Oprah Woo-Woo Is About To Grow Exponentially

homepage_header_oprah_166x145Well, the Queen of Talk has announced that she’ll be retiring her long-standing talk show. Seems reasonable. After all, she’s worked tirelessly on building her empire for almost 25 years and probably could use some down time. But …hang on just a second. Did I read the article right?

“After her broadcast talk show winds down, Ms. Winfrey will concentrate on her coming cable channel, OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network.”

…whoa, whoa WHOA! It sure doesn’t look like down time is what’s on her mind. What she really wants to do is build her own cable channel and put more shows on the air. The Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN) will be developing it’s own brand of TV and, based on her track record so far, I think it’s safe to assume she’ll be giving skeptics a great deal to talk about for some time to come.

Oprah’s featured lots of woo in the past (e.g. The Secret) and has already committed to helping anti-vax nutbar Jenny McCarthy start her own show.

An Oprah cable channel is not going to be good news for rationalism in America. Now, instead of one talking head, you’ll have an Oprah army of them.

Get your note pads… and shovels ready.

Tags: • •

November 19, 2009 · Filed Under skepticism

1 Comment 

Hiding in Plain Sight

profileI’ve had a few friends find this place, expressing surprise that I’m an atheist and that I’m “secretly” blogging about it. It got me thinking there may be others who’ve been lurking here and wondering about the same things.

For the answer to the first question, I’d ask you to read the “about” stuff in the top menu of this blog. With respect to the second question, the blog is really not secret at all. From the beginning, I’ve linked to it from all my other internet haunts. Hell, I even link to it from my Facebook profile.

On the other hand, I’ve never promoted or discussed this place with any non-atheist/agnostic friends either. I’m no missionary and am not one to drag people in here to read my ramblings – especially if I know they are the believing type. I guess I’ve seen enough evangelism to know it’s something I’d rather not take part in.

Then why write about atheism? Well, first, because even though Canadians are pretty low-key about religion, it’s still pretty pervasive in our society. Ask any atheist and they’ll probably tell you there’s a lot of god talk out there – god talk that often spills into our public institutions and law (e.g. google ‘Bill 44 Alberta’). That sort of thing creates a need for a place where I can analyze the atheistic/religious world around me and maybe blow off a little steam. It also helps me to meet like-minded people and talk about things. In other words, I blog to help me keep my sanity and deal with the isolation I often feel from being part of a minority.

Oh, there’s one more reason I blog here – to help people. Specifically, to help people who are struggling with their faith – those looking for a safe place to ask the questions they may be afraid to ask elsewhere. Doubting Christians who arrive on this doorstep are treated gently because I know how hard it is for them to even begin questioning their faith.

If you choose to hang around this place, be warned that I speak my mind here. There will be days when you might like what I have to say, days when you will not like what I have to say, and days when you would rather not have stopped by.

So, while I understand you may be surprised or even shocked to read what I have to say here, I will make no apologies. You can accept that …or not – it’s your choice.

Oh, before I forget, WELCOME.

Peace, out!

—

(Edit: I’ve decided to just get it all over with and posted a link to this post on Facebook)


November 18, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism, about me

5 Comments 

Stupid Google Search

I am not kidding – someone came to this blog by searching for does Richard Dawkins believe in God?

Someone’s obviously just returned from being cast away on a remote island.

This would make him laugh

This would make him laugh


November 17, 2009 · Filed Under funnier than hell

3 Comments 

Does Majesty & Wonder Have To Come From A Creator?

in-the-shadow-of-the-moonI was in the mood last night for space stuff so I popped In the Shadow of the Moon into the DVD player. The film is a wonderful documentary (directed by Ron Howard) of the US moon landings. It begins, appropriately enough, at the beginning with John F. Kennedy’s bold challenge, and ends with the landings made by Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and a few lesser known successors.

You can view the entire film in 10 minute segments on youtube but, before you do, I’d like to call your attention to the final segment where some of the astronauts share how their journeys changed them. The segment starts with Eugene Cernan and Charlie Duke describing their feelings of wonder, and how those feelings convinced them of God’s existence (Duke actually became a born-again Christian not long after).

Being a fairly recent (2 year) de-conversion to atheism, I can relate to these men. I’ve shared similar experiences of wonder and majesty – most notably while hiking in the mountains, or going for 10+ mile runs (runner’s high’ll get ya every time). And, yes, two years ago, I too would have given credit to god for those wonderful feelings.

However, since the de-conversion, the source of those feelings has changed, and I’ve become more and more fascinated with the seemingly universal tendency for us to attribute these emotions to a god or creator.

Why is this so?

Some think it’s connected to our affinity toward anthropomorphizing – attributing human qualities to things that are not. In this case, humans create things, so we assume that the universe must also have been created by something human-like, only much more powerful.

Scientists who study the brain may tell you that our willingness to invoke god is connected to our ability to identify patterns. In this case, the pattern is that most everything we observe has a cause, and we extend that pattern to the assumption that the universe must also have a cause.

But is this correct thinking? Just because we see cause and effect around us, does that mean the same rule applied to the formation of the universe? If a god can simply exist, then why can’t a universe? Also, could the Big Bang have been preceded by a Big Crunch, and that crunch have been preceded by a different Big Bang? Might this process be cycling on eon after eon after eon?

And, even if the universe did have an external cause, why would that cause need to be an intelligence or a god? Might it just as easily be another universe, as multi-universe theory proposes?

And then there’s the fact that most of us were raised by parents who told us that God created everything, and many of us grew up in churches where everyone agreed the universe was created by God. How many of those people really examine these claims from authority? After all, all those smart people couldn’t be wrong – could they?

I wonder, if parents stopped teaching this idea to their children, how would it take long before our sense of wonder aimed itself at the natural world instead of some unknown, undetectable entity?

There is a world of science awaiting those who would ask these questions. There is a world of wonder awaiting those willing to entertain the idea that maybe, God didn’t do it. And, in my opinion, the fact that our universe came to be without a deity makes it even more wondrous and majestic.

crabmosaic

Tags: • • • • • • • •

November 16, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism, Science & Technology, understanding, video

8 Comments 

Excellent Documentary of Charles Darwin

Head on over to CBC. The Nature of Things by David Suzuki has an excellent documentary of Charles Documentary. You can currently view parts I and II on the site. Part III will be available next week.


November 13, 2009 · Filed Under video

1 Comment 

Oprah Dashes the Hopes of Atheists Everywhere

Ok, a slight exaggeration but watching the video below was, quite frankly, maddening.

It’s the part where she says, “Maybe you believe and you don’t know you believe” which translates to me as “I can’t conceive that you really don’t believe in God, therefore, you must be in denial – you really believe – you just don’t know it”.

Oprah, you’ve just insulted a large number of atheists but, just in case you don’t know why your words are insulting, replace “God” with “Xenu” and pretend you are the one being interviewed.

Got it?

Tags: • • •

October 23, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism

2 Comments 

Be A Grown-Up, Responsible Member of Society: Get H1N1 Vaccinated

I am so tired of the childish, selfish, crank-pot based reasons people give for not getting vaccinated.

I get that you don’t like needles.

I get that you don’t like that one to two day slightly icky feeling some of us get after getting the shot, and that you’d rather get really sick for two to five days instead.

I get that you don’t trust “Big Pharma”.

I get that you have questions – concerns. By all means, ask your questions but get your answers from the right sources.

But, HOLY FUCKIN’ SHIT, please get a clue about the shaky ground your decision is based on. And, more seriously, please, please please get a clue about how your decision to not vaccinate could impact the high-risk among us!

Anyone who does the research – using reputable sources of information (start with the World Health Organization) and not your friend’s blog – will quickly get answers to their questions. But there are those who are too lazy to research, and those who only seek out information that supports their conspiracy theory (google “confirmation bias”). Do they seek information from the scientific community that cured Polio and wiped out Smallpox? No, they trust other sources. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

By trusting non-credentialed sources, you are saying you don’t trust the VAST majority of medical scientists, doctors, local and state/provincial health agencies, national organizations (e.g. the CDC) and the World Health Organization – a United Nations agency. Do you really think all those people and organizations are that inept and/or corrupt? Are you seriously that paranoid?

Setting aside all this, I’d like to point out that YOU – yes YOU – are putting the welfare of others at risk.

H1N1 has been shown to be hard on children and women. THEY CAN DIE FROM THIS FLU.

So, let’s say you don’t get vaccinated and you get sick. And let’s say you get sick because you were not vaccinated. No big deal, right? After all, you won’t die.

No, you probably won’t die, but you will likely pass on the virus. And then it will be passed on by another dipshit like you, until it finally gets to a pregnant woman or a child who wasn’t vaccinated in time. Or maybe it gets to another high risk individual like my son who happens to be a Type 1 diabetic and who hasn’t been vaccinated because it’s not yet available in my community.

Statistically, someone among those groupings is going to get very, very sick and maybe even die. Maybe it will turn out to be your neighbour’s kid. Maybe it will turn out to be the pregnant woman you work with.

But, that invisible bug you may have passed along is out of sight out of mind, right? After all, you didn’t kill that person …did you?

No, you only played your part.

—-

For a less emotional response to your H1N1 questions, I strongly recommend Science Based Medicine.

Tags: • • •

October 22, 2009 · Filed Under stuff

7 Comments 

Vacation Book #1: On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

charles-darwin-8221Well, a year after purchasing it, I finally finished On the Origin of Species. It was quite the read – all 650 Victorian Era pages worth.

Although Darwin’s writing style was a lot more accessible than I expected, it was still a bit dry in places. That said, there were multiple rewards for my perseverance. Darwin did not disappoint – I was, in many places throughout the book, inspired in unexpected ways. For anyone interested in evolution, it really is a must-read. How could it not be? After all, it set the stage for the study of life on earth for the next 150 years (and counting)!

The Origin of Species was as much science as it was prophecy of the science that would follow it. Its author had an amazing grasp of was to come following the introduction of his dangerous idea to the world. While his excitement at the prospects of future discoveries was palpable, I imagine if he would have lived to see future discoveries (e.g. in the field of genetics) he would have calmly said, “Well, of course. Natural Selection would have it no other way”.

Another thing I was struck by was Darwin’s knowledge of so many varied fields of science. Not only was he eminently learned in his chosen field of biology, but his mind seemed absolutely brimming with knowledge about geology, paleontology, physics and more. He was a master at connecting the dots between various fields of science.

Upon reading Darwin, you come to really understand how badly he’s been misunderstood and misconstrued – especially by the creationist/intelligent design movement. Darwin himself was all-to aware of this unfortunate reality, and spent considerable time addressing it. In reading the book, you get a good sense of why it took him so long to finish it – he’d obviously spent a great deal of time debating both creationists and old-thinking naturalists, and wanted to do his best to address the objections he’d heard on what I’m sure were countless occasions.

The book makes it clear that Darwin was accustomed to seeing his words and work misrepresented. However, in the face of that, he was still an optimist:

Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure.

The most famous misrepresentation is probably this quote:

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

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

Creationists – to this day – insist on quoting the first paragraph whilst conveniently leaving out the second. The result is to portray a Darwin who is seemingly dumbfounded by the complexity in nature. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Darwin, and his theory illuminated our understanding of the diversity of life on earth.
And that’s why it’s a must-read – because, even today, The Origin of Species is a candle in the dark. I, for one, am committed to passing on the flame.

Tags: • • • • • • • •

October 4, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism, understanding

2 Comments 

Dear Imaginary God: Fuck You & The Imaginary White Horse You Are Supposed to Ride In On

I’m not the swearing type but I figure if you’re gonna do something, you ought to do it right (fyi for those who don’t know, it’s Blasphemy Day).


September 30, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism

8 Comments 

Back from Vacation

Getting organized… Nice to be home. How are you?


September 30, 2009 · Filed Under stuff

2 Comments 

On Vacation

As of tomorrow (Wednesday, Sept 15), I’ll be on vacation for a couple of weeks. Therefore, I will likely not be doing a lot of writing here for a little while. Then again, you never know – I imagine my evenings will be quiet so…

Just don’t expect much!

And to all of you would-be thieves, there are people staying in my home while I’m away. :)

Ciao for now!


September 15, 2009 · Filed Under stuff

1 Comment 

A Letter to a Friend: Evidence for Evolution

Hi Friend,

I thought I’d follow-up on our disagreement about evolution. Before I go further, I thought I’d confirm what I think you said so I don’t put words into your mouth:

  1. Evolution has been dis-proven.
  2. Many scientists say that evolution has many holes in it and that it has not held up to scientific scrutiny.
  3. There are not enough fossils to demonstrate sufficient evidence for human evolution. You asked me to show you that fossils exist in museums.

Please let me know if I got any of that wrong because I used your comments as the basis for my research (if necessary, I’ll revise my research when I get back from my trip).

My claim is that evolution explains the earth’s diversity of life, as well as the evolution of human beings on earth. Furthermore, I claim that there is substantial evidence for those two claims. With that in mind, below is some support I found for my claims. The information is in the links, but I provided a few teaser quotes or tid-bits of information beside a few of them.
—
Level of Support for Evolution: Quote: “…in the scientific community there is essentially universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute…”

Objections to Evolution: Quote: “When Charles Darwin published his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, his theory of evolution by natural selection initially met opposition from alternate scientific theories, but came to be universally accepted by the scientific community.[2] The observation, or fact, of evolutionary processes occurring, as well as the current theory explaining that fact, have been uncontroversial among biologists for nearly a century.”

Scientific Dissent from Darwinism + the Rebuttals to those Dissents. I’m not sure about you, but I find the rebuttals to be pretty convincing.

Project Steve on Wikipedia and on its own site. Project Steve is a tongue-in-cheek response to the claim that many scientists oppose evolution. The point that Project Steve makes is that – even if the anti-evolutionist scientists were in the hundreds, that is a minute number compared to the many, many thousands who do accept evolution. The project lists over 1100 scientists named ‘Steve” who accept the theory. And that doesn’t even get into the discussion of which group of scientists have the credentials needed to assess the evidence (covered in the “dissent” link above).

Now that I’ve presented information supporting evolution as an almost universally accepted theory in the scientific community, let’s move onto your points about evidence and fossils.

Here is a list of human evolution fossils: Note that the article states there are thousands of fossils and that it outlines the progression from early mammals, to primates, to hominids (the family Homo Sapiens emerged from).

The Human Origins Exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History – I don’t know if you can find a museum of higher standing.

Another place of high regard is the Museum of Science – the link contains a database of fossils

The Smithsonian Institute is arguably one of the highest regarded museums in the world. It has many, many fossils and an amazing exhibit (online and in-person versions). Suffice to say, the Smithsonian also accepts evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

A couple of very good university resources are the ones found at the University of California and Minnesota State University (there are lots of others).

PZ Meyers is a respected evolutionary biologist and university professor. This post contains a large number of links pointing to an immense body of evolutionary evidence.

A couple of great websites with information about evolution are Talk Origins and Panda’s Thumb.

Finally, there are tons of books written by highly respected scientists on the subject of evolution. The Smithsonian Instititute Guide to Human Origins is one I read over a year ago that I highly recommend.

I’m no expert but I think I can discern between an expert and a non-expert and that’s what I am basing my argument on – that the sources I am citing are numerous and respected within the scientific community.

I am not sure what sources you refer to when you say you know of many scientists who have proven evolution not to be valid. Therefore, I can’t pretend to judge if they are good, well-respected scientists.

Tags: • • • • •

September 14, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism, understanding

4 Comments 

Welcome Stumblers!

I see from my stat logs that I’m getting lots of visits from Stumbleupon. Thanks for stopping by – I hope you find my blog worthy of your thumbs up!

Stumbleupon_128x128

Tags: •

September 8, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism

6 Comments 

Putting a Fine Point On Atheist Arrogance

Top of the page at Godless Blogger’s place today was the following image. Needless to say, this does a much better job summarizes a point I’ve recently tried to make here. I guess a picture really is worth a thousand words.

atheism_motivational_poster_2

Tags: • •

September 6, 2009 · Filed Under about me

52 Comments 

TED: Ideas Worth Spreading

Renshia (a prolific commenter here) sent a suggestion that I spread the word about one of his favorite websites – TED. What’s TED? From their about page:

TED is a small nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from three worlds: Technology, Entertainment, Design. Since then its scope has become ever broader. Along with the annual TED Conference in Long Beach, California, and the TEDGlobal conference in Oxford UK, TED includes the award-winning TEDTalks video site, the Open Translation Program, the new TEDx community program, this year’s TEDIndia Conference and the annual TED Prize.

The jewel on the TED website is undoubtedly their collection of videos. Again, I’ll let TED speak for itself:

The annual conferences in Long Beach and Oxford bring together the world’s most fascinating thinkers and doers, who are challenged to give the talk of their lives (in 18 minutes). On TED.com, we make the best talks and performances from TED and partners available to the world, for free. More than 450 TEDTalks are now available, with more added each week. All of the talks feature closed captions in English, and many feature subtitles in various languages. These videos are released under a Creative Commons license, so they can be freely shared and reposted.

Under those broad categories of Technology, entertainment and design, TED covers a lot of ground – especially for the scientifically inclined, or those simply looking for some inspiration. Suffice to say, I am in complete agreement with Renshia – TED is an amazing place. One of the best the web has to offer. The fact that their videos are free to view or download (in many formats including mp3 and high-resolution video) is a testament to the power of the web as a learning tool.

With that, I’ll leave you with one of my favorite TED videos. Enjoy!

Tags: • • •

September 5, 2009 · Filed Under links

1 Comment 

Next Page →