http://www.dbskeptic.com Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Sun, 11 Sep 2011 01:30:05 +0000 en-us hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 Digital Bits Skeptic brings skepticism and critical thinking to a world of new age, religion and credulous pop culture. Andy Kaiser clean Andy Kaiser skeptic@dbskeptic.com skeptic@dbskeptic.com (Andy Kaiser) 2009 Skepticism and critical thinking in a world of new age, religion and credulous pop culture skeptic, skepticism, critical thinking, new age, religion, pop culture, skeptical articles, critical thinking articles, philosophy http://www.dbskeptic.com/images/dbskeptic-logo-144.jpg http://www.dbskeptic.com/category/philosophy/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/08/13/the-veil-of-ignorance-dont-confuse-tools-with-the-buildings-they-create/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/08/13/the-veil-of-ignorance-dont-confuse-tools-with-the-buildings-they-create/#comments Sat, 14 Aug 2010 01:54:54 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=2052 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/08/13/the-veil-of-ignorance-dont-confuse-tools-with-the-buildings-they-create/feed/ 4 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1413 - The "veil of ignorance" is a thought experiment: Imagine you have to design a society. You have to decide if slavery will be permitted or not. Are women supposed to stay at home? Are they allowed to work? By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1413 The "veil of ignorance" is a thought experiment: Imagine you have to design a society. You have to decide if slavery will be permitted or not. Are women supposed to stay at home? Are they allowed to work? Or must they do a bit of both? How high are income taxes? How are they applied? After you design your society, you become one of the positions in that society. Here’s the kicker: you aren’t allowed to choose your position. You get one at random. So you could end up male or female, rich or poor, black or white, slave or owner, scientist or secretary. Since you don’t know what position you will occupy, you are said to be designing this society from behind a ‘veil of ignorance’. How would you design such a society? What would it look like? You could end up as a coal miner or a CEO. Will the CEO be heavily taxed to subsidize the coal miner’s healthcare? Most people are risk-averse: they would rather have a million dollars guaranteed rather than a 50% chance of having 2 million dollars and a 50% chance of having nothing. This is fairly logical: with the first million you will buy what’s important: a house, a decent car, a retirement fund, et cetera. The second million will get you a fancier car, a holiday house and maybe some nice suits but the happiness (in economic terms, the utility) you get out of the second million is less than the happiness you get out of the first million. (Mathematically, let’s say the first million gets you a utility of 50, while the second million gets you a utility of 40. If you just take the million your utility is 50. Winning gives you a utility of 90, while losing gets you zero. Therefore, if you take the gamble, you have an expected utility of (.5 x 90) + (.5 x 0) = 45. Thus taking the gamble will, on average, give a lower overall utility and less happiness.) John Rawls, the philosopher who invented the concept of the veil of ignorance, concluded that because people are risk-averse, they would construct a society where everyone is equal rather than one where there are rich as well as poor people. Since this is the kind of society that we would choose if we didn’t know our positions, this is the kind of society which we must try to create in the real world. Right? To use the example above, you’d want to hedge your bets and tax the CEO if you weren’t sure if you’d become him. Rawls took this idea one step further. He argued that people would want a society where there is equality of outcome: everyone ends up in the same place, regardless of intelligence, talent or strength, because even these things are randomly distributed at birth. You might be born stupid, weak or talentless. Wouldn’t you want to hedge your bets against that affecting you? This equality of outcome hasn’t really caught on in a big way. Even egalitarians accept you’d need some degree of inequality to convince people to put in a decade of work to become a doctor instead of a jazz musician. Even so, Rawls’ conclusions about an equal society being a just one are very influential. These conclusions have been subject to a variety of criticisms. Are people really that risk-averse? What about those thousands of ‘actors’ who end up doing bit roles for tiny amounts of money their entire lives so they have a one-in-ten-thousand shot at becoming Tom Cruise? And how do you decide the best ratio of security versus liberty? Let’s focus on one criticism, that of Rawls’ society where a fixed amount of wealth must be distributed. Everything else being equal, a person would prefer a society where incomes were $10, $4 and $4 to one where the distributions were $3, $3, $3 because in the first example all incomes are higher in all cases. To simplify the analysis, assume that all people are risk-averse, and we’ll use the Veil of Ignorance as our tool of choice. But rather than designing a society, let’s say that the person behind the Veil is designing a civilization. Andy Kaiser clean 8:34 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/20/advanced-apologizing-proof-of-the-existence-of-god/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/20/advanced-apologizing-proof-of-the-existence-of-god/#comments Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:07:44 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1733 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/20/advanced-apologizing-proof-of-the-existence-of-god/feed/ 12 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1349 - Let's examine the evidence for a god's existence. Some arguments are well-known and very well covered, like the Problem of Evil, the First Cause Argument, the Argument from Design. Instead, By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1349 Let's examine the evidence for a god's existence. Some arguments are well-known and very well covered, like the Problem of Evil, the First Cause Argument, the Argument from Design. Instead, let's look at four lesser-known, overlooked oddities. Welcome to the strange world of religious apologizing. 1) "The common consent to God" Catholic theologian Peter Kreeft offers the following argument for God’s existence: [1] A belief in God—that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due—is common to almost all people of every era. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives, or they have not. It is most plausible to believe that they have not. Therefore, it is most plausible to believe that God exists. As Kreeft says, “the majority is not infallible.” Big groups of people can make mistakes. He concedes this point, citing the fact that once upon a time most of the world believed the sun revolved around the Earth, rather than the Earth revolving around the sun. However, people back in those days could directly experience the sun and Earth. But in the case of God, what exactly is it that people experience and possibly misinterpret? This argument fails to convince me. For one thing, “belief in God” is not common to people of every era. Today, at least one third of the world’s population does not subscribe to any of the major monotheistic faiths. [2] It is my understanding that before the rise of Christianity (which covers almost all of human history), almost everyone was polytheistic or engaged in some form of nature worship. If Kreeft is right about the majority being an indicator of truth, he can't also argue for the existence of God (with a capital 'G'). His argument, if correct, actually supports polytheism! Another big problem is when Kreeft attempted to refute the “majority is not infallible” objection. Kreeft admitted that ancient people misinterpreted their experiences and so came to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. Apply this to present day religion: A religious worldview could simply be the result of misinterpreting reality. Animism (personifying nature) seems to grow out of falsely attributing human characteristics to impersonal things (like regarding the moon as an "Earth Mother"). Polytheism appears to have grown out of animism, since the gods of ancient polytheistic religions were originally often just aspects of nature. We human beings, in our modern monotheistic societies, still personify inanimate objects. This supports my theory that religion is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of reality. Have you ever seen someone get angry at their car because it won’t start? Have you ever seen someone plead with or threaten a faulty computer? Think about what this person was doing: She was personifying inanimate objects. How rational is it to get angry at something with no will of its own, an object utterly incapable of being persuaded by curses or violence? It isn't rational. It makes no sense, unless this person believes, even subconsciously, that the inanimate object is actually animate. 2) "The singularity argument against God" The "Big Bang singularity" is the moment, after we extrapolate backwards in time, when we see that the Big Bang was infinitely dense, infinitely hot and was so tiny it consumed no space at all. The singularity is a cosmic "division by zero" error, where physics and general relativity break down. Philosopher Quentin Smith [3] says that the Big Bang singularity was a lawless, chaotic, and unpredictable state. In principle, it is impossible to predict whether such a thing could ever evolve life. Smith argues that God would not create the universe this way: a life-creating God would not leave open the possibility of a lifeless universe. There's a flaw here. Since God is omnipotent, He could have created the Big Bang, Andy Kaiser clean 11:55 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/18/what-is-faith/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/18/what-is-faith/#comments Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:55:09 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1579 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/18/what-is-faith/feed/ 11 Jeff Kilroy by Jeff Kilroy Article ID: 1341 - I attempt to have rational arguments with theists about their beliefs. I really do. Unfortunately, it seems that every time I present an argument that almost makes me shout “Checkmate!”, by Jeff Kilroy Article ID: 1341 I attempt to have rational arguments with theists about their beliefs. I really do. Unfortunately, it seems that every time I present an argument that almost makes me shout “Checkmate!”, I get the dismissive reply of “You just need faith,” or “This is just MY faith”. In most religions and even some pseudo-scientific circles, faith is touted as a necessity or virtue. But is faith really a good thing to possess? Better yet, do we really know what faith is? One of the more commonly used definitions comes from Merriam-Webster: faith is a "Firm belief in something for which there is no proof". That doesn't sound so great to me. I decided to post on a few religious forums and see what faith was all about.  My question to the readers was pretty simple. I wanted to know how they would define faith as well as why they felt that it was good to have. Unfortunately, the responses were not as captivating as I hoped they would be. I received generic responses that really were non-answers more than anything else. Some explained their relationship with God, which really had nothing to do with my question. The primary stance was that faith is simply one’s trust in something. We need it because we don’t always have proof. The problem is that whatever is taken on faith must have some faint evidence or reason to begin with. This often comes from your surroundings (including parents, culture and friends), otherwise the person with faith in Jesus Christ should also have faith in Muhammad, Zeus, and unicorns.  There has to be a reason why one obtains a particular faith in the first place. That faith is not a belief in something without evidence, but rather belief in something with some bit of evidence. And even with "evidence", it's still not enough to convince another, otherwise the believer wouldn't need to mention faith in the first place. The amount of evidence required in order to believe a claim should depend on the initial believability of the claim. For example, I walk into a grocery store and notice the man behind the counter has a nametag on his shirt reading, "Hello, my name is Bill". I would not need any more evidence to be convinced his name is Bill. This would be perfectly fine to assume since the evidence is sufficient in comparison to the claim. Since I may never see Bill again, I am not terribly worried about getting his name wrong. Next, I lean over and say, “Hi, Bill!” as he rings up my items. What if he corrects me? What if he explains that he had accidentally switched nametags with another employee, and then rushes over to the "real" Bill to get the correct nametag? Would I reject his claim of not being named Bill? Of course not. While the excuse is a bit odd, I have witnessed enough evidence to change my previous assertion. This is where faith is different from the normal way we reason. When someone has faith in something, they have an unjustified alliance with an idea.  While it could be said that we all have this to a degree, that we will continually qualify something as true until we receive a specific amount of evidence to oppose that assumption, the main distinction is with the amount of evidence required by a belief. If you have strong faith in an idea, you're saying, "It will be very hard or impossible for me to change my mind." This is a problem. When a person is closed to critical analysis of their own ideas, it's tough to trust the other choices they've made in their life. I feel everyone has the right to believe whatever that want, no matter how crazy I think they are. I would never want to take that freedom away from someone. I would, however, encourage those with supposed "strong faith" to evaluate their stance from an unbiased perspective. Get some opposing ideas and truly consider them. We must all realize how our own beliefs affect our everyday choices - large and small. The more we can be rational with our ideas and justify our beliefs, Andy Kaiser clean 6:28 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/17/the-meaning-of-life-and-podcasting/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/17/the-meaning-of-life-and-podcasting/#comments Sun, 17 May 2009 17:29:42 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1039 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/17/the-meaning-of-life-and-podcasting/feed/ 11 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1321 - I have no idea how I first started listening to the deò's Shadow podcast. But there I was. A skeptic. A secular humanist. An atheist. And I was listening to and enjoying a podcast that targeted pagans. Pagans! By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1321 I have no idea how I first started listening to the deò's Shadow podcast. But there I was. A skeptic. A secular humanist. An atheist. And I was listening to and enjoying a podcast that targeted pagans. Pagans! Nature-communing, naked-fire-dancing, tarot-card-reading, Winter Solstice-celebrating pagans! Many pagans believe in multiple gods and the supernatural. Many secular humanists don't. On paper, I'm the opposite of a pagan. But I listened. I listened to this podcast that lectured in depth about things I thought were nonsense. But that was okay. I liked deò's Shadow for two reasons. First, the hosts (husband and wife team deò and Mandy) were talented and charismatic. Second, the show was (for lack of a better description) kinda skeptical. Yes, they focused heavily on pagan-centric stuff that rubbed my hackles in a way I didn't want rubbed. But they also supported issues important to skeptics. Some you may know, like Kirk Cameron's odd assumption that the physical design of the banana proves the existence of God. Or a criticism of "The Secret", an Oprah-advertized self-help guide that's just cuckoo. Or how to profess a liberal belief system in a land populated by fundamentalists. As the podcasts went on, many topics and conversations crossed from pagan ley lines into skeptical latitudes. In fact, the second-to-last podcast of deò's Shadow was titled "Skepticism, Science and Scientology". A short time later, the podcast stopped. No more episodes. With a bit of research, I found why. deò and Mandy said: "Making deòs Shadow was usually a joy, and as the show grew more popular, we had many opportunities for new experiences which helped us to grow as people. One of the interesting side-effects of such growth is that one can end up growing out of that which induces the growth. We've moved on from Paganism and are now practicing atheists." Cool. Good for them, you know? Not because they came over to a philosophy I support, but that they were willing to significantly change their lives based on what they believed, even though it would mean the loss of some very important things. That conversion took intelligence, research, and self-confidence. It was a thinking change. I respect that, whether you're moving to my philosophy or away from it. This next sentence might sound like a violent derailing of the topic, but trust me: Let me tell you about my philosophy of life. Andy's meaning of life Everyone asks, "Why are we here? What's the point of life?" No one really knows for sure, so we have to make an intelligent guess as to the answer. Here's what I've come up with so far: Produce, create and use what ability you have to improve the world and the lives of those around you. Leave something good behind. Help others. Teach others. Raise good kids. Or, say, as a completely random example, try to produce a critical-thinking podcast to the best of one's ability. Someday I'll die. When I'm gone, I want something left. Yes, my genes will be around in my children, my family and friends will have memories and stories. But I'm talking more. I'm also talking about the horrible alternative of having done nothing at all. If I do nothing, I've rejected our evolutionary imperitive to further the species. Or in a more personal take, I've wasted the biggest opportunity any of us ever gets. This concept is best explained in one of my favorite books, "The Circus of Dr. Lao", by Charles Finney. In the book, a woman thinks it would be fun to go to a fortune teller and have him predict her future. Little does she know, the fortune teller is gifted - and cursed - because his fortunes and predictions are always 100% accurate. This is what he tells her: "Tomorrow will be like today, and the day after tomorrow will be like the day before yesterday. I see your remaining days each as quiet, tedious collections of hours. You will not travel anywhere. You will think no new thoughts. Andy Kaiser clean 11:33 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/15/a-critical-examination-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/15/a-critical-examination-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/#comments Mon, 16 Mar 2009 01:48:56 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=872 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/15/a-critical-examination-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/feed/ 12 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1312 - The Kalam Cosmological Argument was popularized by the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, and it has become the most widely discussed argument for God's existence in contemporary philosophy[1]. By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1312 The Kalam Cosmological Argument was popularized by the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, and it has become the most widely discussed argument for God's existence in contemporary philosophy[1]. These th... Andy Kaiser clean 10:06 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/22/in-defense-of-murderous-humans-animals-at-steak/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/22/in-defense-of-murderous-humans-animals-at-steak/#comments Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:28:33 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=530 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/22/in-defense-of-murderous-humans-animals-at-steak/feed/ 6 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1265 - "Puppies." Even the word is cute. With just a few very oddball exceptions, you'd agree with me that puppies are adorable. But at what point do people stop using the term "man's best friend", By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1265 "Puppies." Even the word is cute. With just a few very oddball exceptions, you'd agree with me that puppies are adorable. But at what point do people stop using the term "man's best friend", and start saying "pass the salt"? I'm talking about the inherent differences between humans and every other animal on the planet. After all, as the smart, tool-using, big-brained creatures we are, do we not have an imperative to nurture and care for all the other animals on the planet? No. Not when animal rights are compared to humankind's safety, science or even hunger. In my own country - the United States - eating dog meat is considered taboo. We're just too emotionally close to our pets. Elsewhere, dogs are eaten and bred as a food supply: this occurs in China, Indonesia, Korea and Vietnam. Other countries eat dog meat more covertly, in more remote locations, or are used as a food supply in times of famine. These countries include France, Germany, India, Nigeria, the Philippines, Switzerland, and near the Arctic and Antarctic. In times of desperation, the competition for life becomes a free-for-all. Stories like Jack London's "To Build a Fire" are understandable - if a man is freezing to death, of course he'll kill his trusty dog for its body heat. If a man is starving, he'll feed himself with whatever's available. This desire for life is so strong it's even visible between humans. For those who have sung and danced through the black comedy, "Cannibal: The Musical" or the 1993 movie "Alive", we know that people in extreme situations will ignore the most fundamental of taboos to stay living. Life or death situations are pretty easy to argue. But throw in some ambiguity and it gets tricky. When immediate death isn't part of the equation, at what point is it morally acceptable to kill an animal? I argue that it's allowed under these two situations: 1) It's morally acceptable for humans to eat most animals. We are omnivores. We are designed to eat meat, and we get certain nutrition from meat we can't easily get from other sources. 2) It's morally acceptable for humans to perform research and testing on animals if that effort has a chance of saving or improving human lives. Animal testing to further our scientific knowledge is an imperative. We would advance slower or not at all without animal testing, because the alternative with today's technology would be to test on humans. Even as I write these words, I don't like them. I believe they are true, but I don't enjoy having to pick what is clearly a lesser of two evils. However, I'm confident in the above because of this premise: All else being equal, any human life is worth more than any animal life. This idea may in fact be at the core of every animal rights issue. If someone has to suffer and die so that humans don't have to, then the animal must take this terrible burden. Why? Because someone has to - we don't yet have the technology to do otherwise. If we are altruistic to animals, humanity would suffer. In a rather brutal summary of the above themes, we end with this quote by comedian Nick Dipaolo: "If hooking a car battery up to a monkey's brain will help find the cure for AIDS and save somebody's life, I have two things to say... the red is positive and the black is negative." Andy Kaiser clean 5:58 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/08/funny-underused-crude-knowledge-a-vulgar-examination-of-profanity/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/08/funny-underused-crude-knowledge-a-vulgar-examination-of-profanity/#comments Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:35:04 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=507 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/08/funny-underused-crude-knowledge-a-vulgar-examination-of-profanity/feed/ 8 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 1263 - [An editor's note to parents and teachers: This article contains words considered offensive to a large portion of the sixteenth century English-speaking world. Proceed with caution.] - By M Parrott Article ID: 1263 [An editor's note to parents and teachers: This article contains words considered offensive to a large portion of the sixteenth century English-speaking world. Proceed with caution.] Profanity is an interesting subject, particularly in today's over-sensitive culture. Some say that profanity is a big problem. They claim it can ruin a child's upbringing and destroy innocence and purity. You know what I say to these people? "Balderdash! Piffle! Poppycock and poop!" Profanities are just words. A phonetic collection meant to communicate a recognizable concept. Just like what you read now is no more than a collection of squiggles to create "letters". These so called "letters" create words. But what are they really? Nothing. Just something made up by humanity by the very first communications major. It's also a philosophy thing. With the same reasoning, we can deduce that a chair is not a chair, but a series of electrons, protons and neutrons that form something we recognise as a chair. So how is profanity any different? Some linguists theorise vulgar words have harsher sounds. For example the letters "ck" in - well, you know, the really bad one - make the word harsh and abrupt. By this theory we should also be offended by the word "duck". But this is far from the case! You never overhear anyone saying, "So the guy says, ‘duck her? I hardly know her!'" No, it just doesn't happen (unless you live in some weird area with an even weirder sense of humour). So the phoenetics idea too is bunkum. Perhaps a word can be judged by its meaning. This is another theory for why profanities are classed as profanity. Since sexuality is often shameful, words with sexual meanings are classed as profane. That's utter bosh and most certainly tosh! They're just synonyms. One terrible word means nothing more than sex. Another one means no more than poop. Yet they're so offensive! Does this make sense? How can one word's meaning be so offensive while non-offensive synonyms mean the exact same thing? Some words change levels of offensiveness over time. "Humbug" is a prime example. Ehrich Weiss (also known as Harry Houdini) used to label so-called "psychics" as "humbugers" because this word was shocking and offensive at the time. It's very similar in intention to a certain TV show starring Penn and Teller whose name we will abbreviate to "B.S.". So what has changed since the era of "humbugers"? I'll tell you: Pipsqueak! Nada! If profanity like "humbug" is so offensive, why does it change in meaning a century later, while the truly offensive words never change? Those seem to be a permanent fixture of the English language, whereas mere profanity changes along with a culture. Have you ever been called a "ninnyhammer"? A "blaggard"? Or (my personal favourite) "wanksplash"? I think not. These are all era-dependant. Take today's profanity: I give it at most 150 years, after which these terrible words will sound as silly as today's "humbug". Look to the teachings of the great George Carlin. Examine closely his "seven dirty words" (which, perhaps ironically, won't be quoted on this family-friendly site). Carlin's list is already changing: would you really classify numbers two and seven as profanity (you know the words: **** and ****)? ...Apparently the Digital Bits Skeptic decency filter does, but I don't, and I think many would agree with me. And Carlin's list is only thirty-six years old. Why, if these words were so offensive, are they quickly becoming non-offensive? George Carlin did teach us that these "profanities" are no more than words. But they are useful words - They truly punctuate your point. A quick experiment for you: Say the sentence, "That's awful." Now throw in an expletive of your choice. Isn't that so much better? Here's some food for thought: do you honestly really care about such words? Do you truly despise profanity? What is it about an individual word that offends you so much? Andy Kaiser clean 7:15 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/30/party-politics-and-the-false-dilemma-logical-fallacy/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/30/party-politics-and-the-false-dilemma-logical-fallacy/#comments Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:40:39 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=499 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/30/party-politics-and-the-false-dilemma-logical-fallacy/feed/ 10 Joshua Walker By Joshua Walker Article ID: 1262 - I'm an American. Just a few weeks ago, the United States elected a new President for 2009. This is the first election that I decided to forgo party politics - I voted for the person I think was best for the job. By Joshua Walker Article ID: 1262 I'm an American. Just a few weeks ago, the United States elected a new President for 2009. This is the first election that I decided to forgo party politics - I voted for the person I think was best for the job. I voted based upon my political principles, instead of just voting "against" the "other guy". During this process, I've grown angrier and more frustrated at the "false dilemma" logical fallacy that is so prevalent in American politics. What is a false dilemma? A false dilemma is a logical fallacy where someone states that "either X is true or Y is true". The problem is that X and Y might both be false or both true.  In fact, there might be claims A, B, L, and Z that are also true and related to the topic.  Now, it is possible that X and Y might be the only options and that if one is true the other is false; we should, however, be very careful with such claims and determine if X and Y are really the only options. Republican or Democrat: You decide I am constantly astounded by those who claim a differing political ideology, such as Libertarianism or Constitutionalism, yet always vote for the two major parties.  The Republicans are usually considered conservatives and the Democrats are usually considered liberals, but even those ideologies have splintered into sub-ideologies, such as the neo-conservatives and neo-liberals.  Sometimes these new ideologies are directly contrary to their parent.  Yet even with these ever-evolving political philosophies, the individual is expected to sacrifice their ideals to the current party puppet- ...I mean party "candidate". Americans are constantly flooded with propaganda telling them that there are only two choices and that the third parties have no chance at winning an election.  This becomes its own self-fulfilling prophecy.  If a man thinks he's going to die tomorrow, he'll find a way to make it happen, or die trying.  If a majority believes that voting for a third party candidate is useless, then the prophecy will fulfill itself.  If we all want change, but choose to vote for party sycophants simply because we are told to do so, then we are merely puppets and not free people. The example of false dilemma propaganda that inspired me to write this article came from this news article at Yahoo.com.  It begins by quoting a person saying that voting third party would be throwing their vote away.  Since this person is - of course - just like us, then we also should not throw our vote away on a third party.  Or is that more than a quote, and a recommendation from the article's author?  Later in the article, an "expert" is brought in to tell us that none of the third party candidates "resonate" with the American people, even though people constantly complain about the poor choice of candidates and the "vote for the lesser evil" strategy.  There are figures and statistics dissuading us from opposing the political power structure because no third party candidate has ever won high political office. Unfortunately, repeating this fact helps to ensure continued failure of the third party candidates. The major parties place themselves on opposite sides of every issue, even though many political positions have more than two sides.  Take, for example, the abortion debate.  You are either pro-life or pro-abortion.  Taking a position that the federal government has no authority in this issue and that it should be left to the states is never considered.  Consider the ANWR drilling controversy.  You're either for or against it.  You can't say that it's irrelevant because the government has banned alternative fuel options for years and more drilling is only a band-aid on an amputation.  The issues are always turned into yes or no options. This lets the parties take opposite sides and argue pointlessly, while ignoring any inconvenient facts. Take responsibility and free your mind Logical fallacies are dangerous. Andy Kaiser clean 7:42 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/23/a-skeptical-analysis-of-there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/23/a-skeptical-analysis-of-there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes/#comments Mon, 24 Nov 2008 04:54:40 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=492 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/23/a-skeptical-analysis-of-there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes/feed/ 27 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1261 - The phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes" has been around for a long time. It's used with phrases like "there are no atheists in a crashing plane" or "there are no libertarians during a financial crisis". By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1261 The phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes" has been around for a long time. It's used with phrases like "there are no atheists in a crashing plane" or "there are no libertarians during a financial crisis". It's a way of saying that even those who claim to be very principled forget their principles during an emergency. More narrowly, it's a way of asserting that atheists do actually believe in God and are simply in denial. This supposes that during times of great stress - like when you've just parachuted into Landmine County - religious belief rises to the surface and blasts away all "pretensions". What's the rebuttal to "there are no atheists in foxholes"? There is no logical rebuttal to this claim. Why? Because it's not an argument. "There are no atheists in foxholes" is an assertion. It's like saying "X is equal to 6.78". It's either true or it isn't. But in the interests of being thorough, let's give the phrase more dignity than it deserves and raise it to the level of a theory. If a person presents such a theory, he is expected to present some kind of empirical data or experiment to back it up. In this case, there is no empirical evidence. A possible experiment could involve recording the religious orientation of outgoing soldiers, and then asking the returning atheists a question like the following: While in your foxhole, did you ever have a moment when you decided that God exists? a) Yes. b) No. c) I was too busy trying not to get decapitated to think about it. No one has ever conducted this kind of survey. If someone claims "there are no atheists in foxholes", the only proper retort to this bigoted sentence is "Yes, there are." If it's such faulty reasoning, why do people claim there are no atheists in foxholes? Theists believe that atheists live in denial because a theist's belief in God is based largely on faith, rather than reasoning or empirical evidence. They feel God's presence, and can't understand how others don't. So they conclude that other people do in fact feel him but are lying due to some ulterior motive. Psychologists call this "projection" (although the term may not be technically right: projection deals with unwanted qualities and most theists would reject the idea of theism being unwanted). A selfish person sees everyone else as being selfish. A liar sees dishonesty everywhere. And a religious person cannot believe other people can be so spiritually blind. They assume that everyone is the same as them, despite what others claim. With this understanding, it's easier to see how so many people can believe an assertion without evidence. Of course, the atheist-in-foxholes phrase is irrelevant to the question of whether a god exists or not. If there are atheists in foxholes, a theist could argue that it's just an example of divinely-created free will. On the other hand, simply beliving in something doesn't make it true. Do wars convert warriors into believers? Yes, but not the way theists intend. Anecdotal evidence (which, it should be warned, is unreliable) suggests that battlefield conversions do happen, but in the opposite direction: faced with the horror of war, soldiers start to wonder if a kind, benevolent, all-powerful God would allow something like this to happen. Specifically, "either there is no God, or He's a bastard". Andrew Cline - in his blog "About.com Guide to Atheism since 1998" - received a letter from a US Marine who said: "Not that this would be admitted or last after combat is over, but even the marines praying every night when we were in the rear weren't pleading for god's help in combat. They were acting just like atheists, ducking and covering, shooting back; trying to save themselves. Never once did I see someone stop and pray for help. They use religion to get them through day to day, but when it hits the fan so to speak, they don't take chances relying on god." Andy Kaiser clean 10:25 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/17/more-original-versions-of-classic-fairy-tales/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/17/more-original-versions-of-classic-fairy-tales/#comments Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:59:08 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=477 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/17/more-original-versions-of-classic-fairy-tales/feed/ 30 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1260 - [This article is a companion piece to "Original meanings of classic fairy tales".] - Fee! Fie! Foe! Fum! I smell the blood of an Englishman. Be he live, or be he dead, I'll grind his bones to make my bread. - By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1260 [This article is a companion piece to "Original meanings of classic fairy tales".] Fee! Fie! Foe! Fum! I smell the blood of an Englishman. Be he live, or be he dead, I'll grind his bones to make my bread. It's a cool speech. But when you think about its literal meaning and the murderous intent of the giant ogre in "Jack and the Beanstalk", you know - even as a child - that some fairy tales have strong undercurrents of gore and violence. You can confirm this by examining classic fairy tales and learning their original versions. Many of today's fairy tales have been retooled to save our children from terrible stuff like blood, guts, sex, and unplanned pregnancies. Unfortunately, that means the original lessons of many fairy tales have been mangled or lost entirely. Parents and teachers, this is a warning. Here be sex, gore, and worse: the potential destruction of fun childhood bedtime stories. The original story of Jack and the Beanstalk and Jack and His Bargains An interesting aspect of this story is that Jack's adventure with the beanstalk was not his only tale. There were many stories in what is called the "Jack cycle". "Jack and the Beanstalk" just happens to be the most popular one. One example from the Jack cycle is called "Jack and his Bargains". This story starts with Jack and his father, and can be thought of as a sequel to Jack and the Beanstalk. Jack is asked to sell the family cows for money. And like the Beanstalk story, he doesn't, but instead trades the cows for magical items. In this case, the items are a magical stick (which physically beats anyone once Jack activates it by saying, "up stick and at it"), a singing bee, and a fiddle which plays beautiful music. Jack uses these items to impress a local princess, after which they get married and have "baskets full of children". On to the beanstalk: in "Jack and the Beanstalk", Jack sells the family cow for magic seeds, as the cow (named "Milky White") no longer gives milk. These seeds are planted, and a giant beanstalk grows out of the ground and high into the sky. Jack climbs the beanstalk. At the top, nestled in the clouds, is a giant castle. A huge ogre lives in the castle. The ogre gives us the memorable line of "Fee! Fi! Fo! Fum!" Jack makes three trips, and each trip has a similar plot: he hides from the giant (twice in the giant ogre's oven, and once in a cooking pot), and steals the ogre's possessions (a bag of gold, a hen that lays golden eggs, and a golden harp). An fun twist is that the ogre is married. The ogress actually helps Jack hide from her husband, and she and Jack get along great together when the ogre isn't around. As Jack escapes after his third theft, the golden harp in his hands comes alive and starts screaming for help. The ogre chases after Jack. Jack descends the beanstalk with the ogre close above him. He calls for his mother to cut down the beanstalk with an axe. The mother gets the axe, but freezes - she can't do it. Jack drops to the ground, frantically chops down the beanstalk, and the ogre dies from the fall. I end up feeling sorry for the ogre husband and wife. They seem to have lived a pretty good life in the clouds, in their own castle, along with some pretty cool magical gadgets. And here comes Jack to ruin it all, with no moral justification for his repeated burglaries and his final murder of the ogre. The morals of the original Jack and the Beanstalk: Grow up and stop being an infant. You must be able to independently strike out alone to provide for a family. The killing of the giant by destroying the beanstalk is a nicely phallic representation of the need to supersede male influence, taking control of one's own life and rejecting superstition and magic. The original story of Beauty and the Beast The father is rich. There is no mother. The father has three sons and three daughters. The youngest daughter, the most attractive, Andy Kaiser clean 25:17