Defacing an atheist sign

An atheist group in North Carolina had a billboard which read “One Nation Indivisible”. Some meat heads decided to deface it.

Unknown vandals unhappy about atheists’ billboard in Charlotte, N.C., spray-painted “Under God” on the ad, the city’s atheist association discovered Monday. The defaced message will remain in place until after July 4, the group reports, which is the soonest that workers can furnish a fresh billboard image. Here’s how the vandalized billboard now looks:

Acts like this aren’t so uncommon. A few believers will get angry about being forced to actually think and use logic, get frustrated, and take out their aggression. And don’t they just always love to do it in a way that ignores the secular history of the United States?

The attacked group is taking this pretty well, I think.

“It was done by one or two people off on their own who decided their only recourse was vandalism rather than having a conversation,” Charlotte Atheists & Agnostics spokesman William Warren said. “It does show how needed our message is. As atheists, we want to let people know we exist and that there’s a community here.”

Society and the individual

I’ve pissed off feminists in my day. The reasons they give are going to revolve around me not understanding this or that, not automatically agreeing with them in the details, etc. (‘You don’t agree with me on this issue! Sexist!’ … ‘Why?’ … ‘Because!’) Basically, nothing specific.

But the problem isn’t some deep misogyny on my part. (Disagreement about what a picture of fat people means does not somehow magically equal hating women.) The problem, instead, is one of philosophical structure.

Feminism, as I’ve argued in the past, is a philosophy of consequence. It largely ignores intention, instead focusing upon the result of an action. It’s about as advanced as libertarianism. Of course, both philosophies have value, but when they’re promoted at the expense of everything else, they’re mere ideologies which inevitably lead to absurd conclusions. The same is true of all ethical and moral systems, including the ever-so-popular utilitarianism and egalitarianism (both of which I tend towards).

I got thinking about this because of a post by PZ on the lack of women in atheist and skeptic groups.

So I’m going to try something a little different. Instead of telling you my opinion, I’m going to forgo the essential principle of blogging (which is “Me! Me!”) and just ask people, especially women, to leave links to their godless/skeptical feminist blog or make suggestions or gripe or tell me what these stupid male-dominated conventions have to do to correct the imbalance…I shall be a passive receptacle for your ideas.

I do have to make one suggestion (the testosterone compels me) for something I’d really like to see happen…

Don’t mind his suggestion here (but at his site, he says a female-run conference on atheism/skepticism would be good). Take a look at the emphasis I’ve added. He says he is compelled, inherently, by the fact of being male. This is in line with a good bit of feminism, including the caricatures that haunt the Internet, but it’s a load of bull.

This idea that someone is compelled to do this or that may have a basis in sex, but philosophy is not the way to determine that. I want hard evidence. And, depending on just what is being discussed, there is plenty of evidence that men and women will tend towards certain behaviors because of their sex. Of course, that data often comes with the compounding factor of just what influence nurture has had, and the sociologists have a say there. But philosophy is not data. Logic can tell us nothing new; logic can only interpret the data we have.

What PZ does when he says it’s his maleness that makes him act one way or another is he devalues himself. (Hell, he even goes counter to all the feminist arguments that say the individual is responsible for rape/sexual abuse and ought not blame society – something with which I agree.) It’s a devaluing of the individual to place blame on some external source – especially without evidence. We may be able to blame an act of violence by a mentally ill person on his mental illness, but that principle does not extend to most people and most actions. It isn’t some external source that is to blame for individual actions among competent people 95% of the time. It’s the individual.

That said, there certainly is value to the arguments that say society is dominated by men and that that is an impediment to true equality between the sexes. Again, that doesn’t somehow magically mean a picture of two fat women is sexual objectification, but there are plenty of incidents where that domination is a serious problem, ones we gloss over on a daily basis. Watch just about any TV show. Women will be objectified and our culture allows it. That’s not a problem with the individual, but society. But it’s ridiculous, devaluing, and plainly wrong to claim that society is the whole problem.

The individual bears responsibility.

The Kennebec Journal takes a page from the Moritz playbook

Andreas Moritz changed a link once it was shown that he is only interested in swindling people. He did this to prevent anyone from seeing the details of his scam, but it didn’t work since he didn’t actually delete said details. And then I copy and pasted everything. Well, the Kennebec Journal, my local paper, may be doing something similar.

The paper isn’t running any major scam like Moritz, but it does seem to be acting just as dishonestly. I made a post about a stupendously bad article it ran that talked about ghost hunters in a central Maine town. It actually made the front page of the paper. Incredible, I know.

I had left a comment on the article saying just how bad it was, so I went back to check it. But wait. It isn’t there. In fact, I can’t seem to find it anywhere. Go ahead. Check the link that once worked. Search the website for “Readfield Historical Society” or “paranormal”. An older article will show up, but not this most recent one.

It’s possible the article is just somewhere really strange on the KJ’s site. If it is, that speaks to what an amateur operation this new ownership is running. But I can’t find it anywhere. It appears the KJ has deleted the article, hopefully out of embarrassment. I would like to think FTSOS was the embarrassing factor, but there’s no way to really know. Maybe a whole slew of comments after mine flooded the article, prompting a number of red faces in the tech and editing room.

One can hope.

Update: Since the creation of this post, the KJ has restored the link. Funny that.

Supreme Court ruling on Christian group

The Supreme Court has made one of its seemingly rare decisions that isn’t a load of crap.

The US Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a San Francisco law school did not violate the First Amendment when it refused official recognition of a Christian student group that restricted its membership to those who shared a belief that homosexuality is immoral.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the high court said the University of California’s Hastings College of Law was under no constitutional obligation to recognize the Christian Legal Society (CLS) as an official student group.

Basically, every student group at this law school had to comply with a non-discrimination policy in order to receive any activity funds or other benefits from being an organized group. But, being arrogantly religious, the CLS group thought it ought to be exempt from this policy. One reason was to prevent those icky gays from obtaining leadership roles. Another was the forced promotion of the sexually immature position of abstaining from sex until marriage (students who didn’t adhere to that position were excluded from certain rules, possibly membership). Clearly not the brightest group.

This is a no-brainer. If a group wants funds, it needs to follow the same rules as everyone else; no special rules for religion. Don’t want to be remotely fair to someone because you’re sexually immature? Fine and dandy. But no funds.

Other analysts praised the high court decision. “Religious discrimination is wrong, and a public school should be able to take steps to eradicate it,” said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“Simply stated, the Christian Legal Society sought to ignore rules that every other group complied with,” he said. “The organization sought preferential treatment simply because it is religious. I am pleased that the court said no to that.”

The whole basis of the massive anti-science, anti-equality, anti-sexual maturity, anti-rationality, anti-common sense movement is the Christian religion. (Not that any religion is innocent in most of these matters.) Any steps which help to eradicate its corrosive ability is a good thing.

Australia is led by an atheist

Australia’s new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has confirmed she is an atheist.

This morning during a Melbourne radio interview, the new Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard was asked point blank:

“Do you believe in God?”

Her reply:

“No I don’t, John”

And if all the lies Christians loved to tell were true, Australia would quickly be led into genocide, eugenics, and all sorts of other nasty consequences. But atheism is not a philosophy. Nothing normative concludes from atheism. It’s a descriptive position. And Australia is a democracy, not a dictatorship. Gillard is going to be led by the politics of her party, her own ethical system (which I’ll hazard is somewhat libertarian, but maybe someone from Australia will read this and be more specific and/or accurate), and – thankfully – not religion. In other words, reality is firm in her mind.

Supreme Court ruling on gun laws

The Supreme Court made a ruling today which orders a lower federal court to reconsider its previous ruling regarding Chicago’s ban on handguns. It’s likely that ban will fall.

I don’t so much have a problem with extending certain gun rights to more owners. My passion on the issue isn’t as strong as, say, that of kooks like John Lott, but it does bother me how the purely political right-wing justices have routinely been ruling on these issues. This is how the Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The spirit of the law is in the regulation of a militia, something relevant and needed in the time the amendment was written. The only way it should be applied today is insofar as there is a need for gun ownership. It can be argued that the Chicago ban on guns runs counter to a genuine need for protection, even outside the existence of a militia, but the purely political right-wing of the Supreme Court never argues that. They simply ignore the opening clause. Under their misunderstanding of both the spirit of the law and basic grammar, there should eventually be a right to keep and bear nuclear weapons for the average citizen under the constitution.

It’s often a problem that people think we ought to be beholden to the times and wishes of the framers, but in this case just the opposite is true. The purely political right-wing of the Supreme Court is ignoring the common sense of the framers while outright discarding the context of their times. The consequence of this obvious mistake may not be grave, but their argumentation is weak and embarrassing.

The Kennebec Journal falls off the deep end

After reprinting a sweet story about a cat with a signficant medical operation, my local paper, the Kennebec Journal, has once again printed an article full of bullshit.

They returned to the Readfield Historical Society expecting to hear a metaphysical teacher delivering a grammar lesson and the sound of a chalkboard being cleaned.

Instead, the team of paranormal investigators encountered occult forces that were far less welcoming.

Those were the results of a six-member team’s ghostly investigation into the Readfield Historical Society building, a former schoolhouse built in 1823.

I can’t believe this crap is getting printed. This team observed nothing. They’re liars. They’re making it up. There is no evidence of the bullshit they claim, only evidence that they’re full of shit.

The Kennebec Journal need only look to this article to answer why they’re doing so poorly.

Thought of the day

The evolution of life is one of the most important things anyone can ever realize.

The end of homeopathy?

Probably not, but one can hope.

British homeopaths are celebrating Homeopathy Awareness Week, yet it seems to me there is very little for them to celebrate.

Earlier this year, a report from the Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded that the principles of homeopathy are implausible and that the evidence fails to show that it works better than placebo. The MPs also criticised homeopaths for trying to mislead the public by providing inaccurate information. Their recommendation to government was to stop funding homeopathy on the NHS.

Then the Prince of Wales’s Foundation for Integrated Health, a staunch supporter of homeopathy in the NHS, folded in the midst of a police investigation for fraud and money laundering.

Last month, the British Medical Association described homeopathy as “witchcraft” and called for an end to all funding on the NHS.

A streak of bad luck? Not really. Homeopathy’s fortunes have been crumbling for quite some time. The evidence to suggest that it has effects beyond those of a placebo has become less and less convincing. In 2005, The Lancet even pronounced “the end of homeopathy”.

I suspect there will come a time when homeopathy becomes far less significant in society, but I believe that day to be very far off. People are just too willing to believe the snake oil salesmen out there – and the snake oil salesmen are all too happy to oblige that will to believe.

But there is some immediate good news. (In fact, so immediate, it’s in the past.)

As a result, one of the five NHS-funded homeopathic hospitals had to close. After assessing the science, its NHS trust found that the evidence did not justify any further funding.

Of course, even the homeopaths knew their junk had no evidence. They aren’t interested in any real science. And just to prove that point, they became bold and made their lying all the more public.

Faced with increasing criticism, UK homeopaths become more and more desperate. My team has found that the Society of Homeopaths even appears to have been in breach of its own code of ethics in attempting to promote homeopathy. On the society’s website, numerous statements about efficacy were made that were not backed by science and so were not allowed under its own regulations.

The society’s chief executive commented at the time, in November 2009, that she was grateful to me for highlighting these issues and that the society would investigate and make amendments where appropriate. The website has since changed but many, perhaps even most, members of that organisation continue to make claims that violate their society’s ethical standards.

I don’t for a moment expect the ethical standards of a fundamentally dishonest organization do anything significant with all these violation. Even if they do manage to clean up some of their act, their basis is still magical thinking that has no roots in science. The only way they could ever be called ethical sans a smirk is if shut down their whole operation.

Andreas Moritz can’t fool them all

Over at FTSOS’ sister blog Without Apology, Paula B. has posted an excellent response to Andreas Moritz’s bullshit and lies.

I was first intrigued by Moritz’s AMAZING LIVER CLEANSE book until I started looking at some of the incredibly broad claims he made, one of which really caught my attention. He claims that “Over 2/3 of the world’s population is vegan and has no access to animal protein. It [presumably this ‘vegan population’] shows no signs of such degenerative illnesses as heat disease, cancer, osteoporosis, arthritis, etc.” p77

It caught my attention because my well-meaning but occasionally gullible fiance decided that this book was law and that he meant to change his lifestyle accordingly, and become vegan, because he felt so great while on the “cleanse.” Well, I didn’t feel great, myself, because I was lethargic and was craving protein and fat and felt like sleeping for a week–so this broad claim that 2/3 of the world’s population (roughly 4.5 billion, based on the 6,827,100,000 estimate of total world population of the US Census, June 4, 2010) is vegan hit me like a ton of bricks–SURELY I would have heard that before, having so many vegan friends, if that were the case. Thinking about the world’s cuisine, most countries have meat recipes–how could this possibly be true? Well, researching online gave me the impression that the world population of vegetarians (not even vegan) was closer to 2.5-5%, NOT 67%, so I started questioning what other “facts” were in this book that just a month before, we were so in awe of, since it sounded so scientific (we’re both kind of gullible when it comes to pseudoscience). I found lots of other “liver flush” recipes, and people raving about them, but also found they were saying the stones “melted” and were “squishy” which seemed to contradict what Wikipedia said about gallstones, and might instead be saponified olive oil from the cleanse when exposed to the bile salts. So I got very suspicious, and was wary, because, as I said, I was doing this “cleanse” too, and suddenly it didn’t seem like such a great idea. But (maybe to say “I told you so! to my fiance) I did anyway, though I did NOT take the last dose of epsom salts, because I was tired of being hungry and going to the toilet every 5 minutes–enough is enough! I know that people claim to gain wonderful benefit from it, and supposedly Moritz himself does it twice a year even though no “stones” come out. Me and my fiance didnt’ notice a lot of “stones” (pseudoliths?), either, though, but that might have more to do with how our bodies deal with 120ml of olive oil. We’ve both decided, however, that we can do without it for the future, and I’m so looking forward to eating ice cream again, despite Mr. Moritz’s dietary guidelines.

Furthermore, I wanted to add that the danger of unsubstantiated disinformation–if such there is–is that people often read things without considering their source, then remember the (dis)information, not remembering where they heard/read about it, making it harder to trace where certain ideas came from, and therefore examine them. I guess this is a lot of what “conditioning” is about, come to think about it. But just reading that one sentence (sited in my previous post) caused me to doubt this whole book that I’d mostly read, and had already internalized, to some extent, which astonishes me–who would have thought that “open-minded” somehow became “gullible,” but I think the connection certainly exists. Therefore, a lot of disinformation can be spread to people without a “bullshit meter,” making us vulnerable unless we doubt everything. It broke my trust in the author, that’s for sure.

Crazy how all those facts get in the way of Moritz and his shenanigans.