Why conclude the obvious when you can blame time traveling birds?

It’s been just over a month since I wrote about the attack of the clever raven, but now via Brother Richard I discover a bird may have caused a malfunction in the Hadron Collider recently.

While it’s humbling enough for most researchers to remember that one little bird can threaten millions of dollars worth of equipment, others are not so sure it’s a random accident. Time Magazine reports that a bird’s dropped dinner overheated some of the mechanisms, but rather than blame gravity, a couple physicists are actually claiming the bird may have been sent back in time for a mission it may or may not have completed.

Seriously.

two esteemed physicists have formulated a theory that suggests an alternative explanation: perhaps a time-traveling bird was sent from the future to sabotage the experiment. Bech Nielsen of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, have published several papers over the past year arguing that the CERN experiment may be the latest in a series of physics research projects whose purposes are so unacceptable to the universe that they are doomed to fail, subverted by the future.

Never mind the paradox problems inherent in that…yeesh.

Research proves it, tv is “detrimental”

What is it now, you ask? A recent study into parents, toddlers, and attentiveness has led to expected results. Science Daily includes the journal information at the bottom of their report on it for those interested in seeking the whole thing out.

The researchers studied about 50 1-, 2-, and 3-year-olds, each of whom was with one parent, at a university child study center. Half of the one-hour session, parents and children were in a playroom without TV; in the other half-hour, parents chose an adult-directed program to watch (such as Jeopardy!). The researchers observed how often parents and children talked with each other, how actively involved the parents were in their children’s play, and whether parents and children responded to each other’s questions and suggestions.

When the TV was on, the researchers found, both the quantity and the quality of interactions between parents and children dropped. Specifically, parents spent about 20 percent less time talking to their children and the quality of the interactions declined, with parents less active, attentive, and responsive to their youngsters.

Were they studying TV as a background attention catcher, or parents’ attentiveness while physically watching TV? It’s not completely a TV’s fault parents don’t pay attention, if that’s the direction they were going here. Similar results probably would have happened had the activity been housework, food prep, or any other random every day thing a parent does. Parents can’t possibly devote 100% attention to their child every moment of the day. Maybe TV is an added distraction, but it would never be the sole cause of parent-child interpersonal dysfunction. There are always more factors in play, more forces at work.

Not every parent would automatically pop the TV on to fill silence in a room. Some parents are naturally more intuitive and play well with their children and give them plenty of fun and functional activities and a lot of opportunities for talking back and forth. Other parents might rely more on siblings to fill attention gaps, much to the thrill of siblings, I’m sure. Maybe they’re relying on daycare or babysitters or nannies to provide the necessary socialization because they don’t have the time or inclination. We don’t know.

I’d be curious to see how the selection process worked. Did they get samples from enough kinds of families? Rich, poor, working class, etc? Would ethnicity skew these results at all? What about size of town they live in? Would the channel matter? Were they picking families that already admitted to high television use, or did they mix it up to include some that rarely watch, too? What if a parent picked Much Music Retro instead of a Q&A quiz show? Could they see the TV or just hear it? How was “level of interaction” determined in order to figure out how much less there was when the TV was on? Did volume play a role? Too many questions for the amount of information we have, sadly.

If this study is going to be worth a nod, it’ll have to be tried again with a bigger pool than 50 kids, surely? It’s evidence of a trend, but what else can really be said about it?

This is apocalypse number what now?

Out of the Apocalypse riders, who gets the props this time, Death, War, Famine or Pestilence?

You’d think with all the H1N1 fear it’d be old Pesti but nope. Famine might get to take home the triumphant medal of pointlessness this time around. Economic collapse may or may not be scheduled for Monday, but if it is, then Wednesday is a bummer of a day. Don’t even bother getting dressed for work until you know work still exists.

The author of the site loves red, blue and yellow and it’s jam packed with videos. I’ll watch them on Thursday if the world goes completely to hell on Wednesday. That’s a promise I’ll stand by, too.

Quotable theology, round 2

This is a continuation of a response to a post I came across. Read the first half here.

One way or another we need to face the problem. Either we present God as a mushy glow of love and compassion that would really like to do something about evil but either can’t or won’t, or we present him as he presents himself in scripture and push the problem back at the accuser.

Epicurus already dealt with the first part, which is why he discounted the need for gods. Why would the problem be lobbed into our court? It’s your ball of crazy. You explain it.

If you still insist that I have to, I’ll remind readers that the bible today is not the original. All those books were once separate writings based on early spoken stories that were only later written down. And they were all written down at different times, only gathered up in one volume far later, when it became obvious that schisms were becoming a problem.

Better to unite everyone under the same books than have every group follow their own version of the story. That’s why there are two Genesis tales. Why the gospels don’t agree on how Jesus came to be born or risen from the dead.

Beliefs in a god or gods depend wholly on the culture the gods are a part of. For early Hebrews, I suspect they wanted a vindictive god because life was hell under the Egyptians. So when plague struck or locusts ate crops or the Nile flooded over everything, they could credit God’s will, God’s vengeance, dealing out lots of death to everyone who ever oppressed his chosen people.

It’s beyond daft, yet we know people who still want to think this way about people they don’t like, don’t we. Like the idea that God burned California to stop gay marriage. Why would anyone ever come to that conclusion and broadcast it? It’s totally moronic.

Those without God inevitably absolve the universe of evil in order to avoid the God that judges evil and so make themselves innocent at the cost of moral realism.

Of course I absolve the universe of evil. Is it the sun’s fault you get burned? Hardly. It’s your fault for not taking precautions. The sun is not sentient. It can’t give a damn about anything. Neither can the earth or moon, or a nebula or black matter. The universe is incapable of caring about good or evil. Those are human terms used to explain and rationalize human deeds and inexplicable natural events. That is a realism I can get behind.

What’s moral realism? Turns out it can be defined as this:

Realism as applied to the judgments of ethics, and to the values, obligations, rights, etc. that are referred to in ethical theory. The leading idea is to see moral truth as grounded in the nature of things rather than in subjective and variable human reactions to things. … moral realism aspires to protecting the objectivity of ethical judgment …

I’m of the opinion that society builds morality. Every society has a moral or ethical code. Including lions and tigers and ants, by the way. Appropriate group behaviours. Appropriate behaviours toward like groups, appropriate behaviours toward unlike groups. I don’t think animals pass much judgement over who they sleep with, beyond picking a partner that will create the best genetic mix. Not that they do any reasoning that leads to this result beforehand — it’s just what they do. It sure as hell isn’t fair to the runts or off-colour critters that don’t fit in, but it benefits the group at large to not pass along unwanted traits.

Should human beings use the same moral and ethical code the animals do? I sure as hell hope not. But if moral truth is grounded in the nature of things rather than subjectivity and variable human reactions, then we’re wrong to not follow this animalistic genetic example. If everything else living in the world behaves this way, why don’t we?

Because we’re capable of reason and independent thought. We don’t have to live by our instinct for survival. And it’s not just our own survival we care about prolonging. We don’t let the weak and the lame be ignored or killed off if we can help it. We research disease, we build vaccines and crutches and we perfect operations that fix flaws (imagined or real) and repair eyes and teeth so natural body failures won’t be a detriment to survival. We replace hips, heart valves, livers and lungs. Why in the hell do humans go through all that trouble to save lives?

Because we can.

Know what? I’m going to break here and post a round 3 later. Come on back, ya hear?

What’s the deal with ChristWire?

Is this for real? Do people really think this way? Until I’m informed of the reality of this site, have a few laughs anyway. It’s a helluva good time.

Start with the bit where emo spirits cause men to have bad hair and buy communist products. Who knew? What’s communist about iTunes? I have to pay for every song. I thought under communism all kinds of shit would be free. Stupid commie bastards who ruined the utopia Marx dreamed of…

If you want to own a cat, you may as well worship Bast, too and then go straight to hell, do not pass Go (but do pass the lint brush. Cat hairs! Evil cat hairs!) On behalf of cats everywhere, I’m offended.

Friendly Atheist gets a finger shaken at him for mentioning the Virgin Mary and a condom in the same piece. Because it IS the same piece:

I wish this were still the days of the Spanish Inquisition, because I would mount my horse and lead the charge to slowly burn all these filth atheist witches at the pyre! There is nothing moral or right about disparaging the mother of our Lord and Savior!

I hope and pray God gives them just punishment for this, it’s so far over the line of wrong. May God strike down their fornicated secret parts with emerods and then let their souls stoke the fires of hell!

Feel the love. I love being loved. Whoever got to be loved with that Virgin Mary condom was very loved indeed. I also love how it says “emerods” instead of hemorrhoids, too. It’s obviously a writer more familiar with King James’ version. Haven’t seen much evidence of smiting yet. God can’t even smite down my fruit flies. Not that I’ve asked him to – I’m an atheist with a soapy water spray bottle. I can deal with them myself.

Apparently there’s a group around that’s given up masturbation for Jesus. I shouldn’t wonder why. You’ve seen how Jesus is hung, right? (Dude’s in need of a dress up party, too. Open this in a new window or tab for later. Don’t leave here yet. There are more LOLs!

Does the definition of “good” vary?

The following is a cross post, so check ADKOB for comments about this. The gang there love comments more than my readers here do…

—–
Does the definition of “good” vary? It must.

A large portion of our conversation Wednesday night revolved around the semantics of the word “good.”

I’m starting to wonder about this myself. “Good” is such an umbrella kind of term. Be good. In what way exactly? Brushing your teeth? Using manners? Sitting on your bum in a shopping cart? Picking up all your toys? Taking “No” for an answer without replying with a temper tantrum? That seems to be a parental definition of good. Good service at a restaurant or store. Good as in law abiding. Good as in beneficial rather than detrimental. Good as in approaching perfection. Thorough, effective, adept, deserving of respect, high morals. All these can fall under Good as well.

When atheists think of “Good” what are they thinking about? I can’t answer for every atheist, but when I hear the word “Good” I think of following laws and codes at every level laws and codes are designed, from returning books on time to full stops at stop signs (I count to 5 – do you?) and that kind of thing.

I also think of all the appropriate behaviours that improve society – cooperation, sharing, patience, respect, trust. May as well toss being useful to society in there, too, either with your job, or with volunteer work on the side.

I also think of behaviours that improve humanity – which include all those society ones plus honesty, integrity, loyalty, adaptability, and forgiveness would be in there, too. Life is too short to hold grudges and regrets.

How it started was by someone reminding us that just because someone is an atheist doesn’t mean that they can’t do good. This brought our attention to Mark 10:17-18, “And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’

Breaking in right here. I think it’s unfortunate that people want eternal life. Why can’t this life be cherished and fully appreciated? Why does anyone think they need eternal life? Does anyone ever ask that?

And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.’” In this passage, Jesus changes the focus from man’s work to God’s as to what is good.

I totally disagree with Jesus here, because he doesn’t define what good is beyond saying God is it. Good is God? Good is godly? Good is a perfection no human will ever dare dream of achieving and this is why Christ doesn’t want the moniker in this story?

But Jesus tells us that no one is good except God alone, so this brought up the question can an atheist [or for argument's sake a Buddhist, Muslim, etc] do “good”? In terms of civic, civil, moral, or ethical righteousness: yes. This righteousness is only valid among men though, not God. God judges on a different basis.

So what? Do we really need to care about God’s supposed level of goodness? Does it matter on a daily basis? Does God’s goodness have anything to do with how Christians act or think? Or do they define their purpose via their church, their pastor, their congregations and their prayers over the unsaved masses?

Are they really concerned over how their god might judge them? How does that explain all the Christians who do terrible things as human beings, unethical, unrighteous, uncivil acts? Won’t this god also see what wrongs were done, just as humanity will? Or will those actions not matter a sniff “because God judges on a different basis” than humanity does?

None of us are gods. None of us will ever be gods. It is my firm belief that all we should care about it the “ethical righteousness” among men and women. Men and women have to live in the world today, so goodness needs to be agreed upon as an earth term. Who cares about how the word relates to a deity? That doesn’t matter one iota. Assuming a god is the only judge of “good” is opening the floodgates for any behaviour to be deemed good, even at the expense of our society and humanity at large.

I give you what should be an insane example but isn’t even as bad as what’s in the bible:

God wills the destruction of entire cultures, whole cities razed to the ground. Must be a good godly reason to do that, right? Even if we have to guess at god’s divine purpose since it suits our politics to blame the destruction on some group we dislike.

Does that take the onus off the rest of us to offer aid after hurricanes and earthquakes and tsunamis because god willed all that destruction for some reason only known to him? Maybe it had to do with wearing socks with sandals. Maybe mixed fabrics really do get his goat up a tree. How can we know for sure? So how dare we get involved in the clean up and after-care? He might want to send another wave or aftershock and we will have saved someone who he wanted dead? How can that be good in this god’s eyes? All we should do is pray that some of them find the righteous path before it’s too late…

Does anybody think like this that would be willing to admit it? Besides people like Pat Robertson I mean? How inhuman does a person have to be to hate people that much?

I’ll have to hit the crazy parable and judgment stuff in another post. Too much of a good thing, eh?

Chuck chuck bo buck bananafana fo fu…

…nny article Bore Me to Tears linked to today, from last November. Chuck Colson, a guest columnist for The Christian Post, wrote one of those wonderful Can We Be Good Without God? (Heck no!) articles. Bore Me To Tears focused on the amusing angle that without a god we may as well eat our own children like guppies do. Can’t be wrong if no god says it is, right? Yeesh.

Apart from God, we have no reason to take morality seriously.

Of course we do. We all have to live in our societies, we all have to agree to abide by societal laws. Many of those laws come from moral codes, codes of ethics, and laws that have proven throughout history to be decent, sensible laws that help societies maintain some sense of order. Are there flaws? Sure, but it’s not because atheists exist. Flaws in education systems have nothing to do with whether or not atheists pray. Rampant drug use and gang related violence doesn’t exist simply because atheists aren’t in church on Sundays.

Sure, we can do a few good things here and there without God. In fact, it would be great if atheists this Christmas were to give gifts to poor children or the children of prisoners like we do with Angel Tree.

I don’t have any stats to back up this statement, but I’m sure atheists/humanists wouldn’t feel compelled to wait until Christmas to donate time, food, or money to a good cause. There are secular groups available if people don’t want to help religious groups pass out their beliefs with a loaf of bread, though. Do some hunting.

But to think we can be good, that we can build a good and humane society without God, is pure folly. And it’s a folly with catastrophic consequences, as the untold millions of victims of the atheistic utopianisms of the 20th century bear witness.

I wonder who on earth he could mean there. I don’t recall any atheist catastrophes being studied in school. A lot of faulty Marxism, but no faulty atheism. Ever see much in the news about Estonia or Sweden? I don’t. Both of those countries record very little in the way of religious leanings and so far I haven’t heard of any attempts to take over the world.

Or as we see today in our depleted savings accounts—the result of a subprime crisis caused by immoral actions on the part of mortgage lenders.

Bankers never go to church? Seriously? None of them believe in god? That’s the argument for why people got sucked in and lost everything? Spare me.

So if those ads make news in your town, or if you happen to see one plastered on a local bus, why not start a conversation with an unsaved friend about the impossibility of being “good for goodness’ sake”—that is, without God.

Yes, why not? That’s way better than vandalizing the billboards just because you don’t agree with them. Maybe that unsaved person will laugh in your face because the assumption that people can’t be good without god is completely worth laughing about for as long and as loud as we can manage. It’s so funny that people can still think such things in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Oh, the human condition. What a joke we are, every day. Funny funny funny.

And then offer your friend rational arguments for the existence of our Heavenly Father—the kind offered by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. You might even send a copy to your local humanist society as a Christmas present.

And then they may pass you a copy of Letter to a Christian Nation or some other worthwhile reading.

Who knows? They might develop rational doubts about why they are so obsessed with a God they believe doesn’t exist.

We’re not obsessed with god. If anything, we’re obsessed with demonstrating how unnecessary belief in god is in order to have a good, productive, moral and ethical life. But even that isn’t quite right. I don’t wander around shouting about my atheism while I do my good deeds. That’s right, sir. An atheist just held this door open for you and your cane. What do you have to say now? Nyer nyer! No god’s better than your god! Ha ha, sucks to be you, you believer!

Hardly. I just work, live, and do. If people assume I’m religiously motivated and god-fearing for why I do what’s right, should I be correcting them or holding my tongue? I don’t think I need to get into a debate about goodness sans god every time I’m in the mall or something. That’s silly, isn’t it? Or does it need to be done?

Quotable Redhead

I know I should be original, but hell. I read this and thought this was fantastic. Why provide a mediocre post when I can pass this on:

# More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.
# Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
# In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.
# More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
# Bread is made from a substance called “dough.” It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!

You know Jean Valjean was a bread stealer too…

I’m a bread user. I’m addicted to bread. These stats are truly terrifying…

With no religion, would people still be this crazy?

Les over at Stupid Evil Bastard (and others) already did a rundown of this article by Kimberly Daniels (I edit Oct 31: they’ve added an editor’s note about its “controversial” nature now.) but I think there’s enough crazy to go around, so I’m going to quote pieces, too.

The key word in discussing Halloween is “dedicated.” It is dedicated to darkness and is an accursed season. During Halloween, time-released curses are always loosed. A time-released curse is a period that has been set aside to release demonic activity and to ensnare souls in great measure.

You may ask, “Doesn’t God have more power than the devil?” Yes, but He has given that power to us. If we do not walk in it, we will become the devil’s prey. Witchcraft works through dirty hearts and wrong spirits.

During this period demons are assigned against those who participate in the rituals and festivities. These demons are automatically drawn to the fetishes that open doors for them to come into the lives of human beings. For example, most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches.

I wonder how much they get paid to do that. Do they have to circle each cauldron of sweet sugary chocolate, or just aim their prayers at the trucks taking it all away to stores? I can’t find anything at the company websites about how witches get hired either. Are they in a union?

I do not buy candy during the Halloween season. Curses are sent through the tricks and treats of the innocent whether they get it by going door to door or by purchasing it from the local grocery store. The demons cannot tell the difference.

Even the colors of Halloween (orange, brown and dark red) are dedicated. These colors are connected to the fall equinox, which is around the 20th or 21st of September each year and is sometimes called “Mabon.” During this season witches are celebrating the changing of the seasons from summer to fall. They give praise to the gods for the demonic harvest. They pray to the gods of the elements (air, fire, water and earth).

It’s so hard to mock something that’s already this ridiculous. Les reminds his readers that Mabon is a neo-pagan remodel of a spring deity and not related to harvest at all. Demonic harvest? Obviously this woman has no clue where her food comes from. Here in Canada, Halloween colours seem to be black, purple, and yellow. I don’t know why. So little kiddies don’t blend in with the autumn leaves and get killed by reckless drivers?

And I thought there was supposed to be only one god ever and forever. How can she freak out over what witches are doing if they pray to gods that don’t exist?

The gods of harvest that the witches worship during their fall festivals are the Corn King and the Harvest Lord. The devil is too stupid to understand that Jesus is the Lord of the Harvest 365 days a year. But we cannot be ignorant of the devices of the enemy. When we pray, we bind the powers of the strong men that people involved in the occult worship.

Do you start to see my point for why I wonder about the value of religion sometimes? If this woman believes any of this, then others do too, and how can anyone reason with them? They’d rather buy into this garbage and believe demons are real than shrug off a silly night of letting loose. And just by the fact that I say demons don’t exist, they’re going to think demons got to me already and I’m damned to hell. Best thing devil ever did was make the people think he doesn’t exist, right? Blow me.

Halloween is much more than a holiday filled with fun and tricks or treats. It is a time for the gathering of evil that masquerades behind the fictitious characters of Dracula, werewolves, mummies and witches on brooms.

But she just said witches bewitch candy. Now they’re fictional? Or only broom riding witches are fictional? Real witches take public transport.. evil evil public transport. They might even use carpool lanes, the heathens.

The truth is that these demons that have been presented as scary cartoons actually exist. I have prayed for witches who are addicted to drinking blood and howling at the moon.

Name a couple. Did you see them doing this? Where were they doing this? How did you find out about it? How many people? When did this happen? Was anyone else with you when you found them and can verify your story here? Did you take any pictures to prove it’s not all in your fucked up little mind? Somehow I doubt it.

About the author: Kimberly Daniels is a sought-after conference speaker and preacher. She is the founder of Kimberly Daniels Ministries International (kimberlydaniels.com), Spoken Word Ministries—the church she pastors in Jacksonville, Florida, with her husband, Ardell—A Child of the King Learning Center and Word Bible College. Kim is a recognized prophetic voice as well as the author of several books, including her most recent, Prayers that Bring Change (Charisma House).

That is scarier than all her psycho ravings put together. People actually want this woman to foam at the mouth in public? Cripes. In her picture she looks like such a sweet lady. Obviously you can’t tell anything by looks. Anyone else who sees demons in every corner would be medicated and kept away from sharp objects.

Why would good decent Christians support her insanity? She needs help, not encouragement. There is something seriously wrong with her.

—-
Edit Oct 31: Props as per usual to Digital Cuttlefish for yet another well written topical batch of verses. My envy tastes like orange icing and chocolate sprinkles…

The trouble with bedrock beliefs…

..would be their inability to change without applying great force.

I can’t say I see that as a good thing, unlike columnist Rebecca Hagelin at the Washington Post in a recent piece.

“Of course I dislike the Nazis. But who is to say they’re morally wrong?” The shocking statement was made to a college professor in New York by one of his students, as documented by author Kerby Anderson in a much-needed book, “Christian Ethics in Plain Language.” Mr. Anderson reports that the professor “said that he has never met a student who denied the Holocaust happened. But he also reported that 10 to 20 percent of his students cannot bring themselves to say that killing millions of people is wrong.”

That’s an alarming statistic, but I wonder if some of that might have to do with the fact that God killed a lot of people in the bible. Genocide cannot be evil if God does it. Check this list for 20 horrible death fests God created and/or encouraged.

Morality is an interesting concept. Common Sense Atheism quotes a piece from Alonzo Fyfe in another post regarding the inability of both Christians and atheists to accurately explain what leads to moral beliefs. One side says “evidence” or “reasons” and the other says “divinity.” In the end it amounts to the same nonsense; it’s feelings oriented and not based on reality.