The Southern Fried Skeptic

2009-09-12T10:02:00.002-05:00

I usually don't bother wasting my time with pundits unless they offer some actual entertainment value. And even then, I don't consider them to be accurate sources of information and always check the validity of any drivel that they unleash.

But the crazy that I have been hearing about from a Mr. Glenn Beck has piqued my interest enough that I decided to search for some clips and see if this guy is really the nutcase that he appears to be.

The first clip I came across is an older one about global warming from his days at CNN. Literally less than a minute into the clip and I am laughing at this guy. He is either consciously deceptive, but it seems more likely that he is just clueless. He starts off with a statistic- always a red flag. In his argument against potential dangers from global warming, he states:

"Deaths per year from extreme weather are down 95% since the 1920's".

Uhhh....Glenn, that may be due to I don't know, things like satellites in space which can help us forecast extreme weather, among other technological advances in architecture, medicine, and first response abilities that all help us to save lives. Agencies like FEMA usually do more good than harm as well. Not a good start as far as giving me confidence in your ability to rationally consider topics.

He goes on to say that espousing such views will make you "unhip and friendless". And I'm sorry you feel unhip and friendless Mr. Beck, but your personal self-esteem issues don't really fit into the cold world of logic. If used appropriately, rational thinking will lead you to an accurate conclusion- there are no guarantees that it will be a warm and fuzzy conclusion that makes your life easier. Sometimes the correct answer is a painful truth. However, there is some comfort in that presented with the same data, those who employ logical reasoning will frequently arrive at similar conclusions. Sort of like how almost all the experts and rational scientists who specialize in climatology and related fields have analyzed the data and reached the conclusion that global warming is very likely to be a true phenomenon, and that it is very likely that humans are contributing a significant amount to the process.

He then goes on to discuss the fact that John Coleman, co-founder of the Weather Channel, wrote an article stating that AGW is a scam. Glenn, maybe you are impressed that he helped found the Weather Channel and that he is a television anchorman. But that doesn't make him a well-informed scientist. He got his degree in journalism from what I can tell. I mean, would you trust Hugh Laurie to diagnose a serious disease? Would you let him perform your next hemorrhoid operation? No? Because he's not a real doctor, right? You see, you want someone specialized and scientifically knowledgeable about such things. Here's a sample of Coleman's reasoning skills:

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming
frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the
voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex
theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is
based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil
fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.
Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is
manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The
Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant
global warming.

...

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component
of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is
absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to
trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we
humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a
naturally occurring invisible gas.
Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s
all there is to it; it can’t.

No rational opponent just simply declares their opponent wrong. Look at the red herrings and fallacies in this argument. It's ludicrous. The fact that CO^2 is natural has no bearing whatsover on its role as a greenhouse gas. We naturally produce hydrochloric acid in our stomachs, does that mean it is fine for John Coleman to drink a glass? Sulfur Dioxide is a naturally occuring invisible gas as well. It doesn't mean it's good to have in the atmosphere. Then he finishes with a classic argument from ignorance fallacy- I don't see how it could have an effect, therefore it must not have an effect. I think this should be renamed the arrogant prick arguing from their own perceived omniscience fallacy.

Beck does call it an opinion, but I have a bad feeling he is going to use it like a fact. I won't have time to finish this analysis right now, but will finish it during the upcoming week and then move on into exploring some of the other Beckisms that so far do not seem far-fetched.

Stuck in the Middle with You.

2009-04-23T15:52:00.002-05:00

Did you know that there are extremists on both the right and left of the political spectrum? No, really. Because it seems that some people don't acknowledge extremes. Thus the uproar over the past few weeks about a report from homeland security that suggests (I'm paraphrasing) the current political and domestic atmosphere may encourage activities, including violence, by right wing extremists or terrorists.

Now, for the average citizen who leans right politically, or even adopts the label, right-wing, this should be neither cause for alarm nor surprise. But yet, some seem to have had that reaction.

Bob Bennett (R), from Utah, wrote to HS secretary Janet Napolitano saying,

"Do you truly believe that our returning war heroes, and all citizens who are gun owners, are not only unpatriotic, but threats to the state?"

Did the report make this claim? Here's the offending part of the report.

"The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today,"

In other words, after Gulf War I, a very small percent of returning vets who possibly had psychological or other problems joined extremists groups. Of course, people from all walks of life with similar problems join radical groups. Why would homeland security focus on vets? Just a guess, but I'd say it was because they have MILITARY TRAINING. Call me crazy, but I think our military is the best trained, most lethal force in the world. If my beer-swilling overweight racist neighbor living on disability joins a radical organization, I don't worry too much. But a former SEAL sniper, or military demolitions expert, etc... who joins such a group causes me a bit of alarm. Not because they are more or less likely to harbor violent intent, but because they are much more capable of successfully acting out any violent intentions that may develop. Case in point, Timothy McVeigh who is sighted in the report. McVeigh is not singled out as an example of the character of vets. He is singled out as an example of the capabilities and threat posed by a combination of extreme ideology and military training.

Abortion clinics have been bombed. Timothy McVeigh did exist. Jim Adkisson and Richard Poplawski were real people who killed real people. These people do not represent that average conservative. They do no represent the average right wing American. I have several conservative friends. They do not act like these people. My conservative friends have a name for right-wingers like these guys...what do they call them? Oh yeah- EXTREMISTS. Just like the report said.

How is this so difficult. Either people like Pat Robertson (who is having a fit about this, even questioning the sexual orientation of those composing the report) have such profound ignorance that they don't know these people really exist. Or perhaps they just want something to bitch about and hope that the average conservative American will jump on the bandwagon- once again proving my hypothesis that modern conservative rhetoric depends heavily on the listener being ignorant and not thinking about it.

The final possibility which I hope is not the case, is that these people complaining honestly can't distinguish between their own views and the views of extremists- in which case the report really was about them.

I'll leave with a story about protests against some left-wing extremists. I'm talking about animal rights extremists. There was a counter protest, creatively named Pro-Test, on Earth Day in support of scientists who do conduct research on animals. It had a great turnout- far more than the animal rights wingnuts. Good for them. Read more about it at Scienceblogs.

Galactic insurer nightmare

2009-04-18T10:11:00.003-05:00

This is a really cool picture from hubble.

It shows a collision of 4 galaxy clusters. The Bad Astronomer has an informative write up on his blog.

2009-04-17T14:44:00.003-05:00

A couple of other blog entries that have entertained me today.

About a recent Sarah Palin appearance:

Addressing an addled sampling of Indiana's populace at the Vandeburgh County
Right-to-Life dinner tonight, Palin once again exposed both her basic lack of
intellectual candlepower and her 10-kiloton hypocrisy, prating on about the
importance of abstinence despite the fact that she was well aware of her
daughter Bristol's sexual involvement with Levi Johnston, delivering more
plaintive and dishonest pro-life tripe, and just sounding--again--like a madly
winking anus would sound if backed by a sufficiently strong and steady supply of
searing intestinal effluvia.

From Kevin Beck at Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge

About the Teabaggers around America:

Comrade PhysioProf walked through one of these wackaloon teabagger parties
yesterday. Looking at and listening to the people in attendance, it was
abundantly clear that they represent the most ignorant stone-cold-fucking-stupid
dregs of the dregs of remaining sewage of the sick-fuck right wing of American
society. These selfish whiny pig people are repugnant to decent Americans.

That's the entire post. Concise and vitriolic. I like it. From Comrade Physioprof

Funny

2007-08-23T23:19:00.000-05:00

Hate to send anyone to Myspace, but this is hilarious. Not the most talent, but terrific message.

Keep Your Jesus Off My Penis Song

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Top 5 Mind Expanding Scientific Ideas

2007-08-23T23:18:00.000-05:00

1. Schrodinger's Cat- The whole dual nature of quantum particles in quantum mechanics is one of the most mind-blowing concepts I have ever tried (and I do mean tried) to wrap my brain around.

2. Relative Time- The idea in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity that time is not an objective force but is relative and subject to manipulation, especially as one approaches the speed of light.

3. "We are Star Stuff"- In the beginning there was hydrogen. Astrophysics tells us that this hydrogen formed the first generation of stars and inside them, the processes of nuclear fusion created all heavier elements. As this initial generation finished it's lifespan, the release of these newly created heavier elements through supernova, and in star generations to follow spread all heavier elements found in the universe today, including the atoms in our bodies. Our atoms were forged in the hearts of stars billions of years ago.

4. Implications of the Speed of Light- Understanding that light has a speed and therefore over the great distances within our universe, we may "see" the past. Knowing that some of the stars you see at night may be long dead, but their light is just completing its long journey to your eyes, allowing you to see it as it was. Also, with lightspeed as the ultimate limit in the universe, light can determine the volume of space for which you exist in the universe- you cannot affect anything outside a sphere with a radius equal to the distance light could travel from the moment of your existence.

5. The interconnectedness of all life- From Darwin's Theory of Evolution we understand that all life on earth is connected, bound together as family descending from a common ancestor.

Un-American

2007-07-13T15:26:00.000-05:00

This is the lack of understanding of American values that is sad and really pisses me off. Those who interrupted this are truly un-American, un-patriotic, and plain ignorant.

Websense at work.

2007-03-21T10:58:00.001-05:00

Websense at work. Our wonderful new filter at work is now fully installed. And let me tell you it is a view of a future that is scary. The Websense filter now used by the public school which employs me is a tool of absolute control that in the name of security and conformity serves only to restrict independent thinking and research. I felt it was overly protective when even Scienceblogs was considered a blocked website. Some brief research pulled up this article in the HeraldTribune.

"Nathan Robinson, 16, was pulling together the horoscopes for the student newspaper when he ran into an eye-opening problem: The school's Web filter blocked him from getting any information on astrology because it fell under the state's filter for cults and nonmainstream religions."

That's right. There is a filter called cults and nonmainstream religions. I guess the "mainstream" religions have so much more evidence for the validity of their claims. Bunk is bunk- regardless of popularity. How is this not discriminatory?

"We have access to sites on Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but not a lot of the smaller religions, or the various cults and things," said Robinson, who is a member of the Pine View Progressive Club. "We find that the filter picks on some of these nontraditional religions are arbitrary."
...
"Our goal is really simple," Robinson said. "We just want to see nontraditional religions removed as a category."

This is ridiculous. No one should be afraid of information. Children being exposed to different or non-traditional information should be viewed as an opportunity to learn, teach, and think critically. It should open up dialog between parents and children-teachers and students. It should not be something feared. I suppose it could possibly undo some carefully constructed brainwashing.

I read on Wikipedia that this software is also used by countries like Iran and China for their censorship protocols. *Skeptic's Qualification- Wikipedia does not necessarily indicate reliable.

I tried to do more research, but sites like the OpenNet Initiative which tracks and researches censorship on the internet were blocked. Websense Filter Category- Advocacy Groups.

Visions

2007-03-21T01:27:00.000-05:00

If you have not watched this, you should go right now.

Without Sagan, there would be no Southern Fried Skeptic. I found the end particularly moving.

Vision

Visiting my daughter.

2007-03-17T10:43:00.001-05:00

Visiting my daughter.

Silenced by the Lambs

2007-03-15T22:41:00.000-05:00

Some may know that my original blog was on a service called Mindsay. I still have my old blog there, which sometimes shadows this one but is being converted into a more personalized and experimental blog rather than informative.

But I still enjoy cruising the other blogs at Mindsay, mingling and seeing what's on the minds of the people there. I hit upon this gem of a post last night.

From a strictly mathematical viewpoint:

What Equals 100%? What does it mean to give MORE than 100%? Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%? We have all been in situations where someone wants you to give over 100%. How about achieving 101%? What equals 100% in life?

Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these

Questions to ponder upon:

If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.

Then:

H-A-R-D-W-O-R- K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%

and

K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%

But,

A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%

AND, look how far the love of God will take you

L- O- V- E-O-F-G-O-D

12+15+22+5+15+6+7+15+4 = 101%

Therefore, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that:

While Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, ... It's the Love of God that will put you over the top!

I posted a reply that basically said another way of looking at this would be to consider that if 100% is the totality of experience, then a result of 101% when calculating "god's love" would be inconsistent with the set of possible results and should be discarded as inaccurate. I then went on to say that perhaps deities are more like the mathematical oddity i - the imaginary number. Something that does not really exist but is created and used as an end-around for the limitations of our ability to solve certain problems.

I thought it was polite argument with a clever twist on the idea the author presented. I did not think it was antagonistic or rude or even angry. At worst, it may be called provocative, but provocative ideas, when presented openly and with a civil tone, are a tool for progress and improvement of thought in my opinion. But apparently it was in some way inappropriate. The author filters all replies to posts and my voice seemed to be lacking the standards required to share space at this blog.

Isn't this just the whole problem of ideological blindness infecting our nation in a microcosm? If you go to the blog and read the replies, they are all positive, glowing, and supportive. It seems those trying so desperately to protect a fragile ideology, ravaged by progress, made hollow by loss of evidential support, and starving with roots that never quite found purchase in reality, feel that they must avoid any ideas that conflict with their world-view. Note that it is not enough to prepare and develop the principles of their ideology so as to be strong in the struggle for cultural supremacy. It is too risky to compete on a level field in the marketplace of ideas by presenting a credible basis and reasonable foundation for their ideology's general merit. No, the competition must simply be silenced. Drown them out, deny them a voice whenever possible, and make sure to attach negative connotations (like declaring dissent unpatriotic) to any voice that accidentally slips through. I just get frustrated at the widespread epidemic of Fundamental Reinforcement Syndrome evidenced in Fox News and overenthusiastic Merry Christmas campaigns and Nasa Climate scientists' reports of political interference. Someone should tell them that censorship in the market of ideas, no matter how right or righteous you may think your ideas are- or your certainty that the opposition is wrong, pierces the heart of freedom and strike at the core of the idea that is America.

SFS

The Efficacy of Profanity

2007-03-14T21:07:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm finally back.

I wandered the wilderness and now, with guarded optimism, I appear to have resolved all issues conspiring to silence me. Conspiracy theorists, don't get your hopes up. I am just using a little literary license. The final obstacle that was preventing me from blogging was primarily problems with my self-built computer. These problems threatened to rip apart the fabric of rational reality and shook my world view to its core. But creativity often thrives in the fields of chaos, and so I have been inspired to propose a research project for any interested in participation or sponsorship. If the reader will bear with me, I will try to briefly explain.

For some unknown reason, my computer suddenly stopped sending a signal to my monitor. After checking several possibilities, I resigned to buy a new video card since that was the oldest component in my PC and therefore, I thought, the most likely culprit. The replacement card did not resolve the issue. Thus began a series of component replacement and testing exercises that reached a critical point which, upon passing, created a (not necessarily reasonable) state where the financial commitment to solving what appeared to be a simple problem was such that mentally I could not justify withholding whatever funding it took to solve the problem. (-I think there is an Iraq commentary somewhere in there-). Eventually I had replaced the motherboard, CPU, RAM, video card, and tried a new monitor. Anyone who is computer savvy will understand that in essence, I had a completely brand new machine. When I powered it up, just like before, lights turned on, fans whirled, speakers beeped, and NO SIGNAL WENT TO MY MONITOR. This had no rational explanation. None of the basic components related to sending such a signal were even the same. The power supply was working fine. Dejected, confused, and feeling a rising panic in the face of technical helplessness, I lost all reserve and began reciting a string of profanity and threats of computer destruction that I believe could be classified as a monologue in vulgarity of Shakespearean proportions. The following day I pressed the power button with the intent of violently shaking the damn thing until it either worked or fell apart. Imagine my surprise when my BIOS flashed up on the monitor with a "hi...been waiting for you"attitude. Once again, there was no logical reason for this result. I could not identify any variables affecting the outcome. I knew I had not prayed. But then I realized that I had used a great deal of profanity.

So I hit upon the idea of "the Fonz effect", a reference to the Happy Days character who coerced an uncooperative jukebox to play by striking it. If the Templeton Foundation can waste millions studying the efficacy of prayer, surely somebody would support a research project studying the efficacy of profanity, especially in regards to its application to technical or mechanical devices. The use of profanity is widespread in American culture. There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence suggestive of profanity's affect. Beyond my personal tale recounted above, I believe it is likely that many others have tales of personal experience where a string of profanities directed toward some inanimate technological or mechanical device (e.g. vehicle, lawnmower, cd-player, a PC) was followed by a seemingly miraculous correction of the malfunction.

If such stories occur with the frequency I imagine, then surely we must begin to suspect there is at least as much data warranting a serious scientific study into the efficacy of profanity as there is to conduct scientific investigations of prayer. And one advantage profanity has over prayer is that you don't have to believe it will work. There is no faith component necessary. I certainly did not believe that my litany of PC abuse would produce such outstanding results. One less variable to consider when conducting our research.

So it's time to pony up my friends. This will require support in the form of both financing and expertise. Please provide me with as much anecdotal evidence as possible of your personal experiences with the efficacy of profanity. E-mail it to me, post it on the comments of this entry, post it on your own blog and send me a link which I would be happy to post here. Also, anyone with expertise (and most importantly- credentials) who would volunteer to help design or perhaps conduct such a study, please let me know. If you want to be financial sponsor, then we will communicate privately. This has the potential to be at least as important and have as strong an impact as recent research into correlations between global temperatures and pirate populations.

Spread the word. With your help, a much-overdue investigation into the efficacy of profanity can be a reality and help us to find a little more truth in our understanding of the world.

Thank You,

The SFS

Freaking Friday

2007-01-05T16:35:00.000-05:00

I sometimes like to go over to CARM (the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry) and see if any of the flakes (not all there are flakes- I am specifically referring to the ones who are) who hang out in the Evolution-Design message boards are being silly so I can get a laugh which quickly morphs into concern, then motivation to promote better education, and finally culminates with distraction by any number of my myriad interests until the cycle begins anew. I thought I would share one such flake's post and my response. Maybe this will become a regular Friday bit.

First, here's the entire initial thread post I was responding to.

Since the whole purpose of the theory of evolution was to deny God, then it's not hard to see how the theory was formed. if God didn't create humans and animals, then how were they created? The answer is a foregone conclusion: They must have come from each other. :lol:

So to deny God, scientists have tried to fit a square peg into a round hole by claiming that one animal came from another animal which is not only absolutely contrary to how reality works, but it goes beyond the bizarre. It leads to:

1) Claiming that animals can breed human descendants
2) Humans are animals
3) The environment turns one animal into another.
4) Human descendants will eventually turn into a new species
5) Humans once had tails
6) One day humans might have wings
7) Changing the history of the Jews
8) Making up new tribes of primates and or humans

The above surpasses science fiction because it's considered "science" and therefore falls into the category of mythology. And yet scientists laugh at ancient people for being superstitious!

Sorry guys, but ancient people thought they had just as much evidence for their claims as the scientists of today think. Only the scientists of today, have less excuse because they should know how animals and humans breed!

Nevertheless, in their desperation to deny God, any irrational claim will do. All one has to do is have a Ph.d. and others who can't think for themselves say; "Yeah, yeah, I'll believe anyting you say...uh-huh, uh-huh." And that's why scientists can get people to believe anything they want them to.

Here's why he is a flake.

Since the whole purpose of the theory of evolution was to deny God

And what is the source of this claim? Was Galileo trying to deny God with the assertion of the heliocentric solar system? After all, the bible says that the earth does not move. It seems this is an ex post facto fallacy. Your hypothesis as stated above is most likely drawn from your observation of a perceived correllation between lack of belief in god and belief in evolution. Most likely you use that same correllation to provide evidence for your hypothesis. This is a logic no-no.

So to deny God, scientists have tried to fit a square peg into a round hole by claiming that one animal came from another animal which is not only absolutely contrary to how reality works, but it goes beyond the bizarre

If you would care to list the similarities between humans and other organisms and then separately list the differences I think you'll find that the list of similarities between humans and other species far outnumber the differences in most cases. When considering the two (especially apes and humans) it seems strange that you would find the concept that two organisms, with far more similarities than differences all the way down to the molecular level, are related is more bizarre than the complete rejection of any possibility of relation out of hand due to your particular interpretation of anceint hebrew legends written prior to the development of scientific methodology, while simulataneously dismissing out of hand all other anceint legends concerning the same topic.

1) Claiming that animals can breed human descendants

Claiming that offspring have slight genetic differences from their parents and these differences can accumulate over time and under certain circumstances may result in new species. And yes, that human beings have been one particular result from this accumulation of change.

2) Humans are animals

See my comment on comparison above.

3) The environment turns one animal into another.

Environmental factors can affect species development, primarily through selective pressures.

4) Human descendants will eventually turn into a new species

Potentially but not necessarily.

5) Humans once had tails

See Coccyx and Sacrum. If true, is this really that difficult to accept?

One day humans might have wings

I can't see anyone using this as a signature result of evolutionary theory. Perhaps someone speculating on the vast potentiality of evolutionary development may have made such a comment, but there is no credible individual saying this is a definite result of evolutionary change in humans other than yourself. Of course people of religious persuasion sometimes make the claim that humans will have wings one day, but that's not the intended audience for your comically naive approach to evolution.

7) Changing the history of the Jews

So when you consider the legends about the origins of humanity from the Norse or the Greeks or the Japanese your purpose is to change the history of the Nordic peoples or Greeks or Japanese people?

8) Making up new tribes of primates and or humans

I'm not even sure what you mean here.

The above surpasses science fiction because it's considered "science" and therefore falls into the category of mythology.

This goes beyond science fiction. Reason: Because it's considered science. This statement is saying that the condition of being considered science makes the "results" of evolution you claimed in your post be worthy of a classification that surpasses science fiction. I am not clear what it means to "surpass" science fiction. You seem to consider it as the state of being mythology. I am not sure in which way you mean mythology "surpasses" science fiction. I am certain that such a classification is not warranted simply due to being considered science. And most of the "results" you posted are your particular versions of information and predictions that are not related to any accurate representation of the scientific view of evolutionary theory.

Sorry guys, but ancient people thought they had just as much evidence for their claims as the scientists of today think.

And that's why life expectancy has been 70 - 80 years for thousands of years now. That's why the Ptolemaic view of astronomy was immediately rejected and proven false. That's why they used genetic markers in DNA to prove that Jesus had no human father. And that's why bubonic plague vaccines were required all over Europe in the middle ages.

All one has to do is have a Ph.d. and others who can't think for themselves say; "Yeah, yeah, I'll believe anyting you say...uh-huh, uh-huh." And that's why scientists can get people to believe anything they want them to.

Of course, good skeptical thinkers will go to as many primary sources of information as possible and on every reasonable occassion will observe available evidence themselves to draw their own conclusions. They will also demand that conclusions be supported by empirical data that reasonably leads to those conclusions. They will challenge each others' ideas and will always be willing to consider new ideas if scientifically sound.

I can think of one cultural institution where irrational claims are the norm and people sometimes accept uncritically or with little thoughtful consideration the words of those in positions of authority simply because they have a costume or a few letters in front of their name or it was referenced from a book. Care to guess what it is? Hint: It's not Science.

Optimism for a New Year

2007-01-02T15:55:00.000-05:00

Inspired by the annual question at the Edge, "what are you optimistic about for the future?", and a post on Stranger Fruit at Scienceblogs by someone who seems enraged by liberal/atheistic/scientific (they seem to be one group for him) bloggers very existence on the internets, I have decided to think optimistically for today. I want to apologize for not announcing my recent blogging break, but I did not intend to avoid blogging for such a long period. But this is a new year, and I want to start off early and hope to achieve some sort of consistency despite it being against my very nature.

It seems I recall a time called high school when many of the smartest kids were considered outcasts and despite differences in interests and opinions, often engaged socially with one another simply because their perspectives, ways of thinking and communicative tendencies often led to confusion and miscommunication when engaged with more typical patterns of thinking found in the general population. Whether due to inadequate vocabulary or an inability to conceptually grasp the discussions of the gifted, some of those lacking in such abilities would fear and despise the intellectual subset of high school students and through exclusion or occasionally use threat of violence to help supplement a hidden ego-weakness characterized by the ideas that "if I don't know what they are talking about then a) they may be better than me in some way and b) they may be talking about me."

Then came the internet and those smart people could gather together, discuss their issues, and they could not be threatened into keeping their discussions in carefully guarded privacy. It was the realization of the worst fear of many who either through choice or limitations do not participate in nor acknowledge the benefits of the academic or intellectual lifestyle. And you know, sometimes the smart kids were talking about them. So they try to counter with the one true weapon in the age of cyberspace- with words of their own. Unfortunately, they still don't know what those bright kids were talking about, so their arguments fall flat. Meanwhile, those kids- so often excluded, so often misunderstood, and so often demonized for their talents, have been sharpening their skills at debate and honing their linguistic talents to razor sharp precision.

You can almost hear them type: it's our time now.

Gross Ignorance or Incompetence from the Redstate

2006-12-12T13:58:00.000-05:00

This was from a post on redstate.com. The title is "The Southern Strategy: Real or Democrat/Press Myth." I see a hypothesis forming in the mind of Martin A. Knight, the author of the post. Now we just have to check and see if his critical thinking faculties are up to snuff.

"I have always maintained that it is one of the clearest signs of injustice in the world of politics that the Republican Party is consistently stigmatized in the popular culture as being stridently anti-Civil Rights and the Democrats are lauded as the premier pro-Civil Rights party. I am well aware that the GOP has a far from spotless record on race, but it is relatively pristine compared to just how much more spotted the Democrats' record is."

I think I see where this is going. But I'll give him a chance.

"The Democrats today claim that the Republican Party turned against Civil Rights in the mid-1960s, and/or used subtle appeals to latent Southern racism to pick up the racist white vote in the South. This theory, that the GOP appealed to racism to reach their current position of dominance in the South, is what has since been termed the Republican "Southern Strategy."
Is this story true? I personally don't think so."

Ok. You've made your claim. Let's here the evidence.

"practically every famous racist that had walked the sphere of American politics in the past 100 years had worn a 'D' behind his name, Republicans are considered the "racist party." Ben 'Pitchfork' Tillman, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Bilbo, Richard Russell, John Sparkman, Orville Faubus, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Ross Barnett, George Mahony, etc. all hardcore racists, all high profile (Senators and Governors, one a President), all Democrats. Bull Connor himself was a registered Democrat up until he died."

I have some bones to pick with this, but I'll let you continue.

"Did the Republican Party turn against Civil Rights even as the Democrat Party embraced it wholesale?

The Democrats and their friends in the Fourth Estate and academia all say yes. This is offered as the primary reason why the South went from being solidly Democrat to solidly Republican; the Southern Strategy."

So you're admitting that academics and the media- in other words people who actually do research for a living- disagree with you. This doesn't bode well.

"First of all, the first Civil Rights Bills passed since Reconstruction in 1957 and 1960 were sent to Congress by the Eisenhower Administration and steered though to passage (though much weakened by Democrat Amendments) by Senate Republican Leader William Knowland of California. In the congressional battles for Civil Rights in the 1960s, the GOP, in both the House and Senate, consistently voted for Civil Rights in far greater percentages than the Democrats."

That's probably true. But I don't think you're quite understanding historical context.

"So, it cannot be denied, the GOP acquitted itself well during the Civil Rights Acts' fights for survival in congress and were key players in getting them passed. In fact, of the twenty Senators who filibustered the key Civil Rights Act in 1964, only one was a Republican, John Tower of Texas."

You keep making the same point. Naming Democrats who were opposed to the civil rights act does nothing to address your apparent ignorance of the history underlying these facts. Ever heard the term "Dixiecrat"?

"No doubt there was some sort of "Southern Strategy" to appeal to Southerners, but was it based on race? Or other cultural issues? The Democrats say it was based on race but there are far too many ahistorical holes in this story;how much of it is reality and how much of it is myth? For one, when Democratic news outlets like the New York Times write about the 1968 campaign and attribute Nixon's victory to the "Southern Strategy" they invariably fail to mention that there were two Democrats running in 1968, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace. It is my belief from looking at the history that this so-called "Southern Strategy", even if implemented the way the Democrats say it was, was neither long-lasting nor in any way effective."

That's it? You want to go after a firmly established concept like the "southern strategy" and that's all you have? Let's have some facts.

First of all, we have to start at the civil war and the concept of the "Yellow Dog" Democrat in the South. After Lincoln, a Republican, signed the emancipation proclamation, many racist whites in the South became what was known as a "Yellow Dog" Democrat. They hated Lincoln so much they would vote for a yellow dog if it was a Democrat against any Republican challenger. As the two parties, Democrats and Republicans, began to change on issues over time, the Southern Democrats found themselves often at odds with their Northern companions. In 1948, Strom Thurmond actually split from the main body of Democrats and introduced the State's Rights Democrats, commonly called the Dixiecrats. The platform of the Dixiecrats was opposition to desegregation, specifically they were outraged at the desegregation of the military which was done at the behest of Truman, a "true" Democrat. State's Rights Democrats supported state's rights obviously, but the motivation for this support was obvious in the issues supported. They wanted a state to have the right to segregate and wanted states to have the right to enact Jim Crow laws.

By 1964, Strom Thumond-who previously ran for President as a segregationalist- had switched to the party that more accurately reflected his values, the Republican party. The "states rights" terminology had become symbolic for the racist attitudes in the South that led to the creation of the Dixiecrats which were properly called, States Rights Democrats. The trend of Republicans seizing upon the radical racist elements of the south's discontent with the original Democrats who were now taking a pro civil rights position for African Americans continued. Often using the term "states rights" as a way to imply, accurately or not, that the candidate sympathized with supporters of segregation and racist policies, Republican candidates(including Nixon and later Reagan) encouraged a shift in Southern voters and the former "Yellow Dog" Democrats, in the passage of time since Lincoln, gave up their voting traditions and began voting for Republicans. Evidences of that reality still exist. Zell Miller of my home state of Georgia, who ran as a segregationist in the 1960's still considers himself a Democrat. Yet, we see that he aligns himself in every way, including fiery speeches at national conventions, with the Republican party.

So it seems obvious to me that pointing out what letter was behind the name and whether or not the candidate had racist tendencies is at best poor methodology in understanding the political landscape surrounding the development of the Southern Strategy. Especially since there were two distinct sets of Democrats, even though they all had a "D" behind their name. Any success that Democratic candidates who supported civil rights had in the South is not evidence that racism was not a motivating factor in the south, but is most likely a testament to lingering effects of the "yellow dog" Democrat phenomenon. The NY Times article you mentioned should have been a clue to your mistake, yet you somehow tried to frame it as support for your argument. The NY Times failure to mention Wallace was not the conspiracy of a liberal newspaper to hide the fact that a racist Democrat was running in 1968 from posterity. It was because Wallace had no chance of winning, and Humphrey was the nominee of the official Democratic party. What advantage would the NYT have in not reporting that information when it was common knowledge at the time?

Look, if you don't like being associated with a party that is favored by people with racist attitudes, or a party that will pander to such attitudes for its own benefit, then avoid it. You don't have to become a Democrat. Be an Independent or a Libertarian or a Green. But you can't change reality. Like it or don't like it, you can't revise history (or the present) just because it is inconvenient. Five minutes of research would reveal all of this information. If you are going to challenge reporters and scholars on facts, you should at least do some homework. They can be wrong. And I could possibly hit a Randy Johnson fastball. The professionals have a much better chance of success than I do. Likewise, professional scholars have a much better chance of having accurate information. I encourage anyone to challenge the established academia. But don't try to do it without a serious committment or you're just wasting time.

SFS

What does it mean to be a skeptic?

2006-12-12T08:58:00.000-05:00

I am going to be speaking from a lot of personal experience here and giving my point of view. I hope to present a general view that most who feel comfortable with the skeptic label would agree with, but there are no guarantees that this is the case.

Those who have read past posts may know that I particularly enjoy taking a pause and analyzing the words we use. So what does the word skeptic mean? The most simple and general definition I have found is, "one who doubts". The free online dictionary gives these two definitions:

Skeptic:
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.

So, what does it mean to doubt? Doubt is simply questioning the validity of an assertion. Often this is misconstrued as claiming an assertion is invalid. This is not the case. Ideally, a skeptic withholds judgement until evidence allows him or her to accept a conclusion as likely. The individual skeptic must make the determination as to what level of probability they feel comfortable with when accepting a claim of fact. For me, it depends in many cases on the importance and circumstances of the assertion.

In any case, the necessary first step is a willingness to question any and all claims of knowledge. Notice I did not say the first step is to question any and all claims of knowledge, but rather to have a willingness to do so. This is an important difference, as it makes skepticism a practical, viable approach to knowledge. Actually questioning everything all the time would lead down a slippery slope to a solipsistic insustainable epistemology which discourages participation in what we (necessarily) accept as reality. However, being willing to question any claim is simply challenging the authoritarian nature of knowledge.

A famous quote attributed to the 19th century feminist, Lucretia Mott, is : "Truth for Authority, not Authority for Truth". The sentiment expressed in these words provide an excellent example of the skeptical mindset. Skepticism is powerful force for anti-authoritarianism. As stated previously, we have to accept certain knowledge as true for practical purposes. Sometimes that knowledge is accepted by many. Other times, only a few people accept a given piece of knowledge. What is generally common is that even accepting a position that absolute epistomological certainty can never be achieved, we generally feel more comfortable constructing our worldview around facts with the highest degrees of certainty. This is what contributes to the popularity of science. Science provides us with ideas that exhibit a high level of certainty which we then use as the foundation for our technology and culture.

However, as the amount of information that must be acquired to function as cultural complexity increases, the number of facts that must be accepted without personal or direct verification also increase. This means that we must accept certain knowledge with limited direct experience as to the fact's veracity. Keeping this in mind, consider also that as human beings we are full of paradoxical inclinations which may drive us to find one particular view more appealing personally regardless of accuracy. We are clearly the most outstanding and capable species on our planet, yet experience and knowledge has revealed us as small and fragile. We have an insatiable curiosity, yet long for certainty. This is when the authoritarian aspect of knowledge is most dangerous. Religion is the most obvious example. Religious assertions are widely accepted as true. This in itself is not any more dangerous than any other superstitious belief. However, the real threat is the assertion that it is not acceptable, in fact, is harmful to question religious assertions. One can accept assertions. One must accept a certain number of assertions. However, once you buy into the absolute validity of a piece of knowledge, you have abandoned the skeptical mindset.

...to be continued.

Reposting My War on Christmas Post

2006-12-11T18:10:00.000-05:00

The war on christmas should really be called the war on consideration. I was discussing an issue online with teachers about the ethics involved in sending Christmas cards to students. I advised her that while you may feel very strongly in your personal life about particular beliefs and feel it is appropriate to express those feelings in certain ways, those same expressions may become inappropriate in your public role as a teacher. It may be viewed as an opportunistic abuse of your position if you take it upon yourself to express your personal beliefs to those whose social relationship to you is based exclusively on the mandatory student-teacher relationship.

I also made a point that I think should be made much more often. Those who make waves standing up for equal recognition in the face of the Judeo-Christian majority are the ones most often heard about. However, I would be willing to guess that for every one person of non-christian or non-theistic background that demands recognition of their equal status, there are a hundred that sit in silence, every Christo-centric reference reminding them they are an outsider, they are different, and suggesting their beliefs are not valid.

Which is why I believe it is really a war on consideration. Telling someone Merry Christmas is prejudicial. It is making an assumption that the person you are addressing recognizes and accepts the traditions and particular mythologies that you do. If that is the case and you know it, then it is perfectly reasonable. If you are uncertain, it is just considerate to be more generic, acknowledge that not everyone conforms to the same beliefs. Seasons Greetings or Happy Holidays are not assaults on the Christian faithful. They're polite remarks by thoughtful people who have taken into consideration the pluralistic nature of our society and shows tolerance and a true reaching out for cooperation despite difference. If you meet a large woman that you suspect is pregnant, it is generally polite to not mention it until you know for sure. After all, she may just be rather large. And unless you are completely callous toward the feelings of others, you would like to avoid such a disparaging remark. Being inclusive in a holiday greeting is no more an attack on christmas than opening letter with "Dear sir or madam" is an assault on gender identification.

I firmly believe that some of the same people (not all) who complain about the "war" on Christmas, or find themselves griping about censorship in the name of being politically correct and that their rights are being restricted would be complaining the loudest if every February I sent out Darwin Day cards celebrating the Theory of Evolution. And the funny thing is, an argument can be made that Darwin Day cards would actually have an educational component and no religious overtones so perhaps would be more appropriate for the classroom.

Nevertheless, I am sure some who feel it is their right to be pro-christmas regardless of others in almost every facet of their life, including the classroom would suddenly want to restrict my voice even though the idea being promoted is a scientific fact rather than a particular faith.

The war on christmas crowd is really just a bunch of people who enjoy a power trip. They believe that they are absolutely right and anyone who thinks differently should basically just get over it, leave, or keep their mouth shut. Christmas is basically a commercialized crock at this point anyway. I wonder sometimes how many of these blowhards are just hypocrites who want to be contrarians and bigots and look for an outlet that they feel makes them just seem exceedingly pious. You know, when you complain that Happy Holidays as a phrase is a part of some secular agenda to restrict Christian presence in American society, you just end up looking like an asshole. But some of these are the same people who see the word "tolerant" as a code word for homosexuality and evil. To those people I have a message:

You can't bully people into respecting your beliefs. You can't force the world to conform to your fantasy. You can't prove your love to your kids with excessive consumer spending. You can't prove devotion to your faith by screaming the loudest. You can't say you're not a bigot while disparaging others on the basis of religion, sex or ethnicity. You can't be a martyr in a majority. You can't go back to the way it was because it was never the way you think it was. I am sorry that the world is so scary and unpredicatable with individuals who may think you are wrong about some pretty important things in your life. I know it is hard to accept that you might not have found all the answers while in little league. It really sucks to be of simple mind in a complex world, but it is time as they say, to "man-up" and face your fears. It's time to deal with the real world on real terms and quit playing good guys/bad guys, stop making up stories to get your way, and put away the army men. I am sorry, but there is no Santa. Have a Merry F-ing' ~~Kwanzhanukristmas~~ Holiday.

The Southern Fried Skeptic

Quo erat demonstrator

2006-12-11T17:31:00.000-05:00

I am going to debunk some nonsense by a convservative sheep blogger called Gribbit. I have seen this story in several places while doing a google search, but I personally was introduced to it by a rant over at Scienceblogs. The basic idea is that illegal aliens kill more people through drunk driving and violent crime than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan kills soldiers. Therefore, illegal aliens are more lethal than the war. He uses a really sad attempt at statistical analysis to do prove his point.

According to statistics compiled by US Congressman Steve King (R-5th CD Iowa), 13 Americans are killed each day by uninsured drunk driving illegals 12 U.S. citizens die a violent death at the hands of murderous illegal aliens each day in crimes Do the math. [ (12 + 13) x 365 = 9125 ] That's more than nine thousand people killed every year in the United States by illegal aliens. By contrast, consider the death toll for US servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan since the beginning of the war on terror, as reported last week by the Department of Defense: Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289. Again, do the math. [ (2863 + 289) divided by five years of war = 630 ] So illegal aliens in the United States are more than fourteen times as lethal (14.48 actually) as a full scale armed conflict. Quod erat demonstrando.

First of all, he makes an error in determining the rate of soldier's deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war in Iraq has been in effect for about 3.75 years rather than 5. It makes a difference. 2863 deaths over 3.75 years yields a resulting rate of about 763 deaths per year, rounding down. In Afghanistan, 289 deaths over 5 years yields a rate of about 58 deaths per year. Combined the average rate would be about 821 deaths per year rather than the 630 presented.

If we use percentages to level the playing field, we start to see the obvious fallacies. If we assume 13 drunk driving illegal alien fatalities per day is correct, we get an average of 4745 per year. In 1999 there were 187,000,000 licensed drivers in America. Although this number is most likely much larger now and doesn't include drivers who aren't licensed, we can use it as an estimate. 4745 out of a pool of 187,000,000 leaves us with a result of about .0025% of drivers are killed by drunk driving illegal aliens each year. 12 deaths per day due to violent crime is about 4380 out of a pool of about 300,000,000 potential victims (U.S. population) gives us an estimate that about .0014% of the American population is killed in violent crime in the U.S. each year. If one uses a more accurate average of 821 deaths per year in Iraq and Afghanistan out of a potential pool of 170,000 (150,000 in Iraq; 20,000 in Afghanistan) soldiers, that gives us a result of about .5% of the U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are killed each year. The risk, then, is about 100 times greater than the risk of being killed by an illegal alien drunk driving or a violent act by an illegal alien combined.

If you play with numbers, make sure you don't end up looking foolish. People who have poor reasoning skills should never cut and paste statistics or attempt to draw conclusions from raw data. One of two basic conclusions are almost always applicable whenever someone is misrepresenting statistical information to make a claim. They are either dishonest, or incompetent. And neither conclusion will lend legitimacy to any other argument you wish to make.

The Southern Fried Skeptic

Repost of "Word Abuse"

2006-11-17T11:59:00.000-05:00

You know what bugs me? Word Abuse. Now, I'm not talking about all the unintended misspoken, mistyped, or misused words that are inevitable if one communicates. I'm talking about intentional misuse to create false dichotomies or to misrepresent one's position and/or (more commonly) to misrepresent the opposing position by implication.

Take for example the confluence of evolution and atheism. Many times I have seen arguments that acceptance of evolution in effect makes you an atheist. This is simply not the case. I have met, conversed with, and studied the writings of many theistic biologists. I can agree with Richard Dawkins that evolution does assist in being an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but to twist that into a cause and effect situation is an act of breathtaking inanity.

Another example is found in the debate over abortion. It is absolutely possible to take a position that it is morally wrong to have or perform an abortion while simultaneously taking the position that you respect the rights of others to make or not make that determination for themselves. Thus, you would be pro-life and pro-choice. Pro-life? Regardless of your position on the actual debate, you must recognize that is the most useless, dishonest, emotionally charged term that has been used in serious debate. What is its opposite? Pro-Death? Pro-choice people are not pro-death. That is ridiculous. Why not use "Pro-Forced Fetal Fufillment". It's more accurate and more alliterative. I have heard the nonsense about life beginning at conception, but almost without fail, the individual regurgitating such comments is being intellectually dishonest. They recognize a distinction between life in the womb, and life outside the womb. They celebrate birthdays not conception days. If you want to be consistent with your "life begins at conception" position and throw hate-filled barbs like "baby killers" at the other side, then I expect you to begin broadening your complaints. First, start demanding that tax deductions for dependents should be allowed from the moment of conception, not the moment of birth. Second, I want to see those in the "right to life" crowd start pushing for regulation that requires a Death Certificate issued for every single miscarriage that occurs in this country. Funeral services and graves should be purchased for a miscarriage, no matter how small the embryo is.Then they should all start celebrating conception days. That should keep them busy for a while. Until then, don't feed me the crap about an embryo being the same as a baby.

Can you support traditional marriage and gay marriage? Of course. This is more word abuse. The word traditional is often abused. For example, traditional values. Depending on one's tradition, slavery, polygamy, or belief in a flat Earth may be tradtional values. It is a meaningless term. It is designed to invoke an emotional response in those who are not part of the "stop and think" crowd.

Look around at the low quality of debate so frequent around us. Arguments made from word abuse, like the misuse of the word "theory" when discussing the theory of evolution, are usually made because the actual position is empty of substance. Pay attention to how a position is marketed to you. Are they selling you quality, or just another lemon with a new coat of paint?

The Southern Fried Skeptic

Repost of "It's not easy being a christian"

2006-11-16T11:53:00.000-05:00

An article on the Christian Worldview Network has really gotten under my skin. The title of the article is It's not easy to be an Atheist. It then proceeds to give 9 assertions about how the atheistic position is inconsistent or fallacious, each supported by a semi-coherent paragraph of straw men and unreasoned drivel. If you would like the read the original article, you can find it here.

In the meantime, I thought I would do my own version called, It's not easy to be a Christian. I don't expect anyone to accept every point I present within the text of the post, but rather my hope is that they gain insight into the more general point that these one-sided fallacious arguments full of straw men and rhetorical regurgitation rather than honest consideration, are written for the reassurance of the already faithful rather than for the unwashed masses. There is no persuasive value in misrepresenting the opposing view except for those too ignorant to realize the differences or too apathetic to pay attention. The value is not based on persuasion, but rather based on reassurance.

It's not easy to be a Christian

A christian assigns himself to life with a hollow purpose. While christians may frequently claim to have an ultimate purpose or ultimate meaning in their lives, they would be hard pressed to define that meaning. Most would only be able to say something vague like their purpose is to "serve God" or be part of "God's plan". But since such an ultimate plan is unknowable, the purpose they claim is empty of any real meaning. To serve can be a purpose, but what can they say is the meaning behind such service? After all, what possible service could an omnipotent being actually require? There is nothing they can accomplish that couldn't be accomplished by their concept of God. They may feel obediance is their duty, but without any greater understanding of meaning, especially in regards to the reasons why an omnipotent being would feel the need to create beings and a world which in his omniscience he knows will contain horrible cruelty and sorrow, that duty can provide no real sense of purpose.

The christian must suppress the demands of logic. The christian must believe in a host of miracles and events which have no comparable occurances in our world and defy the laws of nature that have established themselves so reliably that they have made our modern life possible. Not only must the christian believe that fantastic stories like the dead returning to life, walking on water, magical plagues, and talking snakes, but must also believe that all other stories of this genre associated with alternative religions both past and present are false, despite having similar claims of "evidence". Natural laws have been the most reliable source of understanding, yet the christian must accept that those laws don't apply when it comes to their specific supernatural claims based on their specific divine revelation.

Ironically the christian must believe in natural laws without believing in natural causes. Christians must believe in natural laws, because it is almost impossible to function in modern society and deny these laws. Science, which strives to understand these laws, has accomplished many of the "miracles" claimed by christian theology which they have not been able to reproduce. We stand upon scientific achievement in almost every aspect of our lives. Yet, when science proves something contradictory to what they accept as dogma, they want to reject scientific information in favor of blind faith. Life expectancy is at the highest in history, people with a range of medical conditions are no longer doomed to slow and painful death, horrible diseases such as smallpox have been virtually eradicated, electronics and prosthetics allows those with missing limbs to have options in their lives, genetic science has allowed us to grow more food than we can consume in America, we have reached beyond our planet- sending robots to mars and men to the moon, we have seen other suns, other galaxies, and even into the past, to the early times of our universe, we can communicate almost instantly with anyone we wish, we can share ideas frequently and quickly with people we are geographically isolated from. All of these accomplishments are based in science. Would any of these have been available to us if science was subordinate to dogma? Yet, despite its proven record of achievement, most christians would toss it out (in theory) as soon as it conflicts with dogma. This leads to strange dissonance like the fact that many christians support dna evidence to prove identity in trials or to indicate kinship such as paternity, they reject the same techniques, the same types of genetic markers, the same evidence when it proves in the same way that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

Christians must suppress all rational approaches to morality. For a christian, what is moral is pre-packaged and shipped to him. Considerations about why something is right or wrong, or considerations involving risks and benefits, positive and negative consequences, and the what option provides the most happiness to the largest number of people with the least negative impact are insignificant since notions of morality have already been determined. Natural altruism is dismissed despite examples of cooperation in the wild by creatures who have no faith. The question of the moral basis of the many societies, past and present, who do not have faith in their God is often overlooked completely. Instead they assume that you either adhere to their faith, or are immoral.

In fact, the christian must have a whimsical view of evil. After all, the christian God is all-loving and all-good. Anything their God does must, by definition, be good. Evil is definied as being antithetical to their God. But, that means that slavery, genocide, and human sacrifice, as depicted in the Bible were not objectively evil, since their God commanded it. When the basis of evil or immorality is not rational, but rather based on something as spurious and ambiguous as the whim of a questionable being as interpreted by human followers, then the door is open for truly heinous acts to be committed on a grand scale by followers who believe themselves to be doing what is righteous and good.

The christian must live with the arrogance of their position. The christian must believe in the absolute truth of his position. Even in the face of alternative explanations by other belief systems, or perhaps evidence from scientific discovery, the christian will accept that their belief and their dogma is absolutely, unquestionably true. An entire industry of apologetics has arisen just to try and provide post-hoc rationalizations of all the contradictions in the bible, so that the illusion of biblical infallibility can be maintained. Despite being aware that all the core knowledge within their belief structure is contained in a few documents written thousands of years ago in a desert choked region filled with many cultures, most of which had similar documents with similar stories, and many of the stories disagree with scientific and historical knowledge, they must arrogantly assert that everyone else is wrong and only they have truth.

The christian must deny the validity of historical proof. Many christians accept the bible as the perfectly inspired infallible word of God. Yet, the bible contains many stories and concepts that do not agree with history. For example, by the biblical chronology, the story of an ancient global flood in which all died save one family, would have happened sometime during ancient Egypt. Yet, there is a detailed historic record of dynastic succession and Egyption history from the period of time before the flood took place. There is no gap in the record. There is no mention of the flood. There is no evidence of Sodom and Gomorrah. There is no evidence of the tower of Babel. Many biblical claims are contradicted by the historical record, yet it would take only one inaccuracy to reasonably bring into question the inspired nature of the bible. Yet, the christian will overlook these errors and maintain the facade of biblical perfection.

The christian must imagine that humans have greater significance than all other life. The christian ideology places humans in a central role, a special creation loved most by their creator. Yet, the fact that genetics shows we are related to all other life, our dna has the same basic chemical composition as mold, is lost on them. We eke out a brief existence on a smallish planet, third of nine in orbit around a mundane star, stuck on some lonely edge of a single spiral arm of an rather normal galaxy. We don't appear to be central to anything. We humans have been around in our modern form for less than 200,000 years out of 4,500,000,000 years of Earth's existence. There was a lot of wasted time if all of this was for us. Christians can get so caught up in wanting to be something that they miss the beauty of being part of everything.

Always remember, the christian's belief in God is based on the absence of evidence and suppression of evidence contrary. If God provided evidence of his existence, faith would be unnecessary. Faith is central to christian belief. If God provides evidence to some but not to all, then God is discriminating and petty and unworthy of worship. This is especially true if he only provides it to those who already believe. Christians theology thrives not on evidence of god's existence, but rather on hopes, fears, and suppression of questions, rational considerations, and alternative views.

-The Southern Fried Skeptic