AAI Convention – A Theory Of Disbelief

disbelief of godDan and I are just returning from the 2009 AAI conference in Los Angeles. It was truly awesome and I highly recommend that if you ever have the opportunity to attend one of their events, you do! Over 700 fellow atheists were in attendance. It was announced that next year the conference will be held in Montreal.

I am currently on a plane flying at 35,000 feet using wifi, listening to the Beatles on my ipod, while remotely connecting to my home desktop pc to transfer the image you see above to my laptop so that I can post this article. Yes creationists, science sure is an inconvenience. As I write this using so many different sciences at once, I am even more amazed by the ability of creationists to obstruct the upward scientific evolution of mankind. Which brings me to my point. I think I may have figured out why so many creationists happen to be global warming deniers, anti stem cell research advocates, etc.

The conference was nothing but one brilliant speech after another. I sat there finding it impossible to believe that any creation minded person could possibly walk out with their beliefs still intact. I watched and heard some of the most brilliant minds of our time explain evolution, biology, earth science, astro physics, genetics & embryonic cell research. How could anyone watch all of the same presentations and still have an ounce of doubt about our place in the universe? Then it hit me. My theory is something I call, the unification of belligerent thought theory. I have noticed that a significant (certainly higher than any probability model’s results) number of creationists also deny global warming for example. Why is this? There is no religious connection so to speak. So why?

I believe that some people just can’t deal with…being wrong (Ray Comfort & Ken Ham, I’m talking to you). I know this is a revolutionary concept. It is just impossible for me to believe that anyone could have sat through the lecture that Lawrence Krauss presented about the origins of our universe and walked away saying, ” …that doesn’t make any sense. That’s not what the bible says”. Religion requires commitment to a defensive posture. Under the light of any intelligent scrutiny, religion’s mythical and contradictory nature becomes a glittering jewel of  nonsense. I believe that belligerent thought is a style of thinking not limited to a particular topic. Generally people who are unwilling to accept being wrong about one belief are incapable of admitting the same for another. This means the road ahead for atheists to promote science and critical thinking skills may be longer than hoped. Have no fear though, a long road just means we need to travel faster to get to our destination of rationality.

Leavin’ on a jet plane! AAI Convention!

Tomorrow morning (at a horrifically early hour), Craig and I are flying out to Burbank via Los Angeles for the 2009 Atheist Alliance International Convention. Among the speakers are Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Daniel Dennett, PZ Myers, Sean Faircloth, Eugenie Scott, and Lawrence Krauss.

I’m not sure if we’ll get a chance to do any updates during the convention, but we will if we can.

We’re looking forward to an awesome weekend and a fantastic convention with over 500 fellow atheists! …and we’ll definitely report back with all the great stuff we see and hear.

I’m psyched!

You tell her, Christopher!

Via Pharyngula comes this video clip from the movie Horror Express starring Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing as rival archaeologists battling to stop a prehistoric ape-like creature with supernatural powers from going on a “mind-controlling killing spree.” (description on Netflix …sadly unavailable for rental)

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIdV60cT0PQ

I love it.

Star Trek …and God?

Kirk

Ok, Ok… I know. You’re saying this time you’ve lost it. Hear me out. The theme of many of the articles that I have written has been that religion is most certainly a man made creation. I believe the evidence in biblical text, for me at least, is clear. The Christian God is a flawed God, particularly in the Old Testament. As I began thinking about how man went about to create a God, I tried to think about how modern day fictional writers would “create” a God. Star Trek came to mind. There are many episodes of the original Star Trek that dealt with God or God-like beings. I think it’s interesting as we look at some of these episodes, how man chose to portray a modern interpretation of what a God-like entity might be like.

Chronologically the first episode to portray a “God” was titled, Where No Man Has Gone Before. In short, a crewman on the Enterprise is the victim of an energy field that grants him exponentially stronger telepathic and telekinetic powers as the hours go by. After the accident he grows increasing intolerant of mankind’s comparative weakness. He begins to consider himself a God and many of his human foibles become accentuated by his new found powers. He begins to exhibit the same traits as many of those exhibited by the God of the old testament. He becomes, arrogant, cruel and tormenting. Kirk eventually “takes care of business” before his crewman’s abilities continue to grow beyond their ability to contain him. In this episode mankind is far too immature to deal with supernatural powers of this magnitude.

Interestingly, the beings in the next two episodes evolved into their powers over millions of years. The Metrons (Arena)  and the Organians (Errand of Mercy) were powerful beings who used their abilities to bring peace and end violence. With their powers they found there was no reason for the petty behavior they were at one time capable of. They had evolved beyond the need for vengeance or wrathful behavior, a lesson the Christian God never seemed to learn (particularly in the Old Testament).

Star Trek is also full of powerful beings that are not so nice, just like the Bible.

Wouldn’t a real God, logically act more like a being who is mature and peaceful? If God is all knowing and all powerful what would be the point of  putting people through sickness, infant death, war, pestilence, plague, blight, starvation, etc. I know, we shouldn’t ask what God’s purpose is right? Well… why? Why should it be considered impertinent to ask?  Why would God have given us brains if we were meant not to use them for problem solving?

Science fiction writers come in all shapes and sizes. Some like to write about mean spirited supernatural beings and some write about gentle and loving supernatural beings. That describes the writers of Star Trek, the Old Testament and the New Testament. All three works of fiction.

Newly added to my favorite blogs…

Yesterday, while searching for some information on climate change, I happened upon a blog called The Way Things Break and was delighted. Not only did I find the information I was looking for, but I found all kinds of content related to the shenanigans of the anti-science crowd.

Here is the post, titled The Land of Make Believe, that won my heart…

Science denialism involves a lot of make believe and pretending:

  • Pretend as though claims made by an individual, conclusions of a single paper, etc. are actually the underlying science, so as to hold up any disagreement or revision as though it is evidence that the core science is somehow incorrect; alternatively, pretend such ‘one offs’ are definitive rebuttals to the core science.
  • Pretend as though areas explicitly acknowledged to be in need of further study are actually the underlying science, so as to hold up any disagreement or revision as though it is evidence that the core science is somehow incorrect.
  • Pretend that a non-representative sample selected so as to give the appearance of disagreement with the conclusions of the core science is evidence that the core science is somehow incorrect.
  • Pretend that the mere presence, absence, or relative amount of a substance is somehow a legitimate rebuttal to the real world effects (if any) it has been demonstrated to have.
  • Pretend that the existence of media hype, past examples of pseudoscience, etc. are somehow a legitimate rebuttal to the science.
  • Pretend non-sequiturs [Evolution can’t explain how life started!] are somehow a legitimate rebuttal to the science.
  • Pretend lay misunderstanding of the science is somehow a legitimate rebuttal to the science.
  • Pretend that personal ignorance or disbelief of the science is somehow a legitimate rebuttal to the science.
  • Pretend that a scientific consensus is somehow akin to religious faith; similarly, pretend that there is an “orthodoxy” being enforced that amounts to religious or political “persecution”, silencing of “dissent” etc. for failing to understand/accept the science. [Bonus points for claiming such in a high-profile media outlet such as a newspaper or television show]

And perhaps most importantly of all:

  • Pretend to be “skeptical” rather than anti-science.

I think I’ve seen almost every one of those points used at one time or another, whether used to deny evolution, climate change, or vaccinations (among other things).

Pure awesome.

Assertions Are Easy

Vampire Bat Some people wonder why evolution isn’t more accepted than it is. Despite the monumental amount of evidence in multiple fields of scientific inquiry, those pesky creationists, bringing up the same tired arguments, sometimes seem like B-movie zombies. No matter how many times they get smacked down, they keep coming back to torment scientifically-minded, rational people with their brainless moaning and logic resistance.

It’s not that they have anything new. Oh, sure. Occasionally a new bit of scientific evidence will be discovered… a fossil, some DNA functionality, a new species in a remote location… and they’ll latch onto it and somehow manage to twist it into something they claim supports intelligent design or a young Earth, but it doesn’t. Aside from that, it’s the same old stuff. Why, then, won’t their arguments die?

Because assertions are easy.

For example…

Transylvania has the largest population of vampire bats in the world, which is why vampire legends originated there.

See how easy that was? Does it sound reasonable? Sure it does, as long as you don’t know anything about vampire bats (or vampire legends). It took me about 20 seconds to come up with that claim and type the sentence. How long would it take you, if you don’t actually know any data about vampire bats, to refute my statement?

The internet helps, but you have to have motivation. Wikipedia is an obvious and expedient place to visit. Here’s what you find out from the Wikipedia article…

Vampire bats are bats whose food source is blood, a dietary trait called hematophagy. There are three bat species that feed solely on blood: the Common vampire bat (Desmodus rotundus), the Hairy-legged Vampire Bat (Diphylla ecaudata), and the White-winged Vampire Bat (Diaemus youngi). All three species are native to the Americas, ranging from Mexico to Brazil, Chile, and Argentina.

There you go. All the known species of vampire bats are native to the Americas. What if you don’t know where Transylvania is? Another visit to Wikipedia lets you know it’s in Romania… which isn’t part of either of the Americas. So it would seem that my statement has been soundly refuted and put to rest.

Or has it?

Oh no, I say.

There used to be another species of vampire bat that was native to Romania, but it went extinct over 100 years ago. Vampire legends started well before the bats went extinct.

Now what? The Wikipedia article says nothing of an extinct species of vampire bat. There’s nothing in the Romania information that states anything about vampire bats being native to the country. If you want to do more research into debunking my claim, you’re going to have to spend a bunch of time searching the internet… to refute something that you’re 99% sure is completely bogus, anyway.

But how much time did I spend on my claim? Not much… perhaps under a minute… and if I really believe what I’m saying, I’m going to start making that statement all over the place to anyone who will give me 30 seconds of his time or to any place that will allow me to post my nonsense. By the time I’ve reached 1,000 people, you’d still be trying to confirm whether there actually was a species of vampire bat in Romania 100 years ago.

Then suddenly you’ll find that someone else is saying that vampire bats lived in Romania 100 years ago, but they’re saying that bones were found that prove it… and that the bats were as large as ravens… and a group of scientists is researching whether or not they preyed on human babies.

What… is… going… on?!?

Assertions are easy.

It’s what creationists do. They shovel on the assertions (Gish Gallop, anyone?) and then, when their assertions are left unchallenged, they declare victory… and spread the news. It takes very little time to make assertions, but gathering evidence and presenting a logical refutation takes quite a bit of time (in comparison). Even if you already know the evidence and the refutation, it generally takes more time and effort to deliver it.

It’s not just creationists, though. Politicians do it. So do their opponents… especially protestors. Scientology does it (Fair Game doctrine). Climate change deniers do it. Moon hoaxers do it. Obama birthers do it. Sometimes, to add to their pseudo credibility, they’ll actually add facts to back up their claims… but only the facts that support their arguments. They’ll leave out contradictory facts or simply leave their facts out of context. They’ll misquote an expert (or quote mine). They’ll twist words.

When moon hoaxers do it, it’s amusing (unless you’re Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin). Nobody really takes them seriously. When creationists do it, it’s more serious because they want to teach our children to believe their nonsense… and they frequently want it in our schools. When climate change deniers do it, it can be dangerous in the long term… and just irresponsible.

Am I doing it right now? Sort of… but not really. These are my opinions based on my observations. I’m sure plenty of examples can be found where creationists have provided valid scientific data to irrefutably support their arguments.

*snicker* …or not.

Religious Tolerance in Queens, New York

Dan Halloran Dan Halloran is running for City Council in Queens, NY. He’s the Republican candidate opposing Democrat Kevin Kim in their race to replace the outgoing councilman, Democrat Tony Avella. Halloran is a partner at a Long Island law firm and chairman of the state Republican Liberty Caucus. He’s also been endorsed by the Queens County Republican Party.

That all sounds pretty standard, right? I thought so, too. So what’s special about this situation?

Halloran is a practitioner of Theodism, a pre-Christian pagan religion that believes in “the Gods and Goddesses of the North, spirits of the land and the memories of our ancestors.” A little bit of reading finds that some of the important principles of Theodism are wisdom, generosity, honor, and hospitality. There’s also some animal sacrifice involved, but it seems to be more of a feast type activity where the “any meat left over is burnt for the gods.” The feast is followed by ritual drinking… which is stopped before “the religious nature of the event doesn’t degrade to a drunken party.” So far, so good.

One would think that Christians (and, by proxy, Republicans) would be outraged by Halloran’s candidacy, but amazingly, that’s not the case. In this article at YourNabe.com, borough Republicans are supporting Halloran and are upset over the characterization of his religion in a Queens Tribune article.

“I think it’s particularly repugnant to have a religious test,” said Queens County GOP Vice Chairman Vince Tabone, who is also the spokesman for Halloran’s campaign. “We saw people trying to do that with [President Barack] Obama and Mitt Romney. Flushing [New York] is a birthplace of religious freedom. It’s part of Queens’ heritage. It’s a community where Protestants and Catholics and Sikhs live side by side.”

Those are refreshing words to hear from a politician, especially from a Republican politician. Tabone continues…

Tabone said Halloran was raised in an Irish Catholic household and that his religion would have no bearing on the Council race.

“I don’t think it will have much resonance,” he said. “It won’t amount to a hill of beans. People in the community are concerned with their quality of life and the high unemployment rate. We have good schools that could be improved.”

I think I like this Tabone guy. It seems he’s all for keeping religion out of politics and allowing candidates to focus on the issues and how to best help the community. That’s admirable.

New York State Republican Senator Frank Padavan also feels the same way. He said that Halloran’s religion wasn’t relevant and had this to say.

Queens has every conceivable religion on the face of the Earth and as long as they are honorable toward their basic goals, then that’s all anyone should be concerned about. Our Constitution provides freedom of religion and as long as they don’t run counter to the law of the land, then it’s not something that should be at all political. Anybody who makes it political is suspect. I’d rather someone have a religion — even if it’s not a mainstream religion — than their being atheist.

Wait… WHAT?!?

Did he actually say that? I’m not sure. Other than the YourNabe.com article, I can’t find another reference to this quote, so I don’t want to jump the gun. I found the same quote, but excluding the last sentence, so I’m not sure if one source left the line out of the quote or if one source added the line.

However, the implications of the line are not insignificant. Without it, it shows a surprising amount of religious tolerance and open mindedness by Padavan. With the line, it puts him firmly in the stereotypical, atheist-hating, religious camp.

If anyone can find another reference to the quote, let me know.

Why take them seriously?

Here’s why it’s really hard to take the religious right seriously.

“I don’t believe in global warming,” said conservative activist Kim Simac, a horse trainer and mother of nine from Wisconsin who also believes that the teaching of creationism and prayer need to be brought back to public schools.

(via)

…and…

One delegate, Sue Phelps, drew comparisons between Barack Obama, Fidel Castro and Adolf Hitler – “they were good orators too” – and said the president’s nationality and religion were “unanswered questions”.

(via)

…and…

“Today in America, far too many young people enter adulthood unprepared for college, career, and life,” said Allan Golston, president of The Gates Foundation’s U.S. Program. [Drew] Dickens agrees and believes that “part of the problem is that we have removed prayer and the Ten Commandments from our schools and curriculum.”

(via)

I could go on. When people are that vocal, yet that oblivious to facts, that ignorant of the Constitution, and that eager to force their religious beliefs on others, they’ve really got no room to complain when they are ignored or mocked.