Stewart on Fox’s “War on Christmas” & O’Reilly’s philosophy

Last night, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show once again took Fox News to task for its ridiculous one-news-channel campaign against the mythical “War on Christmas” by those annoying iconoclastic atheists, and then rounded on Bill O’Reilly over his even-stupider-than-usual declaration that Christianity is somehow a “philosophy” rather than a religion.

(The segment does include a couple of swipes at atheists which, while presumably intended as humorous and satirical, kind of miss the point – secularists are only interested in upholding the Establishment Clause in order to promote fair and equal treatment for all. It would’ve been helpful if Stewart had acknowledged that little detail.)

Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why the Universe (most likely) doesn’t have a purpose

It’s hard to tell who makes just about anything sound cooler, Morgan Freeman or Neil deGrasse Tyson. Here’s the latter as he explains away our delusions about an anthropocentric universe:

Transcript: (click the [+/-] to open/close →)

[−]

NEIL deGRASSE TYSON: Does the Universe have a purpose?

I’m not sure. But anyone who expresses a more definitive response to the question is claiming access to knowledge not based in empirical foundations. This remarkably persistent way of thinking, common to most religions and some branches of philosophy, has failed badly in past efforts to understand, and thereby predict, the operations of the Universe and our place within it.

To assert that the Universe has a purpose implies a desired outcome. But who would do the designing, and what would a desired outcome be? That carbon-based life is inevitable, or that sentient primates are life’s neurological pinnacle?

Of course, humans were not around to ask these questions for 99.9999% of cosmic history. So, if the purpose of the Universe was to create humans, the cosmos was embarrassingly inefficient about it. And if a further purpose of the Universe was to create a fertile cradle for life, then our cosmic environment has got an odd way of showing it.

Life on Earth, during more than 3½ billion years of existence, has been persistently assaulted by natural sources of mayhem, death and destruction. Ecological devastation exacted by volcanoes, climate change, earthquakes, tsunamis, storms, and especially killer asteroids, have left extinct 99.9% of all species that have ever lived here.

How about human life, itself? If you’re religious, you might declare that the purpose of life is to serve God. But if you’re one of the hundred billion bacteria living and working in a single centimeter of your lower intestine, you might instead say that the purpose of human life is to provide you with a dark but idyllic, anaerobic habitat of fecal matter.

So, in the absence of human hubris, the Universe looks more and more random. Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interests are as numerous as other events that would just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible, to assert. So, while I cannot claim to know for sure whether or not the Universe has a purpose, the case against it is strong and visible to anyone who sees the Universe as it is, rather than as they wish it to be.

I’m Neil deGrasse Tyson. I was asked by the Templeton Foundation to respond to a question: “Does the Universe have a purpose?”

Human hubris, indeed.

(via Friendly Atheist)

Thought of the Day: On pragmatism and idealism

If pragmatism can be adequately summarized as “doing what works”, then rejecting it, by definition, leaves you with naught but hopes and dreams – the equivalent to a frustrated teenager railing against an unjust world without knowing what to do about it. If you dismiss the very approach that actually garners results, then what do you have left but empty fists?

Pragmatism and idealism go hand-in-hand, the inspirational leader to the blue-collar worker. Pragmatism without idealism to guide it is hopeless; idealism without pragmatism to work for it is useless. Any party that rejects either one is doomed to impotence.

(Inspired by Maryam Namazie, who is still generally awesome.)

Tags: Maryam Namazie • pragmatism • idealism

Daily Blend: Thursday, July 05, 2012

PZ Myers

PZ Myers ^[pictured] presents a brief taxonomy of atheists. I’d say I’m roughly 40% political, 30% scientific, 25% humanist and 5% philosophical. Or so.

Florida lifeguard saves drowning man, gets fired for leaving his zone. Other lifeguards quit in protest.
(via @todayspolitics)

Man comes out as gay on Facebook, gets criticized by his friends … for having a raw HTML blog. Progress!
(via @radleybalko)

Vox Day: Camden, New Jersey is “dying” because White residents are a minority. Or something.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: atheists • PZ Myers • Tomas Lopez • Jeff Ellis and Associates • Hallandale Beach, FL • Facebook • CSS • HTML • homosexuality • Vox Day • Theodore Beale • Camden, NJ • racism

Formspring: How can a rationalist be an atheist?

I just received this little query on Formspring, and rather than waste a somewhat detailed answer there for two people to glance at, I figured I’d post it here, instead [original question edited for spelling/grammar/coherence]:

Here's my question, Joé: How can anyone who considers himself a rationalist be an atheist? Philosophically speaking, atheism is the weakest stance one can take in terms of pure logic. YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE.

I don’t think you understand what rationalism is. It means the rejection of any beliefs that aren’t supported by credible (logical or empirical) evidence. Now, given that the existence of God(s) is typically implied to have some relevance to our natural world, it thus stands to reason that it can be subjected to critical analysis. And given that there is absolutely zero credible evidence to support the existence of God(s), the only rational conclusion is that God(s) just doesn’t exist (or else that if he does, his impact on the natural world is so minute that it isn’t even worth considering).

Also, I never claimed that negatives can be proven; quite the opposite, in fact. No atheist has proven, and nor can they truly know, that God(s) doesn’t exist. They simply don’t believe that he does. (And those who, like me, actively believe that God(s) doesn’t exist are more accurately labeled “anti-theists”, but that’s mostly just splitting hairs as all non-theists are basically in the same camp, anyway.) It comes down to the old distinction between agnosticism (which is about knowledge) and atheism (which is about belief); ergo, all reasonable atheists are also agnostics (despite the popular and ill-founded resentment towards that label).

In the end, atheism in and of itself really has little to do with philosophy. At it’s basics, it’s limited to asking whether there’s any good reason to believe in God(s), and if not, then why do so. Anything more is really just details, and philosophical battles on the matter are mostly triggered by anti-atheist critics who just can’t seem to understand that people can live just fine without believing in any one or more deity(s).

(Related: See my posts on non-theist labels and common anti-atheist myths.)

Tags: rationalism • rationalists • Formspring

Daily Blend: Friday, January 27, 2012

Rep. Larry Pittman (R-NC)

• Arkansas man Tased, beaten and arrested despite having committed no crime. Court partially sides with him, awards him … $1.

• Whoopsie: Pastor and Rep. Larry Pittman (R-NC) accidentally sends out mass email calling for “public hangings” for “abortionists, rapists and kidnappers”.
  (via @radleybalko)

• The Internet: Rallying people around good causes like never before.

• 40 questions for fundy Christians.
  (via Rob F)

• Headline of the day: Drug-fueled-orgy-ruined-by-bear-spray edition.
  (via @radleybalko)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Derrol Kirby III • Danielle Ingram • James Marschewski • police brutality • excessive force • Larry Pittman • hanging • capital punishment • public execution • Reddit • Omari • Faaraja • orphanages • Christians • Christianity • fundamentalism • fundamentalists • Stephen Barclay • Leanne Reid • bear repellant • bear spray • orgies • Owen Greenan

Daily Blend: Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Sen. Beth Moura (R-RI)

Let’s hope today becomes known as The Day That Both the Internet and SOPA Died^TM.

• Lawsuit: CT Muslim college student reports sexual harassment, gets reported for terrorism by harasser and expelled.

• Another Rhode Island politician, Sen. Beth Moura (R) ^[pictured], feels the need to insult Jessica Ahlquist for upholding the law better than politicians do.

• Finally, a Christian-Rightist links both evolution and abortion to the Holocaust simultaneously.
  (via Right Wing Watch)

• “Life cannot be meaningless so long as we have the capacity to affect the well-being of ourselves and others. For true meaninglessness, we would need heaven.”
  (via RichardDawkins.net)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Balayla Ahmad • University of Bridgeport • sexual harassment • Beth Moura • Jessica Ahlquist • American Civil Liberties Union • ACLU • Bert Dorenbos • Nazis • Paula Kirby • atheists • afterlife • Heaven • Christianity

Daily Blend: Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Tomas Torres with post-raid injuries

• Another isolated incident: Connecticut police drug raid on man’s apartment ends with no drugs found, a destroyed apartment and an innocent man ^[pictured] in the hospital.

• Friendly reminder: Top 10 Republican attacks on women’s reproductive healthcare.

• Debunking some more common arguments for God’s existence.

• The Top 10 Internet memes of 2011. And I thought Nyan Cat (damn that song) was much older.
  (via Joe. My. God.)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Tomas Torres • Connecticut State Police • police brutality • drug raids • Paul Vance • War on Drugs • Republicans • GOP • rape • No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act • Let Women Die bill • personhood amendments • Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act • PRENDA • fetal pain bills • heartbeat bills • Planned Parenthood • Kathy Orlinsky • God • ontological argument • transcendental argument • cosmological argument • Kalam argument • anthropic argument • fine-tuning argument • teleological argument • Know Your Meme • 2011 • memes • Rebecca Black • Friday • First World Problems • Occupy Wall Street • OWS • Planking • Scumbag Steve • X All the Y • Nope, Chuck Testa • Chuck Testa • Nyan Cat • 60's Spider Man • My Little Pony • MLP

Daily Blend: Thursday, November 17, 2011

Mass Mohawk child grave uncovered in Canada

All the donairs to Veritas for helping me get Freethought Blogs to work for me again. (*shakes fist at hosts file*)

• WTF: Did the Vatican and the Queen of England really condone the torture and murder of Canadian Mohawk children ^[pictured]? Not sure whether to take this report seriously or not.
  (via Diaphanitas)

• Vets petition feds to allow medicinal marijuana for PTSD treatment. If even cancer patients don’t get leniency, what hope do they have?
  (via The Agitator)

• PZ Myers dismantles the notion that science can only explain “how” and religion, “why”.

• Fox News’s take on Occupy Wall Street: “Eww, poor people! Gross! (And could turn violent anytime now!)”
  (via @mmfa)

• Some girl with a blog explains why gay marriage should, like, never be legalized and stuff.
  (via Rob F)

• Bruce Wayne’s annual physical report.
  (via The Agitator)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Mohawk people • Mohawk Institute • Church of England • Vatican • Queen Elizabeth • Joseph Ratzinger • Benedict XVI • medicinal marijuana • medical pot • Ryan Begin • war veterans • PTSD • Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder • PZ Myers • Michael Voris • Alex Pareene • Fox News • OWS • Occupy Wall Street • thegirlwiththeblog • gay marriage • LGBT marriage • same-sex marriage • Bruce Wayne • Batman • The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

In defense of the Courtier’s Reply

Say what you want – that emperor’s butt-naked [full size (458×600)]

Skimming our old friend Vox Day’s blog (as I am masochistically wont to do), I came across this little tidbit of interest in an otherwise typical anti-atheist tirade:

The Courtier's Reply of PZ Myers - which, to be fair, other New Atheists besides Richard Dawkins cannot be assumed to endorse - outright attempts to justify atheists knowing nothing about what they are so ineptly criticizing.

While this is broadly pertinent to Myth A16 (“Atheists are just ignorant about religion”), I wanted to address the specific claim, made so often by Christianists like Vox and other assorted anti-atheists, that the Courtier’s Reply is essentially an appeal to ignorance allowing clueless atheists do dismiss and attack religion without knowing anything about it.

Complete nonsense.

Of course, Vox is playing exactly into PZ’s hands in bolstering the same fallacious notion that the Courtier’s Reply decimates in the first place. The whole idea is to cut through all the baloney, the fluff, the 18 miles of theological bullshit and get right at the very heart of any religious debate: Does God exist?

It really is that simple. No matter how deeply you delve into the study of faith and the writings of religious scholars and philosophers both ancient (Thomas Aquinas) and modern (William Lane Craig), every single thought, claim and detail can always, inevitably be filtered down to one single and singular issue, the foundation of all organized religion, the central pillar upon which the entirety of Abrahamic theology is erected: the existence, or lack thereof, of the One True God^TM. Every single thought that’s ever been conceived, spoken or written down concerning the nature and study of theistic religion is supported only by the (supposedly self-evident) basis that Yahweh is real.

This is all evident to the point where it scarcely needs further explaining. What is the point to virtually any religious writings in the last two thousand years if it turns out that God is actually a fantasy? What happens to all that “sophisticated theology” if it’s revealed to be stipulation and postulation about the desires, demands and nature of something that’s never even existed to begin with? Isn’t it rather tantamount to chasing a gust of wind, to laboring under any plain ol’ delusion?

That is what the Courtier’s Reply, and other arguments like it, is all about. It is not an attempt, as claimed so often and erroneously by religious apologists, for critics to excuse talking smack about religion despite not being intimately familiar with all the detailed studies that have been made of it. It’s quite simpler and more obvious than that: It is a simple and convenient tack for countering all such claims of ignorance and lack of credentials and whatnot, and exposing the heart of the matter for what it really is: Is the whole foundation of modern organized faith even there at all?

I get interviewed

I was asked by Erin Carney of American Atheism to answer a few questions for both our blogs, which I take to mean I am now officially an Internet godless sensation, or something. (Wait, weren’t I always?)

Anyway, here ya go.

---

Q: What in your own words is your personal view of what Atheism means?

A: I think people need to keep in mind there are two main definitions for ‘atheism’ nowadays: the lack of belief in deities, and the social movement to legitimize nonbelief among the public. The two are often conflated when people use the terms ‘atheism’ or ‘atheists’ without further context, which leads to plenty of miscommunications and headaches. Of course, one can be an atheist without being part of the secular movement, and vice-versa; plenty of practicing believers, such as Rev. Barry Lynn, are also ardent secularists who believe that religion and politics (or public life in general) should be kept separate.

There’s also a third, “unofficial” definition of ‘atheism’, which reflects the fact that not only do many (if not most) atheists today lack any belief in god(s), they also actively believe in the non-existence of deities, which is semantically different from ‘atheism’, which, again, is strictly about the absence of belief either way. This third variant is really more suitably labeled ‘anti-theism’, but I suppose people just stick to the one label, ‘atheism’, out of convenience.

Q: Do you believe in any kind of existence after death? (As we both know, energy is never lost)

A: I don’t believe in any form of post-mortem existence; I see no good reason to. Of course, there may be an afterlife – just as there may be gods and leprechauns; we cannot prove negatives – but it’s quite clear that even if such a thing does exist, there’s really no point in pretending to know anything about (or living with any expectation of) something that, by definition, is not part of the natural, scientifically observable world. (Also, energy may never be lost, but only in that whatever forces and constituents that power our bodies and minds will eventually be used otherwise by nature after we die. There is no need for any supernaturalism in the equation.)

Q: How old were you when you began thinking of yourself as an Atheist?

No, God is not good despite whatever happens

God’s word, modernized

It’s a cliché as old as religion itself: Good thing happens? God did it (because he’s good). Bad thing happens? God works in mysterious ways (and he’s still good). No matter befalls whom, it always ends up laid at Yahweh’s feet as a sign that he has some mysterious and supposedly benign plan for the entire universe, no matter how bizarre or convoluted the so-called reasoning behind it is. Not only is this annoying and delusional thinking, it’s also exasperating in how quickly it is applied to absolutely any given event by God-botters, regardless of outcome.

Here’s a video by atheistic YouTuber DarkMatter2525 perfectly illustrating the point:

My transcript: (click the [+/-] to expand/collapse →)

[−]

This is Steven. He’s from a rough part of the city, but he manages to stay out of trouble. He’s a good kid, a Christian from a Christian family. But one day, unfortunately, he accidentally wore the wrong color in the wrong neighborhood.

[Scenario #1: Gang drives by and fires at Steven, but he is unharmed. Steven goes home to his family.]

Every single bullet missed Steven. Obviously, God saved his life. It’s a miracle! God is good.

[Scenario #2: Gang drives by and fires at Steven, injuring him. He goes home to his family on crutches.]

Steven was struck in several places, but the bullets missed all his major organs! It’s a miracle! He’s gonna make a full recovery. God saved him. God is good.

[Scenario #3: Gang drives by and fires at Steven, critically injuring him. He goes home in a wheelchair.]

Steven has some lasting damage; his spinal cord was struck and he suffered some brain damage, but those wounds should have killed him! God saved his life, ’cause God has more plans for Steven. It’s a miracle he’s still alive. God is good.

[Scenario #4: Gang drives by and fires at Steven, killing him. His family mourns him at his funeral.]

Steven is in a better place now, a place where there’s no violence and no pain. He’s with God and he’ll be waiting for us up in Heaven. He has been called home. God is good.

The simple truth is that nothing happens for any reason or divinely inspired purpose. Things happen because other things happened previously and cause them. A leads to B, which leads to C, and onwards. There’s no reason or rhyme, and nor can there be. Trying to attribute some sort of intelligent plan to entirely random natural processes is wishful thinking at best, and downright foolish at worst.

But most of all, everything that happens cannot simply be rationalized away as being some sort of indication of the endless benevolence of an intangible supernatural entity, especially not one with a supposed track record of committing and inspiring some of the most violent and inhumane acts in history.

(Sidenote: Am I the only one who thinks the voice-over kinda sounds like Christopher Walken at times …?)

(via Friendly Atheist)

Tags: God's plan • God • DarkMatter2525

Daily Blend: Sunday, October 02, 2011

Hogwarts?

Glenn Greenwald: “Those praising President Obama's actions on Awlaki include Rick Perry, Bill O'Reilly, Mitt Romney, Dick & Liz Cheney, and Peter King” If these are the people cheering you on, you seriously need to rethink your strategy.

• Anderson Cooper and guests accuse Reddit of spreading child porn with its “jailbait” subsection. Because legal photos of none-nude young adults found on Facebook and Google = child molestation. Obviously.

• Christians angry at atheist group for pointing out church’s tax fraud.

• Today, neurologists say evil doesn’t exist. Tomorrow, zoologists announce leprechauns are fictional.
  (via @ebertchicago)

• Twelve most beautiful U.S. college campuses. Almost makes me wanna go back to school. And become American. (And, with Princeton ^[pictured], feel like Harry Potter.)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Anderson Cooper • child porn • jailbait • Reddit • Freedom from Religion Foundation • Christ Cathedral Church • Columbus, OH • tax fraud • neurologists • evil • brain • Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain • schools • universities

The greatest speech ever made (or close to), by Charlie Chaplin

It’s always interesting how some of the very best quotes and sentiments are so often ones that originated long before our time. (Well, mine, anyway.) Here’s Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator, dishing out some grade-A humanistic principles way back in the 1940s in one of the greatest speeches ever written:

My transcript: (click the [+/-] to expand/collapse →)

[−]

[NOTE: Original from Not My Tribe; revisions by me]

I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be an Emperor. That’s not my business. I don’t want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible, Jew, gentile, Black man, White. We all want to help one-another; human beings are like that. We want to live by each other’s happiness, not by each other’s misery. We don’t want to hate and despise one-another. In this world, there is room for everyone, and the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful.

But we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men’s souls; has barricaded the world with hate; has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical; our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery, we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.

The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men, cries out for universal brotherhood, for the unity of us all. Even now, my voice is reaching millions throughout the world, millions of despairing men, women and little children, victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people.

To those who can hear me, I say, “Do not despair.” The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed; the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress; the hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people, and so long as men die, liberty will never perish.

Soldiers! Don’t give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you and enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder! Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don’t hate; only the unloved hate, the unloved and the unnatural. Soldiers: Don’t fight for slavery, fight for liberty! In the seventeenth chapter of Saint Luke, it is written, “The kingdom of God is within man”. Not one man, nor a group of men, but in all men; in you! You the people have the power, the power to create machines, the power to create happiness. You the people have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure.

Then, in the name of democracy, let us use that power! Let us all unite! Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give you the future and old age and security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power, but they lie. They do not fulfill their promise; they never will. Dictators free themselves, but they enslave the people. Now, let us fight to fulfill that promise! Let us fight to free the world, to do away with national barriers, do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness.

Soldiers, in the name of democracy, let us all unite!

You said it, Charlie.

(via Pharyngula)

Tags: Charlie Chaplin • The Great Dictator • humanism • speeches

Woman and teen boy investigated over online relationship

This is a giraffe looking through an airplane window. From outside. … Yeah, I got nothin’.

Via 4chan’s /v/ board comes this interesting story concerning the legality and ethics of romantic relationships between adults and minors. Here’s the Google translation of the original French article [edited for legibility]:

Can a 33-year-old woman and a 15-year-old teenager become virtual lovers? This is the question that must answer the judges of the Criminal Court of Nevers (Nièvre) who examined Tuesday a never-before-seen case of “corruption of minor”. A report that has dates back to 2008 with the MSN messenger of one of the most famous of videogames, Call of Duty.
     A war game normally not conducive to feeling, which saw Céline, 33, start a platonic but terribly invasive relationship with Thomas*, 15. The latter’s parents filed a complaint and justice must now decide.

Late 2008, Thomas is a teenager like many others. Located in the south of France, he spends much of his free time on his computer. He joined a group of players on a Call of Duty network. Soberly called Team, this group only contains major players and not “pajamas”, minors in videogame jargon.

But Thomas made himself a place. In addition to the game’s military missions, he converses over MSN with Shoot, the pseudonym of Céline, who lives several hundred kilometers away, in the Nièvre. The latter makes no secret of her mature age. In a few weeks, Thomas and Céline exchange more and more texts, phone calls and messages, sometimes in the middle of the night. But in spring of 2009, while Thomas and Céline live a romance by correspondence, the teen’s parents file a complaint because they worry about the scale of the story. Police officers first examine the hundreds of calls and messages. There are also letters and even photos exchanged. On one of the images, Céline is topless. Quickly, they identify the computer and the phone from which these messages come from and arrive at Céline, a divorced housewife and recently a young grandmother.

Heard on the facts in spring of 2009 by the officers in the Nièvre, Céline acknowledges the facts and takes responsibility this curious long-distance love story. She has never seen Thomas other than in photos, he’s almost as old as her eldest daughter, but she is convinced she loves him. For his part, the young boy saw his grades dip, but he too affirms before officers that he’s in love with Céline despite the age difference. He’s only awaiting his legal adulthood to live with her.

During the investigation, Céline and Thomas both underwent psychological examinations that demonstrate that they have a certain “fragility” in common. Thomas’s is linked, according to the expert, to the usual problems of adolescence.

Scott Clifton continues to expose William Lane Craig’s dishonesty

Here’s intellectual atheistic dreamboat Scott Clifton (aka TheoreticalBullshit) continuing his dissection of famed Christian debater William Lane Craig’s increasingly arrogant and dishonest rejoinders:

My transcript: (click the [+/-] to expand/collapse →)

[−]

Brief summary: William Lane Craig responds to Scott Clifton’s previous arguments – which Clifton had explained in excruciating detail, paragraph after paragraph – by completely misrepresenting Clifton’s positions and claims, in addition to casually insulting and dismissing him outright despite failing to understand virtually any of Clifton’s points. Clifton now goes to great lengths to painstakingly quote and refute Craig’s dishonest replies whilst ignoring his attacks, exposing Craig as a lying, arrogant hack.

It’s rather clear why Craig is always said – by Christians, that is – to “win” his debates. Strawmen don’t typically put up much of a fight.

Isn’t it revealing how Christian icons of intellectual/philosophical enlightenment always end up crumbling under any amount of scrutiny?

(via Diaphanitas)

Edit: 10/20/11 8:48 PM – Minor transcript phrasing edits.

Tags: Scott Clifton • William Lane Craig • William Craig • semantics

Daily Blend: Sunday, July 24, 2011

Donald Trump

Just saw Harry Potter 7½. Excellent finale to a wonderful series based on another terrific series. Had a great sense of epicness throughout, the battle was riveting, and I loved the due respect Snape was given.

• Battlefield 3 launch LAN party combats sexist asswipes by banning them women.
  (via Blag Hag)

• Great article about Internet trolls and anonymity, aka “deindividuation”. My take: Anonymity’s lack of direct criticism simply allows people to reveal their true natures, for better or worse.
  (via @flipcritic)

• Think Donald Trump [pictured] is an asshole? You (probably) don’t know the half of it.
  (via @PersonalFailure)

• PZ Myers explains why he doesn’t believe in gods. I swear he plagiarized my thoughts.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Battlefield 3 • LAN party • misogyny • Tim Adams • trolls • Donald Trump • PZ Myers • gods • Harry Potter

Vox Day: Science can’t explain everything!

You know, it would lend a whole lot more credibility to Vox Day’s constant anti-science haranguing if his frequent attacks against actual scientists, notably Pharyngula’s PZ Myers, weren’t so consistently filled with the sort of idiocy found in his latest post. Last week, PZ debunked some philosopher’s kvetching over a scientist’s claim that “[s]cience is the only philosophical construct we have to determine TRUTH with any degree of reliability”. The idea, as is self-evident, is that if we want to know whether a given claim or phenomenon is accurate to reality, then science – ie. the scientific method, critical analysis of evidence, logical conclusions drawn, etc. – is the only real way we have of arriving at any sort of a decent conclusion that can hopefully withstand further scrutiny.

After all, when you boil science down to its fundamental basic, every person in the world engages in scientific thinking in one way or another. Whenever you’ve felt that a claim was untrue and then questioned its source for more information, or you’ve experienced something bizarre and then searched for an explanation, or came across any sort of logical problem and tried to solve it, then you’ve used scientific thinking to achieve your ends. Sure, it’s not exactly the sort of rigorous (and customarily mind-bogglingly complex) “science” as practiced by actual scientists in labs and such, but the basic principle is the same: critical scrutiny to arrive at a truthful explanation. In the end, that’s really all science is at its bottommost foundation.

You can’t know whether a given claim or phenomenon is truthful without employing some sort of scientific thinking. That’s all that the aforementioned scientist’s claim (the one the aforementioned philosopher griped about) that “[s]cience is the only philosophical construct we have to determine TRUTH with any degree of reliability” means.

So, of course, leave it to cranks like Vox Day to distort it, and then valiantly debunk said caricature of the original claim (all the while crowing about how stupid that poopyhead, PZ, is, of course):

I am aware certain Pharyngulans and anklebiters are dubious about the legitimacy of the intellectual contempt in which I hold one PZ Myers. They appear to genuinely believe that the Fowl Atheist is not only capable of holding his own in debate with me, but that he has only been avoiding any such encounter because his argumentative skills are so much superior to mine that it would somehow pollute them to actually put them to use.*

Daily Blend: Monday, July 04, 2011

Chris Hansen

Happy Fancy Document Signing Commemoration Day, USians!

• Hemant Mehta nails it regarding the latest “sexism in the atheist movement!” kerfuffle.

• Also, PersonalFailure nails it regarding illegal immigration. I don’t give a shit, either, and those who do are usually misinformed or plain bigoted.

• New report: All research into abstinence-only sex education indicates it’s nothing but a detrimental failure.

• Interesting new documentary: Was Jesus a moral paragon, or a madman (or something worse)?

• Why don’t you have a seat over there, Mr. Hansen [pictured].^*
  (via The Agitator)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

* In case anyone misses the point: I don’t care about Hansen having a mistress. I do care about his hypocrisy in acting as a supposed agent of righteousness and then engaging in decidedly unrighteous behavior, himself. At least, I care enough to point and snicker.

Tags: Hemant Mehta • Rebecca Watson • atheists • PersonalFailure • illegal immigrants • illegal immigration • sex ed • abstinence-only • American Foundation for AIDS Research • AMFAR • HIV • AIDS • Jesus Christ • Peter Breitbart • Christianity • Christians • Chris Hansen • Kristyn Caddell • To Catch a Predator • adultery

Daily Blend: Friday, June 03, 2011

VS Naipaul

• US Health and Human Services Department rejects Indiana GOP’s attempt at axing Planned Parenthood funding with proposed Medicaid changes.
  (via ThinkProgress)

• … So, naturally, Indiana officials proclaim their bold intention to enforce the illegal law anyway, putting all critical state Medicaid funding at risk. Brilliant tacticians, aren’t they. | Update: (06/16/11) – Justice Department now joins the battle against these idiots.
  

• Orthodox Jewish leaders apparently think the way the Catholic Church deals with clerical child abuse cases is the right approach to take.

• You know the report that the ACLU is supposedly suing to give prisoners access to porn? Rightist-spread bullshit, as usual.

• VS Naipaul [pictured]: No woman author past or present writes as good as I do! Me: At least people have actually actually heard of Stephanie Meyer.
  (via @ebertchicago)

• The Courtier’s Reply … in sausages.
  (via Pharyngula)

• Headline of the day.
  (via @radleybalko)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: US Dept. of Health and Human Services • Indiana • GOP • Republicans • Planned Parenthood • Medicaid • Orthodox Jews • Catholic Church • ACLU • The Drudge Report • VS Naipaul • The Courtier's Reply • Answers in Genes