http://www.dbskeptic.com Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Sat, 14 Aug 2010 01:54:54 +0000 en-us hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 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/psychology/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/04/17/how-to-have-an-out-of-body-experience/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/04/17/how-to-have-an-out-of-body-experience/#comments Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:36:03 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1996 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/04/17/how-to-have-an-out-of-body-experience/feed/ 5 Kevin Bridges by Kevin Bridges Article ID: 1410 - What do you think of when you hear the words "out of body experience"? Perhaps you imagine an ill-fated victim of a car accident, a spirit floating inside an ambulance looking down at EMTs as they try frantically to ... by Kevin Bridges Article ID: 1410 What do you think of when you hear the words "out of body experience"? Perhaps you imagine an ill-fated victim of a car accident, a spirit floating inside an ambulance looking down at EMTs as they try frantically to revive his broken, unconscious body. Explore the wilds of the Internet and you’ll get plenty of variations on the “out of body” theme. Plenty of people claim to have out-of-body experiences, saying "I've had one of those!” Or “I've had a dozen!” Or “I had one last night!" Did they all have traffic accidents? Do that many people fall off the roof trying to take down their Christmas lights? How accident-prone can a person be? No. Further study shows that many out-of-body experiences happened in the security of a person's own bed. It’s usually very late at night or in the wee hours of morning. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to debunk this one, does it? It's called having a dream!  Elementary, my dear Watson. However, a closer look at the experiences paints a different picture. The general scenario involves a body shaking and vibrating and then a sensation of floating up out of the body and being able to view one's own bedroom from a ceiling’s perspective. Personally, I've had more dreams about being naked at my old high school than I've had about floating around in my bedroom.  But every one of these people will tell you that the experience isn’t like a usual dream – there is no strange dreamlike logic and plotlines, and it doesn’t physically feel like a dream – it feels real. Then maybe it isn't a dream.  But if it’s not an actual out-of-body experience, what else could it be? For some of us, it's too improbable – too much of a stretch of logic - to think that these people not only have souls but that these souls sometimes go out to play.  But a closer look at the techniques to induce an out-of-body experience shows us just how this could happen without a supernatural element. Out of body techniques include instructions like this: 1) Lie down in a comfortable bed or kick back in a recliner. 2) Completely relax your whole body. 3) Enhance the relaxation with visualization techniques. For example, imagine yourself walking down some stairs, and with every step you descend, have your heart rate slow and your breathing grow deeper and slower. 4) Eventually you will fall into a self-induced trance. 5) During this process, say affirmations. Repeat to yourself: "The out-of-body experience is completely natural.  I will use this technique every night when I sleep. I am more than my physical body." 6) Using these techniques, your soul will rise away from your body, and your consciousness will follow. Anyone who’s heard the word “hypnosis” is right now cocking a skeptical eyebrow. Many excited people out there are learning self-hypnosis without realizing it. In the books and websites with instructions for getting out of your own skin, many teach the same techniques that others use to quit smoking or lose weight. The process to coax your soul from your body is the same one you can use to stop eating three desserts after dinner. With this in mind, let's again look at the out-of-body experience. Read a thick book about people’s souls flying around like thrown confetti. Spend an hour on a forum devoted to the topic. Then go lie in bed and repeat to yourself that you are going to have an out-of-body experience. What would you expect to happen?  I’d be surprised if someone doing this didn't have a supposed out-of-body experience. If the out-of-body experience isn't a dream, should we assume it’s reality? Not yet. There are other explanations available, possibilities that don’t presume the supernatural. We’d need to first rule those out before a supernatural explanation would make sense. Although now that I think about it, just because the out-of-body experience isn’t real doesn't mean I don’t want to try it. Andy Kaiser clean 8:13 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/17/five-habits-of-the-skeptical-mind/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/17/five-habits-of-the-skeptical-mind/#comments Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:15:16 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1847 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/17/five-habits-of-the-skeptical-mind/feed/ 9 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 142 - In my journey of skeptical thinking, I have gradually realized the quirks in human thinking that so often lead me astray. I want to share these habits of good skepticism so others may have a better chance of find... By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 142 In my journey of skeptical thinking, I have gradually realized the quirks in human thinking that so often lead me astray. I want to share these habits of good skepticism so others may have a better chance of finding truth. 1) Your belief will not change reality I have noticed a tendency to gravitate towards beliefs which I want to be true. These beliefs don’t always match the facts, and are not borne out by sober investigation. We have a strange superstition that we seldom recognize: sometimes we think that choosing to believe something will actually make it true. Members of cults will often deny strong opposing evidence in order to keep their membership. UFO believers will often not abandon their beliefs even when confronted with more down-to-earth explanations that explain the facts just as well or better than the alien hypothesis. People think that simply choosing to believe something will make it true. Belief never makes anything true. 2) Look for the best overall explanation of the facts Some people advocate one position because there is some evidence in its favor. Others advocate an opposite position for the same reason – they see evidence to do so. Most of these disputes can be settled by asking a very basic question: when we consider all the data, each hypothesis, and the simplicity of each position, does one hypothesis stand out as stronger? Here’s an example: there is currently a debate in the scientific community over whether birds evolved from dinosaurs or from some other group of reptiles. While the dino-bird enthusiasts can cite an impressive list of feathered dinosaur fossils and similarities in bird and dinosaur anatomy, the dino-bird opponents undermine those links by citing a few small but significant differences between dinosaurs and birds. Another example is the creation-evolution controversy. Creationists often explain away the results of radiometric dating. They say that radiometric decay rates were faster in the past, without realizing that faster decay rates would have radioactively fried every living thing on Earth. A third example is the geologic column. Creationists say that even though sediments that form layers of rock would usually take millions of years, there was a great big flood that must have been responsible for creating it. When you view the debate this way, it really isn’t hard to see that the old Earth hypothesis simply and comfortably explains the facts, while the young Earth hypothesis offers strained and complicated explanations for the most straight-forward data. When we take a bird’s eye view of the issue and compare which explanation is the overall best explanation (in terms of simplicity, explanatory power, and so on) answering the question is simple. 3) Use authorities carefully If someone cites an expert in order to persuade you of something, be cautious. Does the quotation simply assert an opinion, or does it try and demonstrate the reasoning behind its assertion? Is the expert in question really an expert? Numerous creationists, such as Kent Hovind, claim to have credentials when in reality they do not. Is the expert’s opinion representative of his field? Anyone can find a certified medical doctor who will promote some quack healing treatment, and so it is always good to know if the expert’s opinion is considered fringe within his own field. 4) Don’t confuse a possibility with a probability People often try and prove things to an absolute certainty. Or they refuse to give up a belief until it’s disproven with absolute certainty. Very little human knowledge is literally 100% certain. Thinking in terms of absolutes can often be impractical, because a lot of human knowledge (besides conceptual knowledge such as ‘one plus one equals two’) relies on weighing a claim with the doubts we may have about it. Yes, technically it is possible that man never went to the moon, Andy Kaiser clean 7:53 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/#comments Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:43:44 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1427 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/feed/ 23 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1334 - Abstract: This article is a rebuttal to Gary Habermas, who defends the Jesus’ resurrection appearances against the hypothesis that these appearances were simply hallucinations. By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1334 Abstract: This article is a rebuttal to Gary Habermas, who defends the Jesus’ resurrection appearances against the hypothesis that these appearances were simply hallucinations.  A plausible natural explanation... Andy Kaiser clean 15:42 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/02/synchronicities-and-%e2%80%9cthe-odds%e2%80%9d/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/02/synchronicities-and-%e2%80%9cthe-odds%e2%80%9d/#comments Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:41:27 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1412 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/02/synchronicities-and-%e2%80%9cthe-odds%e2%80%9d/feed/ 2 Kevin Bridges by Kevin Bridges Article ID: 1333 - A synchronicity is another word for coincidence.  The difference between the two is that, with a synchronicity, there is more to the event than mere coincidence.  Events in a synchronicity are said to be a part of a ... by Kevin Bridges Article ID: 1333 A synchronicity is another word for coincidence.  The difference between the two is that, with a synchronicity, there is more to the event than mere coincidence.  Events in a synchronicity are said to be a part of ... Andy Kaiser clean 7:06 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/03/anti-depressants-and-the-placebo-effect/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/03/anti-depressants-and-the-placebo-effect/#comments Mon, 04 May 2009 02:09:56 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=988 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/03/anti-depressants-and-the-placebo-effect/feed/ 15 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 1319 - It's a growing trend to believe that a pill can cure anything. Any aches, any pains, any sores. It's a big reason why people are still looking for a pill to make you thin. While I think we have become far too reliant on ... By M Parrott Article ID: 1319 It's a growing trend to believe that a pill can cure anything. Any aches, any pains, any sores. It's a big reason why people are still looking for a pill to make you thin. While I think we have become far too reliant on pills, I'm not saying to scrap all drugs. They save lives, they save the economy money and they stop your pain. However, there is a specific type of drug that I have a problem with - the anti-psychotic. Or, to be even more specific, the anti-depressant. There are at least seventy-three anti-depressants on the market. For something that is supposed to "cure" depression, that's a lot of drugs. Let me explain where this idea comes from, that a drug will cure a psychological disorder. It relies upon a theory called the "monoamine hypothesis". This theory suggests that depression is caused by low levels of three neuro-chemicals from a group called monoamine neurotransmitters in the central nervous system. In bi-polar patients, the subject's levels of monoamine neuro-chemicals will fluctuate depending on whether they are in a depressed or manic state (low levels for depression, high for mania). What evidence do we have for this effect? Urine. No, honestly, urine. When studying the urine of people with depression we find they have low levels of by-products of dopamine, noradrenaline and serotonin. Autopsies show that those who commit suicide have these same low levels. It therefore seems plausible that depression is caused by low levels of the three neuro-transmitters. However, correlation does not equal causation: there are no ill effects when artificially inducing low-levels of these three neuro-chemicals. The participants do not become depressed. This suggests that low-levels of serotonin, noradrenalin and dopamine do not cause depression. If this is the case, then the whole idea of anti-depressant drugs is a fallacy. What about the drugs themselves? Proponents of the monoamine hypothesis argue that anti-depressants work, therefore proving that the theory is correct. However, this justification by circular reasoning doesn't fly. More on that later. Let me first outline what anti-depressants are. There are four main types; SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitors), MAOIs (monoamine oxidase inhibitors), SNRIs (serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) and TCAs (tricyclic antidepressants). Medical doctor Arif Khan (1979-1999) tested the effectiveness of three substances; Sertraline hydrochloride (an SSRI), St John's Wort (a plant from which most anti-depressants are made) and sugar pills (a placebo). The effectiveness test came back with a surprising result: sertraline hydrochloride was effective 25% of the time, St John's Wort was at 24% and sugar pills were at 35%. Actual anti-depressant drugs were less effective than a placebo. That's depressing. More research supporting these results is by Professor Irving Kirsch et al. (1998, 2002 and 2008), who showed that anti-depressants do not have enough statistical significance in comparison to placebos. Another point is that TCAs are also used to treat ADHD. You should treat ADHD with depressants, and yet TCAs - anti-depressants - are used to treat depression. I question any group of drugs used as depressants and anti-depressants at the same time. After studying these drugs and the monoamine hypothesis, it appears that the lack of serotonin, noradrenalin and dopamine is a psychological disorder manifesting itself in a physiological symptom. For example, we don't say that Tourette syndrome is caused by sudden inappropriate language, but that Tourette syndrome causes the inappropriate statements. Some argue that if anti-depressant drugs are placebos, at least they seem to do something. This is not a good plan. We should instead pursue other treatments for depression, rather than assuming one little tablet can cure such a complex thing as a psychological disorder. Andy Kaiser clean 6:47 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/12/trading-my-fingers-for-aliens/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/12/trading-my-fingers-for-aliens/#comments Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:56:25 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=940 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/12/trading-my-fingers-for-aliens/feed/ 17 Nick Farrantello By Nick Farrantello Article ID: 1316 - I don't believe in anything. UFOs, Bigfoot, ESP, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, you name it.  In my mind it's all a bunch of hooey.  Despite that, I still consider myself very open-minded. By Nick Farrantello Article ID: 1316 I don't believe in anything. UFOs, Bigfoot, ESP, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, you name it.  In my mind it's all a bunch of hooey.  Despite that, I still consider myself very open-minded.   The reason for this is nothing revolutionary.  It's a reason that other skeptics cite as to why they too are open-minded.  Simply put, I want there to be flying saucers.  Are you kidding?  Alien visitors from another planet, how awesome would that be?   I want there to be a Loch Ness Monster.  The idea of some animal surviving from the age of the dinosaurs would be fascinating.  I want there to be ghosts.  Who in their right mind wouldn't want there to be an afterlife?  ESP?  Bring it on.  Mindreading would be the bomb. Now, in the spirit of complete disclosure, Bigfoot doesn't do anything for me.  If there really is some big, hairy, naked guy running around in the woods of Montana, I'd just as soon not know about it. To make it absolutely clear, as to how much I would love it if there where aliens, I want to state here and now:  I would sacrifice digits if that would prove the existence of aliens. I am serious. I am willing to give up to four toes (or two fingers) if that loss would somehow help prove the existence of aliens.  Or three fingers if it would help determine that the aliens built the pyramids.  Now, I am not sure what would initiate such an exchange.  Maybe if I found some proof of aliens, and I wanted to share it with the entire world, but at the last minute, government agents discover me. As I make a run for it, I get my hand caught in the screen door.  No, that's just clumsy. Maybe something involving me escaping from a Russian submarine.  ...Yeah, that sounds better. It doesn't matter.  I'll even take the clumsy way.  The point is, I really want there to be aliens. That is why I am open-minded.  And that is why I think other skeptics are open-minded.  Many have the exact same desire I do. Not the thing about the fingers - I believe I'm the only one to say that - the part about them wanting supernatural things to be true. That I have heard from many others. Carl Sagan expressed this in many of his books.  I've heard Steve Novella, the head of the New England Skeptical Society, say it on his podcast.   Even James Randi, the King of all Skeptics, has said stuff like this.   They want ESP and flying saucers and ghosts and yes - God knows why - they even want there to be a Bigfoot. If you read skeptic literature, you've probably heard this appeal to impartiality before.  But here's an angle on this subject that you might not have heard.  I'll state it in the form of a challenge.  Show me one person on the other side of these issues that has said the same thing. I don't mean, show me a believer who thinks it would be cool if aliens existed.  That's a dime a million.  I'm saying, show me one UFO advocate who has said, "To be honest, I don't really like the idea of UFOs."  Show me one biologist who has said, "The Loch Ness Monster?  I assure you the evidence for its existence is most definitely there; but frankly, the entire subject rather bores me.  I have asked my university to approve my grant to study the mealy bug instead, those little creatures, now they really are something."  Show me one cryptozoologist who has said, "Yes, unfortunately, I captured Bigfoot but I'm not looking forward to all that re-classifying.  It's just so much paperwork." I know you're thinking this comparison isn't fair.  Scientists wouldn't be looking for paranormal stuff if they weren't interested in it.  But think about all those physicists in the turn of the century that we've read about who really hated quantum physics.  It's messy, anti-intuitive and almost impossible to understand. But - reluctantly - they accepted it. My examples are written for laughs, but consider the following:  Is there a scientist who is a steadfast atheist, searching for ghosts? Andy Kaiser clean 7:40 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/22/a-shocking-lesson-in-human-nature/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/22/a-shocking-lesson-in-human-nature/#comments Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:50:56 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=894 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/22/a-shocking-lesson-in-human-nature/feed/ 12 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1313 - Hi everyone, this is Andy Kaiser. I'd like to share an interesting experience. I have a unique perspective on the Digital Bits Skeptic website, because I'm the administrator. I edit and post all articles. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1313 Hi everyone, this is Andy Kaiser. I'd like to share an interesting experience. I have a unique perspective on the Digital Bits Skeptic website, because I'm the administrator. I edit and post all articles. Some of those I write myself, and my articles interest me, no matter how odd they may seem to others. I also get to see all comments submitted by visitors. This gives me a very good feel for the readership. For the most part, Digital Bits Skeptic has... well, skeptical-minded readers. These are women and men with excellent critical thinking skills, people who enjoy weird and interesting puzzles, people who want to attack logical anomalies and find out why and how. Several months ago, I wrote and posted an article about "human static electricity generators". I wrote it for laughs, and poked fun at a pseudoscientific claim that didn't even take itself seriously. This was the case of Mavis Price, and an interview she gave to the UK newspaper the Daily Mail. Ms. Price is a woman whose body supposedly generates a massive amount of static electricity. Like a high-voltage ninja, this power gives her a "death-touch" to any electrical appliance. Computers and vacuum cleaners and television sets have all fallen victim to this static buildup. So I wrote a critical article about this, poking fun at the situation and offering many suggestions as to why Ms. Price may be misinterpreting her symptoms. And the strangest thing happened: the article received a few comments, as the articles usually do, but these comments were different. They were from people chiming in to support Ms. Price. Starting with comment number three, many of these people claimed they could generate their own static electricity, and, like Ms. Price, expressed their frustration at how this power is irritating and interferes with their daily life. Here are a few comments: Kathleen said, "A friend of mine is a psychologist and he used his galvanic skin resistance test machine on me and had never seen anything like what I made that machine do." Mac said, "But these days it's worse - metal shocks me, other people, plastic yes plastic..cloth...wood...i am freakin afraid to touch anything...i mean these are mean crackling visible shocks mini blue bolts or electricity...don't get me wrong if i could control it would be cool but i can't..." Brook said, "I am 37, and have purchased 26 VCR/DVD players in the last 48 months, I have shocked people on the other end of a phone line, and in the dark if I get close to a light switch you can visibly see the arc from my finger tip to the light switch before I touch it. I dim streetlights when I walk below them, and haven't been able to wear a watch since I was 13. It is real, it is financially cumbersome, and it freaks people out. Yes, I am using a computer to type this message, I've learned first to ground myself before touching any electrical equipment, and second it doesn't happen all of the time, it seems more common when I am angry, or deep in thought etc. I just wanted to respond because there are many people that are different in the world, this is just another (dis)ability." Other skeptics and I replied. We gave recommendations for properly testing this power, how to rule out natural causes, and indicated what a supernatural cause would imply. I contacted James Randi, and asked him if he'd encountered this phenomenon. Of course he had. His response was, "Yes, I've seen a few of them. Simply changing their footwear always 'cures' the problem." A simple proposal. But as the conversation extended into several dozen comments, I realized something: Those complaining about this ability didn't seem to care enough to troubleshoot it. And that's the real problem. If you think you have a static super-power, I'm begging you: please see a doctor. If the doctor does a test and says, "My god, I've never seen anything like this before!" ...don't just end it there! Andy Kaiser clean 6:58 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/22/anti-republican-sentiment-and-not-barack-obama-gave-the-democrats-the-presidency/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/22/anti-republican-sentiment-and-not-barack-obama-gave-the-democrats-the-presidency/#comments Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:43:27 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=741 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/22/anti-republican-sentiment-and-not-barack-obama-gave-the-democrats-the-presidency/feed/ 7 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 139 - Barack Obama has been sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. He won by an impressive margin. But a question is worth asking: why did he win? - Finding the cause is an unusually difficult task: people are e... By Navin Kumar Article ID: 139 Barack Obama has been sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. He won by an impressive margin. But a question is worth asking: why did he win? Finding the cause is an unusually difficult task: people are emotionally invested in Obama and really, really want to believe that he won because of his message of hope and change. But as economists and social scientists, it's our job to separate the wheat from the chaff.  But how? Surveys are useless: if you simply ask someone why they voted for Obama, they may choose the most comforting answer (like "I want to heal America's racial divide") instead of the most honest one (like "I think Sarah Palin's a bimbo"). So you need a source that's objective and non-partisan. Fortunately there is one: money. Even if you want Obama to win, if you were asked to put your money on him in a bet, you'd start asking yourself: do I think he's actually going to win? That's where intrade.com comes in. Intrade is an online "futures market" which is a rather fancy name for what is essentially a gambling parlor. How it works is this: an event (like "Obama.President.2008") is selling for - say - 48. This means the market believes that there is a 48% chance of the event happening. If you think the likelihood is higher: buy the contract. If you think the likelihood is lower: sell the contract. Thus the prices move up and down - just like a stock exchange. Since these are serious people playing with real money, they don't care whether of not Obama is better than McCain: they only care which one going to win. So looking at these numbers - and seeing what happens to them when certain events take place - tells us a lot about why the public went for Obama. He won with 52.9% of the popular vote and 349 electoral votes. In the United States, that's arguably a landslide victory. Obama wasn't always poised to win: at the beginning of 2008, his Intrade price was running under 15%, one third of Hillary Clinton's 45%. The total odds for the Democratic Party were over 60%. This basically means that it was far more likely that a democrat - but not necessarily Obama - was likely to be the next President of the United States. This might be an emotional damper for those who believe that Obama was essential to the Democratic Party's revival: without him, the Democrats were actually doing quite well. In fact, since 2004, the odds of the Republicans winning in 2008 never crossed 50%. By the time Obama won the Democratic nomination, his Intrade price was 60% - exactly the same as the Democratic Party was at the beginning of the year. So what happened after that? There was a very brief period where his Intrade price fell below 50%: that was just after John McCain selected Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Called the "Palin Bounce", the choice briefly pulled Obama below 50%. But by the time the elections came around, his price was at 85. What caused that? In three words: the financial crisis. People quickly blamed - and voted against - Bush and the Republicans. Voters were primarily anti-Republican and pro-Democrat. They were not specifically for Obama. Other suitable Democrats would have won the election. Obama might be a great guy, he may bring about the change he's promised, but he didn't win because of his "fresh" treatment of Washington politics. Hillary Clinton's ratings were soaring before Obama took center stage. Obama won because a majority of Americans voted against Bush and the Republicans. Obama's unique message is just icing on the political cake. Andy Kaiser clean 6:21 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.] - Profanity is an interesting subject, 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/2008/11/23/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 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/10/the-god-confusion/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/10/the-god-confusion/#comments Mon, 10 Nov 2008 05:35:53 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=466 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/10/the-god-confusion/feed/ 13 Science Reason & Rationality by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1259 "It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men." ~ Carl Sagan - Hello. My name is God, and I am an atheist. by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1259 "It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men." ~ Carl Sagan Hello. My name is God, and I am an atheist. I don't believe in gods because there are no gods who created me and there's no one else here to compare myself to. I just have always existed. I didn't evolve from anything. I am now just as I always have been, and will always be that it in the future. Messes with your head, doesn't it? Think of how I feel! But, what if there is a god who created me? I don't see any other gods here except me, so why should I believe in another god? How about faith? Can faith establish that there is another god? No way! That's just being silly. Even if I do have a creator, who created that god? No, that's a faulty line of reasoning. I am the one and only. There is no other god but me. Right? Before I could know of another god, there must first be hard evidence and genuine scientific proof. That's not going to happen, because I am God, I'd know of such things. Okay, just me then. Now that I've got that question solved, what am I going to do now? There's a lot of black empty space out here and I'm getting really bored! I gotta do something. Maybe I should create a "Big Boom" or a "Big Bam" or some kind of huge explosion and see what happens. [A gigantic, mind-numbing, multiverse-shaking explosion ensues...] ...Okay, so I guess that was more of a "Big Bang". Not bad, not bad at all. I'm an instant artist! Look at these beautiful stars, planets, and galaxies. I'm impressed. I'm the greatest thing in this whole universe. But then, I'm the only one here, so I'm greatest by default. I suppose I could create other gods, and challenge them so that I can see for myself if I am indeed the greatest. On second thought, that may be a bad idea. What if they beat me? Or form evil alliances against me and revolt? That'll be embarrassing. And what if they ask me who created me? Since I am the one who created them, they might think there must be some other god who created me. They'll stop worshipping me, and look for other gods. Not acceptable. Moreover, they're not gonna believe me if I said I just came into being out of nothing. Still, I could force them to believe whatever I want them to believe. Or I could punish the non-believers. I'll have to give this some thought. [Some time later...] I'm bored. I've created everything I wanted to create. Am I going to be the only one admiring my own work?  That would be lame. ...I know! What if, instead of creating new gods, I create some tiny little creatures on one or more of these planets? They won't be as powerful as a god, so they won't be a threat to me. I'll design them unable to see me, but they can see all my genius works. They can admire my work and praise me for it. It'll be fun seeing them trying to figure out what the heck is going on. I can see it now: some will claim that they know me and have spoken to me or I have spoken to them, and they'll use my name to start a religion. Soon, there will be a whole bunch of them and they'll be killing each other to prove which Me is the one and only "true" Me. And I'll never speak to any one of them. Anything they think is my voice will be misinterpretation or self-delusion. This will be good entertainment. Should keep my boredom away. I get to be movie director. Producer too. And the whole special effects production crew. To paraphrase someone I'm about to create, "it's good to be the god!" Okay, got a little sidetracked there. Back to the plan. Those "religion" businessmen will use really effective marketing strategies in order to control others, making people behave with a predetermined right and wrong. All in my name, of course. That'll cause problems, but those are their problems, not mine. I just want an audience. Now, what will my creatures look like? I can't make them all look exactly like me. Andy Kaiser clean 10:31 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/27/original-versions-of-classic-fairy-tales/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/27/original-versions-of-classic-fairy-tales/#comments Mon, 27 Oct 2008 05:39:27 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=412 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/27/original-versions-of-classic-fairy-tales/feed/ 23 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1257 - [This article is a companion piece to "More original meanings of classic fairy tales".] "Oh Grandmother, what big ears you have!" "All the better to hear you with, my dear." "Oh Grandmother, what big eyes you have! By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1257 [This article is a companion piece to "More original meanings of classic fairy tales".] "Oh Grandmother, what big ears you have!" "All the better to hear you with, my dear." "Oh Grandmother, what big eyes you have!" "All the better to see you with, my dear." "Oh Grandmother, what big hands you have!" "All the better to grab you with, my dear." "Oh Grandmother, what big teeth you have!" "All the better to eat you with, my dear." Thus begins the true terror of Little Red Riding Hood. Do you know what happens in the original story? Find out, and this Halloween you may think twice when you see certain costumes. This Digital Bits Skeptic article keeps to the usual credo of skepticism and critical thinking. But since it's a Halloween special, it also gets pretty creepy. A quick alert to parents and teachers - this article doesn't have forbidden words, but revealing the dark nature of beloved childrens' fairy tales may be too much for young kids. It's almost Halloween. In less than five days, young children will dress up, put on makeup or a mask, and knock on strangers' doors, expecting oodles of free candy. And they get it. The kids are happy, the strangers are happy, everyone wins except dental insurance companies. When I was younger, the cool costumes were made from anyone from the Star Wars movies. I too donned the smelly, sweaty plastic mask, and trick-or-treated as Darth Vader. Being probably three feet tall made me a much less imposing figure. My friends all did the same. Movies and TV shows dictated our choices. A costumed resurgence occurred at the time Disney started remaking classic fairy tales, like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, and rereleasing older movies like Cinderella and Snow White. The Little Mermaid was big. Girls everywhere dressed up like Ariel and knew line-by-line the story of unrequited love eventually rewarded. Yet, this isn't the original story. Did you know that the original Little Mermaid story by Hans Christian Anderson ended with the Little Mermaid's death? She essentially committed suicide because she was unwilling to kill the prince, who was already married to someone else. It's not quite the happy Disney ending. Yet, I remember being a kid, being somehow more satisfied when I heard the "real" endings of fairy tales. It's like watching the TV-edited version of an R-rated movie. The R-rated version is invariably better, and was the director's original intent. Even though the original fairy tale storylines deal with nasty issues, they are truer than hiding behind a Disney-esque ending. They reflect the original violent themes of some fairy tales: that the world is a dangerous place, certain behavior is tolerated and some isn't, and some people are here to protect you, and some will hurt you. For those who really like to dig deep, fairy tales also involve heavy symbolism and psychology. The Hansel and Gretel story is an examination of children's emotional growth and eventual rejection of parental supervision. Many tales (like Little Red Riding Hood, Rapunzel, and Sleeping Beauty) have a heavily sexual tone, and explore sexual awakening and desire. Now that we've mentioned sex and violence, let's get to it and find about the original versions of classic fairy tales. The original story of The Three Little Pigs The Three Little Pigs is sanitized for today's children by telling the violence-packed story without the violence. We're left with a cautionary tale that shows how being smart is a good thing. The original has lost a lot. The original Three Little Pigs is a lot longer, as the Big Bad Wolf doesn't stick with blowing down houses. He does do that to get the first two little pigs. Those unfortunate morsels are quickly terrorized and eaten. The third pig - the smart one - is the holdout. Unable to blow down the third pig's house, the wolf tries guile. He tries to tempt the pig out of the house, Andy Kaiser clean 15:13 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/04/religulous-review-bill-mahers-brutal-and-intelligent-take-on-religion/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/04/religulous-review-bill-mahers-brutal-and-intelligent-take-on-religion/#comments Sat, 04 Oct 2008 08:56:40 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=320 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/04/religulous-review-bill-mahers-brutal-and-intelligent-take-on-religion/feed/ 16 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1252 - Before we get to the good stuff, you should know that this review of Religulous contains spoilers. The spoilers give away the main topics addressed by Bill Maher. If you don't want to know them yet, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1252 Before we get to the good stuff, you should know that this review of Religulous contains spoilers. The spoilers give away the main topics addressed by Bill Maher. If you don't want to know them yet, go see the movie first. If you're considering seeing the movie and want more information, or you want someone else's take on it, keep reading. Special thanks goes to the Center for Inquiry's Michigan chapter, who brought Religulous to West Michigan. Without their efforts, I may not have seen this movie. Religulous begins with Bill Maher talking about the Bible's Book of Revelations, a terrifying, end-of-the-world scenario preached by Biblical literalists. We get a lot of humor, and Religulous stays funny throughout much of its running time. Maher intersperses witty remarks with political and religious commentary, much like his stand-up act. But here you realize he's making a very directed, laser-focused point: religion is bad. Some quotes from him include: "[Religion is] selling an invisible product." "It's just so shamelessly invented." After his entertaining intro, we get to the main focus of the movie. Here, Bill takes on various aspects of religion, with both interviews and informal talks directly to the camera. While I don't have all the topics listed here, these are the majority, and are what Religulous spends the most time discussing: Pascal's Wager This concept says, "You should worship God, because what if you're wrong. If God exists, and you worship him, then you're safe. If He exists and you don't worship him, you've just written a one-way ticket to an everlasting pitchfork-infested sauna." There are many problems with Pascal's Wager. How do you know which God is the right one? So many religions have so many conflicting tenants, you can't know which one is true. What if God doesn't exist, and you waste your whole life worshipping a nonexistent being? Or worse, what if you've spent your life subjugating and abusing others based on religious-driven morals? Pascal's Wager is one of those questions that at first sounds witty and interesting, until you examine it logically and realize it's flawed logic. Biblical Inaccuracies The Catholic Bible is huge. From Old Testament to New, it's jammed packed with stories, morals, punishments and contradictions. Religulous spends time addressing many of these. Instead of listing them here (as even the Internet has a limited amount of space), I'll instead recommend a book: A great source of Biblical inaccuracies, problems, contradictions and abuses can be found in the book, Ken's Guide to the Bible. It's best to read Ken's Guide with an actual Bible nearby. Otherwise, you may not believe some of what you read - there are a lot of horrible things in the Bible that rarely get mentioned in Sunday's sermon. TV Preachers TV preachers bring in massive amounts of money. It's easy - they ask their viewers for contributions, and the checks and credit card numbers come pouring in. This seems like a violation of Jesus' teachings, who seemingly was a man teaching simple living and criticizing the rich. How can a television preacher reconcile his incredible material wealth while still claiming to live by Jesus' example? The Church and Homosexuality You might not know the Westboro Baptist Church by name, but you've probably heard about them. These are the people who loudly protest funerals of soldiers and other high-profile deaths. They're known for their motto, "God hates fags". Religulous uses them and others to expose the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church on how homosexuality is a conscious choice and a sin. Particularly interesting is a conversation Bill has with the head of Exchange Ministries, a religious non-profit specializing in converting gays away from homosexuality. Miracles Bill addresses the stupidity of various kinds of miracles. There are the obvious, in your face miracles, Andy Kaiser clean 21:11 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/06/the-future-of-skepticism/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/06/the-future-of-skepticism/#comments Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:16:21 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=155 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/06/the-future-of-skepticism/feed/ 6 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1247 - Things are getting worse. - Across the world, we've got so-called complementary and alternative medicine infiltrating legitimate healthcare and medical treatments. The United States government seems more interested in ... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1247 Things are getting worse. Across the world, we've got so-called complementary and alternative medicine infiltrating legitimate healthcare and medical treatments. The United States government seems more interested in supporting Christianity than supporting religious choice. There are attacks on preventative sciences, like Jenny McCarthy and others insisting their understanding of vaccination technology trumps that of any medical doctor. While I could argue that skepticism is making progress in places, like against the fringe beliefs of cryptozoology, astrology and Intelligent Design, it's even easier to argue that we're losing the battle. Logic and common sense are failing and falling, supported by the beliefs of a credulous society. We are losing. What's a skeptic to do? I fully expect that things will get worse. Yet, despite this gloomy outlook, I'm not worried. Let's do a little scrying of our own, a little fortune-telling and future-prediction. The difference between this and reading tea-leaves is that mine is an educated guess based on probabilities and human nature. Think about a possible future for healthcare. Let's assume the worst for the skeptical community. Let's assume we live in a world where people believe vaccinations cause autism and don't actually protect against disease. What will happen? As fewer people become immunized, herd immunity will break down. Entire communities will again become susceptible. We will see outbreaks and epidemics of preventable diseases like measles, mumps and rubella. We'll see previously-eradicated diseases like polio and leprosy resurface and spread through populations. Many people will get sick. Many people will die. The human response will be to analyze and respond. Doctors and biologists and groups like the Center for Disease Control will again stress the importance of immunizations. This goes far beyond the current polite and low-publicity efforts. We'll get massive ad campaigns, increased TV coverage and a flood of data supporting and explaining the science behind immunizations. The information has always been out there for those interested in finding it, but in this Sick New World, immunization science will be shoved down our throats. People will immunize because they actually understand the process, the risks, and the benefits. This scenario specifically addresses the anti-vaccination problem. But the long-term results are applicable across the board, from alternative-medicine to Scientology. If left unchecked, eventually enough people will get abused, hurt and killed. There will be an inevitable backlash as people come to their senses. As skeptics and critical thinkers, our job is to make sure this imagined world, if it does come to pass, passes quickly. If we can prevent it from happening, even better. If we can't prevent it, nature will do the job for us, though the results will be horrifying and deadly. Our job as skeptics will be to ensure this happens sooner rather than later. Our first obligation is to take care of our family, friends and those closest to us. Then work to educate the wider community and the world at large. The above example addresses healthcare. But a lack of critical thinking causes plenty of other problems in our society. Scammers will always be around unless we increase people's exposure to critical thinking. There will always be people trying to take advantage of others, and there will always be people ready to believe lies. We can lessen the damage with education and activism. Religion is another issue. At its best, it's a good cause that exists for the wrong reasons. At its worst, we get intolerance, persecution and death. Contributing to religion's existence are blind belief in tradition, reliance on unjustified moral laws, and the very human trait of being scared of the dark. Critical thinking and a desire for knowledge can help define what religion really is, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/01/skepticism-is-a-virtue-the-religious-dont-know-what-theyre-missing/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/01/skepticism-is-a-virtue-the-religious-dont-know-what-theyre-missing/#comments Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:42:27 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=142 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/01/skepticism-is-a-virtue-the-religious-dont-know-what-theyre-missing/feed/ 6 Amr Hima By Amr Hima Article ID: 1246 - Many people question religious truth differently than most religious philosophers. These philosophers treat the question not with curiosity, but by totally neglecting the value of truth and claiming that their beliefs mak... By Amr Hima Article ID: 1246 Many people question religious truth differently than most religious philosophers. These philosophers treat the question not with curiosity, but by totally neglecting the value of truth and claiming that their beliefs make their lives better or their belief makes them happier. This is a response to that claim, I will try to show how false religious beliefs can harm us and why they should be abandoned. Here's a list of what religious people might be missing. Religion removes freedom It is better to die for oneself than to live for someone else. A virtue in religions is living according to a law (in Christianity this is the Ten Commandments). Living for God and according to his laws should be considered a vice because people enslave themselves to this tyrant they call "God". While God's laws themselves differ, the problems aren't with them. Sometimes they can be real virtues, but the problem with these laws is that they come from outside, from "above", which supposedly doesn't belong to humanity. How can we be free if we live according to God's law? A religious man does not kill because he sees killing as wrong, but because God tells him not to. A religious man is spiritually subverted. Religion in this sense is infantile, it keeps humans from growing and being independent, it keeps them from being free. A skeptic on the other hand acts according to his or her own will; they know they are alone in this world without an imaginary invisible father image. Our dependence created God, and as we grow God should die and cease to exist, religious people refuse to grow for it is easier to be passive, and they create a comfortable prison. A skeptic breaks these walls of lies with logical thinking and skepticism and lives free and from my own experience this is a much better life. A life of mysteries is essential Among its many descriptions, life is a mystery, to live it and not wonder about it is not to live it fully. Not only do religions impose on us laws of right and wrong and good and evil, they also impose on us answers that get us nowhere. Someone once said "if the history of science taught us something, it is that we get nowhere by calling our ignorance 'God'". How are we here? God created us. Then who created God? Don't ask. Why are we here? To be slaves to God and do what he tells us to do. How did the world come into existence? God created it. How did God come into existence? Don't ask. The arguments for the existence of God are just to show that the world needs a cause, a designer and a sustainer. Why doesn't God need those? Don't ask. Why not try to explain things naturally? Why not seek the reason and not assume it? Thanks to science, we have come to know a lot, and there's much more to be uncovered. The more we explore and learn, the more we find out there's nothing but the laws of nature affecting this universe. God's role is getting smaller and smaller. None of this would have been known if we had been contented with the answers given by religion. As a Monty Python-created Nietzsche would have said, God is "almost dead". But even now, there's what Richard Dawkins called "the worship of gaps", just look for anything we don't know about and fill the gap with God. Why not really enjoy the gap as a mystery? I can't imagine how life would be if we knew everything, it would be boring, but it's even worse when we believe false beliefs. Why would people rather have assumptions than real knowledge? Not only that, they reject knowledge when it disturbs their assumptions, such as rejecting the theory of evolution even though it answers questions we've been striving to know. Given two choices, it's a much better life to wonder about the truth than to hold and defend false beliefs. This world is here and now. The afterlife is not. To live for another world is to betray our world. It is such a waste of life to live while waiting for another life to occur, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/29/psychic-stagecraft-how-to-change-from-magician-to-miracle-worker/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/29/psychic-stagecraft-how-to-change-from-magician-to-miracle-worker/#comments Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:23:40 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=95 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/29/psychic-stagecraft-how-to-change-from-magician-to-miracle-worker/feed/ 3 Peter Booth By Peter Booth Article ID: 1235 - Mentalism is a form of performance magic that simulates the paranormal, most commonly mind-reading, predicting the future and psychokinesis.  Magicians get involved in skepticism because much of the time the so-called ... By Peter Booth Article ID: 1235 Mentalism is a form of performance magic that simulates the paranormal, most commonly mind-reading, predicting the future and psychokinesis.  Magicians get involved in skepticism because much of the time the so-calle... Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%e2%80%9cbullshido%e2%80%9d-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%e2%80%9cbullshido%e2%80%9d-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/#comments Fri, 30 May 2008 02:59:55 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%e2%80%9cbullshido%e2%80%9d-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%e2%80%9cbullshido%e2%80%9d-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/feed/ 5 Science Reason & Rationality by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1228 - Do you want to learn how to knock out an opponent without touching them? How about learning the art of fighting ghosts with the power of "The Force"? Well, here's your chance! by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1228 Do you want to learn how to knock out an opponent without touching them? How about learning the art of fighting ghosts with the power of "The Force"? Well, here's your chance! Japan's Yanagi Ryuken can teach you now. He holds a 10th degree black belt in five traditional martial arts, and his system is based on martial arts like Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu and spiritual paths like Qigong. Yanagi Ryuken supposedly won over 200 Vale Tudo competitions (these are "anything goes" fights, involving unarmed combat and minimal rules). According to the author of the video below, you need 500,000 yen (about $5,000 USD) in order to get a chance to fight with Yanagi Ryuken. However, if you win the fight, Yanagi Ryuken will pay you back double: 1,000,000 yen ($10,000 USD)! Good deal, right? With such a confident offer and so many claimed achievements and victories, you might think there would be more written about this martial arts master. However, little more can be found. Now, watch for yourself the Jedi-like "Master" in action using the power of the "Force". Good promotional video to attract new gullible students to join the Dojo (martial arts school), don't you think? That's what I call effective Bullshido! In this video, we have a genuine martial artist and a probable skeptic, Iwakura Goh. He accepted Yanagi Ryuken's expensive and intimidating martial arts challenge. In the resulting fight, Yanagi Ryuken gets to prove his claims by facing a real opponent on live video and in front of a live audience. Let's see what happens... Let's watch that again from another angle: This video only proves that Yanagi Ryuken's invisible "power" or "chi" or "chi kung" or "qi gong" or whatever you want to call it, is nothing but a human fantasized delusion. It has always been the case that when such claims are critically examined under properly controlled and observable conditions; the seemingly paranormal feats of "chi masters" turn out to be nothing but ordinary feats of deception, magic tricks or illusions, and are more of a natural ability than anything unnatural, supernatural or mysterious. Go ahead; try it yourself on a blind and deaf person or on any nonhuman animal. Will anything supernatural happen? Note that amusing the victim doesn't count. Another source says that Yanagi Ryuken claimed that he is able to actually fight ghosts. Too bad Iwakura Goh wasn't a ghost. Maybe then, Yanagi Ryuken wouldn't have ended the fight laying on the floor bleeding. Maybe then, he wouldn't have looked like a delusional clown. There's a silver lining to this story. Yanagi Ryuken has now decided to retire and will no longer accept any more challenges. And just when I was going to contact him to accept his challenge and make some money out of it too. Maybe there will be someone else like him in the future. Who knows? If there's a down side to this story, is that's some of Yanagi Ryuken's students and other gullible individuals might still believe or make others believe in such nonsense. They could make a living through the stupidity of others, right? I'm sure they'll find some excuse for what happened to Yanagi Ryuken that day. They'll dismiss reality, and go on arguing that no-touch knockouts really do exist. "There's a sucker born every minute." -David Hannum Like some rapidly spreading mental virus, this delusion has now infected Western countries, including the United States of America. In this video, Tom Cameron demonstrates his no-touch knockout "power"  on the Fox News show, "The bottom line". Tom Cameron was trained by a so-called martial arts Grandmaster, George Dillman. Let's now see what excuses George Dillman himself gave when his claims didn't work on a research scientist, Luigi Garlaschelli in a National Geographic special, titled "Superhuman Power: Is It Real?" Now that you heard all the fantastic excuses from George Dillman, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/06/supernatural-nightmare-experiences-and-the-illusion-of-prayer/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/06/supernatural-nightmare-experiences-and-the-illusion-of-prayer/#comments Tue, 06 May 2008 12:39:13 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/06/supernatural-nightmare-experiences-and-the-illusion-of-prayer/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/06/supernatural-nightmare-experiences-and-the-illusion-of-prayer/feed/ 7 Science Reason & Rationality By Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1223 - It's been almost ten years since my last supernatural nightmare experience. The last one I've had was way back in my late 20's. This is because I've learned a little secret on how to get rid of such n... By Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1223 It's been almost ten years since my last supernatural nightmare experience. The last one I've had was way back in my late 20's. This is because I've learned a little secret on how to get rid of such nightmares, once and for all. Let me share with you what led to my enlightenment. When I was a kid, I remember not being afraid of the dark, or anything supernatural like ghosts, evil spirits, demons or the devil. I also never had any supernatural nightmares. Why? Because I didn't know such entities existed. But later, I heard my family members speak about their existence. My big brother frightened me with it. My big sister shared an experience of being suddenly woken from sleep by an invisible entity pressing her down on her bed. She said that she couldn't move or call for help, and was absolutely sure it wasn't a bad dream. With this information and all the supernatural horror movies we watched at home, it became possible for me to believe in such things, which inevitably also made it possible for me to experience supernatural nightmares as well. I have never experienced sleep paralysis, but in my adult years I realized my sister's experience was just that. However, I did have my own share of supernatural nightmares which I experienced until my late 20's. One of these gave me assurance that the power of God is real and Jesus is who he said he was. In this dream, I was chased by a demonically possessed girl who was going to torture, kill or possess me. She was really horrible to look at, exactly like Linda Blair from the movie The Exorcist. Of course, I was influenced by the movie, but I didn't realize that in the dream. So, while I was running, scared to death, in the dark, away from this girl making all sorts of horrifying sounds - just like in the movie - I suddenly remembered to call upon God and pray for help. I prayed while I ran. Then I stopped running, turned around to look directly at this girl eye to eye and said, "In the name of Christ Jesus and by the power of the Holy Spirit of God, I command you to STOP!" But the girl kept coming closer and closer. I stood my ground and placed all my faith in God and in his Biblical promises. When she got about ten feet away from me, a sunny light came down from the sky (I suppose it was from Heaven) and shone on me. The light was like a force field, protecting me from the girl. She couldn't come near me. She couldn't enter the light (I suppose because it was Holy). The dream ended there: I woke up refreshed in faith and trust in Jesus Christ and in the God of the Bible. There was one problem. You see, I hadn't always been a Christian. Before I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, I was following the teachings of Hinduism for approximately ten years. For the last two of those years, I'd been a loyal devotee of the Lord Krishna (an incarnation of the Hindu God, Vishnu). During this time, I was protected from evil entities in my nightmares in the same way that I was protected through prayer and in the name of Jesus Christ. The only difference was that it was done in the name of Krishna or Vishnu. Hindu prayer also worked much the same way: one says a certain Hindu Mantra or incantation while thinking of the god or gods that it's associated with. The second religious book that I studied diligently after the Hindu Bhagavad Gita was the Quran of Islam. During this period I managed to protect myself from the evil entities in my nightmares by praying to the God of the Quran, Allah, and by reciting specific verses from the Quran for this purpose. Guess what? Yep! It worked the same way. After this, I studied the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. I also studied both the Catholic and the Protestant faith including their Canon Laws. I stayed a Christian for about seven years and almost started my very own non-denominational Christian church. Yes, I'd become a very staunch Christian, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/21/religious-revelations-are-delusions/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/21/religious-revelations-are-delusions/#comments Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:38:35 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/21/religious-revelations-are-delusions/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/21/religious-revelations-are-delusions/feed/ 8 Science Reason & Rationality By Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1221 - Have you ever wondered why only a select few get a "revelation" from God, a ghost, an alien or an angel, and the rest of us do not? Why is it these entities choose just a select few out of billions to... By Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1221 Have you ever wondered why only a select few get a "revelation" from God, a ghost, an alien or an angel, and the rest of us do not? Why is it these entities choose just a select few out of billions to receive such "revelations"? Why were you not included? Was it because you weren't at the right place at the right time? Was it because you and the rest of us are not good or special or "holy" enough? What other excuses will you give in order to rationalize an irrational claim? Now that you are done rationalizing, how do you know who is telling the truth and who isn't? Do you know who is deluded and who isn't? Do you know that your current nonhuman Master, whoever that is, is real? Are they real because someone you love and respect said it was, and so you automatically believe? Is this enough for you to make such a judgment? Do you know for sure if Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, all other religious icons, and the Earthly representatives of such characters are telling you the truth and nothing but the truth? How do you know those Earthly representatives aren't victims of delusion, or victims of some other master of deception? Or perhaps, you do think they're deluded, all except one. You think that one is the truth, and so deserves your utmost trust through unquestionable faith. But again, how do you know that your choice of religion is the right one? Is it because someone you love and respect said it was, and so you unquestioningly believe? Is this enough for you to make such a decision? If your answer is "yes", then I don't see you as a very good judge. Anyone with good manipulative skills can easily dupe and take advantage of you. If you belong to a religion, you've probably noticed by now your religion has a gathering place like a synagogue, a church, a mosque, a temple or whatever they are called. These places have a religious book, scripture, or a supernatural "revelation" of some kind. These were written by someone in somewhere at some time, and this is also known as the "Word of God." The Jews say that their "Word of God" was given by God to Moses almost face to face; the Christians say that their "Word of God" came by "divine inspiration"; the Muslims say that their "Word of God" was brought by an angel from heaven, and so on. Each of these religions accuses other religions as being false and deluded. The fact of the matter is, all religions that are formed through such so-called "revelations" are false and deluded. "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ~ Stephen F. Roberts So, how do we safeguard ourselves from becoming a victim of religious, supernatural and paranormal delusion? It's quite simple. It doesn't matter where a certain claim of "revelation" is coming from. It can be from any Tom, Dick and Harry or from any Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, or from any religious, supernatural or paranormal source. The formula to use is the same for all. When someone claims a "revelation" has been revealed to them, but not revealed to any other person, then it is a "revelation" limited to that single person. When he tells this to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, a fourth to a fifth and so on, it's no longer a "revelation" to any of those persons. It is a "revelation" to the first person only, and second-hand information or hearsay to every other. Therefore, you are not under any obligation to believe it. Such "revelations" are more likely to be delusion or deception. You can read more about this at this link: Faith versus the Scientific Method If you still insist on believing in such "revelations", you're believing in someone else's account. All you have is their word and no real evidence. Faith-based and emotion-driven thinking does not make something true, even if you know, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/20/universities-and-academies-fail-to-teach-scientific-thought-and-rationality/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/20/universities-and-academies-fail-to-teach-scientific-thought-and-rationality/#comments Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:09:38 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/20/universities-and-academies-fail-to-teach-scientific-thought-and-rationality/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/20/universities-and-academies-fail-to-teach-scientific-thought-and-rationality/feed/ 0 Rodrigo Neely By Rodrigo Neely Article ID: 1220 - As skeptics, we seek to promote science, scientific thinking, scientific fact and reason. These wonderful nouns have historically sprung from one place above all:  universities. By Rodrigo Neely Article ID: 1220 As skeptics, we seek to promote science, scientific thinking, scientific fact and reason. These wonderful nouns have historically sprung from one place above all:  universities. Universities can be referred to coll... Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/04/christopher-hitchens-debates-peter-hitchens/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/04/christopher-hitchens-debates-peter-hitchens/#comments Fri, 04 Apr 2008 05:16:41 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/04/christopher-hitchens-debates-peter-hitchens/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/04/christopher-hitchens-debates-peter-hitchens/feed/ 23 Andy Kaiser by Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1218 - [The Hitchens vs. Hitchens video is available. Scroll down to find it.] - Watching a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens is fascinating on so many levels. They are both very good speakers and debaters, by Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1218 [The Hitchens vs. Hitchens video is available. Scroll down to find it.] Watching a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens is fascinating on so many levels. They are both very good speakers and debaters, so the oratory mastery is impressive on its own, and the technique is fun to watch.  The topics discussed are easily inflammatory: just ask anyone, "How do you feel about the Iraq war?" Or, "How does God affect your life?" You'll receive very heartfelt responses. Finally, as you may assume upon reading their last names, Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens are indeed related. They're brothers. What's interesting about their relationship is that it's not what you'd expect. Or, at least not what I expected upon seeing them debate for the first time. To specify: 1) this was the first time I'd seen either one debate any one else, and 2) this was the first time Peter and Christopher have publicly debated each other in the United States. Let me set your expectations with a little third-party information. What would you expect if you saw the following ads about the debate: "One-on-one for the first time ever, brothers will clash" - From Grand Valley State University's ad. (GVSU was the host for the debate.) "Hitchens Brothers: Anatomy of a Row" - An article from The Independent You may think this sets expectations for a heated - perhaps angry and shouting - debate. After  attending the debate itself, I'm glad to report that there was no bloodshed, no torn clothes, nor any physical violence. While the debate did at times involve angry, emotional words, the outcome was on a balanced give-and-take debate. Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens have a history of being alienated for years, with only a recent reconciliation. That behavior, at least, met my expectations. The brothers are both excellent and well-focused speakers. There was no camaraderie during the debate, no emotional winks towards the other. No sign of a brotherly relationship. There was, actually, more signs of antagonism, more "polite impoliteness"  than usual. Since I haven't seen either Hitchens debate until now, I was unable to tell if that was just the way they normally carry their debates, or if - being related - they were pushing each others' emotional buttons. Christopher seemed to be the better composed of the two. If he was aggravated by any part of the debate, he rarely showed it, whereas Peter became exasperated at a few points. When the moderator asked him for comment after a particularly heated exchange, he gestured dismissively and exclaimed, "Why? It's futile!" (To Peter's credit, Christopher had evaded Peter's direct question, was talking over Peter at that point, and the moderator hadn't done anything.) That's not to dismiss Peter Hitchens' debate skills or the presentation of his content. He was the right-leaning conservative in this debate. Based on audience responses to debate points (clapping and cheering), I'd say the strong majority - perhaps eighty percent - were liberal (and perhaps atheist), like Christopher. Far less were conservative (and perhaps religious), like Peter. The forum was a college-sponsored event, and GVSU students were given many free tickets. The audience makeup ranged from young college age on up. College students certainly didn't dominate, though. It was a good mixture of ages. When I arrived at the venue - a large, ornate Catholic church, one of many beautiful buildings in downtown Grand Rapids, Michigan - I heard from an event coordinator that they were booked up way beyond expectations. There were over 1100 people attending.  Many were Christopher Hitchens fans. A college student setting behind me excitedly told her seatmate, "I heard about this an hour ago, but when I heard Christopher Hitchens was here I had to be here too!" So Christopher Hitchens had more fans. He had his books available for purchase, and autographs afterward. Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/01/what-if-youre-wrong/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/01/what-if-youre-wrong/#comments Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:59:39 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/01/what-if-youre-wrong/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/01/what-if-youre-wrong/feed/ 2 Science Reason & Rationality By Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1216 - You're probably a religious person, or you have some form of a belief system. After much personal research and experience, you are now also convinced by the arguments presented by the skeptics and the... By Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1216 You're probably a religious person, or you have some form of a belief system. After much personal research and experience, you are now also convinced by the arguments presented by the skeptics and the atheists. You have somewhat come to realize that the skeptics and the atheists do have valid and strong points for their case and they are not just some ignorant people creating excuses to "sin". For admitting this and coming this high in your level of thought and judgment, I consider you a normal and intelligent person with a lowest amount of ego and delusional problems. You're the rare honest one. You wish to seek out the real truth, and you are willing to accept it no matter what the outcome might be, and you'd rather live a life of reality than someone else's fantasy. However, there's one big question left in your mind, and you're worried about it. The question keeps repeating itself, the way it did for me when I was a believer at one point in my life, but have since come to a point of realization. The big question is, "What if you're wrong?" What if you're wrong about your atheism and end up going to hell for it? What if you're wrong and end up being reborn again to suffer the consequences in some animal form based on what you did in your past life? What if you're wrong and end up being a ghost forever? What if you're wrong and end up becoming an alien in some galaxy far, far away? These questions and more are very interesting and creative ideas for an afterlife. And from these questions, we can see that the main concern for a lot of people is fear. They fear the unknown. They fear what's going to happen to them after they die. Fear of loss, fear of pain, fear of suffering, fear of weakness, fear of deformation, fear of abandonment, and whatever other fears one may have for an afterlife. You can assure yourself that you can't go wrong from the explanations and the methods shown in these three links: Religion is a Path to Hell on Earth Tradition Supports Religion and Unhealthy Trust in Authority Faith versus the Scientific Method After you've gone through all the three links above, you might be able to increase your level of confidence and start to realize that you're on the right track. Then again, for some people this is simply not going to be enough. You might have another common problem: you find it difficult to let go of the concept of God, because you also have beliefs born from love and attachment to it, and not just from fear and threats. This is a very powerful emotion which is difficult (but not impossible) to overcome. I remember how I would be in tears when I thought about how Jesus, as the story goes, suffered and died for the sins of the world, including that of mine. I felt so loved and special. The least I could do for his ultimate gift of sacrifice was to be really faithful and devote my entire life to him. I studied the Bible well enough to become a Church Minister. I also believed that I had a special direct-line connection with the Holy Spirit of God. He gave me answers and guidance to many of my questions and problems through the Bible, which supposedly is the "Word of God". I could even hear voices in my head which was God speaking to me, well, at least that was what I used to believe. And there's more, I can perform healing on others, I can make people drop on the floor without even touching them, I can see the future, I can make people feel that there's a light of God in me, I can chase away Satan, demons, and other evil spirits, and perform other stuffs as well, all in the name of Christ! Cool huh? But alas, all this was nothing more than a psychological experience by the power of suggestion. I was brainwashed just like you. I was programmed to believe in some guy by name of Jesus who supposedly is the Christ and the "Word of God" made into flesh. The fact is, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/31/punk-skepticism-a-perfect-mix-of-skeptic-and-rebel/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/31/punk-skepticism-a-perfect-mix-of-skeptic-and-rebel/#comments Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:16:06 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/31/punk-skepticism-a-perfect-mix-of-skeptic-and-rebel/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/31/punk-skepticism-a-perfect-mix-of-skeptic-and-rebel/feed/ 2 Anonymous by Anonymous Article ID: 1215 - Skepticism is a philosophical commitment to doubt. However, to doubt without end is of no use. - Committed skeptics include Harry Houdini, Penn and Teller, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, James Randi, Christopher Hitchens, by Anonymous Article ID: 1215 Skepticism is a philosophical commitment to doubt. However, to doubt without end is of no use. Committed skeptics include Harry Houdini, Penn and Teller, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, James Randi, Christopher Hitchens, and many other intellectual giants. My doubts began not with the profound words of astronomers, nor by studying stage magic. My doubts began with rage. Holy rage which drives teenagers to truancy and smoking. In my case, it drew me to countless mohawks and hair colors. It drew me to body piercing and tattoos, it drew me to loud defiant music like the Dead Kennedys, Slayer, Marilyn Manson, Black Flag, The Misfits, Danzig, and later to industrial music. I doubted society and its presumptions. I saw through the lies school told me. I saw that teachers who were teaching me didn't give a damn about what they taught. I saw through the pretend benevolence of authority figures, especially the police and school administration. I saw through the ridiculous exaggerations of Reagan's "Just Say No!" campaign. I saw through the lies of commercialism, and was painfully aware that if I was spending money, someone had engineered my purchase through advertising. I saw through conventional religion. Even my attempts to be a Christian later in life were rife with heresies and ideas that conflicted with the status quo. But I still fell for a lot of crap. I fell for alternative medicine, the new age movement, ridiculous theories about JFK's assassination, and finally Christianity. Why was I so gullible when I was so committed to rebellion? Indeed, there is no greater rebel than the skeptic. So why are youth movements like punk, goth, industrial, hip-hop, and metal so devoid of skeptics? I guess that we felt so judged by the world, we wanted to be open minded. We heard nonsense not from our enemies in uniforms and ties, but from our friends. It was our friends forecasting horoscopes, it was our friends doing the tarot reading, it was our friends with the hip young bible study. So we bought it. At least I did. I think that a time of a new era in punk must arise. Perhaps a few co-conspirators could engineer it. The era of the skeptical punk, the dangerous angry youth who is as perceptive in seeing a fraud as she is in seeing the world as a conformist facade. That she - this heroic uber-mensch, punk skeptic - will demand scientific evidence for all claims that are not readily self-evident! When she is born, then revolution could be the next step. The passion of punk with the mind of the skeptic would be an unstoppable revolt against the easy victimhood that the public falls into due to its own inertia. If I had something to pray for, I would pray for this. But since prayer is little more than talking to oneself I can instead act. The punk skeptic is here in me. Am I alone? Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/25/faith-versus-the-scientific-method/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/25/faith-versus-the-scientific-method/#comments Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:51:53 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/25/faith-versus-the-scientific-method/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/25/faith-versus-the-scientific-method/feed/ 6 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/15/tradition-supports-religion-and-unhealthy-trust-in-authority/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/15/tradition-supports-religion-and-unhealthy-trust-in-authority/#comments Sun, 16 Mar 2008 03:16:51 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/15/tradition-supports-religion-and-unhealthy-trust-in-authority/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/15/tradition-supports-religion-and-unhealthy-trust-in-authority/feed/ 0 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/11/astrology-is-the-forer-effect-in-action/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/11/astrology-is-the-forer-effect-in-action/#comments Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:22:40 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/11/astrology-is-the-forer-effect-in-action/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/11/astrology-is-the-forer-effect-in-action/feed/ 15 Science Reason & Rationality by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 129 - I think most people already know what astrology is. After all, it has been used by people everywhere since ancient times right up to the modern age. But how does astrology so successfully fool people i... by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 129 I think most people already know what astrology is. After all, it has been used by people everywhere since ancient times right up to the modern age. But how does astrology so successfully fool people into believing it's real? The answer is quite simple. Astrology creates something many people are not really aware of. It is called "illusion". Magicians have always used trickery to create illusions to convince others what he or she does is in fact real magic, real supernatural powers. Audiences are baffled because they can't explain what they just saw. That's what magic tricks are all about. Magic wouldn't be as impressive if everyone knew how it was done, would it? Some magic tricks exceed the expectation of an audience to the point they start to believe it couldn't have been just a simple trick. They insist it had to be some kind of black magic, demonic power, or divine force. This is the first mistake that people make: they transform a certain assumption into a certain belief. They assume or believe something IS, rather than inquire or investigate HOW something is. The use of critical thinking and evidence-based investigation over faith-based living and emotion-driven thinking is extremely important when it comes to accepting or rejecting fantastic claims. "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." ~ Bertrand Russell Understand that magicians do not selflessly perform magic tricks for your entertainment. They also want something else. It's called "money". If they want to stand out, magicians have to constantly come up with new tricks that are better and more believable than other magicians. So the tricks get more sophisticated and more amazing every time. Nevertheless, they are all still illusions to trick your mind. I've got no problem with magicians who make a living by entertaining others. But I do have a problem with magicians who call themselves legitimate psychics, astrologers, fortune tellers and prophets. There are two kinds of charlatans in this category. The first one knows exactly what they're doing. They've learned the tricks and use their skills to attain fame and fortune. The second one really believes that they have somehow attained special abilities or powers, and they want to help people through their "divine gifts." The first one takes advantage of others through more trickery and deceit. The second one is just as deluded as his or her supporting believers, who also become victims of the first one, who encourages the second one, and all believers to keep on living in the rabbit hole so that the first one would still have a business to run. See how important network marketing is? Now, let me show you how astrology works. First, consider the following as if it were given to you as a personality evaluation. Imagine I'm the astrologer and you're the customer: You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic. Rate this assessment from 0 to 5, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/16/whats-the-harm-in-believing-reasons-for-skeptical-thought-and-critical-thinking/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/16/whats-the-harm-in-believing-reasons-for-skeptical-thought-and-critical-thinking/#comments Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:53:21 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/16/whats-the-harm-in-believing-reasons-for-skeptical-thought-and-critical-thinking/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/16/whats-the-harm-in-believing-reasons-for-skeptical-thought-and-critical-thinking/feed/ 2