Anonymous Protest: $cientfictology

It seems that many of my atheist bloggers haven't covered the Anonymous Protest against $cientfictology. (The name is copyrighted... and quite frankly I have heard frightening stories of their lawyers harassing just about anyone who criticizes this "religion".) Read more at Xenu.net.

As you may or may not be aware, I do have some issues with actual religions but I do have respect for them at the same time. That is to say, I respect that no one's reputation is ruined for dissenting from other churches, except for (at most) being ostracized from that particular community. Even the Catholic church doesn't have lawyers and people watching you. Sure they'll do there own version of "brain washing", or whatever you'd like to call it, but not the sort of preying on the emotionally weak as these $cientfictologists like to do. Sure, many of them are trying to help and just can't see from outside the box.

So, taking a walk in Hollywood the other day, I came across one of the protests and got some shaky shots on my small handheld camera:



One of my biggest issues with this "church" is that you have to pay for the knowledge. Imagine a Christian going through his/her life not knowing about Jesus. At least true believers of religions, know what and why they believe. There's a sort of logic within the suspension of disbelief. I figure with this post on $cientfictology, I'll give actual religions a break. Sure, they'll look at you funny if you don't donate, but it's generally acceptable to be a Christian/Jew (or any believer) and never attend religious services, and therefore, never spending a dime. At least you can get a Bible for free. But don't get me started on how awfully $cientfictologists portray psychology and psychiatry. If it were to remain as a government taxed private group, then fine. They have that right (as long as nobody gets hurt....anymore - See Lisa McPherson).

I'll leave you with the tease for Jason Beghe's big interview. Go here for the full interview.



Knowledge is free!

Moral Dilemma: Leather vs. Plastic

I have always felt strongly about animal rights in a half-assed sort of way, being that I don't subscribe to the notion that humans have "dominion" over other animals that they have been "put" here for whatever purpose we humans foresee. If I were to accept that idea, then clearly as a woman I must be here for men to do with whatever they please. But that's purely offensive! As a woman, I think I should be equal to - and not above - any man, which parallels with my need (as the atheist in me) to be considered equally patriotic.

We are only animals, so why are other animals treated like they are in a class below? Perhaps because they can't vocalize they're own opinions? Other than that, we're very similar. They have sexual instincts like humans (gay/straight/bi), in addition to the one who actually find life mates for the rest of their days. When one's not strictly adhering to the stories of biblical texts, one can realize that men should not and cannot have "dominion" over women, as humans should not and cannot over other animals.

When it comes to diet, I can easily say becoming a vegetarian is easy; I have done it several times (high school, college, etc). All the while, realizing it's just not for me. Like almost anybody, I have my own odd set of dietary needs, including not being able to take vitamins; not consuming anything with a face doesn't fit (as much as I'd like it to some days). But the inner dialogue doesn't end there. With a profound concern for our Earthly counterparts, how can I still consume milk, cheese, and eggs? Which means no more anything unless I make it myself or purchase it at an outrageous price. Alongside the vegan issue, it just becomes too difficult.

I have heard many conflicting ideas on whether or not such eating habits can actually be healthy, but am still doing more research on it. I do eat many vegetarian foods because I happen to like them and in some cases, it is healthier for me (genetically higher cholesterol) without lacking the necessary protein. I like to call my style of eating: Pork & Tofu. But I've always rationalized my views that health is far more important that fashion. Hence, why I never wore fur. No to mention, it's sort of creepy especially with heads and feet still attached. The fur vs. faux fur issue rarely comes into play for me (raised in Miami and now living in LA). I've always worn faux fur, if anything, and just felt better about it without preaching to or criticizing others. And now I'm reevaluating it all.

I have always worn limited leather, that is for some products that are just too damn hard to find otherwise. I have found that plastic shoes are just bad for my feet. I suppose a canvas shoe such as Converse/Chuck Taylor's would be an option but they don't go too well in the corporate life or any dressy occasion. I carry a nylon bag (seen to the right) daily, mainly for ease and style. I used to feel better when buying a plastic wallet (I'll get sick of it by the time it falls apart anyway), in addition to whatever else.

No doubt plastic can be extremely necessary for certain medical and electronic (et al) products, but can I keep buying plastics over leather to feel better about the animal rights issue? By not contributing to the further slaughter and/or mistreatment of animals, I am consequently aiding in the production of petroleum based products: plastics. What's a girl to do? Now leather and fur seem to be a moral option, for once.

I have always supported scientific studies on animals that further human knowledge on science and medicine, but not frivolous things such as makeup... at least in this age. It may have been a necessary evil for some time, but don't we know what chemicals are harmful by now?

In any case, what's your $0.02 on the issue?

Stein to Darwin: "Why don't you just live quietly"

In this interview, Ben Stein answers the following:

5. What would you like to say to Darwin?

"You are a wealthy man, you married a wealthy woman, why don’t you just live quietly out in the countryside and not torture us with your half-baked suppositions, which have caused so much misery?"

So, in essence, Stein wants Darwin to not have the same freedoms he is supposedly fighting for? Why don't you just live quietly... Half-baked suppositions? Misery? Even if evolution was later proved to be incorrect, it's always important to be aware of other theories. Sounds like he's closer to that of a Nazi than those who he accuses. How dare he! (I don't normally say "how dare" anyone, but he's completely doing what he accuses "big science" of doing.)

I want to emphasize, Darwin was not like the crazed neo-Darwinists of today. Darwin believed in the freedom of inquiry. He encouraged there to be further study and debate. He said that in writing before he died.

Neo-Darwinists? Of course he wasn't like the ones who respect him today (that doesn't even make sense); things are different, he could have even been killed if he was more vocal. He wanted more debate to continue because he was already considered heretical for not automatically accepting creationism on faith. To debate evolution to this day with old theories of creationism is nothing more than a manufactroversy. There's no use to keep rehashing old failed ideas. In any case, "big science" is the one who has been persecuted by religion for centuries. Give science a chance.

Neo-Darwinists ask us to believe in things not seen. We’re not supposed to have an established religion in America, but we do, and it’s called Darwinism.

How is "Darwinism" a religion? It's not even an ideology but a collection of facts that have been tested and retested... and proven. There is no belief or faith involved. It's only unseen because you're not looking. Creationism involves religious belief of some type. Evolution just explains how and why we came to where we are.

There is no established religion in America, except for general theism. Just ask any rational god-free person in America.

Make sure you also check out 6 Things Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know (Scientific American). H/t toomanytribbles.

Expelled ~ Expelled ~ Expelled ~ Expelled ~ Expelled ~ Expelled

Exposed Again

Since PZ Meyers has asked that we link to Expelled as much as we can, I decided to help out the cause. NOTE: I don't usually do things just because I'm asked, as in the case of the Out Campaign "A" .

I realized that we shouldn't have to do this for many reasons. The scientific truth should (ideally) stand taller than fabrications and cute stories. But not always. How can the support for science (evolution, in this case) ever be equated with Nazism and/or Fascism? I happen to see it closer to the other direction, though not completely. The mere idea that some very powerful voices want to suppress education and truth is not only befuddling but ethically perverse. I understand wanting to be heard, but it should not be done at the expense of some of the brightest scientists and well educated (as well as philosophical) persons.

In addition, to this, "hacking" search engine results (to me) falls in a grey hat area. Though, its for good; it's only good for those with the same or similar interests. On the other hand, the sheer audacity to not represent one's belief's in a calm and just manner, rather to whine about being "persecuted" does not sit well with me. I know a little something about persecution; I've had family members and family friends be exterminated in WWII (and some who have lived through it). Christians have not be persecuted since, maybe, Roman times. And those days are long gone. Atheists, agnostics, secularists, rationalists, humanists, etc have something to whine about these days. Somehow the supposedly most just nation in the world is no longer just to everyone, not those who want to live free of religion. So instead of turning the other cheek, some feel its "right" to release the lion after us?

But I digress because evolution is not an atheist "belief", its a scientific truth. I suppose that's what's upsetting, not the promoting of creationism; I'd have no problem with a calm and fair piece on the subject. I can even get past the poor filmmaking techniques (since I studied it and generally feel more aware of such things). This is not just an innocent documentary; it is very close to Big Brother propaganda.

I also like to mention one of the smaller tag lines from the actual Exposed site itself, regarding "smart new ideas". We can discuss and debate the validity of calling the ideas "smart" but one thing that blares brightly in front of my eye: they surely aren't new.

Expelled ~ Expelled ~ Expelled ~ Expelled ~ Expelled ~ Expelled

A New Planet?

I'm sure this isn't news to most of you, but in case you aren't a space geek like me:

The smallest extrasolar planet – weighing just 5 times that of Earth – may have been found, using a new technique that analyses changes in a known planet's orbit. Though some scientists are skeptical of the claim, the research team says the new planet's existence could be confirmed with further observations later this year.

Dubbed GJ 436c, the planet orbits a dim red star 30 light years away in the constellation Leo and is one of the smallest exoplanets ever discovered – astronomers have previously found one that may be 5.5 times Earth's mass.

(Read more at NewScientist.com.)

This gets me thinking. If there is life on a new planet, will they have they're own god? Or did the Abrahamic God create them, too and just forgot to tell us? If there isn't life there, then most of these questions are irrelevant. That is, except the one concerning god "creating" it. Now, I suppose the same could asked of Neptune (or any other we currently know about without life). Did a god create all the planets or just Earth?

Yet the questions become greater and hold more intensity if it turns out there is life on a distant planet. What if there are beings with consciousness who are similar to us (whether more advanced or not) who never even heard of a religion or a god? Or have a god or gods that are laughable to modern Christians, Jews, Muslims, and/or Hindus (etc)? Imagine a Christian trying to "save" a distant planet inhabitant with the words of Jesus and the Bible and being heartily laughed at. Here, we know better; we respect mass accepted beliefs* (to a point).

This is mere speculation and could prove to be irrelevant, but the philosophical implications could linger on forever. Whether or not we discover some other life form, or even just another planet, would be enough to get our brain gears going. The fundamentalists will say that none of its real and its just god testing us. Well, circular logic has no place here. We know its real; that's the basis of science. Science is what helps delineate fiction from fact.

The irreligious deists may say, its all the same energy ball floating around (or what have you). I suppose it makes a bit more sense but still I'm not buying it. What I wonder about is how the religious theists (but not necessarily fundamentalists) will take it. Will a person who believes in a religious doctrine but also makes his/her own decisions, accepting science alongside what is hardwired, start wondering too?

Still mere speculation, only time will tell if other life is discovered and how this all plays out. But I find it very intriguing.
__
* mass accepted beliefs used here refers to any religion around today that people don't laugh at. You know what I'm talking about. If a true Zeus follower confessed his/her beliefs publicly, no doubt he/she would be (not just laughed but) cackled at.

Spam sucks, period.

I have received a lot of spam for The Coming Out Godless Project since it began and counting. Most of them come in the form of comments completely unrelated to the particular story being commented on. But since I don't moderate comments (and only delete utterly offensive ones which rarely happens - or actual spambot spam), I let it flow. Generally, someone else will comment later, asking that person why he/she said what they said or something else pertaining to the obvious Christian spam.

I even received an unrelated story that was submitted (I can only speculate why) to make the site look bad. I foolishly posted a story, without thoroughly reading it (completely my fault!). I later realized (due to someone nicely contacting me to let me know) that it was just a sad attempt to make the site look bad. It was a short story, but I have received a short story before that was actually a close-to-true story that was very good, so I assumed it was something of that nature and did not have enough time to fully read it. Silly me! I will just have to spend more time being more attentive to what is posted on the Coming Out Godless site.

Needless to say, the stories will no longer be numbered in the case that one needs to be removed, so don't mind the absence of #61.

The spam comments are to be expected to a certain degree but when I receive spam story submissions (and not just the kind advertising for some new hotel or penis enlarging pills), it becomes slightly vexing.

So, over the weekend I received a story submission and didn't even look at it until this morning (I had a busy weekend). The title "Religion is the source of world's problem" seemed fine (other than a few grammatical errors) until I read it. It was a jumble of mish-mash, confusing me with a ton of statistics and seemingly atheist leanings, but with conspicuous use if "His" mid-sentence. I'm not opposed to statistics if it flows with the story, nor am I opposed to it being stripped from a site (if it's your own), but this clearly wasn't. I followed the original link and the story had a different author (at least the names given are different). Not only is it Christian spam, but whoever submitted it is plagiarizing by taking credit for someone else's story. Now, that's not just low... it's also illegal. But who knows, it could have been the same person who was just too embarrassed to leave his real name (or the non de plume he uses on the actual blog).

The story was about how even though Christians have committed atrocities, atheists have committed far more, full of bad statistics (including absolute power regimes such as acts committed by Mussolini and communist Russia and China), while using the bible as one of his "sources". The bible should never be used as a source for proving a point in Christian blogs and writings; its circular logic within itself and can never be backed up, other than with those who have written his/her own book, truly believing every word of it. If one has something to say about Christianity, it is best to use a source outside the bible, for it can only make one's point seem (more) valid.

Forgive me for not linking, but I don't want to give him anymore traffic than he already has (if any). Its not like he allows any comments, so what's the use?

Now, let me leave you with the very last sentence of this blog just for shifts 'n googles: "The Bible says that people are evil (and the statistics on this page support this claim), but that they can become transformed through the power of the Holy Spirit to live lives of love, joy and peace."

What is science, again?

I was reading an interesting article at Black Sun Journal, which inspired me to ask "what is science, again?" In this article, BlackSun has a rare comment debate with a creationist and a homeschooler (with a biology degree) who teaches only creationism. So, what is science anyway? According to Science Made Simple:

The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.

We can also check Wikipedia, but since its definition would basically repeat the previous chunk of text, I will fast forward to the scientific method section:

The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. It provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields.

Often scientists have a preference for one outcome over another, and scientists are conscientious that it is important that this preference does not bias their interpretation. A strict following of the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. This can be achieved by correct experimental design, and a thorough peer review of the experimental results as well as conclusions of a study.

There is a little something called the scientific method that science itself is based on. Science would not and could not exist or even function without it. When something repeatedly fails the scientific method, its tossed out as bad science for a reason. Most scientists would have nothing to gain by banning together to "expel" a particular point of view for any reason other than it clearly fails the scientific method... not once and not twice, but repeatedly by different people all over the world. Moreover, if it fails the scientific method repeatedly, then obviously it is not "science".

Turning it to the creationism debate: Creationism directly implies you must accept an entire religious doctrine in addition to a simple theory on the origin of life. Science makes no claims on what your beliefs may or may not be outside the realm of what is proven in a particular instance. Nor does science ever assume or assert anything other that what has been proved through the scientific method. To clarify, if one accepts the truths of evolution yet makes room that some godly power helped the process along, at least one is not denying what has been tested and retested by the scientific method. He/she can still believe anything outside the realm of what can be proven; those beliefs generally do not defy science. Whether god exists or doesn't, it cannot be proved or disproved. However, evolution has only been understood more and more due to the scientific method. On a side note: Evolution isn't an 'atheist' theory, it's a scientific one. Many Christians and most Jews (in addition to followers of other religions and philosophical ways of life) accept evolution.

I do not "believe" in science (or evolution), I understand it. I know it. I live it. I am it. That is science, simply put. The truth discovered over years of studying and testing.

In my humble opinion, for someone to teach or want creationism taught in not just any ol' school course (philosophy, religion, or any other class that would seem appropriate) but specifically science class is purely baffling. First, one must understand what the term science means and what it stands for. If one believes in the strict interpretation of the biblical creationism story, you have every right, but its your religion or even personal philosophy. Believe as you like, but please don't call it science.

Isn't it odd? Or perhaps maybe not.

Isn't it odd how, for instance, will mention something about theists in a post that a Christian will read and automatically assume I am speaking about Christians or Christianity. I've encountered this a several times, so I am speaking from experience. And I'll admit, it annoys me.

How high and mighty on your pedestal do you have to be to naturally assume every Atheist was formerly a Christian or is ranting only against Christianity? I've mentioned being raised Jewish many times before, but I think it plays an important role in this rant.

I wear a lot of color these days but I did wear a lot of black and darker colors in middle school; I chock it up to a hormonal imbalance of being a teen. I was a big fan of the fishnets-with-combat-boots look (and still am somewhat). I distinctly remember hanging out with a mixed bunch of friends: some goth, some grungy, some hippies- a little bit of this, a little bit of that. But definitely a "rock" crowd. It was the era of hip-hop (mid 90's) so pants around one's ankles were acceptable but wearing too much black got you called a "Satanist" by the vice principal. And she was not nice about it, by any means. But I digress.

I was hanging out with a bunch of alternative friends (though that word means nothing) and some stranger came up to us preaching about Jesus, assuming we all worshiped the devil. Many argued with him that he was wrong (I had a few Wiccan friends) and the first thing I said was, "I'm Jewish".

I bring this up to further my point. First of all, why must someone assume another worships the devil because of how the/she is dressed? Goths actually tend to be rather religious, just in a dark way (because it can be pretty dark). Moreover, why must someone assume that you've strayed not from just any religion, but Christianity? It always comes down to Christianity, in America at least.

But I suppose Jews might as well be Atheists, according to a few of the Christians I've known. Not to mention Muslims, Hindus, and the list goes on and on. Then again, Protestants might as well be Atheists according to some of the Catholics I've known. Maybe its not just a Christian thing- and I've noticed it most with Christians because I'm in America. Everyone who believes in a strict interpretation of some indoctrinating book knows, just knows, that they are right. There just isn't room for uncertainty.

Yet I haven't had any Muslims or Hindus (etc) commenting on a post I write about theists, assuming I'm speaking of his/her god.

I'm tired of being told (mostly online, but not solely) that I have to accept Jesus in my heart... in addition to what I've previously described, it would make my Jewish family very upset. (My half brother converted to Christianity and though we still talk and love each other, my Dad - suffice it to say - is not happy with it at all.)

If you happen to be a theist who's responding to something I say here, please (for the love of nature) don't assume I strayed from your religion, what ever that may be.

You've Been Rick Roll'd

I made this one.

Noodly Appendages, Licorice Style

"Limerick" (a web comic)

Source