Since I've been a bit slack getting round to giving Ray Comfort another deserved whooping, I thought I'd throw this little video up - it's something I've been meaning to put up for some time.

Religion: The Master In The Bullshit Department

I know I’ve ridiculed Ray Comfort a couple of times in the past, and lest people think that I am merely taking joy in “shooting fish in a barrel,” there is an explanation for this post. One of my new friends has a serious case of the warm and fuzzies for Jesus, and recently handed me one of Ray Comfort’s hilarious booklets, hoping that I would find the man’s vacuous arguments compelling. Unfortunately, I’m going to have to seriously disappoint him. I have explained to my friend that I consider apologists like Ray Comfort to be dishonest scumbags, so I simply refuse to write on them without the appropriate amount of condescension and ridicule.

The booklet is entitled “Scientific Facts in the Bible: Amazing truths written thousands of years before they were discovered by man.” What’s incredibly amusing to point out here is that Ray’s line of argument is cautioned against by his fellow fundies over at Answers in Genesis, who’ve made the startling realisation that some arguments are just too fucking stupid even for creationists to use. That, friends, is saying a lot, since these folks have a museum featuring dinosaurs wearing saddles because, according to their interpretation of the Bible, dinosaurs and man coexisted (I wish I was joking). Here’s what AIG have to say against using the “science in the Bible” argument:

"We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages if the original readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms.”

Poor Ray – not off to the best of starts are we? On a side note, shouldn’t that be authors or at least a capital A for author, Mr. Crazy Person?

Ray opens thusly:

“This booklet is about scientific facts in the Bible. I hope you have opened it with a good deal of skepticism.”… “Before we look at these “scientific facts” in the Bible…”

You bet your sweet ass I have Ray. Unfortunately for you, I happen to be one of those rare people who can actually apply it. Oh, and the quotation marks surrounding “scientific facts” are Ray’s – no shit. Seriously though, why is it that Ray feels the need to appeal to scientific facts when he seems to be so committed to denying them when the topic of evolution comes up (as we’ll see)?

Ray’s first foray into murky waters is decidedly odd:

“Do you believe that the following Biblical accounts actually happened?” (he goes on to list absurdities such as Adam & Eve, Noah’s ark, Jonah & the whale etc etc.) “Of course you don’t. To say that you believed such fantastic stories would mean that you have to surrender your intellectual dignity.”

Finally Ray, something we can agree on, but wait… everyone hit the deck! Incoming crazy!

“The answer is simply those who understand that God has chosen foolish, base, weak, and despised things of the world to confound those who think they are wise.”

It’s not often that I’m rendered speechless for long, but that’ll do it. Doesn’t this undermine the whole “scientific facts in the Bible” thing, given that we should disregard logic, and God has the whole universe rigged? Thankfully, Ray then tosses out an analogy to drive his point home (paraphrasing, but you’ll get the gist):

A bunch of people throw themselves off an ocean liner for no apparent reason. Everyone else laughs at them. Suddenly, the ship hits an iceberg and sinks, killing all the smug bastards left on board. Who’s laughing now? “Now we see that those who seemed like fools were wise, and those who stayed on the ship, and seemed to be wise, were fools.”

I really like this analogy; the clever chaps who jumped off the boat were Christians you see. Unfortunately for Ray, his analogy has several holes you could float an oil tanker through, so let’s do that. The people jumping off the boat only seem wise if it actually hits an iceberg and sinks; if not, they’re just the inconsiderate jerks who fucked up the boat ride for everyone else, because we now have to turn a huge boat around and send out search parties and whatnot. Also, what if you don’t hit that exact iceberg? What if you hit a slightly different iceberg, or a reef, or some rocks, or another ship, or the engines explode, or any other of an infinite number of equally unlikely scenarios? Do you still survive?

Since my extended analogy may be a tad more subtle than Ray’s, I’ll explain further (apologies to those who got it – you get extra points). You see – the ocean liner in Ray’s analogy is currently floating along rather nicely, without fear, through the tropics. The probability that we would hit an iceberg is as close to zero as makes no difference. Likewise, the probability that the Christian God exists, as defined in the Bible, is as close to zero as makes no difference, based on a preponderance of the evidence human beings have gathered about the universe we inhabit. Evidence doesn’t even need to be brought to bear however, as simple logic destroys utterly the kind of literalist interpretation of the Bible that Ray argues for. The equally unlikely scenarios I mention are a representation of all the different religions; all mutually exclusive; all supported by exactly the same amount of evidence (none); all as likely to be true as the Easter Bunny myth. The boat ride is obviously our lives (or human progress), and if you don’t think religion is fucking up our boat ride, then you’re not paying attention.

Now it’s time for us to jump on board the gravitron of Biblical interpretation; it goes round and round, shit gets turned upside down, and if you stay on it too long, you might throw up. Let’s have a look at Ray’s first scriptural quote revealing of scientific fact; it must be a pretty strong one since he’s leading with it, surely? Um, no…

Jeremiah 33:22 “As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured.”

Before we reveal Ray’s interpretation of this verse, does anyone have any ideas as to what scientific fact this quote reveals? Didn’t think so.

“The Bible claimed there were billions of stars… (at the time) only 1100 were observable.”

No it didn’t Ray – you’re reading comprehension is faulty. Even assuming that the host of heaven does means stars, and not fluffy clouds in heaven, or angels, this quote is so vague it could fit any number of stars – thousands, millions, billions, trillions…. More than 1100 are observable though Ray; have a look at the Milky Way - millions of the buggers. Of course, the only reason we know they’re stars is because of science. This vague quote gives us no information, but information can be easily retrofitted after the fact. That’s how prophesy works (and psychics, astrologers etc). Apropos fun approximate fact: for every grain of sand on this planet, there are a million stars in the observable universe. The truth, as revealed by science, is vastly more wondrous than the simplistic bullshit of the world’s religions.

I’ll skip the next few ludicrous examples, but I really liked this one:

Leviticus 15:13 “And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bath his flesh in running water, and shall be clean.”

Again, any ideas? Here’s my interpretation: try not to shit on yourself. If you do, wash yourself for seven days. Ray claims, incredibly, that this quote is revealing of sanitation in modern medicine. How fucking stupid is that? God did not say: “yea, wash your hands before you stick them in someone, for I have made microscopic organisms to kill you (maniacal laughter).” If that’s what the quote means Ray, then why didn’t we change our practices until science made its discoveries? Since God is so concerned with sanitation and health, allow me to rebut Ray with one of my favourite Bible quotes. In Chapter 4 of Ezekial, the Lord goes all Jamie Oliver and tells his people how to make tasty meals, for when you’re stuck in a crappy desert. One of the ingredients is rather interesting:

Ezekial 4:12 “And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man”

I must admit, I’m starting to come round to this God character. Sadly, the chosen people mustn’t have liked eating their own crap. Four verses later, God caves and lets them eat cow shit instead. Pussy.

End of Part 1. Still to come: Evolution denial. A topic high on the “things that really piss me off” list.

Two of my heroes met recently on the Colbert Report. The Colbert Report is a highly successful spin-off from the Daily Show, where Stephen plays a conservative blowhard character (seemingly modelled on an exaggerated Bill O'Reilly). Richard Dawkins made an appearance in support of his new book, "The God Delusion." As I've said many times, Richard Dawkins is my bloody hero and we drastically need more scientists like him. According to American figures, approximately 85% of scientists are atheists or agnostics, yet most of them pussy-foot around the issue in a show of misguided political correctness; not so Richard Dawkins, and bravo.

"My guest tonight is a scientist who argues that there is no God, well you know what? He'll have an eternity in hell to prove it."

First, a story from the Daily Record:

A PRIEST has died after trying to demonstrate how Jesus walked on water.

Evangelist preacher Franck Kabele, 35, told his congregation he could repeat the biblical miracle.

One eyewitness said: “He told churchgoers he'd had a revelation that if he had enough faith, he could walk on water like Jesus. He walked into the water, which soon passed over his head and he never came back.”

I tried not to laugh, I really did. But I failed; I failed miserably (I know, I know, I’m a horrible person). I include this story only because it’s a rather extreme example of a type of faith I’m about to examine (oh, alright, and because it’s funny).

Faith Type 1: Belief in God.

This is also known as ‘belief without evidence, lacking any rational reason to suppose its truth.’ On its own, this type of faith is most closely approximated by deism, but is shared by all religious persons (obviously).

Faith Type 2: Belief, not only lacking evidence, but in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Also known as ‘believing you can walk on water when you’re up to your balls in wet stuff.’ As I said, it’s an extreme and absurd example, but it’s the functional equivalent of denying evolution, or believing Noah’s flood story, Adam & Eve, or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

The problem with organized religions is that Faith Type 1 arrives pre-packaged with a hell of a lot of Faith Type 2, and FT2 is a commitment to some pretty serious stupid. Belief in God, by itself, shouldn’t be too much of a problem. What is the practical difference between persons who differ on natural vs. supernatural causes of the universe at large? Very little; it should in no way have any effect on how those people live their lives or on politics across societies. As we start to slide along the continuum from FT1 towards FT2, however, the negative effects of religion on society become more apparent, and religious faith begins to encroach on the rights and freedoms of all.

FT2 is a serious problem in the United States, as more than half the population are evolution deniers and believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old (pretty much a form of insanity). The further towards FT2 an individual is, the more likely they will be committed to denying the rights of fellow citizens, and to vote for ignorant morons like George Bush. Such ignorance among populations is a fundamental problem for democracy, as it’s easily manipulated by politicians. I see it as somewhat ironic that America wishes to gift the system that gave them a retarded leader on the Middle East. If I was an Iraqi, my response would be: “thank you, but fuck off.” Democracy, however, is the best system we have. What was it Winston Churchill said?

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others…”

I guess my point is that if you have to be religious, please try to avoid faith type 2.

Now, lest everyone think I’ve gone mental and am defending belief in God, I should point out that believing in something without evidence is silly. Here’s why: by what criteria are faith-based beliefs accepted or rejected? Why believe Christianity over Islam, or polytheism, or astrology, or the tooth fairy? All of these beliefs are faith based beliefs that have not a shred of evidence in favor of them. All are contradicted by logic and evidence and all are pretty much equally likely to be true. Ah, I feel better now.

This has been going up all over the place, but it's so funny that I thought I might as well lob it up here as well. Ricky Gervais, in his stand-up routine, Animals, explores the Biblical creation story of Genesis. Making jokes about Genesis is almost redundant, as it's hilarious enough all by itself.

In the comments to my previous post, two interviews with religious scientists were posted by Ted and Bryan P. I find these people interesting, as I just find it difficult to grasp how one can hold such beliefs whilst entrenched in logic and science, with its rigorous evidential demands. One would expect much more convincing arguments to originate from such people as they are surely aware of the logical pitfalls other, less educated believers tend to fall into. Unfortunately, such expectations appear to be unfounded.

Before I delve into the silly statements in question, I’d like to first make it clear that the type of religion Collins expounds is what I would term ‘good religion,’ or at least as good as religion is ever likely to get. One can believe in God without ignoring scientific evidence; for example, one doesn’t have to take the Bible literally and doesn’t have to believe that Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark etc actually happened. Also, more rationally inclined people such as these are unlikely to hold bigoted views against certain groups simply because the Bible tells them to. In a comment, some time ago, I outlined a short list of what religious activities I regard as unacceptable:

“The problems arise when religious people try to force their beliefs on others, or use their beliefs as a rationale for legislation (abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia), or use their beliefs as an excuse for bigotry (homosexuality, sexism, racism/slavery), or use their beliefs to rationalise violence (most of the wars in human history, terrorism, murder of abortion doctors), or cite those beliefs in an attempt to subvert the advancement of science (stem cells, evolution, the big bang), or when political parties flaunt those beliefs in order to get ignorant morons elected (George W. Bush).”

I don’t think the religion of people like Collins would have too much of a problem in these areas. Never the less, Collins, due to his standing as a scientist, is likely to be viewed by the public as a more credible authority, so let’s have a look at some of the things he has said:

Francis Collins:

Francis is director of the National Genome Human Research Centre, responsible for mapping the human genetic code. He recently appeared on the Charlie Rose show, flogging his new book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Good luck finding that evidence buddy – there isn’t any. You can watch the entire interview here (Collins comes on at about the 35 minute mark). By the way, PZ Myers has already taken Collins apart for this interview, so much of what I’m covering here has already been said here.

Collins begins with his conversion story, which begins as most of these things do: I used to be an evil atheist, but have now seen the light. Yeah, right, you may have been an atheist, but you obviously didn’t know a thing about why you were an atheist, or you’d still be one.

“I was very comfortable with that (atheism) because it meant I wasn’t really responsible to anyone but me, and I kind of liked that part too.”

Typical. Only a few sentences in and the guy is equating atheism with immorality. Next, he questions atheism when he sees how well his religious patients dealt with death: ‘they were serene in facing death’ as Rose puts it. This is an extremely simple logical error on his part: correlation does not prove causation. PZ Myers puts it very well:

“Meanwhile, all the dying atheists were running around in circles, screaming for their mommies, crapping their pants and making embarrassments of themselves. Oh, wait…that last bit? He didn't say it.”

Just because his religious patients dealt well with death, that does not mean that their religion gave them that ability. All these patients may have had blue eyes, too, but that doesn’t mean having blue eyes allowed them to deal with death better than brown eyed people. This is such a stunningly simple logical error that you have to wonder how good his science is, as these correlation/causation issues crop up all the time. Also, even assuming that it was religion that gifted them this ability, this fact would have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Christianity is actually true.

Whilst talking to a patient, Collins is flustered by a question of what he believes, saying:

“…my atheism suddenly seemed very thin…and I’d never really considered the evidence (for religion) because I didn’t know if there would be any.”

Remember what I said earlier about not knowing why he’s an atheist. Exactly. He then cites C.S. Lewis’ book, Mere Christianity, as the catalyst for his conversion. I haven’t read this book myself, but am very keen to, as it sounds like it would be good for a laugh. PZ has this to say about it:

"And dear gob, he was convinced by Mere Christianity? The "liar, lunatic, or lord" argument? Mere Christianity is a book that leaves atheists baffled at how anyone could find such drivel compelling—it's a set of exceedingly weak excuses that believers find congruent with their preconceptions, but as a recruiting tool…man, it might sway a lunatic, and a liar might find it a useful tool, but lords need not apply."

I have heard the liar, lunatic or Lord argument before. It’s just an incredibly, pathetically stupid argument. Liar and lunatic are perfectly acceptable options, but there are others, like, maybe he was delusional, or never existed in the first place.

Collins then talks at length about Moral Law and where it came from, and that evolution explains the how of natural diversity, but not the why, as if they are different things. Collins seems to disregard the fact that we are thinking beings and are capable of making our own decisions on what is right and wrong, based on what behaviour we find acceptable to have done unto us. He seems to want to lump us in with unthinking animals when he asks “Why would you save a drowning man?” He states that such behaviour has no explanation in evolutionary theory. So what? We (some of us anyway) have empathy with our fellow human beings, as well as an ability to think and reason which does not enter into the behavioural routines followed by animals. I’m afraid he is just plain wrong anyway, as evolution does contain explanations for altruistic behaviours, as those animals working in teams for the good of all are more likely to survive than loners. He also seems to regard this ‘moral law’ as absolute, as if what is considered moral has not changed substantially throughout the centuries. If he’s going to argue that morality comes from religion, in the form of the Bible, then that is also complete bullshit, as the Bible contains some of the most immoral, nasty crap you’re ever likely to come across.

This next bit nearly made me fall out of my chair. I just cannot believe this crap is coming out of the mouth of a scientist:

“…I think this notion that faith is somehow the antithesis of reason is completely wrong. Faith is, in fact, the most rational of all choices when you look at the spectrum between atheism and belief. Imagine this table represents all of the knowledge that ever has existed or will exist in the universe. Ask any individual, where is your own personal knowledge right now? Even the most confident of us will draw a tiny little circle. Now suppose the knowledge of the existence of God is outside your tiny little circle.”

This is just beyond stunning; it looks like Collins has been chatting to renowned moron, Ray Comfort, and has decided to borrow one of his stupidest arguments. I covered this in a previous post:

“Oh, so we should believe in God because there may be evidence that we are unaware of. According to this insane illogic, not only would we have to believe in God, but every single thing that we can possibly conceive of.”

Note the first couple of sentences of his quote: faith is not the antithesis of reason and, faith is the most rational of choices. He then uses the next few sentences to give one of the stupidest arguments ever made. What an idiot.

Most of the rest of the interview contains similar drivel, but there was one point of interest: Rose showed a clip from the appearance of Richard Dawkins on his show and asked Collins to comment. Richard said this in response to the question, what’s the best thing you can say about faith?

“Not a lot. I think faith is pernicious because it teaches people, especially children, that believing something without evidence is a virtue… Faith teaches you not to ask for the evidence. It teaches you: this is true, because it’s true, because it’s true. You just have faith and you don’t have to justify it.”

Spot on Richard; you rule buddy. Collins says:

“I would agree with what he said, that we should teach young people to seek the evidence before drawing a conclusion. That’s what drew me to become a believer after I had been an atheist; when I went and looked at the evidence, it was more convincing to believe in God than not to. The mistake that I think Dawkins makes is he only accepts scientific evidence as any criterion for making a decision. If God exists, God is outside of nature. Science is the way we investigate nature. It does not help us with this question.”

What a load of bullshit. Yes, we should teach kids to evaluate evidence, as well as furnish them with all the tools of skeptical enquiry and logic. But these are tools that even Collins, a prominent scientist, obviously lacks woefully. He says “only scientific evidence.” What the hell other kinds of evidence are there? There are only two types of evidence I can think of that are non-scientific: non-existent evidence and anecdotal evidence (both equally useless). Collins waffles on and on about how it was the evidence that convinced him, yet he offers no explanation as to what, exactly, he is referring to, and he’s effectively just said that it is not possible that any such evidence could even exist, at all. Saying that God exists outside nature renders its existence completely irrelevant, and is just as meaningless as saying: ‘fairies exist outside nature, but we should believe in them anyway.’ It’s just a pathetic exercise in rationalising the nonsensical.

So, what the hell is going on here? Why are such intelligent, educated people saying such incredibly stupid things? Well, they have no choice; there is not one argument for religious belief that comes within miles of standing up to logical scrutiny. If they’re going to attempt to explain their religious beliefs, they therefore have no other recourse than to use tired, stupid arguments that have been shot down in flames ad infinitum. Religious scientists, such as Collins here, seem to have compartmentalized their brains; one part for scientific work, and the other walled of against all logic, rational argument and evidence (probably fully furnished with warning signs, guards with machine-guns and sniffer dogs – logic must be a real bastard to keep out). I’ve often said that religion is a stupidity factory; it suck up kids and spews out irrational, ignorant adults by the thousand. If it can have this kind of effect on an intelligent scientist, just imagine what it can do to your ‘Average Joe.’ Actually, we don’t need to imagine; we see the disastrous effects of religion all over the world, and every damn day.

Not in a John Edwards way though; the guy was alive at the time. I saw this USA Today article a few weeks ago and it gave me a right good laugh. Stephen Hawking recalls a conversation he had with the late Pope; according to Stephen, the Pope had this to say:

"It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God."

I find this funny for several reasons, and it raises some interesting questions. First, had the Pope given up hope that scientists would find evidence for the existence of God? This sounds like a plea for scientists not to shatter his silly delusions. It reminds me of people who refuse to discuss their religious beliefs with an atheist. There are a couple of these ‘finger in ears, LA LA LA LA LA, not listening’ types in my group of friends. My question is: why would you not want to discuss it if you believe it to be true? This says to me that, at some level, you already know it’s bullshit, but avoid thinking about it too much as this childish rubbish makes you feel better. If so, I find this attitude to be absolutely abhorrent. Here’s a quote Carl Sagan used in his book ‘The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark’ (a book that should be required reading for all human children):

“It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money so long as you have got it.”

Edmund Way Teale

I don’t think I agree that it’s morally wrong, but I certainly think it’s infantile and pathetic.

Second, what’s he worried about? Nobody in our increasingly vacuous culture listens to scientists anyway. I would have thought evolution (which, credit to him, JP acknowledged as true) is much more of a hit to religion than the big bang, but it doesn’t seem to have done much harm, despite being supported by mountains upon mountains of evidence. Lots of people still believe that Adam and Eve bullshit though.

Third, who the fuck do you think you are telling scientists what they should and shouldn’t study? You insane, silly hat wearing, sanctimonious twit. And people call atheists and skeptics arrogant; unbelievable. The Pope’s statement is exactly the same as an astrologer telling scientists not to study planetary mechanics because the magic of astrology is at work. Preposterous. Your contention that the universe was created by God is a hypothesis and one that requires some pretty solid evidence before it will be believed by intelligent people. Currently, (like astrology) there is not a single shred of evidence that your God exists. Its existence (also like astrology) defies logic and all the evidence currently available. In a word, you are wrong; God does not exist. Get over it.

In the article, Hawking made a joke about Galileo and the inquisition (he just loves to play up that birthday connection, doesn’t he?) which lead us to another quote from John Paul, regarding his recent pardoning of Galileo:

“…Pope John Paul II issued a declaration saying the church's denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."”

Tragic mutual incomprehension? Wow, what a load of shit, and a fantastic apology considering it was nearly four hundred years in the making. The religious authorities of the time persecuted a guy because he dared to question their (utterly wrong) dogmatic teachings, based on actual evidence he had collected. Where’s the mutual incomprehension? The only incomprehension here is on the part of the religious authorities and their complete incomprehension of reality. This kind of silliness has been happening throughout history. A few examples: first, according to the Bible, the religious argued the earth was flat; wrong. Those passages are now ignored and don’t mean what they used to mean (although there still exists a Flat Earth Society who continue to use the same arguments. No shit). Next, they argued, based on scriptural literalism, that the sun revolves around the earth; wrong. Those passages are now ignored. We’ve also seen the same arguments regarding slavery. Those passages are now ignored. The contemporary example is that of gay marriage. People argue, based on their stupid book, that being gay is wrong, so equal rights should be denied that minority community. No doubt, in time, reality will wash over these morons again and those passages will be ignored also. Why can’t we just skip to the chase and throw the useless book out and be done with it? It would just save us so much time, and the world would be a much better place.

In the comments to my recent post on transcendental meditation, Dikkii had this to say about A Current Affair:

"ACA has the social conscience of a dog on a croquet lawn."

This, of course, made me laugh quite a bit, so I thought I’d write another post on the subject.

I would like to point out that their competition, Today Tonight, also blows. James Randi's commentary this week, under the hyperbolic title ‘A leap forward in Australia,’ mentions TT and a story they did on some quack, which could apparently prompt legislative change (hoo-bloody-rah). The problem I have with TT and ACA is that every time they do one of these 'Evil Quack Commits Fraud - Kills Thousands' stories, they make out that the quack in question is a bad egg. Wrong - all alternative medicine practitioners are full of shit; some are just more blatant than others.

There’s an old joke that covers this problem nicely:

Q: What do you call alternative medicine that works?

A: Medicine.

What is really annoying is that the people taking advantage of these ‘alternative’ health services can cost us non-morons money. How? By increasing the cost of health insurance premiums (passing on the wastings, as it were); stunningly, most private health insurance providers cover many forms of blatant bullshit, such as acupuncture. For those who aren’t already aware, acupuncture ‘works’ by channelling and directing chi energy (which, of course, doesn’t exist). The only evidence we get from these twits that it actually works are anecdotal testimonials. They usually go something like this:

“I was really sceptical about it, but my best friend’s cat told me it works, so I thought, like, what have I got to lose (your money; your life; your pride; you idiot)? So I went in and the doc was really nice, laughing a lot (at your gullibility). He stuck some pins in me in what seemed a completely random fashion (if only you knew how random). I know it seems silly, but the needle prodding cured all my problems (it is silly, really silly). What’s more, my astrologer reckons I’m in for a good week (kill yourself, please).”

So Jill, the harebrained hairdresser, can pop into a clinic, get some needles stuck in her dumb ass, sit in front of a camera and provide a very convincing testimonial to the efficacy of acupuncture, be home in time for tea and crumpets, and cost everyone else their hard earned cash. Bitch! Why isn’t everyone pissed off about this?

Randi’s story includes an interesting quote from our Health Minister, John Hatzistergos, from his comments on possible legislative changes:

"What we say to these people (the victims) is we're doing everything possible to identify those individuals who exploited you and to prevent them from exploiting other people in similar circumstances."

Identify exploiters of the gullible and ignorant? Piece of piss, Johnny boy; you can't be looking very hard. Here’s a quick list to get you started: acupuncturists, homeopaths, naturopaths, psychic healers, faith healers, aroma therapists, chiropractors, magnet therapists, crystal healers, reiki and pranic healers…  

“In Australia we have over 10,000 people listed as “Alternate Therapy Specialists” with the industry worth A$2 billion.”

Um, no, actually; it looks like the Herald Sun is just doing more advertising for their good friends, the woos. Phew, I was rather alarmed there for a minute. An article today, 'Pupils schooled in calmer karma,' (nice title, retards) outlines the use of TM to transform students into magical superkids who never misbehave. It looks like they're flogging a lecture series by batshit insane wingnut, Ashley Deans, a quantum physicist (apparently) and head of the Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment in Iowa. They even provide a telephone number for bookings and a net link. How nice of them.

Maharishi Primary School Principle, Frances Clark, supplies proof that TM works in schools:

"There has been a noticeable change in their growth and enthusiasm for their schoolwork."

Noticeable changes in enthusiasm according to whom? Oh, you're a member of the nut brigade? Excuse me if I don't take your testimony seriously. "Noticeable changes in their growth?" Wow, you can watch people growing before your very eyes? Awesome!

Frances wouldn't be a proper woo if she didn't claim the scientific legitimacy of her fantasies,
though:

"Ms. Clarke said scientific studies had shown TM promoted the full potential of the brain... (blah blah blah)."

Bullshit.

Nice piece of journalism Herald Sun. How much did you receive from the Maharashi people for this crap?

Now, let's take a look at Ashley Deans, the apparent recipient of this advertising space, in
support of his upcoming lectures at La Trobe University. Shame, La Trobe, shame.

Mr. Deans' blog, Enlightened Educator (hahaha, good one), contains many hilarious statements:

"Did you know that top brain researchers report that modern education damages your child’s brain?"

No, Ash, I didn't know that. Sounds like bullshit to me; although, I would agree that modern
education is piss-poor. In fact, it's so bad that people don't immediately point and laugh at idiots like yourself. I don't think our education is that bad that it would do physical damage to a person's brain though. Nice try.

"I know because at Maharishi School we use the Transcendental Meditation technique and Consciousness-Based education to wake up the brain — to develop the brain’s full potential."

Consciousness-Based education? As opposed to unconsciousness-based education: educating the dead.

"This program, when practiced in groups such as school classes, has also been shown to reduce acute social stress, resulting in decreased crime, terrorism, conflict, and war."

Yep, this dude is a complete flipping nut. Just in case you haven't heard, this rubbish is one of
the central claims of TM. Get enough meditating people together, and it sends out waves of
'positive energy,' leading to reduced crime rates, violence, war etc etc. and soon we will
achieve paradise on Earth. Some of you may have seen the film 'What the bleep do we know?' (quite a lot, actually; the film makers obviously weren't aware of that) where they claimed that crime was reduced in Washington over a certain period because a bunch of tools sat about, humming. Of course, the actual statistics put the lie to this. Pesky reality.

"...it is so important that students in schools and colleges receive a Consciousness-Based education, which includes the practice of the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program, including Yogic Flying."

This is the about as sad as it gets. Anyone who has any respect for this guy after he mentions yogic flying is a moron. Yogic flying has to be seen to be believed. It consists of a pack of clowns hopping around on rubber mats in the lotus position; that's it (aforementioned clowns, pictured right). Apparently, this is only stage 1 on the path to true levitation. Strangely, nobody has reached stage 2. I wonder why?

Why the hell is this crazy bastard getting plugs in the Herald Sun? Why is La Trobe University allowing him to spew his insane bullshit on their campus? Idiots.

For further information, read the Skeptic's dictionary entry on Transcendental Meditation.

There's been some discussion on this site recently regarding Hillsong Church and the concept of tithing. I thought this video, from last week's Chaser's War on Everything, might shed more light on the matter (found this on God is for Suckers; news travels fast). The war was great last week; not only did they take on Hillsong Church with this hilarious song, but also had a crack at new age stupidity. They set up a stall at some market in an attempt to find out just how obvious a bullshit artist you have to be before people will show some skepticism. They named their products gullible snake oil, candles made from pure bull, bollocks balls etc. The sales pitch included all the usual bullshit from woo pushers; positive energy, ancient wisdom, chakras, magical properties, science can’t explain… blah blah blah. Sadly, people still fell for it. Man, people are idiots. The real problem is ignorance; if people don't know anything, they'll be taken in by anything. Our education system is woefully inadequate; it should be completely and utterly impossible for someone to come out of secondary education and still be taken in by astrology (for example). Depressingly, this is not the case.

Richard Dawkins is a bloody hero. We need more scientists that have the guts to tackle religious lunacy. There seems to be an insidious politically correct notion that religious faith should be respected, placing it beyond criticism. Why? Dawkins tackles this question and many others in his superb documentary: 'The root of all evil?'

I hope we will be seeing this on our television screens in the near future; it should stir up a nice little controversy and debate. Hopefully, we will not miss out because of some politically correct nonsense similar to that prompting the removal of a South Park episode from the SBS schedule.

The Root Of All Evil?: Episode 1: The God Delusion.

In my post on Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort’s dishonest and ignorant ramblings, I mentioned they had produced a little booklet of tips for converting atheists. Some of that booklet can be found here (thanks Atheist Jew). Check it out, it’s most amusing. It would appear that Ray’s tips will not win you over with any atheist who knows their stuff, but make you look decidedly moronic and ignorant. As a service to any honest theists out there, I will point out a few reasons why. You can then tell this idiot to shut the hell up; he’s making you look bad (or worse perhaps).

Ray begins with the ‘banana was designed by God for our consumption’ argument, which I’ve already covered. He then uses an oft quoted passage from Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

This passage is often used by creationists. What they always fail to mention is what follows: Darwin’s explanation of how the eye has formed over many generations by incremental improvement in accordance with his theory of natural selection. Using this passage on its own is about as dishonest as you can get. Comfort’s explanatory paragraph is a ripper:

“If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance? In fact, man cannot make anything from nothing. We don't know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop . . . but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. Yet, the eye is only a small part of the most sophisticated part of creation-the human body.”

Idiotic strawman – evolutionary theory does not say the eye formed by chance. Honestly, a ten year old could understand this stuff. We can’t make a human eye? True, but we can produce machines recreating its functions. Cameras, for instance, can work better than the human eye – they have a zoom function. What follows is even more perplexing; he seems to think that evolution, in forming the eye, created matter out of nothing in order to do so. Wow, that’s really, really, really fucking dumb.

Ray then uses two more quotes to back up his position; one from George Gallop, who demonstrates his idiocy and ignorance, and one from Albert Einstein. Granted, Einstein often used peculiar language prone to misinterpretation, but he did not believe in a personal God. Here are a couple of quotes, whereby Einstein definitively states his position:

1. “It was, of course a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and have not denied this but expressed it clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
2. “I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.”

Ouch Ray, now that’s gotta hurt! Here’s the lesson: if you’re going to use arguments from authority (fallacious anyway), it might be a good idea to find out what that authority really thinks, or you risk looking a tad silly (or sillier, but that’s hardly possible with this idiot).

Ray then takes it upon himself to redefine the term 'atheist' as someone who has a positive belief that there is no God (strong atheism), rather than someone who simply does not believe in God. So Ray, how is strong atheism less reasonable than belief in God? It's a much more reasonable position, given the evidence and the findings of science. He feels that strong atheism is an unreasonable position because:

"Let's say that this circle represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, and let's assume that you have an incredible 1% of all that knowledge. Is it possible, that in the knowledge you haven't yet come across, there is ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?"

Oh, so we should believe in God because there may be evidence that we are unaware of. According to this insane illogic, not only would we have to believe in God, but every single thing that we can possibly conceive of. I wonder if Ray believes in fairies, as well.

Further on, Ray has this to say about the problem of evil:

“Perhaps you have questions that hold you back from faith. First, almost every question you have about suffering humanity etc., can be adequately answered.”

Can they, adequately? Well, why didn’t you? I’m willing to bet his answers would include the following stupidities:

1. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
2. It’s God’s will, and we lowly humans cannot comprehend it.
3. God is pissed off because not enough people are sucking up to him, or following his stupid rules.
4. Satan is bad, and he dun all the badness.
   

Adequate answers within the framework of religious claims about God? I think not. Here are the real reasons for human suffering:

1. People are idiots; and
2. There are too many people; and
   
3. Shit happens.

In a pathetic show of desperation, the Church of England is going into partnership with estate agents to offer blessing services for people moving home. I imagine such desperation is a response to recent studies showing religious belief is in near-terminal decline in the UK. According to the studies, religious parents have only a 50% chance of passing on their belief to their children (indoctrination), whereas non-believer parents are almost certain to produce non-believers. Alas, this outbreak of non-belief is not necessarily indicative of a wave of critical and scientific thinking; rather, people are swapping one form of bullshit for another, in the form of new age/eastern spiritualism and mysticism (or crap for short).

The Church of England is attempting to arrest this trend by offering non-traditional services such as house blessings. According to this article in the Daily Telegraph: 

Clergy behind the scheme want to tap into the explosion of interest in New Age practices such as feng shui as a way of tempting people back to church. “The current trend in New Age spirituality is aimed at self-fulfillment, people wanting to be happy and achieve things. We are trying to focus on Christianity and show people that God has an interest in our lives."

The current trend in New Age spirituality is aimed at self-fulfillment? Wrong, it’s aimed at ignorant morons; as is, apparently, this new service. What does this service actually entail?

As the vicars go from room to room, they will lay hands on everything from the bed, praying for a healthy sex life, to the lavatory, asking for "good health and to give thanks for sanitation".

In the kitchen they will say: "O Lord, to all who shall work in this room that, in serving others, they may serve you and share in your perfect service and that in the noise and clutter of the kitchen they may possess you in tranquility; through Jesus Christ our Lord."

In other words, some twit in funny clothes wanders about your house, mumbling meaningless bullshit. I wonder if they pray for a healthy sex life if, horror of horrors, the couple in question is not actually married? And you don't get to claim credit for sanitation; that was science.

"We will pray for people who are anxious about dry rot that they will be given guidance about how to tackle it.”

Hahahahaha; God concerns himself with dry rot now? Does this ‘guidance’ referred to come from God, or can they call a handyman?

There will be those who are worried about security and we will ask God to watch over the house.” However, "divine protection" was not a guarantee against burglary.

No, of course it’s not a guarantee; we wouldn’t want to be held accountable for this crap actually doing anything, would we?

What a pathetic, desperate, and embarrassing service to offer; blasphemous even.

This is a couple of weeks old now, but I thought I’d put it up anyway. The South Park guys have done a brilliant double episode regarding the whole Mohammad cartoon debacle. In the second episode, they were going to show a cartoon image of Mohammad handing a helmet to Peter from the Family Guy. Comedy Central refused to show the image, and it was edited and replaced with this:

“Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammad on their network.”

As I said in an earlier post: “Give those rioting fucking lunatics a pat on the head and a dog biscuit.” Their disgraceful antics have had the desired effect. I thought we weren’t supposed to give in to terrorism?

They then expose an absurd double standard by broadcasting, as the terrorist’s retaliation, cartoon images of Jesus crapping on the President. You can’t show a completely innocuous image of Mohammad, but you can show Jesus crapping on someone? Ridiculous.

Here is a short video from the episode where Kyle argues for free speech. He sums it up nicely:

I recently received a comment from Bryan Patterson regarding Intelligent Design and string theory: “The contempt that many scientists have expressed for Intelligent Design knows no bounds, but it can be summarized in a single dismissive sentence: "It's not science." Now string theory—that's another matter. String theory generates articles and grants and symposia.”  Since I cannot link to other sites from the comments section, I have decided to post a response here.

The main problem with ID is that it is not a theory of its own, but a collection of superficial arguments against evolution (straw men); the idea being that if evolution is wrong, then an intelligent designer must be responsible (a false dichotomy). Unfortunately for the ID supporters, science does not work like that.

A scientific theory is the result of the scientific method:

1. Collection of all currently available data/observations relevant to phenomenon under consideration.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis that fits with all available data.
3. Experimentation to test that hypothesis.
4. Acceptance or rejection of hypothesis.
   

After a hypothesis has been tested a number of times, it may be accepted by the scientific community as a theory. The theory continues to be tested whenever new data becomes available. If the data does not fit the theory, the theory is rejected or revised. A scientific theory comprises many requisite characteristics, none of which ID displays: testable, makes predictions, falsifiable, supported by all the available evidence etc. Instead of following the scientific method, the IDers have simply jumped to the conclusion, based on their religious beliefs, that an intelligent designer is responsible. They have then attempted to find evidence for that conclusion. Such a reversal of the scientific method inevitably leads to bad science.

Another problem with ID is that the arguments put forth by its proponents are often straw men or just plain wrong. The two most famous ID proponents are William Dembski and Michael Behe. So far as I can tell, not one of their arguments even comes close to being a valid criticism of evolution.

William Dembski: Dembski, a mathematician, uses probability based argument to infer design. His (mostly straw man) arguments are highly flawed and based on rather absurd assumptions. A critique of his book, No Free Lunch, where he expands on his specified complex information idea can be found here at Talk Origins. The blog, Good Math Bad Math also exposes falsehoods in some of his papers: here, here and here. 

Michael Behe: Behe, a biochemist, gave us irreducible complexity in his book, Darwin’s Black Box. This argument is also flawed for a multitude of reasons. If you’re interested, check out this lecture by Ken Miller. Ken is a Catholic biologist who believes in theistic evolution. In this lecture, he explains very clearly why irreducible complexity and Intelligent Design in general is a load of hot air. Warning: it's a long one, but worth it.

The tactics the Discovery Institute and others employ in support of ID are also highly indicative of their religious, rather than scientific motivations. Instead of attempting to have their ideas recognized by the scientific community by publishing in respected peer-reviewed journals, they use political and legal means to force their ideas in via the back door. This policy recently backfired in a legal case in Dover, Pennsylvania.

A couple of quotes from the Judge’s (a Bush appointee BTW) decision:

“In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”

“The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision (to include ID in the curriculum) is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.”

The idea put forth by the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents that we should ‘teach the controversy’ is extremely disingenuous. It is intended to play on people’s idea of fairness; however, no such scientific controversy exists. This cartoon sums up, accurately and humorously, the reality of the ‘teach the controversy’ idea.