text:
All Blog Posts Tagged 'cross' - Atheist Nexus 2017-03-01T20:38:52Z http://atheistnexus.org/profiles/blog/feed?tag=cross&xn_auth=no The World Is Not Safe tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-03-01:2182797:BlogPost:2738107 2017-03-01T13:00:16.000Z Loren Miller http://atheistnexus.org/profile/LorenMiller
I was teased as a kid. Some days were better than others and some others weren't so great, but the fact is that from the time I entered first grade through high school graduation, there was something in me which drew the jibes, catcalls and slanders from my fellow students. Somehow I was different, though exactly how I had no idea back then. This whole business was made worse by the fact that for a great deal of that time, I was hyper-sensitive to that kind of abuse and could not…

I was teased as a kid. Some days were better than others and some others weren't so great, but the fact is that from the time I entered first grade through high school graduation, there was something in me which drew the jibes, catcalls and slanders from my fellow students. Somehow I was different, though exactly how I had no idea back then. This whole business was made worse by the fact that for a great deal of that time, I was hyper-sensitive to that kind of abuse and could not control my reactions to it. Quite naturally, this only encouraged my assailants to pursue my goat all the more energetically and frequently with similar levels of success. I was well into my adult years before I had even begun to get a handle on how to face such attacks and recognize them for the incoherent noise that they were.

 More recently we've seen the advent of political correctness, the attempts to soften speech in consideration for those who don't deal well with unfiltered reality, with harsh facts or people. We hear terms like "safe spaces" and pejoratives such as "special snowflakes" with regard to couching solutions for those who find the latent or blatant hostility around them too much to bear.

 Obviously, I know something about that. At the risk of recycling an old trope: been there, done that, the t-shirt's a rag. Back when I had to plow through the slings and arrows proffered by my fellows, the PC concept was as non-existent as any organized program with the goal of countering bullying behavior. The kids who heckled me didn't give a damn about how I felt about their harassment, and any downside to their behavior never reached my awareness. In fact, when confronted with my situation, most of the school's teachers and administrators acknowledged that they were largely powerless to take any meaningful action which would put an end to their behavior. Worth mentioning too is the shrink I saw twice a week for too many years. Though he did his level best, I can't say that his input especially aided me or improved things much if at all. In the final analysis, I just slogged through it. It was neither easy nor painless, and yeah, there were plenty of scars, but I survived.

 Reflecting on all of this, I realize that I have been a long time learning the following two lessons:

The world is not safe.

The world cannot be made safe for everyone.

Twenty-first century Planet Earth is probably more civilized than it has been at any time in its 4.5 billion years. Violence – aggression of human against human – is at its lowest point in the history of Homo sapiens. It is entirely likely that the human race will do even better as time goes on. But … will we ever fully purge the desire or the tendency of one to act out on another, whether verbally or physically? Honestly, I am dubious.

 As for what this means for those who want the world to recognize and respect their sensitivities, all I have to say is this. Some of the world may be willing to change for them, but all of it? Never. Won't happen. Political correctness and safe spaces are short term Band-Aids at best. At some point or other, they can either learn to value themselves sufficiently and develop the strength necessary to defend against their opposition or resign themselves to living with the pain the noisemakers wish to inflict.

It's not a pretty solution ... but then it's not a safe world.
 Atheists, AA and the Human Rights Code in Canada tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-28:2182797:BlogPost:2738065 2017-02-28T10:29:39.000Z Joe C http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JoeC914
https://www.thefix.com/no-god-no-problem-atheism-aa

AA has been called "a religion in denial." AA goes out of our way to explain, "We are spiritual, not religious."

First, for many secular AA's the word "spiritual" is never used in describing addiction or recovery. Personally, I don't find the word especially useful because it can mean anything to anyone so it's hard be concrete or…

https://www.thefix.com/no-god-no-problem-atheism-aa

AA has been called "a religion in denial." AA goes out of our way to explain, "We are spiritual, not religious."

First, for many secular AA's the word "spiritual" is never used in describing addiction or recovery. Personally, I don't find the word especially useful because it can mean anything to anyone so it's hard be concrete or descriptive with a word three or four people wouldn't agree on it's meaning.

Secondly, the secular AA meeting directory has grown from under 100 in 2000 to nearly 400 worldwide in 2017. That's not too exciting when contrasted against the ubiquitous nature of AA and it's 117,000 meetings worldwide.

Secular AA meetings for atheists and agnostics offer mutual aid without prayer and some of the more dogmatic and ritualistic practices of a typical AA gathering. In major North American cities you can go to a secular AA group any day of the week but for alcoholic atheists wanting the AA abstinence route in small town USA, they might have to rely on an online secular AA community.

This Fix story chronicles a case tyranny of the majority.

Most of Toronto's AA members are theistic although not many of them identify with the church of their upbringing. In 2011 the more religious Toronto AAs rallied to vote out the atheist, godless AA groups which, it turns out, didn't win them the support of either AA's General Service Office in New York or favor with the legal system when a complaint of discrimination was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In Canada, even if AA had a rule that members had to believe in some deity - a rule that AA does not have - accommodation has to be made for atheist members and groups who want the services of AA but who don't rely on supernatural intervention as part of their recovery from addiction.

The disruption, as it turns out, may have done more good than harm for the local godless prayerless AA meetings. While there were two groups that were delisted in 2011, there are 15 meetings in southern Ontario now, most of them being in the GTA. It seems there were some closet atheists/agnostics in AA that showed their support for these meetings once they were brought to their attention.

A number of circuit courts in the USA have deemed AA religious as far as the establishment clause of the First Amendment is concerned. Is atheist AA a dirty little secret that corrections and treatment centers are kept in the dark about? It seems that more attention to AA's atheist growth could help to lift the impression many have of AA as an old-fashioned approach to behavioral health/addiction.

Toronto Joe

 Family Life Five Generations tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-26:2182797:BlogPost:2737794 2017-02-26T17:15:23.000Z Joan Denoo http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JoanDenoo
This comment reappeared on Facebook and I share it with you.

Joan Denoo

26…

This comment reappeared on Facebook and I share it with you.

Joan Denoo

26 February 2013 ·

in my family, it was not uncommon for men to have mistresses, even as they had wives at home who bore one child after another and very close together. Most women of my grandmother's era stopped having children after five or six and I asked why that was. One told me she stopped having sex after the fifth child. Tensions in her household were high and I thought it was because my grandfather had a mistress. Looking back, I think the mistress was a relief to grandma. The tension was she had full responsibility of raising their children by herself because he was always at the "Smoke Shop". Asking my other grandmother, I received the same answers and for the same reasons.
I wonder what both sets of grandparents lives would have been like if they had family planning, if they limited their children to as many as they could afford, and there were no third party intruding into their lives.

I come from a small town and everyone knew everything about everyone. One of the social gatherings was quilt making. Women of the village gathered in my grandmother's living room where a huge wooden frame was pulled up to the ceiling for storage and dropped down when they worked on patch work quilts. They chattered endlessly, I suppose like in the old days when women gathered at the well to get water and news. Their chatter implied to me some commonalities: they all had more children than they could care for, all the husbands spent time at the "Smoke Shop", and when the wives became tired or ill or frustrated they would complain and get a very hard slap, if not a beating. I remember a lot of black eyes, bruised arms, and weeping and wailing. Nothing ever changed for any of them until they were dead and buried.

For my mother's generation, the Great Depression was coming to an end, WWII was building up, until all the men, except for a very few who farmed or worked in the grain elevators, went to war or went to construction jobs to build air fields and military bases around the world. My father and all but one of my uncles left; women took over the businesses, shops, banking, and provided goods and services to our community. Many women moved to the cities to work in factories or fill positions vacated by absent men gone to war. They didn't have the pill yet, but these women had much smaller families. After the war, they wanted to become homemakers but inflation made it impossible. Women started going to work for wages, My mother and many others returned to school for professional training. Returning soldiers wanted their wives doing their domestic work and do paid work as they could. It didn't take long for working mothers wearing out from the double load. An old tradition remained alive in the culture. Whine and complain, take a beating, forgive, and repeat and repeat and repeat. Husbands wanting stay-at-home wives and frustrated when dinner wasn't ready or clothes weren't clean and they would turn to the method of control they learned from their fathers. Unresolved conflict remained, ancient methods of dealing with frustration remained.

My generation is the generation of the pill and of paid work for women and shared work with fathers. Husbands tried to use beatings to regain control over wives and wives said "NO". We simply left, finding no benefit in marriage. In fact, it is a barrier to happiness and health for many women. Dependent women need marriage; independent women don't chose it out of need, but out of desire for companionship.

We enter a new era. What of the old traditions are worthy of carrying forward and which should be dropped. Perhaps family life will strengthen, at least that is what is happening in my children's generation. Their families seem to work as teams, not as master and slaves. Children seem happier, doing very well at the hard sciences and I enjoy learning from them. "Great-grandchild, help me figure out this computer, please!"
From my perspective, life is getting far better for women ... and I hope for men.

 Why Are Atheists So Toxic? tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-25:2182797:BlogPost:2737411 2017-02-25T02:16:54.000Z Teagraves http://atheistnexus.org/profile/Teagraves
I see this question asked by religious folk frequently. I do disagree with some of the harsher anti-religious sentiments, at least as far as tone is concerned, but I understand exactly where those attitudes come from. Christians (speaking from the USA) have a harder time seeing the hold their religion has on our society and the actual harm it can do. When they are faced with the topic of crimes and abuses committed by other Christians, I commonly hear that the perpetrators were not "true…

I see this question asked by religious folk frequently. I do disagree with some of the harsher anti-religious sentiments, at least as far as tone is concerned, but I understand exactly where those attitudes come from. Christians (speaking from the USA) have a harder time seeing the hold their religion has on our society and the actual harm it can do. When they are faced with the topic of crimes and abuses committed by other Christians, I commonly hear that the perpetrators were not "true Christians."

What is a true Christian? If a person, even if they are a criminal or an abuser (or, heck, just a run-of-the-mill wacko), professes belief in Jesus as the son of God and the savior of humanity, and accepts the Bible, then are they not a Christian? The same people who are quick to point out that others are not true Christians are, more often than not, just as quick to point out the beliefs of other wrongdoers - Muslims and so-called "Satanists," for example. All people are capable of committing crimes, regardless of belief, but those who commit them in the name of their religion should not be ignored or brushed off as "not true believers." Just as it provides light and hope to some, there is a dark side to religion that people should acknowledge, too.

So back to the question of why atheists are so "toxic." When religious people lurk in atheist groups and spaces, it can certainly seem that way to them. But we speak so harshly because these areas are some of the only places that we CAN. Some among us have been hurt and abused by religion and religious people. Many see the religious attempting, at the expense of other people, to impose their standards of morality on others through law and social norms. Why are we told we need to "respect the beliefs of others" when ours are denigrated?

These areas are for us to freely vent our frustrations, as well as share our experiences with others of like mind. Atheists should not have to be polite about religion even in a space made for themselves. Certainly people should be able to freely believe what they like in their homes and in their hearts, but that doesn't mean religion should be free from criticism, and it doesn't mean religion is 100% good all the time. Nothing is.
 Me + weed tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-23:2182797:BlogPost:2737342 2017-02-23T12:25:23.000Z Gwen http://atheistnexus.org/profile/Gwen670 I was a bad student. I didn't really learn how to read until I was 8 and was defensive that I was stupid. I was hyper, had crazy add and didn't act right It continued pretty much until high school I was drinking and did not give a fuck.

 When I first cupple of times tried weed I didn't get high. I didn't know how to smoke it. One day I was smoking in a group and one of the guys noticed I was a noob and taught me the propper way. He was very nice about it. When I got high my brain felt like it… I was a bad student. I didn't really learn how to read until I was 8 and was defensive that I was stupid. I was hyper, had crazy add and didn't act right It continued pretty much until high school I was drinking and did not give a fuck.

 When I first cupple of times tried weed I didn't get high. I didn't know how to smoke it. One day I was smoking in a group and one of the guys noticed I was a noob and taught me the propper way. He was very nice about it. When I got high my brain felt like it was slowing down but not in a feeling dumb type of way but more like a relief. Even when I got paranoid it felt good too because it was in a get your shit together type of way. I was on my way to not even graduate HS. It felt mad embarrassing.

 When I was finally getting my shit together I found a teacher who found out that I was dyslexic. It made sense and she told me alot of people have it and still were successful. I was getting high consistently because it slowed down the world for me. I graduated HS on time with my peers even tho it was a bit of a struggle. I even saw a girl on youtube who was abusing herself until she started using weed medically. Its crazy that a drug so helpful to people that people still demonize. The counter intuitive nature of the universe tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-23:2182797:BlogPost:2737181 2017-02-23T11:15:37.000Z BenGee http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JesseBGardner
First I would like to note that I'm still working on Part 2 of what is science, since a strong understanding of what is evidence, and how one weighs various forms of evidence, and separates evidence from falsehoods is so important I am taking my time with it to ensure I get the best quality and highest accuracy that I can (while hopefully still making it fun and enjoyable for you all). Thank you John Elder for suggesting I read Carl Sagan while I work on…

First I would like to note that I'm still working on Part 2 of what is science, since a strong understanding of what is evidence, and how one weighs various forms of evidence, and separates evidence from falsehoods is so important I am taking my time with it to ensure I get the best quality and highest accuracy that I can (while hopefully still making it fun and enjoyable for you all). Thank you John Elder for suggesting I read Carl Sagan while I work on this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Life would be easy if we lived in a world where we could sit back, and think about things, and have all the answers because everything would be intuitive and easy. Why learn math? Why study language? Why learn anything at all, after all if you sit down and think about it clearly those ideas in your head are proof that what you are thinking is correct. I mean clearly this is the case since it makes so much sense. Right?

You could even take observations, a crack in a rock here, something that looks like a long dead tree there, or even how magnets can levitate objects. These are things you can see, they are easy to understand. So clearly they must be correct. Only a real idiot would ever accept the concept that reality is often counter intuitive. Only a moron would tell me that something I can see with my own eye's is likely anecdotal or I'm missing a complete understanding of the principles involved. Right?

Unfortunately there are many counter intuitive realities in the world. Reason and logic alone will not give you an accurate view of reality. It's great for philosophy but its not enough to create an accurate model of reality. Science is about reality, understanding it, measuring it, and testing it to ensure we have an accurate understanding of reality. Reason is an imperative part of Science, however those who think they can understand the universe without math are simply wrong. Without math we have no method to accurately test reality. Those things that seem true we would think are true, and we would not possess the tools to falsify our most basic intuitions. It is a common contention among those who would push pseudoscience, they make claims about how difficult math and science are, therefor they must be wrong. Then they postulate a claim that they say makes sense so it must be right. When countered with real science they throw out the preponderance of evidence, obtusely ignoring anything they don't like or can't understand.

Some examples of counter intuitive ideas and beliefs can be found at the links below

4Business Insider- Counter Intuitive Math Examples

Some guy's blog with interesting thoughts (I recomend checking out his other pages too, not just the one directly linked especially this)

Forbes- More examples of counter intuitive ideas

To be very blunt if you sat in your arm chair and read a cute story and thought for a while, without checking the math, without creating falsifiable tests, without looking deeper, educating yourself, or consulting experts, then you simply are highly unlikely to come even close to an accurate model of reality. If you tell others that unlocking the secrets of the universe and the very nature of reality can be achieved simply through internal thought and reflection, then you're not only wrong, but you're also causing tangible harm to those gullible enough to listen to you. Such behavior and baseless claims certainly should have no place here I think.

If it were that easy, first, the universe would be wholly internally inconsistent, as NO ONE would come up with the exact same ideas. Reality isn't subjective. It simply is, regardless of who looks at it. This allows us to measure reality, this is where math comes in. Reason is great, however we can still reason and make logically consistent models that are wholly inconsistent with reality. Most pseudoscience bullshit can't even be bothered to make logically consistent claims, but it is still possible to do so and be wrong. Without math and measurement we could never verify any facts.

Perhaps this is why those who claim flat earth, electric universe, young earth creation, climate science denial must resort to conspiracy theories and attacking others. In science we don't care if you can prove someone else is wrong, its not important at all. The only thing that matters, can you prove your claim is correct. Is your claim falsifiable, can anyone/everyone test these claims and get consistent results. This is at the core of science and the peer review process.

What do you think and why do you think it. What do you believe and why do you believe it. What is your evidence. Is your claim falsifiable. Those are the only things anyone with a hypothesis that wants to be taken seriously should be focused on. Those are the only way's they will ever be able to win. Instead they attack others, insult others, and make up wild world wide conspiracies. It's kinda pathetic. And each of these can't even be bothered to come up with new arguments, new material. They've all been sharing the same debunked lies, fallacious arguments, and refusal to acknowledge facts they don't like for hundreds of years, probably longer.
 "Damn universe; it's not obeying my math!" And then a segue to power. tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-23:2182797:BlogPost:2736736 2017-02-23T07:37:46.000Z tom sarbeck http://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomSarbeck
Those seven quoted words, together with America's religiosity during the 1920s, explain the battle between two models of the universe, the gravitational (Big Bang, or BB) model and the electric universe (EU) model.

 Be advised that knowing the stuff before the segue will not help you pay the rent or even feed your pet gerbil. The stuff after the segue, if you choose to learn and use it, may help you pay more than the rent, feed more than one pet gerbil, and make you a leader in…

Those seven quoted words, together with America's religiosity during the 1920s, explain the battle between two models of the universe, the gravitational (Big Bang, or BB) model and the electric universe (EU) model.

 Be advised that knowing the stuff before the segue will not help you pay the rent or even feed your pet gerbil. The stuff after the segue, if you choose to learn and use it, may help you pay more than the rent, feed more than one pet gerbil, and make you a leader in your community as it did me.

 You chose to stay? Ok.

 I like to compare the pulling power of our earth's gravity with the pulling power of a tiny magnet. On or near earth and its moon, gravity predominates. Out in space, among stars for instance, electromagnetism is billions of times stronger than gravity.

 How much stronger?

 In words, electromagnetism is a thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times stronger. In numerals, picture a one followed by thirty nine zeroes. It's

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger.

DO NOT FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF BY SHORT CIRCUITING AN ELECTRIC WALL PLUG IN YOUR HOME!

 I illustrate the difference by placing five steel coat hangers on a table. Gravity keeps them there. I then use a tiny magnet (the size of my thumb nail) to snatch the coat hangers away from gravity. Consider the relative sizes of the magnet and the earth.

 The question is, does the universe obey man-made math, or is man-made math a tool that can at best approximate the universe? A tool we can put away when we don't need it?

Does it matter?

Only if multiple billions of dollars per year in taxpayer money matter.

In 1957 the USSR put a man into earth orbit. The money started flowing when America's leaders realized the USSR could use the same vehicle to put weapons into orbit. Some of the money made possible major improvements in science and math education. America is still benefiting from that.

Some of the money funded and is still funding the Big Bang fraud.
 An amazing overview of my favorite show of all time. tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-20:2182797:BlogPost:2736771 2017-02-20T04:25:44.000Z BenGee http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JesseBGardner
Cowboy Bebop,

A Japanese animation with 24 episodes and 1 movie, that I first saw as a kid. It quickly became immortalized within my heart upon viewing the final frame of the final episode. In the moment of the "protagonists" death a message is left for the viewer. Against a black screen in white letters, instead of "to be continued..." It says simply, "You're gonna carry that weight.

I've tried to explain how important this show is to me in the past with friends, and…

Cowboy Bebop,

A Japanese animation with 24 episodes and 1 movie, that I first saw as a kid. It quickly became immortalized within my heart upon viewing the final frame of the final episode. In the moment of the "protagonists" death a message is left for the viewer. Against a black screen in white letters, instead of "to be continued..." It says simply, "You're gonna carry that weight.

I've tried to explain how important this show is to me in the past with friends, and even family. I simply lacked the words to do it justice. However someone has accomplished what I never could. I would like to share that here and now.

Cowboy Bebop- The meaning of nothing
 Is gravity weaker than magnetism (or electromagnetism) tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-19:2182797:BlogPost:2736739 2017-02-19T10:30:00.000Z BenGee http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JesseBGardner
So, fun little experiment. Take an electromagnet and a piece of metal (or even just a regular magnet and some metal), place them close together and watch the metal "stick" to the magnet. You can have some fun making the metal move, and even suspend the metal in air.

HOLY SHIT YOU JUST DEFEATED GRAVITY!!!! woooo! this must mean that magnetic forces are billions upon billions upon billions times more powerful than gravity right? Eh, not really.

(Also claims that…

So, fun little experiment. Take an electromagnet and a piece of metal (or even just a regular magnet and some metal), place them close together and watch the metal "stick" to the magnet. You can have some fun making the metal move, and even suspend the metal in air.

HOLY SHIT YOU JUST DEFEATED GRAVITY!!!! woooo! this must mean that magnetic forces are billions upon billions upon billions times more powerful than gravity right? Eh, not really.

(Also claims that magnetic forces are billions upon billions ect times more powerful than gravity have no basis in realty at all, they are simply erroneous assertions from a fantasy filled mind. The actual numbers and calculations can be found at Khan Academy a link is provided below)

Something important about magnets, first they are incredibly weak, and their power diminishes the further apart they are from the object you want to interact with. Basically they can be pretty strong IF you're standing right next to one. However the effect quickly diminishes. If you'd like to see a real world example go to a hospital, find an MRI machine while it's on and see how close you need to be before the watch rips off your arm and sticks to the machine (be prepared to be sued if you break their machine). You'll see however after a relatively short distance there will be no noticeable effect at all from the electromagnet.

These calculations aren't that hard to figure out if you want to learn a bit of math, if not you'll fall easy prey to stupid pseudoscience nonsense. If you're interested in understanding it, Khan academy has a great video here.

The important thing to remember that the strength of the attraction diminishes as an inverse proportion to the distance between the two objects. These principles are very well known, very easily demonstrated, understood and proven. In fact its so solid its a natural law! Coulombs Law, happens to be the one you'd want to look up if you want to understand the phenomena. The attractive force can be easily measured and is very precise, and it's something we HAVE to understand for a large number of technological inventions to even exist.

The interesting thing however is Gravity works in a slightly different method, if in fact the claim that magnetism was billions of times stronger than gravity was true we'd have a number of problems. First if gravity had the same effect on us as it does on planets we'd never be able to jump, or even walk. Bit of a bummer if that were true. Thankfully it's not. The thing about gravity is its power of attraction is dependent on the mass of the objects involved, this is why magnetism can "overcome" gravity in limited situations. If we increased the masses involved however Gravity would win over electromagnetic attraction. Gravity has an effect on each of us in direct proportion to the relative masses involved. The same extends to planets which have much larger masses than most humans (I mean.... there's some pretty fat humans, but.... I'm pretty sure NO ONE has as much mass as a celestial body). For this reason you can walk run and jump AND the planets can stay in orbit at the same time. If we were as big as Mars and as close to the Earth as we currently are we'd squish right into the planet. It wouldn't be much fun, good thing Mars isn't that close.

Another important thing to understand is just like space ships and satellites celestial bodies are essentially "falling" around each other. If we hadn't learned how this mechanism works we would never have been able to put satellites in geosynchronous orbit around earth, in fact we'd never be able to keep satellites in orbit at all. Also if objects were kept in space by "electric plasma" or whatever bullshit EU wants to put forward, well we also could not keep satellites in place. The mechanisms behind magnetic attraction are quite different than the mechanisms of gravity, either the pull would be too strong plummeting our satellites to earth, or too weak. The problem is there's no mathematical model where you could replace electromagnets with gravity and have things work here on earth, at the level of satellites, at the level of the moon, and at the level of celestial bodies such as mars and the sun. The calculations to understand magnetism are no mystery to us, they are so well known we have laws to describe it. If we were to make magnetism strong enough to hold a planet in place the iron in your blood would sink to the center of the Earth. Sounds unpleasant to say the least.

Now all of this debunk is kinda surface level so far, the reality goes way deeper than I could prolly fit into a single blog post. But the information, and evidence is out there for anyone to find. And there's a shit ton of it. Logic alone can blow EU pseudoscience out of the water if one were to but apply just a little thought to the subject, rather than blindly accepting its bullshit claims. I will continue my research and blog and debunk of EU as apparently its become necessary, just like we have to continually fact check Flat Earthers and Young Earth Creationists and Climate Science Deniers. The funny thing is all of those positions make the same mistakes, there's literally no reason if you accept any one of them that you shouldn't by extension accept all the others. Unless of course you engage in a special pleading fallacy.

Once again I offer NO defense or support for Big Bang, simply a thorough debunk of EU. One of the problems is nailing down exactly what the claim is that's being made, the more specific one gets with their Hypothesis the easier it is to disprove EU. There's literally no end to the problems with EU, its a completely impossible hypothesis, Just like Flat Earth. I opted to avoid getting to heavy into the math, but it is available and not that hard too understand if one simply tries. I could write an encyclopedia alone just on a debunk of how wrong this one claim of EU is, its that bad. So its hard to nail down the perfect debunk. Because of this I'll provide more as it becomes needed.

Additional reading material

More additional reading material
 I've been waylaid with a pressing question that needs answers. tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-19:2182797:BlogPost:2736730 2017-02-19T03:21:23.000Z BenGee http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JesseBGardner
I was watching a video and again confronted with something that has bothered me for years. So I wrote the maker of the video in the hopes they might have an answer. I'll leave the letter here as well, maybe someone can finally answer my question.

Hello, I recently watched your video "Countering the Moral Argument part" 1 and 2 and was reminded of a question that has been bothering me for many years. I sincerely hope you see this message, can respond, and hopefully…

I was watching a video and again confronted with something that has bothered me for years. So I wrote the maker of the video in the hopes they might have an answer. I'll leave the letter here as well, maybe someone can finally answer my question.

Hello, I recently watched your video "Countering the Moral Argument part" 1 and 2 and was reminded of a question that has been bothering me for many years. I sincerely hope you see this message, can respond, and hopefully give me some clarity.

I heard in your reply the mention of Nihilism, in fact I've heard the topic come up countless times before throughout debates on morality. I've looked in to Friedrich Neitzsche's work, though I have not read all of it. I have also sought out any other work I can find, and yet either through some failure on my part or some other unknown factor, I have seen very little on the topic of Nihilism itself.

This bothers me on several levels for several reasons. Before I explain let me give a short description of what I understand Nihilism to be, essentially at its core that life, and the universe are meaningless. Or to put it another way that there is no intrinsic meaning in anything. This strikes me as the default position for a person to have. Ever since I was first exposed to the word Nihilist and discovered its meaning I automatically accepted that I am in fact a Nihilist. What troubles me is while I openly embrace this fact every time I hear the word Nihilism brought up in any setting its tied to concepts like Anarchy, depression, moral depravity. Yet I have never considered myself to be an Anarchist, or depressed, and although I admit openly I'm a fucking pervert, I have ethics I hold to that I think are reasonable to have and desirable and worthy to uphold. Why if the universe, government, our lives, and in everything else if there is no inherent meaning, must people become depressed, destructive, or debauched? No one has ever even proven to me that a meaningless universe is somehow a bad thing to begin with, the point is simply assumed by everyone. At least that's how it seems from my perspective.

My personal background on this and why I see things as I do starts with the moment I was "saved" and baptized, which is the exact moment I became an Atheist incidentally. Before then I assumed supernatural things must exist after all no one would have a reason to lie to me correct? I was only like 6 or 7 years old when it happened. As soon as I got home from church I reflected on what had just happened and realized one of two things, either god didn't exist, or god didn't want me. Why? because when I became saved nothing happened. I felt nothing. I asked my mom how one knows they've been saved. She said "did you pray and accept Jesus? yes, then you are saved" this was patently absurd to me. I realized instantly she didn't know if she was saved either. I spent the rest of my life living as an Atheist hiding within churches, which created a host of problems for me not relevant to this topic.

Once I accepted that god likely did not exist (or at least no one even knew or could prove he existed) the next logical conclusion was that there was no intrinsic meaning. I never bought into the notion of an afterlife as there was no reason to think such things as heaven or hell existed and often contemplated my own death. Early on this concept terrified me, yet I continued to ask myself why it should scare me. I eventually realized that though I was not afraid of being dead (after all I won't know I'm dead so why should it bother me), my fear was that I had so many things I wanted to do, and not nearly enough time to accomplish all my desires and dreams. In that realization, I found my raison d'etre, to fulfill any and all potential I may have within me while I yet live. Admittedly I've sucked at accomplishing much of anything despite my best efforts. However, wallowing in self-pity will accomplish nothing, so I simply reflect on my mistakes analyze the situation and press forward. I find most justifications and standards for secular humanism, and secular morality to be quite agreeable. More importantly I've never seen any evidence at all that Christians do not choose their morality any differently than I do, except for their hanging onto a rather reprehensible book to justify some really shitty ethical standards.

So, my question is this, why is Nihilism a bad thing? Am I mistaken in assuming I am in fact a Nihilist? Am I a bad person for thinking the way i do? Why is the stance on Nihilism not better explained? I can't think of any further questions at this time, I'm just a lowly computer science major without the qualifications or tools needed to fully answer these questions. It seems you have studied these topics at length, so I hope you can help.

 Trans tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-16:2182797:BlogPost:2736062 2017-02-16T18:30:00.000Z Plinius http://atheistnexus.org/profile/Plinius
I´ve always thought of partner and myself as an ordinary hetero couple, even if my attention often wandered to women. Perhaps we still are the ordinary couple, but things can suddenly change in unexpected ways, even for people of over sixty.

On Januari 1 of this year we were still drinking wine with a couple of neighbours when our neighbour put off her wig in the overheated room - she is still in transition. Rien, who is usually not very spontaneous put on her wig, and suddenly all…

I´ve always thought of partner and myself as an ordinary hetero couple, even if my attention often wandered to women. Perhaps we still are the ordinary couple, but things can suddenly change in unexpected ways, even for people of over sixty.

On Januari 1 of this year we were still drinking wine with a couple of neighbours when our neighbour put off her wig in the overheated room - she is still in transition. Rien, who is usually not very spontaneous put on her wig, and suddenly all three of us looked at him. Unasked for he said to me "................................., but I´ll be the same partner to you." and I wondered what he had thought before the comma.

From that moment he started to experiment with make-up, tried to find women´s clothes that would fit him, he borrowed a wig and later bought one, and his average mood became really sunny. I helped him with his plans and we had great fun together.

When his padding and first set of clothes were complete he ventured outside, first with our neighbour, later with me or on his own, coming home with more clothes and completely happy.

With a breathtaking speed he reached the next step - after a little grumble about the job he sent a picture of his alter to all his colleagues and staff at his workplace. This led to some telephone talks and after that he went to his workplace as Luca.

Perhaps it´s time to ask, "What next?" but I just don´t know, I can see different possibilities from here but we´ll just have to wait and see how it all works out. Luckily I´m not afraid of change, and I know the bond between Rien/Luca and me won´t be broken. I enjoy this surprise of the year very much!
 Purpose tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-16:2182797:BlogPost:2736049 2017-02-16T09:35:02.000Z BenGee http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JesseBGardner
I mentioned in one of my comments exactly where I think I may be heading with my little corner of the blogosphere.

I've been thinking of continuing to make material, refine my work through the encouragement and feedback from all of you, and then releasing my work to a wider audience. You may wonder why I choose some of the topics that I do, considering much of it should be well known within this community, well this is why. I'm thinking about the future and working on things I…

I mentioned in one of my comments exactly where I think I may be heading with my little corner of the blogosphere.

I've been thinking of continuing to make material, refine my work through the encouragement and feedback from all of you, and then releasing my work to a wider audience. You may wonder why I choose some of the topics that I do, considering much of it should be well known within this community, well this is why. I'm thinking about the future and working on things I think I may want to take with me on my journey through life.

I am currently working on What is Science? (Can Science be a religion) Part 2 -Evidence- so please stay tuned :)

I hope you all enjoy.

and thank you all!
 Thoughts on the book, "A beginners guide to our Electric Universe" By Tom Findlay (Part 1) Revised (cleaner) tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-16:2182797:BlogPost:2736151 2017-02-16T09:00:00.000Z BenGee http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JesseBGardner
After consulting with John Elder I decided to post this on my blog, it's a more polished version of my debunk of EU. I intend to debunk the entire book, however I plan on only releasing these in chunks and well-spaced out as I do not want my personal blog to be centered around this one book of falsehoods. This is a practical application of almost every other topic I've written about in my blog, so it is relevant. However there are many more valuable and important topics I do not wish to put…

After consulting with John Elder I decided to post this on my blog, it's a more polished version of my debunk of EU. I intend to debunk the entire book, however I plan on only releasing these in chunks and well-spaced out as I do not want my personal blog to be centered around this one book of falsehoods. This is a practical application of almost every other topic I've written about in my blog, so it is relevant. However there are many more valuable and important topics I do not wish to put on hold, or detract from.

It's important to note that before we begin, in no way does this debunk of the hypothesis called Electric Universe, nor do I claim to support or promote the theory of the cosmological standard model. Also known as the "Big Bang Theory." Debunking EU in no way supports Big Bang, and disproving Big Bang would in no way offer credibility or support to EU. As the writer I make no claims to have the qualifications to back up the work of the brilliant minds who study our world. All I can do is relate the claims evidence and proof from the scientific community and apply basic logic function to it and the statements, claims and assertions in this book. I do have a reasonable grasp on Math and Physics, and as the rest of my blog is mostly on Logic and the processes by which we think and discern reality, I think you can determine for yourself the reliability of my work. To reiterate this is nothing but a debunk of this book and the Hypothesis it postulates.

Chapter 1
 Part 1

I'm starting with the flawed presentation of what the big bang theory actually is, since like young earth creationists this guy loves to make claims that sound trueish but are factually inaccurate. In short I'm starting from the beginning, Chapter 1 What the problem is (p10)

"Most of us will have heard of the Big Bang [1-1] , but what exactly was it? The name was invented in the 1900s during the time when ideas in astro-science about gravity and other things came together as the Standard Model (SM) of our universe. It was 13.7 billion (13,700,000,000) years ago that the Big Bang event is said to have started the creation of our universe. It took many millions of years for the sub-atomic particles produced as the only result of that 'explosion' to be drawn together to form atoms of gas. Then, with the assistance of gravity pulling that simple gas together, vast regions of it formed in concentrations that had shape and dimension." Source

1 The big bang did not "Start" our universe. No one claims that, the big bang is simply an answer to the question "why does the universe appear to be expanding" at least in its simplest forms and exploring the implications of that, and the evidence to support it. This claim is akin to saying "Evolution is where man came from," No evolution simply explains bio diversity over time. An Idea founded in inaccurate information is bound to only become more inaccurate as one continues. It will become clear as we go through this book how very real that concept is.

Even if the big bang happened exactly as we currently theories it in no way means that that was "the start of everything." The most one could say is it's the start of the universe as we currently know it.

I must also mention that "Astro-Science" does not appear to be at any level a real term or word used by current scientists, nor does it appear to have any historical context that I was able to find. It would appear to be a word made up by a fringe pseudoscience community that has no wider use or acceptance. (further research needed to ensure verification of this claim, but so far it appears to be the case)

Another important thing to note. The author seems to imply he knows what took place prior to the Big Bang, before the big bang there was no time, assertions of what happened prior to the big bang in this statement are totally erroneous.

I would recommend the book "A universe from nothing" by Ph.D. Lawrence Krauss for further explanation.

Part2

"It is important to appreciate how we humans tend to think. For those of us who like to think deeply, our truly limited abilities only become apparent when we attempt to consider what can be seen out there in space. We ask ourselves if we will ever be able to appreciate the fact that what we are looking at is only a tiny snapshot in time in the overall existence of our universe, whatever that scale of time may be. It is sobering to think that the best impression we can achieve would have no great relevance within a single tick of the universal clock; it would be no time at all. However, as we humans naïvely tend to do, we look out there with our current level of understanding and equipment and feel that it all does or can make sense to us. Gathering knowledge is undoubtedly among the best of pursuits, but for some of us, our know-it-all tendency goes further and leads us to think we actually do understand it all"

The author puts this section in the middle AFTER beginning with his flawed explanation of what the big bang theory is. Mistakes and flaws and failure to grasp even basic concepts is a common theme throughout this book, it seems to betray a lack of order or in thought processes and in the structure, and the presentation of ideas. More importantly seems to extend to the lack of structure even in the individual thoughts within many parts of the text.

1. The only one with a "know it all attitude" are the Young Earth Creationists, Flat Earthers, Climate Science Deniers, and Electronic Universe proselytizers. Scientist don't claim to know how the universe works, not all of it anyway. Nor do they bother with silly meaningless attempts at trying to figure out how much we do and don't know. We know the things we can prove, that's it, nothing more, nothing less. Also within all the mentioned groups you will consistently find all of the exact same logical fallacy's and bad arguments, they seem to borrow a lot from each other.

This author claims he "Can't accept it" well that's nice, an argument from ignorance, or incredulity take your pick. He goes on to write a nice fairy tale that has absolutely no evidence whatsoever. His assertions can't be proven, and in fact much of the claims made have in fact already been disproved, many of which will be provided as we continue through this book. The reader is expected, however, to choose this book over actually learning. Why? because its "easy to understand." His words, not mine. We need to remember the universe could care less what we can or can't understand. Maybe humans can learn everything in the universe, maybe we can't. It looks pretty clear anyone who buys this bullshit can't and they may never be able develop the intellectual honesty and objectivity required to be able to.

Finally, we know what we can demonstrate to be fact. That is all. If you listen to Cosmologists you will hear them say "The science seems to indicate" -Lawrence Krauss (from nearly every speech he's ever made), this is clearly not the claim of a man who thinks he knows everything, he's reserving final judgement until there is demonstrable evidence to back up what the evidence seems to indicate. As any good scientist should.

Part 3

"The seeds from which it grew were sown back in the 1700s when an understanding of the effects of the force of gravity was first developed. Scientists and astronomers welcomed this for they saw the beginnings of a 'fundamental golden theory' that they could take forward and use to develop their own lines of research."

It's important to note that the earliest forms of the peer reviewed process didn't begin until possibly 1731 (quick rough down and dirty source), and early on it's possible some people had slightly more dishonest motives in supporting Issac Newton. However, science is not decided by a fucking comity, science is decided by a cage match, a brawl a brutal and competitive fight between scientists through the peer reviewed process. Even if early on there was some dishonesty, there would be huge incentives on defeating Sir Newton inside this cage match. His model for gravity stood because despite everything, under the conditions found here on earth, they are correct. It is not the whole story however, Einstein came along and further filled out Issacs's work. This is a necessary part of how we develop knowledge over time.

Why? because science is self-correcting thanks to the methodologies it employs. It strives to be more and more accurate over time, seeing farther by standing on the shoulders of giants to paraphrase Einstein.

For example, Let's say I discover that Pi is 3.1, then someone comes along and finds that a more accurate example is 3.14, then someone else comes along and finds that a more accurate example of pie is.....3.14159265359, and we keep going until Pi extends to 1 million digits. Does that mean I was wrong? Not really, it means my answer wasn't the most accurate representation, but without it no further progress would have been made. This book postulates that simply because not EVERY prediction made by Cosmology has yet been proven, then we must throw the whole thing out and instead adopt some wild musings from a cognitive midget who has no proven predictions, no functional models, no evidence what so ever. Admittedly dear reader, I cheated, I already read to the end months ago, so I know how this story ends already.

What's really annoying is that people are forced to waste our time on this bullshit, work like this is literally stealing people's lives. We seek to correct this simply for the purpose of nurturing critical thinking skills. None of us have a lot of time on this earth, the cost in engaging people on faith based belief systems is time we don't get back. I can only hope our effort does not go wasted.

Part 4

"Through prior auto-acceptance of the major role that gravity played, other ideas associated with it were also easily accepted as scientific fact."

This is simply not true, and even if it was it simply wouldn't matter, again science is self-correcting. Remember all those folks who love to scream Piltdown man? yea..... Exactly.

(For those unaware the Piltdown man event is strong evidence of why exactly science works and remains reliable. A short synopsis on events would be, a man named Charles Dawson, and accomplices attempted to scam the scientific community with a forged fossil. Funny enough this was not the first, or last time people attempted to do this. During their studies scientists were able to discover the facts from fiction and reported Piltdown man for what it was. A scam. Young Earth Creationists love to cite this as some form of failing of science, which is a silly claim and quite untrue. Piltdown man is evidence that scientific methodology works) Source

Part 5

"Here we have Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflation, White Dwarfs, Pulsars, Neutron Stars, Magnetars, Black Holes and Nova events. There are more, but these will do for now. First I will tell you that we do not know what any of these things are supposed to look like, so the following graphics in no way represent actual physical objects or events. They are included only to help in imagining the concepts being described."

This entire line of thought is meaningless bullshit. We do not need to know or represent in the physical world what these things look like. We only need to examine and measure the effects to know they exist (think about the fact that you're breathing in something and you don't know what it looks like).

Also, we do in fact know what SOME of these things "look like" if you really didn't notice, try thinking about the objects he listed above just a little. Try harder.

Finally.... since when is "inflation" an object? and why would it need to be physically view able as an object..... I'm pretty sure you might want to check a dictionary before you start plugging a magic book to explain the origins of the universe. I mean at least put in that much effort? please?

Part 6

"He believed that by including dark matter he could account for the missing gravity that seemed to be holding things together and allowing everything to appear as it does. This extra gravity would be in addition to that already produced by the existing visible matter of galaxies and the 'super-massive Black Holes' that were imagined to exist at their centres. So, when all the gravity was added up the result was made to suit the requirements of the mathematician's calculations and so everyone was happy. Zwicky had come up with an explanation for the missing amount of gravity, one that was very acceptable to the astro-science community of the day because it explained the things they had come to believe. Interestingly, however, Zwicky's dark matter just happened to be invisible and totally undetectable. So, in the eyes of those few on the outside who saw this as a problem, the idea of dark matter appeared to be just a 'convenient fix'."

First I must point out, I'm aware editing one's own work can be a challenge, but please, please, please, if you're going to call this thing a book, hire an editor so you can at least get the spelling mistakes out of the book. Please? I know you as an author can't do anything about the poorly formed ideas and sentences. Or the disorganized thought processes reflective in your writing. But at least remove the spelling errors. Please? I honestly began correcting the errors in this book automatically before I realized I was fixing quoted text and not my own work! Thank you, moving on.

Ok this made me face-palm so hard I almost gave myself a concussion. First, no one "invented" dark matter, or dark energy. Just like the air you're breathing right now we could see its effects so we knew something was there, we measured it, we made models, predictions, and tests to verify and validate, and we labeled those things that we still don't really know what they are (outside of knowing what their effects are) "dark matter" and "dark energy" The scientist could have just as easily named the stuff "hairy ball matter" and "weird tit juice" and it wouldn't change a thing.

The name doesn't mean shit, what it looks like doesn't mean shit, the only thing that matters is that it's effects can be observed and measured. As we continue to grow learn and gain more accurate methods of measurement, we may answer the unanswered questions. But the existence of unanswered questions isn't a problem for science, it's only a problem to faith based and pseudo-science beliefs.

Part 7

"Dark Energy is a name coined in 1998 by the American cosmologist Michael Turner. This invention was required after the introduction of dark matter in order to counter a problem that had arisen from further observations and a subsequent period of great embarrassment."

Embarrassment? really? no dude no one needs to be embarrassed, hell if they were completely wrong about both things there would be no need for embarrassment. The only embarrassment comes in from those who push lies and bullshit and try to sell them as science. Honest mistakes and failures are expected in science and its totally ok. We keep working on the problems heading where the evidence leads and learning and growing. EU folks on the other hand sit on their collective asses write utterly stupid error riddled books that are frankly agonizing to read, then claim to know everything, and expect to be taken seriously.

Part 8

"This was a 'great discovery' for it fitted very well with Zwicky's idea of dark matter. So together, these two 'dark entities' were able to make up the invisible 96% of matter that previously could not be accounted for. No trace of any of this dark stuff has ever been found, even though our best equipment and lots of scientists have been funded to look for it over many decades. It is abundantly clear now that both varieties of dark stuff were invented purely to save the gravity model of the universe."

Ugh anyone remember when people started screaming about "missing links"? yes this is the exact same bullshit recycled and re branded for Cosmology. And just like with evolution when they likely find a way to quantify things to the point even a 3rd grader can understand it, EU folks will still be denying science just like Young Earth Creationists deny evolution. This is why reading this shit is so annoying. It's the same old shit recycled from belief system to belief system. None of these nutters can come up with anything new. Ever. Frankly its boring, try harder.
 What is Science? (Can Science be a religion) Part 1 tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-15:2182797:BlogPost:2735610 2017-02-15T01:30:00.000Z BenGee http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JesseBGardner
I wasn't feeling up to tackling this all in one go, so here's the first half, I'll try and finish the rest tomorrow.

You know I talk a lot about pseudoscience, and why many pseudo-scientific belief systems are clearly bullshit. But to quote so many people I've talked to "How do you know?" I mean, "How can you be sure you're correct?," I mean after all, "Isn't Science just another belief system?"

Now to be clear, I don't like the word belief. Fuck belief I don't…

I wasn't feeling up to tackling this all in one go, so here's the first half, I'll try and finish the rest tomorrow.

You know I talk a lot about pseudoscience, and why many pseudo-scientific belief systems are clearly bullshit. But to quote so many people I've talked to "How do you know?" I mean, "How can you be sure you're correct?," I mean after all, "Isn't Science just another belief system?"

Now to be clear, I don't like the word belief. Fuck belief I don't believe in a god damn thing. I'm not joking about this. I accept somethings as fact because enough evidence points in that direction, at any time new evidence could override my position. Not lying, show me evidence and I'll instantly re-evaluate and modify ANY position. Provided i'm actually given evidence to look at (I intend to include what IS evidence and what IS bullshit posing as evidence and why we accept one and laugh at the other). If I haven't modified my position after hearing someone's claim, it's because the person providing "evidence" is just passing along garbage. More importantly I can explain WHY its garbage. My problem with belief is that it implies I'm more attached to a thought or idea than I should be.(*) The only idea I'm reasonably well attached to is proven, demonstrable methodologies for uncovering factual evidence about the universe.... SCIENCE. I only accept it because it can be proven. The moment it stops being reliable I'll abandon it, Not before.

So what is science exactly?

It can be defined as, "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Source

Dig a little deeper you find the most important fundamental principle behind how we conduct science, why it works and how we know it is reliable can be found in one place. Methodology. This is often at the foundation of pseudo-scientific flaws. As we attempted to discover the nature of the universe, as we have taken measurements scientists also needed to find ways to ensure that what they learn is factual, reflective of reality and reliable. Why did they do this? Well imagine what life would be like if the underlying physics we use to build airplane's was not accurate or reliable. We know things are true because we test them and apply them. It's not just shit we think up or imagine. This is one of the most fundamental failing of those who advocate, Flat Earth, Electronic Universe, and Young Earth Creation, to only name a few. They think we are arrogant because they can't understand how it works, so they falsely postulate that we must just be pulling this shit out of our asses. Not so, but as a result of their false assumptions they end up pulling their shit out of their asses and think it needs to be placed on the same level. Why? well its all the same right? No, not really, its just not the same at all.

So we apply science to understand, measure, and define the universe. However what is science? Well at its core it's nothing more than the best practices and methodologies we use which we have demonstrated to be the most accurate ways to understand the universe. It's all about the methodology. That's it. It's fucking that easy folks.

(*) Editited thanks to a brilliant, and thoughtful suggestion from Bertold Brautigan

 "Mistakes" in science tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-13:2182797:BlogPost:2735564 2017-02-13T20:30:00.000Z BenGee http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JesseBGardner
So many science deniers, pseudo science advocates, and religious apologists try to claim that Science has "made mistakes"

They imply that since science isn't always right, so all of it is subject to suspicion, and their hypothesis is clearly correct because its easier to understand.

Statements like, "I simply can't believe that everything in the universe fit into something smaller than a pinhead," are nothing more than an argument from ignorance, or an argument…

So many science deniers, pseudo science advocates, and religious apologists try to claim that Science has "made mistakes"

They imply that since science isn't always right, so all of it is subject to suspicion, and their hypothesis is clearly correct because its easier to understand.

Statements like, "I simply can't believe that everything in the universe fit into something smaller than a pinhead," are nothing more than an argument from ignorance, or an argument from incredulity fallacy.

If we take reality to be a single location in a 3 dimensional universe. We could label it the "truth" as so many love to do; you'll have pseudoscience, and religion shooting off in very random nonsensical directions. They don't really understand what direction their belief has them heading in, they simply accept it because they think its oh so much easier to understand than say..... Math.

On the other hand you have science, science doesn't fire off in a direction, instead its more like a spiral, always self correcting, and challenging itself to become more accurate over time until it will eventually and inevitably reach it's destination. Through self correction, always increasing accuracy, and following the evidence that can be demonstrated, we can be reasonably confident we will end up in the right location. These are the only reasons science is reliable. It is also what the other "methods" that attempt to work out the universe lack.

Now in reality there is no plot-able "truth" the world just isn't that simple, its a silly notion people buy into that there's one easy to understand "truth" that explains "everything." It's effectively meaningless gibberish, and people over simplifying things like this are another part of the problem. To me the world is filled with nuisance, anyone who seems to see things in "black and white" are automatically suspect to me. The answer to most questions is "Yes and no," it's sad that people hate that answer so much. I understand they hate it cause they don't want to think, they want a simple yes or no so they won't have to learn, grow or work at understanding anything.

Regardless of the pseudoscience woo factor being peddled i inevitably get reminded of the young earth creationist saying "LOOK AT PILTDOWN MAN," not realizing that piltdown man is in fact evidence that science works. If you point out something that seems to be a mistake, or something in which science hasn't "found evidence for yet," think about Evolution example. in the early days people also said there was "no" evidence for evolution, ignoring that the evidence did in fact point towards it. They made claims that there were "No missing links" and early on they were correct, but given time and continually improving methodology, missing links were provided. Even after such evidence was provided, and demonstrated to be reality, they still insist on ignoring the facts. In order to fight against a round earth, or cosmology, one would have to ignore TONS of evidence pointing in the direction scientists currently operate in. People may site one or two failed experiments when in reality it bears no significant meaning at all, we already know we're looking in the correct general direction based on what we DO know to be factual. So trying to point to one or two things that have not yet been explained does NOT automatically mean we should throw the whole thing out. Nor is it cause to be suspect of the entire thing.
 Flat Earth, Young Earth Creationists, and all other Pseudo Science nonsense tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-13:2182797:BlogPost:2735474 2017-02-13T08:00:00.000Z BenGee http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JesseBGardner
Cards on the table time, if you disagree with ANY scientific field of study (or all of them), you do not have to disprove their hypothesis or theory. You really don't need to attack evolution, cosmology, the theory of gravity, the laws of the conservation of energy. You don't have to disprove a damn thing.

Pretty cool huh?

All you have to do is prove your alternative hypothesis. That's literally all you have to…

Cards on the table time, if you disagree with ANY scientific field of study (or all of them), you do not have to disprove their hypothesis or theory. You really don't need to attack evolution, cosmology, the theory of gravity, the laws of the conservation of energy. You don't have to disprove a damn thing.

Pretty cool huh?

All you have to do is prove your alternative hypothesis. That's literally all you have to do.

Attacking the work of others is a pointless, frustrating, a pathetic waste of energy for yourself, and all you suck in and get involved.

If you can prove your hypothesis guess what? YOU WIN! A NOBEL PRIZE!!!!!!! pretty sweet huh?

Understand that if you can "disprove" evolution, the round earth, cosmology, electricity, gravity, chemistry, biology, all physics, you've still failed. Disproving anything does not by extension prove anything about any claim you make. It's kinda pointless and meaningless and not worth perusing if your goal is to promote an alternative. Just because science is sometimes wrong does not mean you are correct. The burden of proof is on you to prove your position, not make constant digs at other people's proven work. If it's accepted it's not because some people won a debate. That's not how science works, it means the preponderance of evidence points in that direction. It does not mean that we know everything, we're simply following the evidence. Or as Tucan Sam used to say "Follow your nose"

(Please note if you CAN disprove highly established things in science you will often, by necessity, disprove other parts of science. If you can do that you can potentially prove computers really are magic, or don't exist. I'd really like to see you try to prove computers don't exist. The reason is simple, the theories and laws that define the universe are used in the creation of technology, if science was wrong about almost everything, which would be required to accept any of the pseudoscience positions I have mentioned in my writings, then we would have never invented MOST of the luxuries you have today. That's a fact. Get over it)

If you're going to dig at other people's work at least lay the facts on the table. I'm not talking about conspiracy junk, about how reporters are about as cognitively underdeveloped as the audience they report to. I'm talking show the data that proves your position. What you think and why you think it is the only real thing that matters here.

The frustrating thing about apologetic is they know not to get nailed down, they won't admit what they believe, they'll be dishonest that way. That way even if they can't prove they are correct, they can constantly pretend that you're losing. "Well I don't believe in _______ so why are you creating a straw man against me?"

(well the reason is you said you support young earth creation, but then refused to say what you mean by that, there for your opponent was forced to argue what people know about young earth creation since that's all they must work with).

If you don't openly state your hypothesis you're being dishonest and your opponent's can not actually debate you, which of course is the point.

You lay your faith based belief out there and I promise you I will try to debunk it, and that's ok. If you're correct I'll find that out. If it stands up to scrutiny and can't be debunked that still doesn't prove it correct though. You still must make models, predictions and prove it for it to be accepted. If you're so sure you're right why won't you openly explain your hypothesis in full let other's try to debunk you? This is at the crux of what differentiates science from fanciful imagination. Everyone is free to challenge science. There's no secret conspiracy, I spent half my life in bio labs, I know a few other's here who can say the same. No one's who's been exposed has seen evidence of a conspiracy. Why is that?

If your hypothesis is sound and can be demonstrated to be true, then it will be accepted. Regardless of what you've been brainwashed into believing. If it can't be proven, that's not because mean old scientists won't let you join their club. It's because you're wrong. GET OVER IT. Either give up, or go back to the drawing board and find out why you are wrong and fix it. Educate yourself. That's how science works, it's not faith based, it's not a religion, its simply what you can prove to be so. Your methodology must be sound, your logic must be sound, your data has to be correct. Anything else is straight up a lie.

The Scientific standard is straight forward and easy to understand like that. Yet it is a high bar to pass, for a reason. We live we deal with reality. Indulging in fantasy is not productive.

 Thoughts on pseudoscience tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-07:2182797:BlogPost:2734464 2017-02-07T18:00:00.000Z BenGee http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JesseBGardner
Feedback is always encouraged.

For one to make room for a pseudo-scientific belief they must ignore or change natural laws, the math, those things which serve as the foundations for scientific study. If we allow such an exception to accept a pseudo-scientific belief. Logical consistency and intellectual integrity would by extension require we carry those same exceptions into other fields of study. Fields which depend on the consistent, and reliable…

Feedback is always encouraged.

For one to make room for a pseudo-scientific belief they must ignore or change natural laws, the math, those things which serve as the foundations for scientific study. If we allow such an exception to accept a pseudo-scientific belief. Logical consistency and intellectual integrity would by extension require we carry those same exceptions into other fields of study. Fields which depend on the consistent, and reliable nature of reality to exist.

To put it plainly, to accept a pseudo-scientific belief is to accept a world in which the computer you are likely using to read these words could not exist. This is the extreme level of cognitive dissonance required by those who would deny science.
 Sunday Morning Christians tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-02:2182797:BlogPost:2733743 2017-02-02T00:08:53.000Z Milo Coots http://atheistnexus.org/profile/MiloCoots
I'd like to think that I came from a typical American family. We had a roof over our heads, although it was cramped at times. We had clothes to wear, but rarely anything brand name. We routinely had doctor and dentist visits. We always had enough to eat, thanks to my dad's hard work and later, my mother's as well when she didn't need to be watching the kids any longer.

I was more insulated than most from certain things; I only had one relative who had been divorced (an…

I'd like to think that I came from a typical American family. We had a roof over our heads, although it was cramped at times. We had clothes to wear, but rarely anything brand name. We routinely had doctor and dentist visits. We always had enough to eat, thanks to my dad's hard work and later, my mother's as well when she didn't need to be watching the kids any longer.

I was more insulated than most from certain things; I only had one relative who had been divorced (an uncle). My little midwestern city was a short drive from Kansas City, so I got to experience a little of the benefits of urban life without the negatives. I went to Catholic schools and got a very solid education including the sciences, for which I'm very grateful. (This was in Kansas, mind you. It isn't a total loss.)

It was very difficult at that time to see how anyone could have a different opinion in that bubble-like environment. My whole community gave me one view of the world (the white American Christian one) and then my whole community verified that perspective on every occasion. Life was simple. You pray, you work, you please god by following his rules and being generally nice, and in the end you can expect he'll raise you into heaven. No one gets into heaven on their own merit, you will always be unworthy. But maybe he'll let you in anyway, so put on a good show.

The problem started when I started believing in the messages of Jesus and comparing them to what I saw in my community. People talked about being good Christians but they also talked about getting the most expensive cars, the latest video games, name brand fashion and judged each other by those things. We used more iconography for our local football teams than anyone had crosses and fish stickers. And despite Jesus' message of nonviolence, god bless the military.

As an adult and an atheist, I look back on these views from my childhood and I wonder. The "casual" Christianity that I learned is comfortable and lazy. It bows to consumerism and American culture. It is far less than (according to legend) Jesus expected of his followers but is condoned every Sunday morning from the pulpits.

These contradictions are one more reason I chose to step back and reexamine my faith. I possibly could have gone the difficult road of trying to embody what I thought was 'real' Christianity; giving up wealth, travelling and preaching the good word. I'm very glad I did not. I would have been destitute, miserable, alone, and no closer to feeling my salvation was assured. Because if anything stuck with me from church sermons, it's that no one is worthy of heaven, ever. It is only god's mercy and grace that might allow you in.

I am no longer interested in trying to live up to impossible expectations from an unproven source for a lottery ticket chance at an unverified prize. Instead, I've come to understand that I was taught, more or less, to live as a humanist. Be good to others. Live as you like. Don't fret too much about rules. If my community would just throw out the part about Sunday mornings, we would hardly have any differences at all.
 Women's March 2017 – Impressions tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-02-01:2182797:BlogPost:2733720 2017-02-01T15:00:27.000Z Loren Miller http://atheistnexus.org/profile/LorenMiller
On the night of 8 November, 2016, in the wake of the stunning election of Donald John Trump to the presidency of the United States, an idea was started by a Facebook post and grew from there to proportions hitherto unheard of. The idea? A march, to react to the new presidency and insist on a maintenance of rights, for women, for LGBTQ folks, immigrants, legal or not, in short for anyone who stands to be minimized at least or injured at worst by the new administration.

 Two and a…

On the night of 8 November, 2016, in the wake of the stunning election of Donald John Trump to the presidency of the United States, an idea was started by a Facebook post and grew from there to proportions hitherto unheard of. The idea? A march, to react to the new presidency and insist on a maintenance of rights, for women, for LGBTQ folks, immigrants, legal or not, in short for anyone who stands to be minimized at least or injured at worst by the new administration.

 Two and a half months later, on 20 January, 2017, Donald Trump was sworn in as President of the United States, certainly a significant moment. The day after, however, was no less so. On that Saturday, the idea of a march came to fruition with a vengeance, as a crowd of women and men descended on the Mall, the likes of which hasn't been seen in a very long while, if ever. Signs abounded, expressing support for women, for blacks, for the LGBTQ community, for blacks, for immigrants who may be in the US under less than ideal legal conditions, in short: for those people who see themselves in a problematical relationship with the new chief executive. Many of the crowd wore pink stocking caps, joyfully dubbed "pussy hats," a defiant declaration against a recent suggestion by a certain orange Neanderthal that being unceremoniously grabbed not only would be a non-starter but would be affirmatively and vigorously resisted. Speakers, from Gloria Steinem to Madonna to Tammy Duckworth, addressed and encouraged the crowd to stand up and assert themselves against what they rightly see as a potentially dangerous transition in American history.

 Doubtless you have heard about the "sister marches" which spawned from the Washington, DC event. There were quite a few of them, including:

New York City, NY

Chicago, IL

Boston, MA

Seattle, WA

Phoenix, AZ

Los Angeles, CA

Austin, TX

Denver, CO

Philadelphia, PA

Park City, UT

Trenton, NJ

Atlanta, GA

And the activities were hardly limited to the United States. Similar rallies, some of them sizeable, sprung up in:

Berlin, Germany

London, England

Melbourne, Australia

Brussels, Belgium

Wellington, NZ

Durban, South Africa

Sydney, Australia

Madrid, Spain

Barcelona, Spain

Helsinki, Finland

Belgrade, Serbia

New Delhi, India

Ahmedabad, India

Kolkata, India

Rome, Italy

Marcelle, France

Accra, Ghana

Budapest, Hungary

Paris, France

Amsterdam, Holland

Lisbon, Portugal

Warsaw, Poland

Prague, Czech Rep.

Santiago, Chile

Ottawa, Ontario

Mexico City, Mexico

Macau

Tel Aviv, Israel

Brasilia, Brazil

Athens, Greece

Buenos Aires, Arg.

Sofia, Bulgaria

And even onboard a research ship near Paradise Bay, Antarctica. Estimates for attendance at the DC march are unofficial and vague at best, but there is wide agreement that the crowd vastly exceeded the half-million expected. The total participation worldwide, excluding Washington, run into the millions, marking this as an unprecedented event, not just in American history, but in the history of the planet. If there has ever been another such organized, coordinated effort in human history, I am not aware of it.

 All of this happened because of a transfer of power in the United States which apparently has a great number of people concerned … and from where I sit, properly so. More than once I have wondered at the level of social activism and civil disobedience which would be necessary to get The Donald to sit up and take notice. The one tweet he issued regarding the march sounded disturbingly dismissive, as he wondered if the participants voted. Doubtless they did, just not for him.

 This isn't over, either. An immigrants' march and a scientists' march are currently being organized and other similar actions by other groups pending. Reactions to the president's cabinet nominations and to his choice of Neil Gorsuch as the next Supreme Court justice have been swift and uncompromising. Yet Donald Trump apparently cannot be bothered to at least attempt to communicate substantially with or acknowledge the opposition and their discontent. Possibly he thinks the election settled the matter.

 It did not … and we're not done by a long shot.
 Can you believe this bullshit?? tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-27:2182797:BlogPost:2732765 2017-01-27T01:56:59.000Z Jennifer W http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JenniferW https://youtu.be/VqEzsqMG5nU https://youtu.be/VqEzsqMG5nU Living with crazies. tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-26:2182797:BlogPost:2732737 2017-01-26T06:15:25.000Z Nick Walker http://atheistnexus.org/profile/NickWalker
In the two years since I was last here..

I have almost died.

Which sent me to the hospital for a few weeks.

Had my dog hit by a car the week I got out of the hospital.

She lost a leg.

After two years lost my home.

Had to give up said dog. That one still hurts.

Had to leave Oregon for California to live with family.

And now I live with my Dad and his fifth wife and they are Christian…

In the two years since I was last here..

I have almost died.

Which sent me to the hospital for a few weeks.

Had my dog hit by a car the week I got out of the hospital.

She lost a leg.

After two years lost my home.

Had to give up said dog. That one still hurts.

Had to leave Oregon for California to live with family.

And now I live with my Dad and his fifth wife and they are Christian fundamentalist.

Depression wise I am doing well, but I have losing my mind as I have been preached to almost everyday for 6 months. If there is one thing I could do with out to make things okay is if I could stop being asked one question by the new step mom.

Would I pray for her if she was on her death bed?

Next time I know I am being called a bad person for saying no to such a thing and the argument goes on and on till I just have to walk away because she can never see how I can not believe in a god.

 The Ethical argument for Veganism- a comment on a Facebook post tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-25:2182797:BlogPost:2664768 2017-01-25T14:37:54.000Z John B Hodges http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JohnBHodges

Vegans who argue from ethical grounds usually use some version of Utilitarianism, which is compassion made universal and exclusive. Peter Singer, for example. David Hume had a reply: for ethics built around compassion, the question is, do we have ENOUGH compassion to motivate us to follow the ethical rule prescribed? He said "Sometimes we do, and sometimes we don't, and when we don't, why…

Vegans who argue from ethical grounds usually use some version of Utilitarianism, which is compassion made universal and exclusive. Peter Singer, for example. David Hume had a reply: for ethics built around compassion, the question is, do we have ENOUGH compassion to motivate us to follow the ethical rule prescribed? He said "Sometimes we do, and sometimes we don't, and when we don't, why should we?"

Most philosophers have concluded that Utilitarianism is "too simple a theory". In my youth I tried following a version of it, motivated by my then religion, but found there is a high rate of burnout for aspiring saints.

In my understanding, we can avoid Hume's is-ought problem by building an ethic entirely of hypothetical oughts, of the form "If you want X then you ought to do Y", because Y is a necessary or efficient means of achieving X. You get a consequentialist ethic with an ultimate goal and a set of recommended derivative means to that end, and it becomes an objective question whether those means are effective, and whether some other set of means might be more effective. But the ultimate goal of the system remains a matter of choice. For example, I use the "social contract" approach. If you want to maintain peaceful and cooperative relations with your neighbors, don't kill, steal, lie, or break agreements, and more generally, follow the Golden Rule... or at least the Silver, Do not do unto others what you would not wish them to do to you.

In this approach, a "good person" is a desirable neighbor, desirable from the point of view of folks who seek to live in peace and raise families. IMHO that is the "default" ultimate goal of members of a social species, who survive by cooperating in groups. The great majority of people are going to value that goal highly, because it is the goal favored by natural selection.

 So, "who is my neighbor?" All persons. What defines a person? IMHO it is the ability to learn language. I would also add to the "social contract" an insurance clause granting certain rights to FORMER persons, and an "adopted honorary person" clause, granting certain rights to animals and "pre-persons" who have been adopted by persons as members of their own family, taking responsibility for their upkeep, behavior, and training. The precise terms of the "social contract" will be culturally relative, subject to negotiation and change.

 A compassionate person would clearly be a more desirable neighbor than a callous one. We have reason to require, as a matter of social custom and norms, a certain degree of compassion from our neighbors, as long as we are willing to practice the same degree of compassion ourselves.A modest degree would require we abstain from cruel sports, causing animals to suffer for our amusement. A greater degree would require humane treatment of farm animals. A still higher degree would require abstaining from hunting or farming the more intelligent of animals; eggs and fish still OK to eat, cetaceans, pigs, etc. off the menu. A still higher degree would require veganism. Higher still would be the Jains, who wear cloth over their mouth and nose to avoid accidentally inhaling gnats, and brush the paths in front of them with brooms to avoid stepping on ants. In diet, beyond veganism there is fruitarianism, where "fruit" is defined as "anything that eventually drops off the plant", including nuts, seeds, and "green fruit" like avocados, cucumbers, tomatoes. Someday there may be "ethical synthfoodists", who only eat lab-grown proteins, carbs, and fats, that were never part of any living thing. The degree of compassion required by social norms will be determined by cultural conversation.

 There are a variety of arguments for reducing or eliminating meat in the diet, But I do not think the ethical argument is compelling by itself. Animals who will never learn to speak language do not count as "persons" unless we decide as a society to include them.

 "Alternative Facts" and Our Government tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-24:2182797:BlogPost:2732336 2017-01-24T15:00:20.000Z Loren Miller http://atheistnexus.org/profile/LorenMiller
The following message was just emailed to Marcia Fudge, Sherrod Brown and Rob Portman, my House representative and Senators, respectively:

When Kellyanne Conway used the phrase, "alternative facts" in answering Chuck Todd on Meet the Press this past Sunday, echoes of George Orwell were almost automatic in my head. Facts are unique in that they describe reality, and the last I looked, there are no alternative realities out there nor are there alternative facts, except…

The following message was just emailed to Marcia Fudge, Sherrod Brown and Rob Portman, my House representative and Senators, respectively:

When Kellyanne Conway used the phrase, "alternative facts" in answering Chuck Todd on Meet the Press this past Sunday, echoes of George Orwell were almost automatic in my head. Facts are unique in that they describe reality, and the last I looked, there are no alternative realities out there nor are there alternative facts, except perhaps in the minds of those who would attempt to bamboozle the public. Granted, this was regarding an unimportant point – attendance numbers at the inauguration – but if Conway or Spicer are willing to make such assertions here, they may do so in a far more critical venue.

 As my elected representative, I expect you to work from the facts, NOT from some invention coming from someone who may have their own agendas in mind. Further, when facts not in evidence are presented, they should be challenged and vigorously so. The integrity of our country and its citizens depends on it.

 I have a zero-tolerance policy as regards "alternative facts." I expect you to adopt the same attitude.

 If Donald Trump thinks that an indulgence in creative reality will be tolerable to anyone who bothers to use their head for something other than a hat rack, he is badly mistaken. I've already published newsman Dan Rather's opinion regarding this issue, but I feel that the importance of our ability to rely on the honesty of our elected officials and their agents is critical to the health of our democracy.

 This was my first communication to my representatives on this matter. If Trump & Co. persist in such aberrant behavior, it will not be my last.
 And Blessed be the Automobiles tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-24:2182797:BlogPost:2732323 2017-01-24T03:47:46.000Z Milo Coots http://atheistnexus.org/profile/MiloCoots
I can't say that any one large issue made me decide to leave my church. Mostly it was the little things, building up over time until I couldn't possibly count them all. But this one time...

I was a teenager and I needed a new car. I had a wonderful, reliable car for two years before my eldest brother borrowed it and then snapped part of the frame by locking the brakes over a curb in winter. He was (and still is, I think) a lousy driver. So I purchased…

I can't say that any one large issue made me decide to leave my church. Mostly it was the little things, building up over time until I couldn't possibly count them all. But this one time...

I was a teenager and I needed a new car. I had a wonderful, reliable car for two years before my eldest brother borrowed it and then snapped part of the frame by locking the brakes over a curb in winter. He was (and still is, I think) a lousy driver. So I purchased another.

It wasn't exactly new. It was a used model, about 7 years older than myself at the time but with only 70,000 miles on it. The reason it was in pretty good shape was that it had been a church vehicle; owned by a monastery and driven by priests to reach their Sunday masses in rural counties. Well, my uncle happened to be one of those priests and managed to arrange to sell one of the autos to me for a very reasonable price.

I had just driven it home for the first time with my dad and my uncle the priest came along to visit with my parents a little longer. Somehow the conversation came around to blessing the car. This is a real thing, the Catholic Church does bless objects. Sometimes big ships, sometimes strings of beads. I recalled some years earlier that my parents didn't seem to think it strange, so I didn't think it strange... at first. "That's fine," I said. "How do we get my car blessed?" My parents chuckled and said "Well that's easy, your uncle can walk outside with you and do the blessing right now." So he did.

It started feeling weird, then. Like, I knew he hadn't brought any holy water or, like, anointing oil (would you need motor oil for a car blessing? Does synthetic count?), but I held my tongue and went along with it, partly curious, partly afraid to offend my uncle with questions.

So there we were, standing at the curb next to my car. He raised his hands over the hood and said a little more than 'bless this vehicle', but not much more. It wasn't the ritualized prayer I was expecting, certainly. And then it was done and he looked mighty pleased with himself so I thanked him. But that day began to bug the hell out of me.

I could have waved my hands over the car and said a prayer; it didn't make it blessed. Why did he think he had that power? Or was he expecting me to believe that he did? It was like asking me to believe in magic without even the effort of a proper incantation. I was acutely disappointed, and felt like my family expected me to be a grateful fool.

The car wasn't any different, wasn't any safer than it had been. It turned out to be less reliable than I would have liked and I gave it to my dad a year later. I was definitely grateful to have a car to drive at that time. But I would have passed on the blessing.

Please, share any stories of 'blessed' objects in the comments. Thank you.
 Comments on ZERO SUGAR DIET tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-16:2182797:BlogPost:2730632 2017-01-16T10:57:34.000Z John B Hodges http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JohnBHodges
ZERO SUGAR DIET is the latest book by David Zinczenko, with assistance by Stephen Perrine. Zinczenko is not a medical researcher or clinician; he is a professional writer and editor. He is the author of over twenty books on diet and health, including the EAT THIS, NOT THAT series, the ABS DIET series, and the ZERO BELLY series. He has been a high ranking editor of three magazines about diet and health. Both for his job and for his personal use, he "obsessively reads" the latest research on…

ZERO SUGAR DIET is the latest book by David Zinczenko, with assistance by Stephen Perrine. Zinczenko is not a medical researcher or clinician; he is a professional writer and editor. He is the author of over twenty books on diet and health, including the EAT THIS, NOT THAT series, the ABS DIET series, and the ZERO BELLY series. He has been a high ranking editor of three magazines about diet and health. Both for his job and for his personal use, he "obsessively reads" the latest research on this subject.

ZERO SUGAR DIET is written like a magazine article, full of anecdotes, factoids, helpful hints, "studies say" declarations, recipes, lists, and bullet points. Many diet books are like this. It is not anything like the books of Gary Taubes, WHY WE GET FAT and THE CASE AGAINST SUGAR, which I strongly recommend. Taubes writes like a scientist and a lawyer, clearly and fluently making an argument and explaining the science and history of the issue. Zinczenko is a salesman for a proposed diet.

On page 11 he writes: "In 2015, researchers at the University of Massachusetts compared two sets of dieters. One set had spent the previous year doing pretty much everything that I did: cut calories, reduce saturated fat, ate lots of fruit and vegetables, took the skin off their chicken, ate low-fat dairy items, cut sodium, ate more fish, reduced trans fats, cut back on sugar, and exercised a minimum of 150 minutes a week. The other group did none of these things. All they did was eat more fiber, at least 30 grams a day.
 Yet after a year, both groups showed nearly identical reductions in weight, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, blood sugar, and inflammation.
 My first reaction? I was mad. Car-flipping mad."

So, in this book he is proposing a diet very low in added sugars and with lots of fiber. His diet has two phases. Phase One is two weeks, Phase Two is thereafter.

He makes the distinction between natural sugar, that occurs naturally in the food, and added sugar, which is in many, many foods you will find in the supermarket and in restaurants. He proposes that for two weeks, you avoid all added sugar entirely. Each meal should include (1) a zero-sugar carbohydrate: vegetables (fresh or frozen), whole fruit (fresh or frozen), beans/legumes, unsweetened whole grains and cereals (brown rice, quinoa, oats), or nuts and seeds... (2) a "power protein", such as eggs, fish, plain Greek yoghurt, or lean meat (turkey, chicken, lean beef, roast pork) ... and a zero-added-sugar beverage (water, tea, milk, black coffee, or wine in moderation).

This two-week phase will probably drop your weight by ten pounds or so, but more importantly, it will end your cravings for sugar, show you that with enough fiber, at the end of the meal you do not crave dessert.

Phase two, you can resume buying packaged and processed food, with the proviso that it should contain more grams of fiber than grams of sugar. He has pages of lists, of commercial breads, crackers, soups, snacks, that actually meet this requirement. Most restaurant chains will have SOMETHING on their menu that will pass. You will probably continue to lose weight, but more slowly.

After the first two weeks, he also allows (at most) two "cheat meals" per week, when you can eat whatever.

My own comments: The very-low-sugar, high-fiber diet is interesting, because it offers an alternate explanation for why some other diets work. For example, there is a book called THE CHINA STUDY, which reports on a statistical, epidemiological study of many local populations in China, each with a somewhat different pattern of eating, which found that the less meat that a population ate, the more healthy they were. Vegans point to this study to argue for a totally plant-based diet. I note that the more plants you eat, the more fiber you will get. Meat consumption in China is strongly correlated with household income, and I will bet that household income is ALSO strongly correlated with SUGAR consumption. So the fact that the vegan diet WORKS, to reduce obesity and improve health, may not necessarily finger meat as unhealthy. Similarly for the Paleo diet. The basic idea of Paleo is that over LONG periods of time, by natural selection our species adapts to the foods we have been eating, so we may be better adapted to ancient foods and less well-adapted to more recent foods. (Especially foods invented in the last two hundred years, but to some degree even foods that were introduced with the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago.) From my personal experience I can say that the Paleo diet also WORKS. But it is ALSO a very-low-sugar, substantial-fiber diet, so perhaps it is not necessary to quit eating grains, beans, and dairy.
 Ning CEO message tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-07:2182797:BlogPost:2730028 2017-01-07T22:37:11.000Z Chris http://atheistnexus.org/profile/ChrisGillespie
Has something changed with Ning?

It's had lags and hangs for years.

Istn't it the CEO's job to fix it.

Perhaps if email was sent to the CEO firstname.lastname@example.com, everytime there was a hang, or lag the CEO might find a pattern.

_____________________________________________…

Has something changed with Ning?

It's had lags and hangs for years.

Istn't it the CEO's job to fix it.

Perhaps if email was sent to the CEO email@example.com, everytime there was a hang, or lag the CEO might find a pattern.

_____________________________________________

A Message from Our CEO

Posted by Bryce Rubio on January 4, 2017 at 1:06pm

I want to take this opportunity to thank each and every Network Creator for your continued support! On behalf of the entire Ning Interactive team, I can tell you that we're motivated and inspired by the communities you've created and are dedicated to helping you and your networks succeed.

The past few years have been challenging, both to our employees and more so to you, our Network Creators, but I can confirm that's all in the past now. We're committed to developing our people, strengthening our platform, and reopening the lines of communication while rebuilding our own community here on Creators. We're excited for the future and the opportunity to work with you, and we hope to exceed your expectations.

Since taking ownership of Ning Interactive Inc. on October 1, 2016, we have focused on stabilizing our environment and fixing old, outstanding bugs. We canceled the rate increase that was scheduled to go into effect October 1st of last year and increased our billing and technical support hours to be 24/7. We're investing capital in infrastructure and human resources, all to ensure the success of our customers, platform, and scalability.

As we start a new year, we're shifting our focus to features, functionality, and customer transparency. Below is a list of some (but by no means all) of our Ning 3.0, Q1 objectives for 2017:

Add Features: Events, Search, Chat, and Paid Access

Restart 2.0 to 3.0 migrations

Establish a new NC Council to participate in the creation of a new Product Roadmap

Successful implementation of at least two customer-driven features

Weekly status updates here on Creators

As CEO, I want to hear directly from you how we're doing in the following areas:

Customer Support: Are we doing better or worse? What aren't we doing that you would like to see?

Transparency & Communication: Are we communicating as much as you'd like? What else would you like to hear from us?

Existing Features & Functionality: Issues you've encountered using them, how they can be improved, etc.

Ning Network Design Tools: What tools can be improved? What additional tools are needed?

If there is anything that we can do to improve our service to you, I will listen. Send your feedback to email@example.com, and please be sure and include your network's URL in your message. I look forward to hearing from you!

Our developers also want to hear your perspective on which features and functionalities you find useful or would like to see in the future. We'll monitor your feedback for future consideration, using it to fine tune improvements to existing features and new features added to the Product Roadmap. In some cases, we may respond directly for further clarification. Message firstname.lastname@example.com, including your network's URL, to share your insights with the team.

In closing, we have much work ahead of us, not the least of which includes earning back your trust. However, with a new team and renewed focus, coupled with your restored trust and partnership, we're energized to make 2017 our best year yet!

You need to be a member of Ning Creators Network to add comments!

Join Ning Creators Network

 Meaning of life comes from normal activities like Love,Work & Play tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-07:2182797:BlogPost:2729795 2017-01-07T10:32:47.000Z V.N.K.Kumar http://atheistnexus.org/profile/VNKKumar

It's not that only Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Florence Nightingale, Albert Einstein, Dalai Lama & such others could have a meaningful life and the rest of the humanity who somehow eke out a livelihood for themselves & their dependents can never have a meaningful life. Not everybody needs to do something of that magnitude to have a meaningful life.…

It's not that only Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Florence Nightingale, Albert Einstein, Dalai Lama & such others could have a meaningful life and the rest of the humanity who somehow eke out a livelihood for themselves & their dependents can never have a meaningful life. Not everybody needs to do something of that magnitude to have a meaningful life.

My contention is that everyone can make his or her life meaningful, doing normal activities like Love, Work & Play.

Love

To sustain well-being, people need supportive, positive relationships and social belonging. Only a few misanthropes have denied that loving relationships are a major part of what gives life meaning. Most people value romantic interactions, family ties and friendships. The 99% of people who are not psychopathic are also capable of caring for people beyond their immediate circle, showing compassion for the suffering of others, whether it is the tsunami victims in Indonesia & Japan or the Victims of 9/11 in USA or the victims of 26/11 in Mumbai or the Delhi Gang-rape case of Damini, aka Nirbhayi.

Initial romantic love or infatuation may be driven by sexual desire and other personal goals but with mature love, another person comes to matter inherently, as do children, parents and close friends. Happiness is not our sole goal, since people often pursue love-induced activities that may not contribute much to happiness, such as caring for a disabled child (Autistic or brain damaged), spouse or parent. I know of one elderly lady in my family, who has nursed her husband struck by Alzheimer's, completely bedridden, for about a decade without complaining. That is love.

Work

A gentleman goes hiking near a stone quarry and sees a stone cutter hammering away at a big boulder and asks, " my dear sir, what are you doing?" To this the stone cutter replies, " I am reducing this boulder to smaller chunks. I get paid to do this. I have a family to support". The gentleman goes further and sees another worker chiseling away at the smaller chunks and asks the same question to which the worker says," Sir, I am doing my best to produce a standard brick of stone. I am the best stone-cutter in the entire county. I have a reputation to keep up to". The gentleman walks further and meets an old man giving finishing touches to the small blocks. He asks the same question to which the old man replies, "Sir, I think I am building a cathedral".

The first stone cutter is seeking financial satisfaction, the second personal satisfaction from his own efficiency & effectiveness, whereas the third man is seeking meaning in his activity through contributions to society at large.

Ideally if all the three kinds of satisfaction are achieved at work, it will make one's work-life very meaningful.

Play

Play is engaging in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than for a serious or practical purpose. Listening to music and reading novels or non-fiction of your choice are clearly "Play" in this sense,

For most people, play supplements love & work as a source of meaning. At the beginning and end of life, work is not expected to be of primary importance. Retired people seem to be as happy as those working and no one expects young children to be doing very much in the way of work. Hence the protests against child-labour.

Even for adults there are many kinds of activities outside of work & personal relationships that people enjoy : Reading, Watching TV, Spending time with family & friends, Movies,Parties,Picnics,Computer-related activities, Exercise, Gardening, Music making/appreciation, Drama, sports etc.

VITAL NEEDS IN HUMANS

Besides our biological needs for oxygen, food, water & shelter, there are three psychological needs of competence, autonomy & Relatedness, which when fulfilled make our lives meaningful.

Competence : is people's need to feel effective in their activities by engaging in challenges and experiencing mastery in the physical & social worlds. The need for competence leads people to seek challenges appropriate to their capacities.

Autonomy : is people's need to feel that their activities are self-chosen and self-endorsed, enabling them to organize and regulate their own behaviour as an expression of their own interests & values.

Relatedness : is the need to feel a sense of closeness with others through attachments and feelings of security, belongingness & intimacy. It requires feeling connected to others whom we care for and who care for us.

HOW LOVE, WORK, & PLAY SATISFY OUR VITAL NEEDS & MAKE OUR LIVES MEANINGFUL

Activities in the realms of love, work and play can contribute enormously to satisfaction of the vital psychological needs of competence, autonomy and relatedness.

Work is highly relevant to competence when it is challenging yet doable, so that people can perceive that they are effective. The failure to satisfy the need for competence is a partial explanation of why menial jobs are so unpleasant. Play can contribute to a sense of competence when it involves challenging activities such as sports, music and hobbies.

Satisfying the need for competence requires a degree a challenge, making it clear why some pastimes, such as watching mindless TV soap operas need not be counted as generating much value. Love, construed broadly to include friendship and compassion as well as romantic involvement, is clearly the major way to satisfy the need for relatedness.

Play, of more frivolous sorts not tied to competence might also be justified as a distraction sometimes needed from the stresses associated with the more inherently valuable pursuits of love & work.

Thus, work, play & love are clearly consonant with the needs for Competence & Relatedness, but what about the proposed need for Autonomy ?

There is some evidence from research that work is more satisfying when it is self-chosen & self-regulated, suggesting that the most enjoyable kinds of work help to satisfy the need for autonomy.

The problem with tedious jobs is not just that they do not permit feelings of effectiveness needed for competence, but also that they are controlled by others and hence do not permit people to choose for themselves & regulate their own behaviour. Games & entertainment are plausibly more satisfying when they are self-chosen. People don't like being told what they have to do for fun.

Religion & the Meaning of Life

For religious people, theology provides major sources of hope, both in their current lives and in a projected afterlife. People genuinely believe that God will provide, that things will work out for the best, that everything happens for a reason, that God loves them and cares for them, and that even if this life is a "vale of tears", it does not matter all that much, because an eternal afterlife will be wonderful. This implicit faith gives meaning to the lives of religious people.

My Take on this :

For the skeptics, religion cannot provide meaning in their lives because of the lack of evidence for a caring God or a redeeming afterlife. Immortality, Divine love & Eternal Bliss would be really nice but as I said to myself decades ago : " Kumar, you just have to bite the bullet and learn to live without these tantalizing & puerile delusions."

Fortunately, love, work and play are real & realizable, putting a substantially meaningful life within the reach of most people like me.

The reassurance provided by religion & spirituality that everything will work out in our favour is illusory. Seeking meaning through Religion is like searching for a black cat in a dark room, which is not there.

Anybody can have a meaningful life

But most people like I said before and I reiterate, have the intellectual & material resources to achieve meaningful lives through the moderately successful pursuit of love, work and play.

Perhaps one of the main reasons why religious people are happier is that attending mass prayers, Pravachans (Gospels) and identifying oneself as a member of a religious sect contributes to a sense of Community & belongingness. If so, spirituality is not a vital need but rather a stand-in for relatedness, which can be satisfied through secular communities like Recreation clubs, Book clubs, Music concerts Association, Yoga clubs,Elder citizen's council or Forum for public lectures etc.

 We wouldn't have existed if our ancestors weren't Paranoids! tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-07:2182797:BlogPost:2729608 2017-01-07T06:25:26.000Z V.N.K.Kumar http://atheistnexus.org/profile/VNKKumar
I am comfortable with not having answers to everything. By temperament, I have a high tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty. Many people suffer Cognitive Dissonance with uncertainties and probabilistic world models, and thus they feel the need to close that loop with a definitive answer, regardless of how intellectually indefensible it may be.

This low tolerance for uncertainty in many others probably has an evolutionary origin related to the fact that in the Paleolithic environment…

I am comfortable with not having answers to everything. By temperament, I have a high tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty. Many people suffer Cognitive Dissonance with uncertainties and probabilistic world models, and thus they feel the need to close that loop with a definitive answer, regardless of how intellectually indefensible it may be.

This low tolerance for uncertainty in many others probably has an evolutionary origin related to the fact that in the Paleolithic environment in which we evolved, it was almost always better to assume that everything has agency and intention. That is, there would have been a selective advantage to adopt the default position that other people, animals and even inanimate objects in the physical environment possess agency (capability of acting) and intention (acting in a manner that can affect you).

Making Type I errors - False positives (assuming something is real when it isn't) will not take you out of the gene-pool because they only make you more cautious, but making Type II errors- False negatives (assuming something is not real when it is) can result in you being too high a risk-taker and therefore a meal for an animal like a Sabre-toothed tiger that really does have agency and intention.

Imagine you are our ancestor living on the African savanna 100,000 years ago, and you encounter some ambiguous situation. For example, you heard some rustling noises nearby at night. Or you were walking in the forest, and a large fruit falling from a tree branch hits you on the head. What's going on?

In an ambiguous situation like this, you can either attribute the phenomenon to impersonal, inanimate, and unintentional forces (for example, wind blowing gently to make the rustling noises among the bushes and leaves, or a mature fruit falling by the force of gravity and hitting you on the head purely by accident) or to personal, animate, and intentional forces (for example, a predator hiding in the dark and getting ready to attack you, or an enemy hiding in the tree branches and throwing fruits at your head). The question is, which is it?

ERROR MANAGEMENT THEORY
 This theory suggests that, in your inference, you can make a "Type I" error of false positive or "Type II" error of false negative, and these two types of error carry vastly different consequences and costs.

1.The cost of a false-positive error is that you become 'PARANOID' (You are always looking around and behind your back for predators and enemies that don't exist).
2. The cost of a false-negative error is that you are 'DEAD' (being killed by a predator or an enemy when you least expect them.

Obviously, it's better to be PARANOID than DEAD, so evolution would have designed a mind that over-infers personal, animate, and intentional forces even when none exist.

Different theorists call this innate human tendency to commit false-positive errors rather than false-negative errors (and as a consequence be a bit paranoid) "animistic bias" or "the agency-detector mechanism." These theorists argue that the evolutionary origins of religious beliefs in supernatural forces may have come from such an innate cognitive bias to commit false-positive errors rather than false-negative errors, and thus over-infer personal, intentional, and animate forces behind otherwise perfectly natural phenomena.

You see a bush on fire. It could have been caused by an impersonal, inanimate, and unintentional force (lightning striking the bush and setting it on fire), or it could have been caused by a personal, animate, and intentional force (God trying to communicate with you, as in the Old Testament). The "animistic bias" or "agency-detector mechanism" predisposes you to opt for the latter explanation rather than the former. It predisposes you to see the hands of God at work behind natural, physical phenomena whose exact causes are unknown.

TO SUM UP:

It is perhaps better to be PARANOID and suffer from the God delusion! You would at least survive to pass your genes along !! Because of our Theistic Ancestors making a Type I Error (False positive) in their lives, they survived and gave birth to their children who in turn gave birth to their children and after virtually countless such reproductive lives, we were born to enjoy whatever joys & pleasures there are in this world.

One price they had to pay for this was that they became Paranoids & God believers. So belief in God(s) for our Ancestors was a byproduct of Type 1 error in their inferences. Thank goodness for that or else we wouldn't be alive & talking about all this now.

Considering that we are hard wired to believe in some sort of supernatural agents, is it possible for us to be true atheists?

Yes, because atheism is simply a propositional stance about the reality-outside-our-heads. It's like an optical illusion. No matter how much you know it's an illusion, you're still experience the sensation that, say, one line is longer than the other in the Müller-Lyer trick. Likewise atheists simply don't trust their "gut" feelings & their intuitions–about their supernatural experiences the same way that full-fledged believers do. The latter buy into the great ruse of God, whereas the former reject their senses as being a reliable gauge of reality.

END NOTE
We no longer face the kinds of environmental threats that our Paleolithic ancestors faced. We can now afford to give up belief in God(s), Heaven, soul, eternity and such illusions, make correct inferences of the realities surrounding us without making either Type I or Type II errors and lead a moral, productive, compassionate and meaningful life.

Yes --- meaningful life despite our mortality and finite existence. Some people think that our mortality means that our lives are meaningless. When we experience a good movie, play, or book, we can find meaning in them through realizing experiential values, despite the fact that there is an end to them. Why should our lives be any different? Think, think.
 Cognitive Dissonance, the pain that's finally gone tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-06:2182797:BlogPost:2729758 2017-01-06T02:20:57.000Z Milo Coots http://atheistnexus.org/profile/MiloCoots
First of all, thank you to those who viewed my first post and especially to those who commented. I feel truly gratified that you found value in reading about my experiences and are willing to share your own.

Cognitive Dissonance, "mental discord or inconsistency", is something I experienced regarding my Roman Catholic…

First of all, thank you to those who viewed my first post and especially to those who commented. I feel truly gratified that you found value in reading about my experiences and are willing to share your own.

Cognitive Dissonance, "mental discord or inconsistency", is something I experienced regarding my Roman Catholic instruction since at least 12 years old. I can only verify it goes back that far because the first instance I can recall questioning my religion was at my Confirmation. I remember thinking, 'This is a lot of ritual... is this necessary?' and 'am I old enough to reject Satan? I haven't had a chance to try all the cool stuff that God doesn't like.' Which now I understand is exactly why Confirmation is given to pre-teens.

I don't know if this is every Roman Catholic's experience, but I was taught to believe in the 'God of the Gaps', to borrow a term. God was supposed to exist in the mysteries of the world. Whenever there wasn't a clear explanation, God did it. And to a young child, the world is full of mysteries. Miracles were everywhere, therefore, undeniably God was there, too!

Every time I took a science class, the uncomfortable feeling that the Bible wasn't giving straight answers got a bit stronger. I watched a 'Christian Documentary' once that explained how the Noah's flood was caused by the collapse of enormous underground aquifers.* "That's amazing!" I thought at the time. "God created the world in such a way that he could easily flood it later." Something about that didn't make perfect sense to me, but the animations were cool and I didn't think too much more about it.

*This is tremendous bullshit, by the way. After several college courses in geology, structural geology and planetary sciences, I can say that with confidence.

A couple years later, I was a little older and saw another Christian documentary about the story of Moses and the Egyptian plagues. This one had a lot of plausible scientific reasons. For example, a volcano despoiled the Nile and darkened the sky. The frogs fled the nasty water, the beasts got sick and died, the fly population exploded, and the sickness spread more easily among the people. Even the Passover killing of the firstborn was said to be geologic outgassing that smothered people quickly in their sleep. It was a really well put together documentary, and I was impressed.

But by chance, I had also recently heard in my English class of something called Occam's Razor. The documentary was so complete... there really wasn't any 'gap' left to call any of it a 'miracle'. God didn't need an active hand in any of it. So in my perception, God was just walking Moses through a huge Rube Goldberg device he'd been setting up from the dawn of time.

As my education continued to add more knowledge, the gaps shrunk. It turns out we do have an understanding of how the earth was created, where humans came from, animals with cloven feet really are delicious... I tried to place these things into context with the Bible to make them agree, and struggled and struggled. One time I thought I'd solved it. "God is so great," I said, "He could create the universe in 6 days and make it seem super-old." But my theory still had holes. How could Noah's Ark be real? And, why the dinosaur bones? Why did Old Testament dudes have so many wives and concubines but priests today can't marry?

What finally got me to truly examine my faith were the moral questions that Atheists know very well. Why was god such a bastard in the Old Testament? Why did Jesus bring us eternal damnation? Will I be aware of those suffering in hell while I'm in Heaven? If so, will God take away my empathy? Why did the Church do more about hiding a scandal than protecting children?

And finally, the question that got me off the bandwagon. How is eternal damnation ever justified for finite crimes? Isn't that disproportionate to infinity? I did a lot of introspection on this matter; justice is very important to me. But it wasn't during this introspection that I came to the realization that gods aren't real. It was random, though I credit my introspection for preparing my mind for it. I was doing my normal routine and then I just stopped, physically, where I was standing and really believed, "The Roman Catholic god I've believed in my whole life... isn't real. No gods are real."

And I smiled and felt the incredibly joyful silence. The Cognitive Dissonance was gone. Then I knew peace.

 Why Do Intelligent, Well-Educated People Still Believe Nonsense? tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-05:2182797:BlogPost:2729823 2017-01-05T04:19:55.000Z V.N.K.Kumar http://atheistnexus.org/profile/VNKKumar

The first thing we have to realize is that intelligence is compartmental. By that I mean that people who employ sharp wit and critical thinking about one area of life (or even multiple areas) can still remain almost juvenile about a number of others.

Scientists who were/are religious

Galileo,…

The first thing we have to realize is that intelligence is compartmental. By that I mean that people who employ sharp wit and critical thinking about one area of life (or even multiple areas) can still remain almost juvenile about a number of others.

Scientists who were/are religious

Galileo, Newton were two famous examples of such intelligent people who were very religious. Coming to present times, Francis Collins is a living American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes, and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He currently serves as the Director of the US National Institutes of Health. "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" is a bestselling book by Francis Collins in which he advocates theistic evolution. In the book, Collins describes briefly the process by which he became a Christian.

From Atheism to Christianity

Collins came to Christianity in a powerfully compelling way. He began as an atheist, someone who felt that "the truth was all there in…mathematical equations" and said "God seemed to be unnecessary" for a scientific explanation of the world. But, as he worked in medical school and was exposed to patients on their deathbeds, he became fascinated by several Christian patients, who seemed to have accepted their fate and were placing their lives in the hands of God.

One patient told him she was confident that her faith in Jesus would see her through; Collins began to envy the certainty of these patients and wonder if he, too, could not share in that confidence. A fellow practitioner at the medical school advised the eager student to read C.S. Lewis' celebrated book Mere Christianity. From then on, we are told, conversion was only a matter of time.

Collins considered searching all the world's religions for alternative approaches to spirituality, but it was hard to do so back then: "There was, folks, no Wikipedia of world religions at that point, and I couldn't figure out what on Earth [all the different faiths] were about."

So he read C.S. Lewis and allowed his inquiry to rest there. Collins was not yet satisfied – he remained an agnostic or at least a non-Christian for an extended time – but he was clearly content enough to make no investigation into any of the other major religions of the world. For months he mulled over what he had read in Lewis and asked himself if Christianity was the ultimate guide in his spiritual journey.

What happened next is bizarre and surprising. On a hiking trip through the Canadian wilderness, the geneticist saw a frozen waterfall in three parts, thought that the three parts represented the holy Trinity (Father God, Son Jesus & the Holy spirit), and fell on his knees to accept God into his life.

Now, the idea that nature contains private coded messages from a supernatural being to an individual person is the antithesis of the scientific (indeed, rational) mindset. It is primitive, shamanistic, superstitious. The point of the scientific revolution was to do away with such animistic thinking.

How are these contradictions possible, you say?

They are possible because intelligence is compartmental. We must be ever on our guard against the "halo effect" which is that tendency to ascribe to individuals who are distinguished in one field, an authority which they do not deserve in others.

For example, just because Albert Einstein was an expert in astrophysics doesn't mean he was an authority in politics, philosophy, or metaphysics (if there is such a thing as an expert in that). It shouldn't lend much weight to either believers' or nonbelievers' arguments that this famous person or that one was "on the right side" on matters of religious belief.

Childhood Indoctrination is the Culprit

Another thing you must realize is that very intelligent people will believe very nonsensical things if you get to them young enough. When you grow up in an environment which takes for granted that a system of belief is sacred, your knowledge base and your critical thinking skills grow up around that belief structure in such a way as to leave it undisturbed. In fact, an argument could be made that without the checks and balances of the scientific method, human reasoning only serves to rationalize and validate the emotional content already in place in our psyches from our earliest years.

WE THINK IN ORDER TO RATIONALIZE WHAT WE ALREADY BELIEVE.

Have you ever seen a tree that's grown up around a fence post, enveloping it as if it is a part of the tree itself? That happens when the post was there before the tree was even a sapling. Intelligence and education are like that as well. If you can instill a belief structure in a developing mind early enough, all the reasoning powers of that individual will develop around those beliefs in such a way as to leave them undisturbed. Those critical thinking skills may even become proficient at challenging belief systems outside the one around which they grew, but it's a completely different skill set to learn to turn them inward, challenging the core beliefs which were already in place before those skills were developed.

And finally, people who did not grow up thoroughly enveloped by a community of faith will find it difficult to appreciate how heavily the social pressure to remain faithful keeps the fence-sitters amongst us from freely embracing our own cognitive dissonance.

My own predicament

I recall clearly how apprehensive I became in my late teens each time I collided with my own inner skeptic, realizing how costly it would be for me if my pursuit of reality ever led me outside the Hinduism fold. I knew long before I finally became honest with myself that I could lose everything, and for the most part I was right. When your whole life is built around an idea, challenging that idea shakes you to the core of who you are, both psychologically and socially.

For some of us, this threatens to demolish our entire world. So it is possible for highly intelligent people to believe in nonsense like god(s).