sure if it's a measurement thing or a actual increase? Well, this group has and they came to the conclusion that it's OBVIOUSLY due to all the wireless signals now floating around the world today. But of course! I mean, it's not like anything else has changed in the world during this time, right? How have our diets changed? How about the amount of sunlight we get? Geez, louise...there are a zillion variables, and not a one can be linked just based on "hey, this wasn't here back in the 1970s, but is now, so it must be responsible for the upswing in autism....never mind there might not even BE a trigger, and instead we find that this disease is actually GENETIC. Duh.
Steve said 1 day later
I think it's because most people think they know more about things these days than anyone ever did. Unfortunately, I think we know a little bit of a lot of things these days, instead of a lot about fewer things. And it's not knowing the whole story that is causing all this stupid controversy.
On a somewhat similar topic, Have you ever heard Bucky Covington's song "Different World?" It's a great song about how we all grew up just fine with all the things people wouldn't think of these days.
Well, to save you rock and roll only guys from having to listen to some dreaded country, here are the lyrics:
We were born to mothers who smoked and drank
Our cribs were covered in lead-based paint
No childproof lids
No seatbelts in cars
Rode bikes with no helmets
and still here we are
Still here we are
We got daddy's belt when we misbehaved
Had three TV channels you got up to change
No video games and no satellite
All we had were friends and they were outside
Playin' outside
It was a different life
When we were boys and girls
Not just a different time
It was a different world
School always started the same everyday
the pledge of allegience
not every kid made the team when they tried
We got disappointed but that was alright
We turned out alright
It was a different life
When we were boys and girls
Not just a different time
It was a different world
GJ said 2 days later
This song might as well be called "Nostalgia". If conservatives have but one thing in common, it's that they positively hate change, and romanticize the heck out of the years gone by. Not meant as a dig...mostly just an observation.
But yes, all too often people are quick to jump on the latest study, treat it as proof, and demand changes to combat this new "threat." Same problem exists with the healthy food of the week, dangerous chemical of the week, etc. That's not to say every warning is bogus, but oh how we like new warnings.
I heard the following crap make it's way out of John McCain's mouth during the Republican debate the other day. It went like this:
"School boards should have the right to set their own education policy. It's my opinion that all views, all theories need to be taught to our children."
This is code for "I want schools to be able to teach Intelligent Design if they so choose." The backers of ID say, hey, evolution as a theory has lots of holes, and this ID is a competing theory. We've been over this before in the blog--ID is not a theory. See, a theory about the origin of species has so say something other than "Evolution is wrong, and here's why."
So, ignore for a second about me not thinking too fondly of ID. Imagine, instead, that the 9/11 conspiracy nuts get in on this argument. Shouldn't then "Loose Change" be shown along with "Fahrenheit 911" when talking about the events of that day in history class? How about letting Holocaust deniers have a say when talking about what the Germans did to the Jews and other undesirables during WWII? What about the moon landing hoax supporters? Should they not get to counter the "theory" that we actually landed on the moon?
Of course not, right? These are all crackpot ideas. You have to draw the line somewhere, and you draw it with the evidence stick. Have evidence to back up your theory? Is it compelling? Are there any obvious flaws that your theory cannot explain? That is how we figure out what theories are the wheat, and what are the chaff. Not all wheat theories hold up, but the chaff ones never do, so why bother wasting time with them?
So, let's be clear. The proponents of ID want ID taught in school to counter the teaching of the theory evolution and show students that there is a "scientific" alternative to evolution that leaves room for some kind of something: God, The Force, something. However, it's not scientific, as it makes no provable claims about the origin of species. Nada, nothing. Does evolution have holes? Of course it does--any theory does, and you work to close those holes over time. Maybe someday we'll find a problem with evolution model, and discard it in favor of a better working model...but until that model comes around, evolution is the best explaination for the origin of species.
So, of course, the IDers want to push the teaching of ID in via the political process. This is the problem--just because a bogus theory is popular, it does not make it any more functional or valuable. There are a lot of people in the world that believe that 9/11 was an inside job--but they have virtually nothing beyond circumstantial evidence, and a lot of problems within itself that cannot be corrected. As a result, we will not be teacing that in school--so why try to teach ID? It doesn't pass the theory test, either.
So, thank you John McCain, and the rest of you politicians who have stated this opinion. You're not getting my vote to help turn our science education in this country into a joke.
Nobody picked on me for misspelling Intelligent? It was spelled Inteeligent for the better part of a day. Irony, anyone?
Geoff said about 21 hours later
I carn't spell eether, must be a charecteristick of smart peeple
GJ said 1 day later
Yeah, but I read more than the occasional DVD insert. :)
Geoff said 2 days later
I'll have you know that some of those inserts are fairly lengthy. My lord of the rings trilogy was probably 4 or 5 pages....that's almost a whole prologue! I also read RUSH lyrics...that has to count for something (ok I set you up for it)
GJ said 2 days later
Rush lyrics? You mean like, "Goo goo, gaa gaa?"
Geoff said 4 days later
For the intellectually challenged, yes.
GJ said 6 days later
So that's Rush's audience! No wonder I've never figured out why they're so popular with the lobotomy crowd before.
Breaking news! Kurt Cameron and his buddy Ray Comfort are going to prove, on national TV, that GOD EXISTS. He's going to do this without mentioning the Bible, or Jesus, or any gobbledygook. I don't know about you, but I'm truly excited. Maybe I was wrong about this whole "God not existing" thing.
I've heard that he's going to demonstrate the Atheist's Nightmare on this show. Never heard of it? Never fear, I have a video where Ray explains it, and Kurt sits next to him looking pretty. Or something like that.
Fascinating, isn't it? Don't read the comments until AFTER you watch the video.
There is a slight problem with this nightmare scenario for atheists. See, culinary bananas (which is what he is describing above) don't have seeds. Non-culinary bananas are not very similar to this easy to eat variety, and lack most of the "design features" quoted in the video.
Why don't they have seeds, you ask? Very good question. Culinary bananas don't have seeds because they are genetic manipulated breed, much like donkeys. Culinary bananas were invented...by man. They propagate only with man's help. Sorry, James. God didn't design the banana. Man did. You couldn't have picked a dumber proof of God's existence.
He's going on this TV show to debate two atheists. They're going to rip him to shreds, especially if he uses the banana proof. There is no way to prove the existence of God, period. It's a faith thing, through and through.
So...this isn't a dig on belief in God. It's a dig on two fundamentally stupid fundamentalists. Need I remind you that our elected president is one as well.
GJ said 22 minutes later
Mistakenly referred to Ray Comfort as James in the above comment. Comment editing doesn't work yet.
Darcy said about 1 hour later
And it is Kirk Cameron you doofus!
Comfort's arguments made my brain hurt.
Marc said about 2 hours later
Atheist or not, this guy's argument reminds me of anything having to do with Mega Churches, and all of them are nuts. I was actually waiting for Comfort to put his hand on Cameron's head and heal him, then Cameron would fall to the floor. At least then it could have been tagged "funny."
Geoff said about 3 hours later
I would have loved to have seen that!
Ray's banana proof would have been better served if he tried to disprove Darwin's theory of evolution to help prove God: If Darwin's "Survival of the fittest" was true, then the banana wouldn't lend itself to be so easily eaten by humans and apes. Thus, Darwin is full of crap and God creates to serve man (oh and apes too!).
I think that would have been a better approach. His intelligence rating would have gone up to say...the critters under a rock, rather than the rock itself. Oh well, at least we got to see Kirky give us his warm, dumb smile. I think I might go have a human harvested Dole banana, I hear those God branded ones don't shape up.
GJ said about 22 hours later
Darwin's theory isn't "survival of the fittest." You've been listening to the creationists too much. ;) Part of the the strategy of those who oppose evolution is to paint it as something it's not. See this great PDF, it's a great introduction into all thing evolution. I promise, it won't make your brain hurt nearly so much as that Ray Comfort video.
GJ said about 22 hours later
Btw, disproving evolution is not going to prove God. If we find a new mechanism to describe how humans came about, and we truly do find that it replaced what we though of a evolution, I can guarantee it won't be any more palatable to those to hate evolution so. If anything, they'll hate it more--as it will further reduce the mystery of God.
Geoff said 1 day later
Your right, disproving evolution doesn't prove God, however I think it is a better tactic than saying, "a banana fits in my hand, therefor God exists." Remember, I was trying to think on Ray's brain frequency. It is difficult, I know, but perhaps you need to eat a few more bananas and then you shall see the light. I mean, what was this Darwin guy thinking?!?
...I funny....don't hurt me.
Abby said 1 day later
*laughs*
Funny. xD
Just because bananas are quite convenient doesn't prove anything.
(and I finished another book after buying it in the same day)
GJ said 2 days later
Oh, one more thing. Most religious folks, even fundamentalists, are not as dumb as these two. However, they are going onto national television debating those folks behind The Blasphemy Challenge, some fairly smart atheists who go by the handle "The Rational Responders." In a live, open debate, they'd eat Ray for breakfast. However, he may have worked a deal with the network to get editing rights on the debate, so what shows up on TV might not reflect what really was debated. We'll see, as the Rational Responders will likely post the whole thing on their site after the broadcast. It'll be interesting to compare and see what the network filtered. They do have a financial incentive to not alienate their religious viewers.
Geoff said 2 days later
I'm glad you brought up "The Blasphemy Challenge." I've been looking for this scripture, Mark 3:29, which talks about the unforgivable sin. The wacky priest at Bishop Ludden told us about this once (didn't mention it was in the bible though)...and I just assumed he was a moron, but it is actually written in the bible. How funny is that!
So I guess the all powerful one will forgive us for everything....oh, except if I spit on the Holy Spirit. I can crucify Jesus, deny God the father and still repent, but you better not mess with old Holy one, or else you get the boot!
Do Christians even know about this? I'm surprised it wasn't eradicated from the bible as it pretty much contradicts the foundation of Christianity.
GJ said 2 days later
The Blasphemy Challenge was funny, but totally immature, too. It did serve to reveal the idiocy of that particular part of faith, and what was more interesting was the panicked responses of some well-meaning folks who were sure these challenge participants had just damned themselves to hell.
Oh, another update on Ray--here's his new proof:
When you see a painting, you know there was a painter.
When you see a building, you know there was a builder.
So then creation is proof of a creator.
According to this story we have a nun who apparently was cured of her Parkinson's Disease overnight, and that she and others are attributing this miracle to John Paul II. Of course, for those who don't know, you must have at least one miracle attributed to you in order to be declared a saint.
I'll confess--this whole saint business was always a little weird to me, even back when I wasn't doing the non-belief thing. I mean, God is the all-powerful being here, so any miracles have to be attributed to he / she / it, right? (I'm going to use he from here one out, forgive me for being lazy). So what does the saintly person do to get the miracle attributed to them?
Oh, wait, I think I see. You pray to the dead person (say, John Paul II) and if you get what you prayed for, it's a miracle from God that can be attributed to this dead person. Ergo, this dead person interceded with God on your (or your prayer's target's) behalf, so the miracle is attributed to the dead person. Once we've convinced ourselves of this, we then basically say "they were such a good person when they were alive" and declare them a saint. Well, technically, the average Joe doesn't, the bigwigs in the church do. They know better that we do. Or something like that.
Here's a problem: afflictions, including disease and cancers, go away on their own all the time...sometimes without any medical treatment. Our bodies have significant resources to fight off these problems...and even against the nastier ones, sometimes we win without any help.
Scientists study these cases when they can, in order to glean information that might lead to a cure for that affliction. What is different about this person that made them recover, or made them immune? Can it be replicated in other victims to help them? That's what science is all about.
Religion, being built on myth rather than science, says, no, it was obviously a miracle! In this nun's case, people were actively praying for her in the name of John Paul II, and she was cured! It's a miracle, cut-and-dry.
The scientists look at the cured person, and often find one of two things: (1) they were misdiagnosed to begin with, and what they had was something else entirely. That item did respond to a treatment, and the symptoms vanished. No mystery there, except the how and why of the misdiagnose. (2) The person has some gene that grants resistivity, or ingested / was exposed to something that provided some benefit, or was sick with some other condition that competed with the obvious one and destroyed it.
In any of those cases, they work on proof--because they want something they can take to cure others with, so it had better be repeatable and consistent. So, off it goes to the labs for testing. Sometimes a cure is found--more often, just more knowledge is gained that brings us closer to a cure.
On the other side, the religious folk don't have proof. They have hearsay, poor logical induction, and their belief, and nothing else. You say, of course, why is this a bad thing?
Two reasons:
1. They are declaring a person's recovery the work of God. Therefore, science doesn't need to explain it (and they'd prefer that they didn't, lest it shatter the illusion they've constructed). Active denial of science is one bad effect--the other being lack of additional knowledge gained about a possible cure. They both suck.
2. They then elevate this person to saint--and then, anything this person did during their life can be held as a good example to others. Let's face it, nobody lives a perfect life. People with sinister aims can pick out the examples in this saint's life that fit their agenda, and push it on the faithful: "See--God favored this person for what he or she did, so we should emulate them!" Of course, God didn't favor the person, we did. And the one with the agenda is obvious looking to only highlight what works for him, be it good or bad. This is the hideous logic that can lead to blind faith in stupid commands--it's the genesis of religious terrorism, be it homegrown (abortion bombers) or overseas (like you need an example).
This is just one example of silliness in religion. It doesn't afflict just Christianity--all of them are silly on some level, because at the end of the day, they are human-created edifices. Humans are silly. God is supposed to be perfect..
Oh, back to the concept of miracles. Now, this gal and her pals were praying to JP II to intercede for her. How many millions of others did the same, and got nothing from God? That's not the actions of a benevolent God--that either due to a totally arbitrary God, or an evil one. I'll give you a hint--a total arbitrary God is what we science-based folks call chance.
Chance simple states that her affliction was cured by her own body. She then framed that by her religious background, and tada, it was a miracle!
So...what do you think? Saints / miracles? Fantasy or reality? Harmless or harmful?
It isn't a miracle, just because someone says it is. It is an anomaly for which science has yet to unravel. There is no proof. It all comes down to faith, which I have come to learn should be deemed "blissful ignorance." A 2000 year old book tells me miracles are real. Well, I'm sure there are a few other old books out there that tell you the world is flat, and that the Sun orbits the Earth, and obviously we have proven this false. However, until we can prove that miracles don't exist, they can exist.
WRONG, thanks for playing.
I remember watching 20/20 and they were talking about Heaven and if it exists. Near the end, they interviewed an Atheist and their point of view. One thing she said I really liked and I'll crudely paraphrase it for you.
"It is not our job to prove that God/Heaven do not exist. It would be like me asking you to believe that I saw a green man standing outside my door. Of course you wouldn't believe me, but until you can prove to me that he doesn't exist, then he could."
I like the simplicity of the analogy. Unless we have evidence that Johnny boy swooped down from heaven, snatched up that disease, and removed it from a nun (go figure), then why in the heck should we believe it? I think GJ has described the harmful consequences of this thinking quite well and I agree totally.
Let me be the first to say that science is not all perfect and knowing. It isn't always exact, and it does not have answers to every question. However it's essence is to seek the truth by observation and experimentation while being falsifiable. I can't say the same about Religion or some of the garbage that it reaps. If people could get that through their head, THAT would be the real miracle.
GJ said about 3 hours later
That's the point of science. It's not perfect, and cannot ever hope to be. It relies on self-correction, and change in our understanding of the world is built in. Change is a scary thing--it sometimes throws what we took as a given right out the window. That being said...it only does that with proof, not technobabble nor faith nor intimidation.
A good example of the self-correction of science. Back in the late 80s, Fleishmann and Pons announced to the world (note, to the world, not the scientific community--a sign of things to come, to be sure) that they had discovered cold fusion. People were estatic--fusion is a far safer and efficient form of nuclear energy, but it's damn near impossible to contain without super-high temperature fusion. What they were claiming was the ability to create a fusion reaction at near-room-temperature.
However, over the next several months, no one else was able to replicate their experiment. Inside of a year, cold fusion as a scientific concept was dead, but it lives on in the hopes of its proponents and the fringe elements of society who think Big Government killed it to preserve Big Oil. Did Fleischman and Pons really mean to fake this? Nope...but they strayed from the tried and true scientific method (you know, the one that says hypotheses need repeatable experiments validating their claims before they get theory status) in a rush to beat their rivals to the punch. Only trouble was, their experiment was flawed, but they wanted it so bad they began to believe in it. Once done, they were able to continue to do experiments that appeared (to them) to prove cold fusion. Unfortunately, it made them blind to the mistakes they were making...and thus the science community as a whole rejected their claim. They became outcasts when they continued making the claim and devising new ways to falsely prove it.
This belief shown by Fleischman and Pons is no different than the belief in anything else. When you convince yourself of a belief, you begin to filter how you see the world. Anything that supports your belief, no matter how wacky, you cling to. Anything that challenges your belief you rationalize and discard, no matter how convincing. Get deep enough into that belief, and it may well take a life-altering event to shake you out of it.
So where does this leave it? Do I think religion has a place in this world? I'll have another post in the coming days that outlines what I think in that regard. You just might be surprised at my conclusions. That is, if I don't decide to break up all this philosophy with a game review or some other less cerebral topic.
Steve said about 11 hours later
Boy oh boy, you guys need to take a step back and reconsider some of what religion does for us.
Let's leave the people involved in religion out of the picture for a second, and I'll talk about what religion means to me.
While I might not be a fully practicing Catholic, I do appreciate the years I spent in Catholic School, as well as everything I learned at church. Religion has taught me how to be a good person, and has helped guide me to what is right and wrong. Of course I'm generalizing here. I still have a free mind, and don't take every little thing the Catholic church preaches to be true, or right. I think it's stupid that they don't let women do the same things as men. I think it's stupid that they are against condoms and such.
I seriously beleive that the degredation in people's behaviors today over just 50 years ago is greatly related to the downfall of religion in this country. I'm flabbergasted by how poorly some people act around others. A lot of people. Take one example - how many times have you dealt with inconsiderate drivers? People sitting in the left lane. People driving inconsistent speeds. These people are only concerned with themselves on the road, and have no consideration for others. Ok, now think about how often you see people holding the door open for others. I've noticed that it seems to happen less and less often these days. How about the jerks that are not handicapped, but think it's ok to park in a handicapped parking spot because they are only going to be shopping for 10 minutes? I'm not saying these things didn't happen 50 years ago, but I bet they happened a lot less often. How about your neighbors? How many of them do you know? Do you do block parties? Do you see other areas doing block parties? Heck, growing up, we always used to have a couple partys in the middle of the circle, usually for 4th of July and Memorial Day. I used to love those days. Happen much anymore? Nope.
There's one great flaw about all religions - they are run by humans, and humans, no matter how good, make mistakes. So no religion is going to be perfect. Take what you can learn from religion, and be happy.
Sorry, I'm in a bit of a bad mood, as I just got home from work at 9:00 PM tonight, on a freaking Friday of all days, and I have to go to the assembly plant tomorrow (two hours away) to do a 20 minute evaluation. Grr.....
GJ said about 13 hours later
First off, you've made a totally unprovable assumption...that people today are far worse behaved than they were 50 years ago. Let me state first that one's behavior is dictated by culture, and different cultures have very different opinions on what good behavior is. Over the past 50 years, we've seen a huge shift in our culture to a much more varied melting pot--mostly because those of the lesser known cultures from the 50s and 60s now have far more buying power, and are thus far more visible to those of use in the middle class. Add to that the fact we live much closer together and run our lives at much faster speeds. Yep, the old customs will die hard. That doesn't make the new ones all bad--what's happening is we're feeling our way into the next mode of existence for humanity.
Next, you bring up the change in socialization that has taken place in society over the past 100 years. As we continue to get more populated (gee, another thing you can blame on religion) and more mobile, people have become more isolated. They don't all stay in the same hometowns they grew up in as kids, and they find that most people that live near them are in the same boat--they've relocated from somewhere. Still, the social parties do exist in some neighborhoods (like ours, not that we're socialites. hehe).
I am not saying that religion never did any good. However, it is ignorant to believe that religion does no harm. I'm of the belief that religion by and large today is more harmful than good--and has been for centuries.
A common argument theologists make about good deeds: that, without God, there would be no good deeds. Everybody would be all for themselves, and the world would be a terrible place. Guess what? The world IS a terrible place at any given time in any given location. But we, as a community of humans, try to improve our lot together, because we do far more as a unit than we can ever do alone. This alone gives us reason to offer comfort to others...it both helps the group, and builds reinforcement for that group-positive behavior. One of the reasons religions developed was to teach this concept...but it was a human construction, not a divine one.
However, over time, religion became an entity in and of itself. It declares itself the ultimate authority in all things, whether or not those things fly in the face of common sense or outright proof. It is this that makes religion so dangerous. It teaches our young to be sheep--to not think for themselves--to follow the crowd. Sheep are easily manipulated into doing evil things...and it happens again and again in history. Religion isn't the only example--Hitler used this same methodology to carry out his evil campaign.
So, what does religion do for me now? Nothing. My kids are good kids--and they're being taught to be good by their parents. I don't tell them they have God to answer for their sins--instead, they have their parents, their teachers, and eventually all of society to do that. I tell them--they can play by the rules of society, and work to change those rules they disagree with, but if they decide to abandon those rules, there will be consequences and they must be prepared to deal with them. Being a bad person isn't a rewarding choice in life--being a good one is. You don't need the promise of an afterlife to figure that out.
In the end--Mom and Dad taught us how to be good--the church didn't.
Geoff said about 23 hours later
Amen to that. I agree with what Steve has said about society, but I don't think it is a result of Religion, heck I'd blame the computer more so, not to mention women in the work place. These days, both parents are usually working to be able to survive, and most barely have enough time to take care of the kids, let alone throw a block party. I would hedge a bet that many of these parties were organized by women. With more women in the workplace, they have less time to do this stuff. Perhaps this also impacts our "ownership" of the road. We're all in a hurry now a days.
Steve said 1 day later
Sorry if I mislead about something - I don't think that religion does not harm either. Just one look at the extremists shows that. As I said, religion is not perfect. Take what you like from it, and discard the rest. I agree Mom and Dad taught us good morals, but they used religion to help them do so.
Geoff, I'd be careful about blaming women for the degredation in society. Who says women have to be the homemakers? Can't men? Does anyone have to stay at home with the kids once they are in school? The problem I see is when Moms and Dads both work lots of hours, either because they want more money, or they are forced to because of their job. Well, it's up to the parents to choose. Find a new job, accept less money, or choose work over their children.
That said, I hope that if and when I do get married and have kids, that my wife would want to stay home with the children, at least until they are in school. If she is not willing, then I would want to. I don't know much about raising kids, but I think that a lot of their development happens at an early age, and I want either myself or my wife to guide them, not a nanny. Once they are in school, it's much easier, assuming you don't work a lot of hours.
So um, perhaps we have two topics we should ban from discussion now - abortion and religion. I'm going to stay out of future ones, becuase there's no sense in going back and forth about the same stuff over and over again. We all live our lives the way we want to, and arguing on this blog isn't going to change that.
GJ said 1 day later
Aw, but it's so much fun! :)
Marc said 1 day later
I think it's interesting we're discussing the changes religion and computers have had on our society in these comments, because I think one of the reasons religion is getting a bad rep. is in help due to computers.
First off, it's nice that computers, or more broadly mass communication, are giving us the ability to see the faults in everything, including religion. The whole priest scandal in the Catholic church has helped to cause some changes, or at least is on its way to.
On the other hand, it's also inaccurately pigeonholing it. Yes, there's a lot of sick priests out there, but there's way more decent ones. I think if any of you have taken psychology, you'll remember that humans tend to remember drastically bad things rather then drastically good things. Just think about the news you see at night, what types of stories take up most of the time? Murders, wars, corruption. Oh, then the small story on local charity group tossed in there, but I'm sure that won't be talked about tomorrow.
I think we're seeing good and bad changes, obviously. It's good that we're able to realize faults in all parts of society, so we can hopefully fix them, but at the same time, like Steve said, I think we're beginning to forget the good things. As much as you may not want to hear it, I think religion, or reflection for the agnostic, helps to remember the good or be thankful for it.
As for John Paul being a saint, I could care less...so could he. He did some good, I'm sure he's done bad. Sainthood is basically like knighthood in my mind, it's simply a recognition.
Geoff said 1 day later
uh oh Marc, get ready for GJ's wrath!
You do bring up a good point that "sex sells." We don't hear about the nice things that religion provides, the charity to the poor, confirmation students visiting the local elderly center, etc... These are all very good things that religious groups provide to society. I'm not quite as anti-religion as GJ projects himself to be (whether he is or isn't is not my call), so I think Religion can be a very good thing for some people. Coming back to Miracles for a moment, I think what tickles many athiests are the outrageous statements they would have you believe. This miracle story is one example. So is the Cold Fusion example GJ provided for science.
The difference is how we are able to question these statements in science. Religion, um not so much. Sure Catholics these days don't strictly adhere to the rules as much as they used to (not by the pope's choice), but look at the middle east. This is where religious beliefs have gone bad....way bad. I think calling these followers sheep would be a compliment. Instances like these make me personally werey of some religions (and governments). Personally, if someone believes in one god or many, I don't care. Believe what you want to, but you should be able to think for yourself without persecution. This goes for Religion, Government, Science, and Families too (except children under 18, they must obey thy father and mother :) Heck, I believe in aliens, and I have no proof of their existence! (bring it GJ hahaha)
I think what it comes down to, for me anyway, is "carpe diem" baby! If you want to spend your Sundays worshiping, go for it, me, I'd rather hang some drywall or wash my car. I spent my early childhood days looking for miracles, but now, I make miracles happen everyday (just look at the new blog design, its a beauty! LOL).
GJ said 2 days later
GJ's wrath, that's funny.
OK, let's stop assuming that I cannot see the good that religious organizations do, or that I am not recognizing the fact that on the whole, secular organizations are nowhere near as involved as religious ones in helping the poor and sick. I'm well aware of that, and that is a very important role to fill. You will notice that I do not attack those activities of the churches.
What I do attack is the belief in falsehoods, because of the pain, suffering, ignorance and tragedy it leads to. We don't even need to look overseas at Muslim religious terrorists to see the effects--try looking right here in the US. Sometimes it's violence: anti-gay and anti-abortion violence is solely fueled by religious fervor. Sometimes it's mind control: think Scientology and other cult-like followings. More often, it's suppression of facts to ensure no challenges to a religion's view of the world: think evolution, reproduction and population science.
These falsehoods, and the work that goes into maintaining them, is what turns the majority of Americans into easily malleable sheep. I'm not accusing any of you of this, but how many people do you know, on both the conservative and liberal ends of the spectrum, who vote and act the way they do because of what they're told by the talking heads of their political parties, churches, and other sources of influence? I don't know about you--but I see tons of them. They scare me to death.
Marc said 2 days later
I agree GJ, I hope I didn't seem like I was attacking anyone for not seeing the good that can come of religion, I actually was going for more the society as a whole disregarding its benefits. I wholeheartedly agree there's plenty of bad that comes of it as well.
Here comes my typical you should really check out Rush comment. Apparently, the next album (due out May 1st!) is focused very heavily on this very subject. Heck, even one of the album artworks shows a baby in a baby carriage, being struck by lightning, with good weather on one side and stormy on the other. Neil, the lyricist, even says that his influences came from the spoon feeding people are receiving of their believes and how both good and bad come from it. Obviously I can't tell you how well thought out the lyrics will be, but if you can get past Geddy's voice, you may actually appreciate their lyrics for once GJ. :)
GJ said 2 days later
I think this is just a sneaky way to get me to listen to Rush!!!
Marc said 2 days later
Will it work?
Geoff said 2 days later
When it comes to Rush, we are religious fanatics and will do anything to convert you.....baaaaahhh!
GJ said 2 days later
Nope. My CD players are Rush-proof.
Geoff said 2 days later
Ah, but what about your mp3 player? There's our exhaust port, Marc, let's get him!
Marc said 2 days later
Maybe I'll throw a midi in the background on the blog so he can't get away from it. :)
Geoff said 2 days later
Excellent, perhaps a few songs can cycle, with the final song being "One Little Victory"
;)
GJ said 3 days later
a midi...on the blog? die, infidels!
Eric said 4 days later
This post sure transformed. I bet I can change that - RELIGION IS GREAT. Blue Cross/Blue Shield should be a saint!
Geoff said 4 days later
lol!
GJ said 4 days later
You'll find discussions always get lively here...and often go all over the place. Kind of like home. And Rush still sucks.
Geoff said 4 days later
That's it...Marc, time to launch the Midi's...in fact, do an if statement on GJ's login so it only plays for him, and make sure he is unable to disable the music :)
Add this to your baloney detection kit. It's a great resource for identifying woo-woo products, if you can't spot them in spite of all the anti-pseudoscience stuff I post on this blog.
I've posted about good old Sylvia before, she of the Montel Williams talk show and really gross fingernails.
Apparently, Robert Lancaster got an interview with Sylvia Brown's ex-husband (divorced in 1974). It's eye-opening--well, eye-opening if you think Sylvia isn't an evil, money-grubbing fake. Check it out!
