tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57368212024-03-17T20:03:40.069-07:00THE CALLADUS BLOGCalladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comBlogger652125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-18421339771143229252016-07-31T08:46:00.002-07:002016-07-31T08:47:33.509-07:00Atheism destroyed with ONE SCIENTIFIC QUESTION!!!1!Christian News Wire and WND.com show up in my Google News feed from time to time, and right now they are both talking about Ray Comfort's latest movie, "The Atheist Delusion". Comfort's press release to Christian News Wire touts "Atheism destroyed with one scientific question!"<br />
<br />
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-q2oJPayjF7A/V54bBBXQ74I/AAAAAAAAIHg/FobPYDjQhiY_X4bwPA21Zmgk5NciafZFQCLcB/s1600/Ray-Comfort.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-q2oJPayjF7A/V54bBBXQ74I/AAAAAAAAIHg/FobPYDjQhiY_X4bwPA21Zmgk5NciafZFQCLcB/s200/Ray-Comfort.jpg" width="176" /></a>The question isn't mentioned. Even the movie's website doesn't mention the question. Since there is so much smoke and noise about this movie, I decided to see where it is showing. I checked Fandango and got nothing. I searched the Internet, and got... nothing. This movie, as far as I can tell, isn't playing anywhere.<br />
<br />
From the movie's website, I found that I can DOWNLOAD the movie for a mere $19.99! Which is insane, since for that price I can buy two tickets to Star Trek Beyond, and still have change left for a bag of M&Ms.<br />
<br />
So I went looking for spoilers, <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/07/30/a-review-of-ray-comforts-the-atheist-delusion-yep-i-watched-the-whole-thing/">and found them on Hemant Mehta's blog</a>. So here's the spoiler, here's the question that Ray Comfort asks atheists that according to World Net Daily, "stuns" atheists...<br />
<br />
Where did DNA come from?<br />
<br />
Comfort points out that DNA is complex, that it contains information. It's like a book. And books have creators, therefore DNA has a creator. Right?<br />
<br />
Are you stunned? Have you lost your atheism? Or are you remembering Paley's watch?<br />
<br />
This is a slick trick that I see happen too often in apologetics - ask a professional a question that is not in their field of study. Ask a physicist about biology, ask a biologist about astrophysics. The answers you get are muddled and lacking any depth - then jump on THOSE answers and yell, "AHAH!"<br />
<br />
It works even better if the person is not prepared to respond. And Comfort's "Living Waters" demonstrates the methods of 'ambush reporting' as its preferred style of asking questions.<br />
<br />
In other words, "The Atheist Delusion" is tabloid journalism, or business as usual for Ray Comfort.<br />
<br />
As for his question, "where did DNA come from?" I'll answer that.<br />
<br />
I don't know. What does the deity of the Bible have to do with it?<br />
<br />
The idea that information must have a creator is incorrect. I could go into information theory to show that information can happen if the process of creating information has a built in "ratchet" to keep the wheels spinning in one direction. In the modern theory of evolution this ratchet is called, "natural selection". And let's skip the entire field of machine learning...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eHOUKfGQGi0/V54bfnKcqKI/AAAAAAAAIHk/NryiQK4MOkUAnvzyad3pYYI4d1pURMVXgCLcB/s1600/Altera_StratixIVGX_FPGA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eHOUKfGQGi0/V54bfnKcqKI/AAAAAAAAIHk/NryiQK4MOkUAnvzyad3pYYI4d1pURMVXgCLcB/s200/Altera_StratixIVGX_FPGA.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
Instead, as an electronic engineer, I'll bring up the example of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolvable_hardware">Evolvable Hardware</a>. More specifically, <a href="https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/">read about Dr. Adrian Thompson's experiment in evolving a circuit in an FPGA</a>. <br />
<br />
Circuits that exist inside FPGAs are usually created using a Hardware Definition Language of some sort. They are created by a creator - usually an electronic engineer with a software proficiency. But Dr. Thompson proved that FPGAs could be created using an evolutionary process based on artificial selection - the sister to natural selection that we see in evolution.<br />
<br />
The resulting circuit meets the artificial selection requirements without ever having been created by a human.<br />
<br />
Where did the information in this circuit come from? Dr. Thompson didn't write it. <br />
<br />
Maybe God did it? Maybe we should ask Ray Comfort? Because what does he know about electrical engineering?<br />
<br />
But having read several of Comfort's apologetics, I think I could answer for him. He would skip the question entirely, and ask me who built the FPGA. Which is a neat way to tap-dance away from the actual question that is asked.<br />
<br />
Here is one simple question that will destroy Christians. <br />
<br />
Can you prove that your deity created the universe?Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-81806451173464552242016-07-19T08:49:00.003-07:002016-07-19T09:07:43.640-07:00Just how far will a Christian go to dodge their burden of proof?I've posted before on the "<a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2008/07/mixed-up-burden-of-proof.html">mixed up burden of proof</a>" and the problems that religious people have with it. I've said before that the <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2006/05/practical-atheist.html">burden of proof is always on the person making the claims</a>.<br />
<br />
And yet, religious people just don't <i>get</i> this very simple concept.<br />
<br />
It's come to my attention recently that once again people - especially Christians - are attempting to shift this burden of proof from the claimant to the respondent.<br />
<br />
Part of this seems to be due to a persistent "Atheism is a religion" meme. This is the idea that atheists take the non-existence of a deity on faith, not on evidence, and therefore atheism is no different than a religion.<br />
<br />
I'll freely admit that there are atheists who deny the possibility of any deity or deities. And I'll agree that they do so on philosophically shaky ground that leaves them as vulnerable to the charge of "faith" as any religious adherent.<br />
<br />
This is exactly why atheists have pointed out the difference between so called "weak atheism" and "strong atheism", or the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism">differences between explicit and implicit atheism</a>.<br />
<br />
Personally, I'm an explicit, "weak" atheist. I have never found enough evidence to convince me that at least one deity exists, and so I live my life as if no deities exist. However, I could be wrong. All it would take to convince me that I'm wrong is sufficient evidence. And if I received such evidence that at least one deity existed, I would change in a heartbeat to live my life as if a deity existed.<br />
<br />
This willingness to change one's mind when presented with evidence <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Statements_of_faith">is not a hallmark of religion.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8y7hoJ80XzM/V45B9aqSwaI/AAAAAAAAIC4/bmU62zMMTv4H3vD_DzICw0eBzETjp20ewCLcB/s1600/Adam4Dproof3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8y7hoJ80XzM/V45B9aqSwaI/AAAAAAAAIC4/bmU62zMMTv4H3vD_DzICw0eBzETjp20ewCLcB/s200/Adam4Dproof3.png" width="178" /></a>I recently ran into a cartoon by Christian web cartoonist Adam4D, <a href="http://adam4d.com/burden-proof/" rel="nofollow">which demonstrates this frantic attempt to shift the burden of proof of God from the Christian to the atheist.</a><br />
<br />
The cartoonist then segways to a <a href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Teleological_argument">teleological argument</a> using the Watchmaker Analogy. Of course this argument has multiple problems. <br />
<br />
As pointed out by judge John Jones in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the argument from design is subjective. Even Professor Behe couldn't show that there was any real way of determining something was created through a natural process or through a divine process - only that it "looks complex". In other words, it was only through subjective terms that a Christian can claim that a tree is divinely created and a snowflake is not.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-olosDOXfvSk/V45H2OXap2I/AAAAAAAAIDI/GVYv_iGGgkE7zLcE7G7Qax1r5tot1XTLwCLcB/s1600/Cousinolegburden.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="176" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-olosDOXfvSk/V45H2OXap2I/AAAAAAAAIDI/GVYv_iGGgkE7zLcE7G7Qax1r5tot1XTLwCLcB/s320/Cousinolegburden.png" width="320" /></a>I often hang out in the online discussion forum of Reddit, and recently I've again run into a Christian who has tried to assert that atheists are making a positive claim that must be met by a burden of proof. Like many such discussions, they go nowhere very quickly as the Christian in question refuses to admit that any other response is logical. (You can click on this image to enlarge it.)<br />
<br />
Here you will see that the username "cousinoleg" has asserted that there are only three positions that one can take in regards to a claim. These three positions are either ignorance of the claim, acceptance of the claim, or denial of the claim. This has left cousinoleg in a very vulnerable position in this discussion.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kadFbsBBOwI/V45KUrUuK4I/AAAAAAAAIDU/P-TPPZO0aeElLhhHI0G5gSG88eNMxC4uACLcB/s1600/Adam4dfixed.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kadFbsBBOwI/V45KUrUuK4I/AAAAAAAAIDU/P-TPPZO0aeElLhhHI0G5gSG88eNMxC4uACLcB/s320/Adam4dfixed.png" width="79" /></a></div>
This method is not very reasonable. The reaction to a positive claim might not be denial that the claim is true, but merely an assertion that the respondent does not believe the claimant. <br />
<br />
Or a positive claim could be met with a counter claim that invalidates the first claim. If it is not the claimants burden to prove that what they say is true, <i>then a counter claim will automatically annul the original claim until it is proved false.</i><br />
<br />
For example, let's take Adam4D's original cartoon, and modify it, for educational "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#1._Purpose_and_character_of_the_use">Fair Use</a>" purposes.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kadFbsBBOwI/V45KUrUuK4I/AAAAAAAAIDU/P-TPPZO0aeElLhhHI0G5gSG88eNMxC4uACLcB/s1600/Adam4dfixed.png">Click here to see this modified cartoon enlarged.</a><br />
<br />
Here we can see that if the claimant denies his or her duty to prove their claims, then those claims are immediately subject to being countered by an opposing claim - that also is not required to be proved.<br />
<br />
More simply put, my claim that invisible elves exist disproves your claim that a God exists. If you are not required to prove your claim of a God, then I am not required to prove my claim of elves.<br />
<br />
Finally, this entire blog post should be completely unnecessary. I've taken pains to write it all out because lots of religious claimants just don't seem to <i>get </i>this. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor">Frankly, Christopher Hitchens said it best:</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000; font-size: large;">"What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."</span></blockquote>
<br />
<br />Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-21874438221964146972016-06-13T06:13:00.000-07:002016-07-31T09:32:31.056-07:00She would have been 53<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OaYSBMPDaB4/V2GNectbZmI/AAAAAAAAGfQ/w_qfzgns5T4KPd0tbmiWhUo69aprq16GACLcB/s1600/22b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OaYSBMPDaB4/V2GNectbZmI/AAAAAAAAGfQ/w_qfzgns5T4KPd0tbmiWhUo69aprq16GACLcB/s200/22b.jpg" width="131" /></a></div>
It is Won's birthday today.<br />
<br />
Here's a photo from when we were dating. We were at a restaurant in Seoul, visiting some of Won's friends. This was in the spring of 1986. See the '80's style perm that Won's sporting?<br />
<br />
Damn, we were young.Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-39600305541851656662016-05-11T21:27:00.000-07:002016-07-31T09:34:35.528-07:00The failure of cosmological argumentsI've had several theists (Christian and Islamic) try to assert that God is real through one of the many different cosmological arguments.<br />
<br />
Cosmological arguments come in several different types. <br />
<br />
Thomas Aquina gave 5 different types of cosmological argument. The argument from motion, the argument from contingency, the argument from causation, the argument from degrees and the Teleological Argument.<br />
<br />
Later William Paley put his own spin on the Teleological Argument with the idea of a "Blind Watchmaker."<br />
<br />
William Lane Craig created his own version of a cosmological argument with something he named the Kalām cosmological argument. He named it this in a shout out to Islamic philosopher Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and al-Ghazālī's argument that actual infinities do not exist.<br />
<br />
You can learn about the cosmological argument through philosophy, or through theology. Fair warning, theological arguments start with the premise of the existence of a deity, and then look for arguments to support their premise. So you should be extremely wary of anyone with a theological agenda.<br />
<br />
Most cosmological arguments have the same form. If we look at the argument from causation, that form is: 1. Effects have a cause. 2. Everything that happens has a cause 3. The chain of cause and effect cannot be infinite, therefore there is (eventually) an uncaused cause.<br />
<br />
You can apply this to any of the cosmological arguments. For example:<br />
<ul>
<li>Motion - everything that moves must have a mover until you eventually reach an unmoved mover. </li>
<li>Contingency - a "contingent being" is a being that came to exist in some fashion. A "necessary being" is a being that exists without the requirement of coming into existence. In the argument from Contingency, each contingent being comes to exist through a previous contingent being, until you eventually reach a necessary being that didn't need to come into existence.</li>
<li>Teleological Argument - everything that was created has a creator. Each creator is in turn a creation of the creator before it, until you eventually reach an uncreated creator.</li>
<li>Kalām cosmological argument - here William Lane Craig skips the small stuff, and goes right into the creation of the universe. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist - therefore the universe has a cause. Therefore, an uncaused causer, that exists outside of the universe, exists, and this causer is a powerful being who is beyond the properties we find in the universe.</li>
</ul>
There is one cosmological argument that doesn't quite follow in the same form - the argument from degrees. However, the form is analogous to the forms we have seen. The argument from degrees says:<br />
<ul>
<li>There is a hierarchy of degrees that we find in everything. In this hierarchy, we can imagine things that are great, that are greater than great, and that are the greatest possible. If we think of a being with the maximum possible degree of greatness, it would be even greater if that being actually existed. </li>
</ul>
As you can see, it still includes the idea that the infinite is an impossibility, that a maximum good exists.<br />
<ul>
</ul>
<div>
<b>Here is how all cosmological arguments fail.</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
First, they fail logically. Built into these arguments is that each mover, each cause, must in turn have a mover or a cause. But a fallacy of special pleading is made for that one thing that doesn't require a cause or a creator. <br />
<br />
To put it in atheist terms, "Who made God?" We are answered by philosophers with, "Hey, that's a pretty good question!" However, we are answered by theologians with, "Stop being silly!" <br />
<br />
Philosophers understand that the argument is flawed in this manner, whereas those people who start with the premise of a deity have to tap dance their way out of this flaw. In fact, this is exactly what William Lane Craig attempts to do with his Kalām cosmological argument, by attempting to put a deity above question.<br />
<br />
Next these arguments may fail based on the possibly incorrect premise that the infinite is an impossibility. The truth is that we just don't have enough evidence to know for sure that a real infinity is impossible. If a real infinity is possible, there may be an infinite multiverse that spawns universes like ours. At one time, before we discovered evidence for the big bang, we wondered if our universe was cyclical - perpetually ending in a "big crunch" which restarted the big bang. Now we can wonder if there is a cyclical mulitverse. Or perhaps a multiverse isn't subject to time, or to cause and effect in the way that it is familiar to us.<br />
<br />
People like to argue against infinity using the idea that if there is an infinite time before ours, then logically how could we arrive here? This discounts the idea of a converging infinity, or of Zeno's paradox. And it discounts the idea that although we (mostly) know how time works in OUR universe, we can't actually speak for how it works (if at all) in a multiverse.<br />
<br />
These arguments are not very useful for getting to a personal god of your favorite religion. William Lane Craig says that the creator of the universe is an enormously powerful "personal creator", but he lacks a good argument that this is true.<br />
<br />
Cosmological arguments can't rule out that the creator is non-sentient. For example, the uncaused cause could be a cyclical multiverse that spawns universes through natural processes that we don't currently understand.<br />
<br />
These arguments can't rule out that the creator died during the creation process. Or that the creator is actually a pantheon of creators who created the universe out of their desire for deity on deity drama and their need for chess pieces in an elaborate game that they are playing.<br />
<br />
The cosmological argument could just as easily be satisfied by time traveling humans from the future who traveled almost 14 billion years into the past and through science (or a disaster of Star Trekkan proportions) created a cosmological event that results in the big bang. Yes, we are our own gods!<br />
<br />
So the cosmological argument seems good at first glance, but it is full of problems and has a fallacy built into it. Philosophers have been pointing these problems out for centuries. And yet, I still have theists use these as a "proof".<br />
<br />
And when I point out these problems, the tap-dancing they do to support their arguments is amazing. And the smug, self-superiority they display as they ignore philosophy for theology is very annoying.</div>
Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-12768078931634585392016-04-13T09:45:00.000-07:002016-07-31T09:46:30.307-07:00How I left ChristianityI've written about some of this before... I was stationed at Barstow California back in 1993, and my wife and I had gone to visit my family at their apartment in San Diego. During that visit, we had a knock at the door by some Jehovah's Witnesses. (<a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2007/02/evangelical-atheism.html">You can read about that here.</a>)
<br />
<br />
I'm the one who answered the door, and that's how I met a couple and their daughter. <br />
<br />
Instead of saying "No thanks" and shutting the door, I instead decided to talk to them. And I realized that they were very passionate about their beliefs - I found it amazing that they would be so passionate over something - that to me - seemed so obviously false.
<br />
<br />
My life became very busy soon after that. We left the Air Force and moved to Stockton California, where I transitioned to being a civilian and got a job at a security manufacturing company. We also opened our own children's clothing store. Not long after that - about 10 months - we realized that the store wasn't going to make it. I also found out my company was going under. So I found a much better job in Fresno and we moved again. My wife went to school full time, and I started going to school part time as an engineer.<br />
<br />
And we got online.<br />
<br />
I had used the Internet before the World Wide Web existed - in the days when you used a teletype emulator in order to visit different IP addresses. I had been a member of the GEnie Internet portal in Okinawa, and I had an email address on MILNET even before that. I was active on Usenet.<br />
<br />
But HTML changed everything. It made the Internet accessible. And search engines made it searchable. (Go Lycos and Yahoo!)<br />
<br />
Before I had tried going to the library to investigate cults, and I'd run into literature that wasn't very useful. Let's face it, the Barstow and Stockton libraries are not that comprehensive. Fresno State's library was better. The Internet led me to discussion groups about cults, where people could recommend better books. I could ask the local libraries to find and bring those books for me. I could order them too.<br />
<br />
I spent about 6 months investigating Jehovah's Witnesses, another 3 months or so on the Latter Day Saints (the Mormons). And then I confused Christian Science with another group, and found myself investigating Scientology.<br />
<br />
I found the level of crazy in Scientology to be fascinating! I joined the Usenet group alt.religion.scientology right after the start of the Scientology vs the Internet "war" when Scientology lawyer Helena Kobrin tried to delete the whole ARS usenet group. I followed the Scientology war up until about 2008, after the arrest of protester Keith Henson.<br />
<br />
But even from the beginning I was amazed at the level of dirty tricks used by Scientologists. And that led me to other restrictive cults, such as The Family, Mormon Fundamentalists, Christian Nationalism and Christian Dominionism, the Unification Church, the Children of God, and of course the Branch Davidians and later Heaven's Gate. <br />
<br />
I had copies of Steven Hassan's "Combating Cult Mind Control" and Margaret Singer's "Cults in our Midst". And there was a wealth of websites even in the mid to late '90s about destructive cults.<br />
<br />
After the Heaven's Gate suicide in 1997, I remember thinking to myself that cults were so destructive. "It's a good thing that MY religion is the Truth!" And then I had a great idea. I'd compare my religion, that of mainline Protestantism, with these other cults - and demonstrate just how true it really was.<br />
<br />
It didn't go well for me.<br />
<br />
First, original sin is a serious problem. How can an all-knowing being NOT know that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil would be a temptation of Adam and Eve? Next was the issue of sin - if God is perfect, then why did the laws of what was sinful change from the Old Testament to the New Testament? After that I learned about biblical textual criticism, and learned about the problems with the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#History_of_textual_criticism_on_John_7:53-8:11">Pericope Adulterae</a> - in that it originally wasn't part of the Gospels! This led me to learn that no one knows who actually authored the Gospels, and that the earliest manuscripts (which are not the originals) came from a generation after the supposed death of Christ.<br />
<br />
I brought these issues to my pastor, who told me that I would receive answers in prayer. I spent a lot of time praying, but my doubts became worse.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=8zMfG-ByffcC&lpg=PP1&dq=pillows%20the%20cross%20and%20the%20switchblade&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q=Gideon&f=false">I followed the example of pastor David Wilkerson</a>, author of "The Cross and the Switchblade" - and followed the teachings of Jesus in Matt 21:21-22 (among other places) that if asked in prayer, with faith, we will receive an answer. I followed Gideon's example in Judges 6:36-40, and asked God for a sign that Christianity - or any religion - was true.<br />
<br />
I did this daily, for weeks.<br />
<br />
I finally came to the point where I had to admit, the way the Christian church acted was little different than the way most cults acted. They sought intelligent people as members, and then used specious reasoning to explain away problems with teachings. The holy book was deeply flawed. And God (or Jesus) wasn't answering.<br />
<br />
I had one more reason to remain a believer in God.<br />
<br />
As a Christian I had, on many occasions, experienced The Holy Ghost. I had lost this feeling during my period of doubt, which was actually a point in the favor of me remaining Christian. If I returned to my faith, perhaps I could reclaim the attention of The Holy Spirit.<br />
<br />
But by this time, I had learned so much about other religions that I realized that many opposing religious people had similar experiences. I had also learned enough about human psychology to realize that humans were very good at fooling ourselves. I had an idea - maybe I could recreate the Holy Spirit experience through meditation.<br />
<br />
I was successful. <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2006/09/mind-hacking-god.html">I could re-experience the Holy Spirit at will</a>. That was the end of my Christianity, sometime around 1998.<br />
<br />
I didn't call myself an atheist immediately. Atheism was still mostly "in the closet". There was a discussion forum for atheists on the Secular Web which I stayed away from because its web address was infidels.org - which seemed blasphemous in a scary way. Instead I started reading the discussion forum at James Randi's website, and started calling myself "agnostic".<br />
<br />
I learned that my uncle was an atheist, and he asked me why I was "on the fence" - since I was using the word "agnostic" to mean that I didn't know what was true. He pointed me toward what I would later learn is called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism">"implicit" or "weak" atheism</a>.<br />
<br />
I started learning about campus non-believer groups, so I first searched for such a group at my university, and when I didn't find one, I started one. Called the CSUF Freethought Society. It was hard going to school, working full time, and keeping the group going, so it fell apart in 2002.<br />
<br />
After that, I tried to find a local skeptical / atheist organization to become a part of. I looked around and found the Unitarian Universalists - which didn't fit what I wanted. I also found the Humanists of San Joaquin Valley - who was meeting at the UU church. I had by this time learned that I agreed with Secular Humanism more than I agreed with mainstream Humanism, so this didn't seem like the group I wanted to join.<br />
<br />
So again I created a new group. I started a Meetup group for Fresno atheists and other freethinkers in 2002. That gradually evolved into an atheist group, which eventually combined with my friend Richard's skeptics group.<br />
<br />
We met together once a month, casually, for several years. Until we decided that we wanted to become more active in the community. So we founded the Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics in 2008. And I started blogging in 2006.<br />
<br />
Since my deconversion from Christianity, I've been told that I can receive proof of God just through prayer. And I have always taken those suggestions at face value. If you want to pray with me to find God, I'll happily do so. And I'll be as sincere as I know how to be. Honest.<br />
<br />
All it will take to change my mind is evidence.Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-84644091352287120722016-03-28T06:36:00.000-07:002016-03-28T06:36:56.898-07:00How to win in Vaccine Court<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
In 1988 the US Health and Human Services set up the "National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program" (VICP) to compensate those people and families who were injured through the use of childhood vaccines.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
Between 1989 and July 1, 2014, 3,645 compensation awards have been made by VICP, totaling over $2.7 billion dollars in awards, and $113.2 million in legal costs. Another 9,786 claims were dismissed by the courts. So out of a total of 13,431 claimants, a little over 27% won awards.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
In the mid-1980s British researchers found a possible link between the pertussis portion of the diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) vaccine and neurological harm to children. This claim was later discredited by better studies, but British families were so alarmed that they refused the pertussis vaccine - resulting in a dramatic incidence of whooping cough which directly led to the death of 70 children.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
In the United States, several parents sued the manufacturers of the DPT vaccines. And even though scientists and public health officials believed the claims of neurological side effects were unfounded due to lack of evidence, many of these parents won substantial awards through sympathetic juries who were convinced otherwise during trial.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
As a result, most companies who made the DPT vaccine ceased production. Only a few major manufacturers remained in the business of producing this vaccine, and they were planning to exit the business too.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
One of the benefits of a well-vaccinated community is an effect known as "Herd Immunity". This form of immunity happens when enough of a community is immune to infection that it breaks chains of infections therefore preventing the spread of infection. When a larger portion of the community is resistant, there is a smaller probability that someone susceptible to infection will come into contact with disease. As community resistance to infection decreases it becomes more probable, and even likely, that susceptible individuals will succumb to disease.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
Health officials in the USA feared the loss of herd immunity, and Congress responded by creating VICP to remove the burden of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
The VICP program provides for compensation to children who have severe adverse effects from any childhood vaccine. Compensation includes medical expenses, loss of future income, and up to $250,000 in “pain and suffering”. Claims paid on vaccines received before 1988 came directly from the U.S. Treasury, and later claims are paid by a VICP trust fund of over $2 billion dollars, created by a $0.75 per-vaccine patient fee. It takes the VICP about 2 years to process and resolve a petition.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
In order to win an award through VICP, the claimant is not required to provide proof of causation to the extent of scientific certainty.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
Instead the VICP uses the civil-law standard of, “the preponderance of the evidence”. According to the legal definition this standard is met if the proposition is “likely to be true” - it is satisfied if there is a greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
The VICP standard of certainty is far from the scientific standards of error. In science, propositions are said to be “statistically significant” if the percent of error is less than 5%, and “statistically likely” if the percentage of error is 1% or less. A drug with a significance level of 50% would never make it through FDA approval, and may get the lead scientists fired for even trying!</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
Even in criminal law, “the preponderance of the evidence” is not enough to convict. Instead, clear and convincing evidence is required to judge a person “guilty.” So it is very obvious that the VICP sets a very low bar for payout of compensation claims.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
Before 1998, there were few claims in VICP against autism-related adverse effects from immunization. In 1998, Andrew Wakefield published a fraudulently created research paper in support of a link between the MMR vaccine and the appearance of Autism and bowel disease. No scientist since then has been able to reproduce his results. Britain's “The Sunday Times” was able to reveal that Wakefield had changed and misreported the results in his research in order to create the appearance of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. It showed that Wakefield had falsified data, and the paper also showed that Wakefield had plans to sell home diagnostic kits for the condition he posited in his study, “autistic enterocolitis”. Wakefield predicted that he could make more than $43 million a year selling these kits.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
As a result of this paper, the reporting of the “Sunday Times”, and investigation by medical, scientific, and legal officials, “The Lancet” retracted the paper, Wakefield's co-researchers withdrew their names from the paper, and Wakefield was stripped of his license to practice medicine.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
A more unfortunate result was reduced vaccination of children due to the general public being scared of a non-existent link between vaccines and autism. For some reason, bowel disease has not made it to general public awareness in this vaccine scare.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
In the early 2000's, the VICP started receiving claims of autism as an adverse effect of immunization. The first payout of an autism-related claim happened in 2008, and the largest payouts happened in 2013, in two separate cases that resulted in the award of tens of millions of dollars.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
But these cases were not rewarded on the basis of autism.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
The VICP has a list of possible injuries and conditions that are presumed by science to be caused by vaccines. This list is known as the “Vaccine Injury Table”, and it not only lists symptoms, but the time period in which these symptoms are supposed to occur.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
Since there is no scientific evidence that autism can be caused by vaccination, the VICP does not list it as a possibility on this table. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
There is a range neurodevelopmental disorders in the autism spectrum, and although these disorders share symptoms, they may have unrelated causes. Little is known for sure - that autism is highly heritable, and likely to be triggered by both environmental factors and genetics.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
The hypothesis that vaccines cause autism has been well tested in many scientific studies, none of which show a link. Therefore, they are not on the VICP's “Vaccine Injury Table.”</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
So how does a claimant with autism win at vaccine court? They claim encephalopathy, which can occur within 5-15 days after a MMR vaccine. Encephalopathy is another way of saying, “a disease of the brain” - which doesn't refer to a single disease, but refers to a brain disorder that could have different causes. Encephalopathy is a broad term, and therefore it could refer to disorder that is curable, or permanent, or degenerative.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
Encephalopathy is medical shorthand for saying, “We don't know what happened”.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
The two largest payouts in 2013 were fought in the VICP court for years, with the first hearings happening in 2005. The government finally agreed to settle, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services offered to pay millions over the life of the two claimants, whose families accepted the offers.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
During this settlement, HHS did not admit that vaccines caused autism, or even encephalopathy. They merely decided not to dedicate any more resources to defend the case. In other words, it was cheaper for them to settle the case than it was to fight it.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
HHS has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination. This is in-line with scientific studies that show no link between autism and vaccines.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
How do you win at vaccine court for a condition that time and again can NOT be linked to vaccines?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
You wear them down until it is cheaper for them to just give you what you want.</div>
Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-65559429662606026202016-02-28T09:32:00.000-08:002016-07-31T09:32:15.678-07:00Checking in on Ronald Lee Darsey again...<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPpUx9iKGlxuBMxoGmOeoXQqC2eodn8ijU-5Tv4LKQ-C7JbrJPPwp73JXjWdJvs1Wd_9fSgnpwYXNl-yDbRrVtls_PZiRW9mX7xeY237t7PQXUpZ7sc6Fpq4dQCLHf2NyMY-4WAg/s1600/ronnie.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPpUx9iKGlxuBMxoGmOeoXQqC2eodn8ijU-5Tv4LKQ-C7JbrJPPwp73JXjWdJvs1Wd_9fSgnpwYXNl-yDbRrVtls_PZiRW9mX7xeY237t7PQXUpZ7sc6Fpq4dQCLHf2NyMY-4WAg/s320/ronnie.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Notice the cameo jacket? He got that from Army Surplus!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Just checked in on Ronnie again. He's still in Conroe, still at the same halfway house. He's got a new photo - in it you can see he's grown out his beard again. Ronnie grows a beard to hide his weak chin. Now, he just looks homeless.<br />
<br />
One of the things I learned very quickly when Ronnie came into our lives was that he used to be in the Army.<br />
<br />
He loved the Army, and told us about his enlistment. He was stationed in Germany, he had to work hard, he was part of the motor pool. He had a dog while in Germany. Boot camp was tough.<br />
<br />
And of course he said I would never make it in "real life", that the military was tougher than I could handle. He usually called me "Boy" while saying this. He pronounced "Boy" with two syllables.<br />
<br />
He wasn't in the Army for long... about 2 years if I recall correctly. He was not a combat vet, he had a cushy assignment in Germany. He bragged about his time in the military, but he didn't have much to say about it.<br />
<br />
After Ronnie and Mom married, he got a dog and named her Fräulein - the German word for "young lady". It was another reminder that he was a world-traveling ex-soldier.<br />
<br />
Ronnie always wore Army jackets. It was another reminder that he was in the Army. He told us that they were issued to him by the Army. They didn't have insignia or name tape on them. They were the standard olive drab jackets that were common before the US military adopted the camouflage battle dress uniform in the 1980's. <br />
<br />
Ronnie has been wearing military jackets for as long as I can remember. And after I joined the military I realized he was just another wannabe military poseur. The cameo jacket he's posing in during his latest court mandated sexual predator mugshot is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Woodland">"US Woodland"</a> - part of the Battle Dress Uniform that wasn't issued by the US Military until the early 1980's, almost a decade after Ronnie's very brief stay with the Army.<br />
<br />
Ronnie has always tried to cultivate this image of a capable person, experienced, a veteran who can handle himself in a fight. It's all a facade... a fake. And when he encounters someone with real ability or power Ronnie folds up like a wet newspaper.<br />
<br />
Ronnie's longest commitment was the 15 years he's spent in prison for molesting children. He should be wearing an orange jacket.<br />
<br />Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-1162264485497805272016-01-12T06:00:00.000-08:002016-01-12T09:48:41.054-08:00A License to Carry along with liability insurance is supported by the Second Amendment<a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2016/01/america-has-problem-with-gun-violence.html">In my previous posts,</a> I’ve discussed the problem with gun violence in America, and I’ve pointed out that it would be impossible to remove guns from the American population.<br />
<br />
Unless something changes, gun violence will continue to be a problem.<br />
<br />
Let us add to this problem the current trend toward the Open Carry of guns, the recent episodes of armed bystanders firing upon unarmed and fleeing suspects, and my already stated case that possessing a gun is more likely to result in the escalation of aggression.<br />
<br />
These people are in possession of a dangerous device. Most have little or no training in the use of this device. Few have the ability to assess the risk of owning and carrying these devices.<br />
<br />
There is a comparable dangerous device that is owned by many Americans. The automobile.<br />
<br />
Until 2013 Americans were more likely to die in a car crash than to be killed by a gun. The data are not in when I wrote this, but it has been projected that gun deaths and auto-related deaths were supposed to reach parity sometime in 2015.<br />
<br />
There are no laws that restrict owning an automobile. Everyone in America can own as many cars as they can afford. Even if you are not allowed to drive a car, you are still allowed to own one.<br />
<br />
But in order to operate a car, we must first demonstrate our knowledge of the law in regards to vehicle operation. We must also demonstrate our ability to operate a car. This is done through licensing. As part of licensing, we must also demonstrate our ability to minimize the risk of driving, and to hedge against loss due to accident. This is done through insurance.<br />
<br />
America could apply this strategy to gun ownership and usage. Require licensing and insurance of individuals who carry a gun.<br />
<br />
Licensing is already in effect in many states. For example, a concealed carry license in any state requires the possessor to attend training classes and pass a test. Texans who carry a handgun are required to have a License to Carry. Getting one involves training classes and a test.<br />
<br />
Using a gun licensing strategy, states would issue licenses to carry, and state license requirements would meet or exceed minimal Federal standards. These standards would include classroom and practical training, along with an examination. I would suggest that there be a renewal requirement, with a period of renewal of every 5 years.<br />
<br />
A firearm owner would also be required to demonstrate proof of liability insurance. Lack of insurance would be grounds to suspend or revoke the license to carry.<br />
<br />
Insurance is an important part of this idea. In the case of accidental death, or homicide, some relief to the victims could be had through insurance. This would certainly motivate insurance companies to investigate each gun owner’s risk. Insurance companies are really very good at predicting the actions of people. Let us put that skill to use.<br />
<br />
Similar to current driver’s laws, licensing would not apply on private property. In the same way that you don’t need a driver’s license to drive on your own ranch roads, unlicensed individuals could still “carry” their weapons lawfully in their own home. (Please note, there are usually city ordinances that make it a crime to shoot gun inside city limits. These are often ignored in the case where a gun is used to stop a crime in the home.)<br />
<br />
License to carry laws could be written to allow the safe transportation of firearms by unlicensed gun owners. Inside a locked container, or with a trigger lock, for example.<br />
<br />
Requiring a license and insurance to operate – or carry – a firearm does not restrict anyone’s Second Amendment right to own guns, or “bear arms” in the case of a military coup. Everyone would still be allowed to own as many guns and ammunition as they like. And they can be comfortable with the knowledge that they can ignore the law in the case of Federal overreach.<br />
<br />
A license to carry and insurance requirements are not going to prevent gun violence. However, they will reduce it, and this requirement would work well together with background checks for gun ownership.<br />
<br />
And finally, such a requirement could help answer a philosophical problem. How can I, or anyone, tell the difference between an armed law-abiding person with a gun, and a dangerous criminal with a gun?<br />
<br />
The criminal is much less likely to be licensed to carry. And any establishment that checks licenses at the door is less likely to allow entry to such a person.Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-78378098116817890312016-01-11T06:15:00.000-08:002016-01-11T21:12:58.744-08:00We can't take guns away from Americans for legal and practical reasons<a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2016/01/america-has-problem-with-gun-violence.html">In my last post, I discussed the problem with gun violence in America</a>. In this post, I'll discuss why we own guns, and why we can't take guns away from Americans.<br />
<br />
Why do Americans own guns?<br />
<br />
The stated reasons usually include personal protection, and to act as a check against military overreach by the United States Federal government.<br />
<br />
I believe that these reasons are merely a fantasy.<br />
<br />
First, owning a gun does not make you safer. Gun owners are more likely to act impulsively, and aggravate or escalate arguments. Populations with higher gun ownership are directly linked to higher gun murder rates. Studies have shown that for every time a gun in a household was used for self-defense, there were seven criminal assaults or homicides using guns.<br />
<br />
There is also a popular American fantasy that violence in America is increasing, and that we should prepare against it. The opposite is true. There has been a steady decrease of violent crimes in America since the mid 1980's. Statistically, you are less likely to be the victim of a violent crime now, than 10 years ago, or 20, or 30.<br />
<br />
Second, there is a myth that an armed population prevents tyranny. There is no justification for this. There is instead evidence that a militia will more likely support or even create a tyrannical government.<br />
<br />
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">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.</span></blockquote>
Why should it be "well regulated"? There were about 100,000 troops in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. There were about twice that many serving in various militias. Militias were used to defend the home front, to act as a police force, and they did some enemy surveillance. When a militia company was summoned to active duty on the front lines, they were usually active for less than 90 days.<br />
<br />
There is a world of difference between armed civilians, common militia, and Minutemen, or "well regulated militia". The difference can be seen in how armed citizens and poorly regulated militia threw down their weapons and fled in the 1776 battles of Long Island, and at Camden, South Carolina, versus their successes at Lexington and Concord. The Revolutionary War has many examples of militia failures, and the few examples of militia successes are attributed to state-organized militias.<br />
<br />
The modern National Guard is based upon the idea of a "<i>well regulated</i> militia".<br />
<br />
Well armed individuals and poorly regulated militias are more likely to support tyranny and fascism.<br />
<br />
Nationalism and fascism go together hand in glove. The very patriotic idea that there is a superior form of national identity that should unify all of a nation's citizens is very attractive and dangerous.<br />
<br />
When private militias form, or armed citizens gather, they most often do so out of nationalism and fascism. This can be shown in the "Bleeding Kansas" border wars in the mid-1800's between the pro-slavery "Border Ruffian" militia and the anti-slavery "Jayhawk" militia.<br />
<br />
This can be seen in the foundation of the Ku Klux Klan, who used armed citizens and KKK militia in campaigns of violence, murder, and political intimidation. Other examples of unregulated militias in America include the Black Panthers and Neo-Nazis.<br />
<br />
Armed citizens and militias have lead to tyranny in other countries. Vietnam, Somalia, and Southern Lebanon are examples of this. Militias and armed civilians most often gather to form tribes, to support warlords, and to engage in civil war. Weak democracies are more often ripped apart by armed private citizens, than they are supported by them<br />
<br />
Third, there exists a very popular "Red Dawn narrative". That a strong government with a strong military can be overthrown by armed citizens and private militias.<br />
<br />
This is completely false. <br />
<br />
Let's look at the case of Iraq, before the American invasion. Gun ownership by individuals was (and still is) one of the highest in the world, with up to 40 guns owned per 100 people. (In contrast, Americans own up to 95 guns per hundred people). Iraqis had a gun culture that "closely resembled the United States", and yet gun ownership did not prevent Saddam Hussein from committing atrocities on his own people.<br />
<br />
Another example of an authoritarian dictatorship that oppresses its own well-armed population is Saudi Arabia. Dissent in Saudi Arabia is routinely crushed. Dissenters are beheaded. There are no guarantees of human rights in Saudi Arabia.<br />
<br />
A well-disciplined military armed with modern weapons is completely immune to militias and privately armed citizens. In the case of America, a single 19-year-old drone pilot sitting at Nellis Air Force base can put an end to a full militia with the push of a button.<br />
<br />
You have a closet full of AK-47's? Excuse me while I laugh at you.<br />
<br />
A dictator backed by a well-regulated modern army is proof against armed civilians. Muammaar al-Qaddafi of Libya is a good example. His citizens could not kick him out without outside help from NATO. <br />
<br />
The other side of the "Red Dawn narrative" is that an armed population can drive out an invading force. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan are given as examples. But in neither case were the invading forces "driven out" by armed populations. <br />
<br />
In the case of American involvement in Vietnam and Afghanistan, public opinion in America were the deciding factors to get out of these conflicts. By 1971 a large majority of Americans believed it was a mistake to be involved in Vietnam. American opinion toward the occupation of Afghanistan has been polarized, but in 2014 a majority of Americans were opposed.<br />
<br />
In neither war were American troops ever in danger of being "forced" out of the conflict by local militias or armed civilians.<br />
<br />
The Afghan resistance movement, under the command of many regional warlords who were supplied and assisted by the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Egypt and others were able to mount a guerrilla war against the occupying Soviets. However the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was due to the leadership of, and radical reforms initiated by, Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev withdrew Soviet forces from Afghanistan to assist in easing cold-war tensions, not due to an armed population, even one supported by other countries.<br />
<br />
So if owning a gun doesn’t make us safer, if owning a gun is inherently risky, why should we have guns? If modern militias are no match for the American military, and our only hope of opposing a military coup is the goodwill of our American soldiers, then why would we bother to arm our militias? Again, why should we have guns?<br />
<br />
We should have guns in America for two reasons.<br />
<br />
First, as I said in my last post, amending the Constitution of the United States of America is somewhat perilous. Amending the Bill of Rights could have unintended consequences on other human rights held by American citizens. I think we should avoid amending the Constitution to support gun control. This means that the Second Amendment will apply, which means that we will have gun ownership in America.<br />
<br />
The second reason we should have guns in America is because this is what America wants. Sure, this is a “Tyranny of the Majority” situation. But that sort of tyranny is checked only when it infringes on the rights of others. Merely owning a gun does not infringe on the rights of others, and so this tyranny does not apply. Therefore, the will of the majority in our society should apply.<br />
<br />
To put it more simply, I like my guns, and I won't give them up unless I'm forced to do so. I would resist any such attempt. And I think that over 40 million other American households would do the same thing. Vigorously.<br />
<br />
These are two HUGE reasons why Americans should own guns. Americans like their guns, and taking guns away from Americans would be a big problem, legally and practically.<br />
<br />
There is still unresolved the fact that gun violence in America is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-license-to-carry-along-with-liability.html">I’ll discuss a possible solution in my next post.</a>Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-31439091190180451602016-01-08T07:36:00.000-08:002016-01-08T09:32:31.761-08:00Gun Violence in AmericaAmerica has a problem with gun violence.<br />
<br />
In 2015 there were 331 mass shootings in America, that resulted in over 360 deaths and 1,300 injuries. There were over 11,000 murders with guns in 2015, and more than 54,000 people were treated for gun assault in emergency rooms.<br />
<br />
The numbers are very clear. There is a direct correlation between gun deaths in a population, and the number of guns owned by that population. Guns are used far more often to threaten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. More often, gun owners escalate arguments by using their guns in an aggressive manner. Homes that own a gun have a higher risk of suicide and accidental death.<br />
<br />
No mass shootings in America have ever been stopped by an armed civilian.<br />
<br />
More than a third of American households own a gun – about 43.5 million. There are as many as 310 million guns in the United States. And while a majority of Americans favor stricter background checks, a majority of Americans also support the lawful ownership of guns generally. And this support has been trending upward over the last few years.<br />
<br />
With such broad support for gun ownership, it is unlikely that Congress or the President will be able to remove guns from the general population. It also seems likely that gun related deaths, and mass shootings, will continue to be “normal” if nothing else changes.
<br />
<br />
American support for background checks suggests that Americans are willing to do something to change this status quo.<br />
<br />
Personally I like guns, and I own a few. I was given my first gun as a birthday present by my father, on my very first birthday.<br />
<br />
Dad was a huge influence on me and my sister in regards to guns. He kept our guns well locked up, out of our reach. He has a lot of them, and never put them on display, preferring to only take them out when he was going hunting.<br />
<br />
Dad’s training in gun safety came from his training as a combat vet in Korea, and from a lifetime of using guns. My sister and I have both jumped down the throats of those people who supposedly went through "gun safety" programs for being idiots about their guns. Really, neither of us have any patience for that sort of nonsense.
And we're both pretty fair shots. I've got "Expert" ribbons in the M16 and M9 pistol from the military.<br />
<br />
I'm also someone who believes strongly in the Constitution, and I take my oath of enlistment seriously. Americans have the right to "bear arms", and will continue to have that right unless there is a Constitutional Amendment.<br />
<br />
The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, originally applied only to the Federal government. In other words, these rights could be overridden by state law. Only those laws enumerated in the Constitution belonged to the Federal government. This changed upon the ratification of the 14th Amendment, where the “Due Process clause” applies the Bill of Rights against the states.<br />
<br />
On ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Federal government was given the power to enforce the Bill of Rights, and States’ Rights were much weakened. This is what nullified the Dred Scott decision. It gave us all equal protection under the law, and prevented States from creating laws to remove the rights of American Citizens.<br />
<br />
The 14th Amendment has also been used to expand the rights of citizens, giving interracial couples the right to marry (Loving v. Virginia) making it impossible for states to arrest citizens for homosexual acts (Lawrence v. Texas) and giving homosexuals the right to marry (Obergefell v. Hodges).<br />
<br />
A Constitutional amendment that outlawed gun ownership could easily go very wrong. An amendment to overturn the Second Amendment could possibly be used to weaken the 14th Amendment, which might in turn allow States to once again create their own laws about homosexuality and race. We would again be a nation of patchwork freedoms.<br />
<br />
Last, I want to point out that we have passed the point where 3D printers can easily print a gun. This was first accomplished in plastics. 3D printed guns are now available in metal using the direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) process. As 3D printing prices fall, the availability of highly reliable printed guns will increase. And there isn't much the government can do to prevent this.<br />
<br />
From a purely practical position, outlawing gun ownership in America would be impossible without major changes in attitude. There is broad support for gun ownership, and there are inherent dangers in amending our Constitution to revise or remove the Second Amendment. Finally, our increasing technological ability would make gun restrictions difficult, if not impossible.<br />
<br />
It seems hopeless. Maybe there is something that can help.
<br />
<br />
But first, <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2016/01/we-cant-take-guns-away-from-americans.html">in my next post I'll examine why Americans own guns.</a>Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-81491532390247148362015-12-09T10:51:00.001-08:002015-12-09T11:55:20.043-08:00Quote mining by the Watch Tower - evidence that Jehovah's Witnesses shouldn't trust their beliefs.<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-O8rtMM7evB8/VmhbnBN0G4I/AAAAAAAAErA/4FoIjQRCYZ8/s1600/watchtower.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="74" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-O8rtMM7evB8/VmhbnBN0G4I/AAAAAAAAErA/4FoIjQRCYZ8/s320/watchtower.png" width="320" /></a>The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is dishonest.<br />
<br />
The official publications of the Jehovah's Witnesses try to justify things like the truth of their religion, and that it is bad to accept blood transfusions. <br />
<br />
But what annoys me the most is how dishonest they are when they try to discredit the fact of evolution. What I'm about to explain is something called, "Quote Mining". This is a logical fallacy called, "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context">quoting out of context</a>". When quoting out of context is done dishonestly in order to support a position that you can not otherwise support, <i>then it is a form of lying</i>.<br />
<br />
I am definitely accusing the Watch Tower society of lying.<br />
<br />
I ran into this when I was handed the October copy of "AWAKE". (<a href="http://www.cvaas.org/files/2015-10%20-%20AWAKE.pdf">link to PDF</a>) On page 7 of this publication, I ran into this quote:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">This experiment led <b>Jeffrey H. Schwartz</b>, a professor of anthropology, to conclude that while adaptation may help a species survive under changing circumstances, “it is not creating anything new.”
</span></blockquote>
AWAKE didn't have much else to say about professor Schwartz, so I googled his name. One of the first hits I got was also from Watch Tower publications. Namely from their 2010 version of the brochure, "Was Life Created?" (<a href="http://cvaas.org/files/Was%20Life%20Created.pdf">link to PDF</a>). On page 21 of this brochure it reads:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">So, does natural selection really create entirely new species? Decades ago, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began questioning whether natural selection had such power.26 In 1999, evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H. Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.</span></blockquote>
Unlike "AWAKE", the "Created" brochure has end notes. This passage is footnoted as:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">Sudden Origins—Fossils, Genes, and the
Emergence of Species, by Jeffrey H. Schwartz,
1999, pp. 317-320.</span></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K9e5HW8Wvg4/Vmhnav_TISI/AAAAAAAAErQ/V5bT4UXsFRg/s1600/Sudden%2BOrigins%2Bbookcover.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K9e5HW8Wvg4/Vmhnav_TISI/AAAAAAAAErQ/V5bT4UXsFRg/s200/Sudden%2BOrigins%2Bbookcover.png" width="143" /></a></div>
So, I checked to see if "Sudden Origins" was available online, or in a local library. I didn't find it, but I was able to pick up a copy of it from Amazon. <br />
<br />
To say that "Sudden Origins" is information dense is an understatement of epic proportions. This closely written book explores the history of modern evolutionary synthesis and the most current, (as of 1999 when this book was printed) cutting edge advances in the many ways that evolution can be expressed.<br />
<br />
Schwartz is not saying that "evolution is not creating anything new" in this book. On the contrary! Professor Schwartz very firmly accepts that evolutionary changes happen over time to populations.<br />
<br />
What Schwartz disagrees with is the older evolutionary idea that evolution happens slowly, through minute changes to the genome. He argues that there is a mechanism that corrects genetic changes, that cells maintain a "DNA homeostasis". According to Schwartz, Darwin's finches, upon observation over time, seem to demonstrate this homeostasis since the bills of the finches never deviate too far.<br />
<br />
Professor Schwartz has actually authored a Journal Article for the "Anatomical Record" (<a href="http://cvaas.org/files/Maresca_Schwartz_sudden_origins.pdf">link to PDF</a>) that argues that mutation in organisms require extreme environmental stress to overcome this homeostasis and alter development. Minor stresses or natural mutations would be suppressed, but major stresses would lead to evolutionary changes that could result in new organisms.<br />
<br />
So what, exactly, does Schwartz say on pages 317-320 of his book, "Sudden Origins"? You can read it for yourself, I've scanned the relevant pages: (<a href="http://cvaas.org/files/Sudden%20Origina%20-%20scan.pdf">link to PDF</a>), but I'll paraphrase.<br />
<br />
Professor Schwartz has been explaining the history of the theory of evolution, and is now speaking about the Modern Synthesis. He talks about the interdisciplinary disagreements about evolution, and the disagreements about how evolution happens between evolutionary biologists. In a nutshell, every scientist has theories about evolution that are attached to their own fields of study, and some of these theories seem to be in conflict. Perhaps they are, perhaps not. But Schwartz points out that this conflict is often based on hierarchy within the study of evolution. And traditionally, paleontologists had the hierarchical advantage - but geneticists were fast closing in and coming up with evidence that paleontologists must acknowledge as true.<br />
<br />
The 'money quote' that Watch Tower publications seems to be touting is this one, found on page 319:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">Although the goal of simplicity may lead to a better, or at least a clearer, explanation, it does not constitute a test of the theory of natural selection itself. Nonetheless, it is important to realize that if, according to Williams, natural selection strives to maintain stability, then the picture of evolution that emerges is one in which nothing of significance happens until it is disrupted by mutation. Natural selection may be accommodating individuals to the vicissitudes of daily existence by choosing among the already available alleles, <b>but it is not creating anything new</b>. This does appear to be what Williams meant when he so clearly distinguished between individual adaptation and the processes of evolutionary change that lead to speciation.</span></blockquote>
"<b>It is not creating anything new.</b>" This is exactly the quote attributed to professor Schwartz in the October issue of "AWAKE" and in the "Is Life Created?" brochure. But as we can see by this paragraph, Schwartz is merely discussing the research of another evolutionary biologist, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Williams">George C. Williams</a>. <br />
<br />
Evolution, for a long time, has been considered a process of mutation and adaptation through natural selection over a long period of time. Williams argued that natural selection would remove those mutation traits that would reduce fitness, making it more difficult for new species to arise.<br />
<br />
Instead, according to Williams, adaptation would only happen under unusual, or stressful, or "onerous" times, and it wouldn't happen to the individual or the group, it would happen to the genes. <br />
<br />
Williams later came to admit that based on the evidence, group selection does occur in nature.<br />
<br />
Professor Schwartz's book discusses the idea of sudden speciation due to extreme environmental influence. To me, it seems like his idea builds on the idea of "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium">punctuated equilibrium</a>" as proposed by Eldredge and Gould. Indeed, Schwartz discusses this in his book.<br />
<br />
And finally, <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/3crrmj/new_backstabbing_quote_of_an_scientist_in_awake/">during an online discussion</a> of this quote mining, one individual actually emailed Professor Schwartz and asked him his opinion. (<a href="http://cvaas.org/files/Dishonest%20quoting%20of%20Jeffrey%20H%20Schwartz.pdf">Link to PDF</a>) From that email:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">This reference is taken out of context from my book Sudden Origins. My argument is a present-day version of non-Darwinians, including Huxley and Mivart: adaptation cannot explain both the origin of novelty and the persistence of novelty - only the latter. But changes in the molecular signaling pathways that underlie development can. So I'm not rejecting Darwin's discussion of adaptation, only putting it in a better explanatory place.</span></blockquote>
In other words, Schwartz is of the opinion that adaptation would preserve the species, not change it. Mutation at the genetic level is required for speciation. Schwartz definitely accepts that speciation happens in evolutionary terms, he just emphasizes a somewhat different method than what Darwin assumed.<br />
<br />
In other words, he's doing science.<br />
<br />
I can't say what the Watch Tower thinks it is doing. But it certainly is NOT science. <br />
<br />
It is obvious that someone at the Watch Tower had a copy of "Sudden Origins". And if they read it, they would know that Schwartz most definitely supports the theory of evolution. Even if they only read this one paragraph they would also know that Schwartz wasn't speaking for himself, he was instead quoting another evolutionary biologist who also accepts the theory of evolution.<br />
<br />
If they had bothered to google professor Schwartz, they would also know that the quote is wrong. If they read anything that Schwartz had written, they would know that he supports evolution.<br />
<br />
This leads us to the question, did the person who wrote this not actually understand anything that he or she read? Were they just that stupid? I find this difficult to believe. It would require a great deal of stupidity! <br />
<br />
No, it is much more likely that the person who created this quote out of context did so knowing that it does NOT support the position that "evolution does not create anything new". <br />
<br />
Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:2 that it is "shameful" to deceive by distorting the words of God (Jehovah). Is it any less shameful to distort anyone's words in order to deceive?Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-27805153745780050042015-09-25T23:36:00.003-07:002015-09-25T23:37:53.466-07:00Christianity; unpluggedI read an analogy that I found appropriate.<br />
<br />
Being on the outside and looking in at Christianity is like being unplugged from "The Matrix".<br />
<br />
Everyone who is "plugged in" lives in a world where a deity rules supreme, where angels and Satan exist, where the saved mingle with the saints, and the unsaved are forgotten - or worse, they are NOT forgotten!<br />
<br />
But outside, there are those of us who look at this complex inner life, and can do very little to change it. We can talk, we can yell. It doesn't matter. As Cypher said, "Ignorance is bliss."<br />
<br />
I won't strain the analogy by talking about pills of various colors, and whether or not it is a sign of intelligence to be on the inside, or the outside of this belief system.<br />
<br />
But I will say that being on the outside has been very rewarding. <br />
<br />
I am responsible for my own actions. I'm not "gifted" - no deity <i>gave</i> me anything. I have some talent, and some hard won skills, and a lot of luck and support from those who love me. What I've accomplished I can have pride in, and I can be grateful to those people who have invested in my future.<br />
<br />
I don't have a mental peeping Tom. That realization alone was extremely valuable to me. In the privacy of my thoughts, I'm allowed to be unkind, to be jealous, to be angry. I'm allowed to <i>feel</i>, and not feel guilty for feeling. I spent almost 3 decades believing that my thoughts were monitored, in a real "tinfoil hat" manner. I was being judged by a deity who knew my least charitable thoughts.<br />
<br />
That's gone. And it is freeing! And yes, I know that my actions are informed by my thoughts, so I do try to keep good mental hygiene. But at the same time, I'm allowed to give myself some space to be outraged, to be unkind, to throw my own pity-party. I just keep it short, and then get over it. I didn't realize how much I stressed over this silliness. <br />
<br />
I've lost my fear of Hell. That gave me nightmares as a believer. Even as someone who can lucid dream, some nightmares hurt before I could bring them under control. With that worry gone, my dreams are much less Armageddon-ish.<br />
<br />
All in all, my life is much less stressful outside the Matrix. It is more relaxed. There is no "God-shaped hole" in my life. And there is no more fear there either.Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-16643735463609925182015-08-25T20:39:00.000-07:002015-08-27T20:44:58.779-07:00The Christian church is its own biggest enemyEd Stetzer writes in <i>Christianity Today</i> about pastors who are finding themselves on the Ashley Madison list.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2015/august/my-pastor-is-on-ashley-madison-list.html">From the article: </a><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #990000;">Based on my conversations with leaders from several denominations in the U.S. and Canada, I estimate that at least 400 church leaders (pastors, elders, staff, deacons, etc.) will be resigning Sunday. (Due to being on the Ashley Madison List)</span></blockquote>
I'm not surprised.<br />
<br />
This isn't a dig. Oh, sure, I've been making digs at the Duggar family for Josh's (many!) indiscretions. But mostly that is because they have made a name for themselves as a literal "Holier than Thou" family. They are suffering from a poverty of humility.<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=bk2H2h192V0C&pg=PA72#v=onepage&q&f=false">Steve Farrar’s book, "<i>Finishing Strong</i>"</a> (published in 2000):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">A number of years ago a national conference for church youth directors was held at a major hotel in a city in the mid-west. Youth pastors by the hundreds flooded into that hotel and took nearly every room. At the conclusion of the conference, the hotel manager told the conference administrator that the number of guests who tuned into the adult movie channel broke the previous record, far and away outdoing any other convention in the history of the hotel.</span></blockquote>
The consumption of "porn on demand" in hotels during Christian conferences has been noted since the '90's. Pastors, Churches, and major religious bodies have been publicly warning their flocks that they are being watched. But the warnings never worked because "Plausible deniability" made it all too easy.<br />
<br />
Non-Christians fail too. But even very public non-Christians generate little more than a "meh" in the media when they are caught cheating. <br />
<br />
This deficit of humility, this hypocrisy, this facade of pretending that biological urges don't exist, and the refusal to have frank and rational discussions about human sexuality is chipping away at religion like an ice pick. <br />
<br />
The Church is portraying itself as rigid, unyielding, and impassive toward those who are vulnerable. It is seen as being unable to live up to its own ideas.<br />
<br />
No wonder church attendance is dropping among young people. The youth of this generation is having this conversation. And they are noticing who is telling them to "shut up" about it.Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-69539481285581500132015-08-22T06:00:00.000-07:002015-08-22T06:00:01.456-07:00Ten Year anniversary of the Calladus Blog!Can you believe it? As of today I've had this blog online for ten years!<br />
<br />
Way back when, in 2003, I started a website called, "The Calladus Project" on Tripod. It was about some of my thoughts, and I used it to play with wysiwyg HTML editors. I wrote several pieces there, but didn't touch much on the themes of skepticism and atheism.<br />
<br />
I quickly ran into the limitations of HTML and HTML tables, and in creating multiple pages and a table of contents to jump to each new posting. Frankly, it was a dinky website that was becoming claustrophobic. And since I was holding down a full time job AND going to school at the time, I wasn't about to use HTML to invent the "next new thing".<br />
<br />
So in 2005 I shut down my tripod page. <a href="http://calladus.tripod.com/">I left a sign there, to indicate I was moving</a>. And I started "The Calladus Blog" right here on Blogger.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2005/08/why-cant-we-all-believe-in-power-of.html">I created a brand new first post</a> in which I mentioned the new podcast, "Skepticality". I also wrote about how terrible it was that people believe that humans in the past just are not smart enough to invent and build wondrous things.<br />
<br />
In 2005, three years before California Proposition 8 was implemented, and ten years before the Supreme Court ruling that same sex marriage is constitutional, <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2005/08/same-sex-marriage-is-inevitable.html">I made the prediction that same sex marriage was inevitable</a>. I based this upon the fact that same sex couples were already raising children, and that these children were more accepting of same sex couples. I did not mention that friends and relatives of these children, and friends and relatives and parents of gay children are also more accepting of homosexuality and of LGBT rights. I didn't mention that this was a form of positive feedback that would continue to grow. I think I knew this argument at the time, but didn't include it.<br />
<br />
In August 2005 I purchased the domain names calladus.com and calladus.net. I set them up as a redirect, so if you put those into your browser address bar, you'll end up back here at my blog. If for some reason my blog ever disappears, try using those addresses and see if you get to a new destination.<br />
<br />
My first post to gain lots of attention was a humorous post I made <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2005/12/scrape-out-gecko-and-repaint.html">about a very unfortunate Gecko</a>. It also gained me a friend that I've never met in person, but hold great respect and admiration for. (Hi Sumi!)<br />
<br />
Here are a few of my most popular posts over the last ten years:<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2006/03/good-good-good-good-vibrations.html">I explain crystals to a young woman who works in a pyramid</a></li>
<li><a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2013/06/is-victimless-crime.html">I explain why "Sin" is a victimless crime</a></li>
<li><a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2007/10/christians-how-to-witness-to-atheist.html">I teach Christians how to witness to atheists</a></li>
<li><a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2006/11/reply-to-daniel-j-lewis.html">I respond to a spokesperson for the group Answers in Genesis</a></li>
<li><a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2007/08/another-non-believers-symbol.html">I create my own non-believer's symbol - the Fleur-de-pensée</a></li>
<li><a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2011/11/did-it-this-is-dishonest-answer.html">I explain why "I don't know" is an honest, scientific answer</a></li>
<li><a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2010/04/our-new-national-id-card-or-not.html">I discuss the benefits and problems of a National ID Card</a></li>
<li><a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2011/06/it-was-evil-to-jonah-great-evil.html">I explain exactly why Jonah ran away from God</a></li>
</ul>
The one post that gets absolutely the most traffic on my blog is, <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2006/09/testing-counterfeit-money-detector-pen.html">Testing the Counterfeit Money Detector Pen by DriMark</a>. This post was created in response to a Skeptic's Circle contest held in September 2006, and hosted that month by Dr. Janet Stemwedel. You can find Dr. Stemwedel at her blog, "<a href="http://ethicsandscience.scientopia.org/">Adventures in Ethics and Science</a>" - where she's still doing great things.<br />
<br />
Traffic to my Counterfeit Money page comes mostly from Google searches, or from links in various web forums that talk about counterfeit money - from both sides of the law. I am somewhat amused that I get just as much referrals from police and law abiding people warning about DriMark as I do from people who are attempting to create "funny" money.<br />
<br />
Looking back at that post, I can see that the formatting didn't change gracefully when I made blog changes. I may re-make the entire post to make it prettier.<br />
<br />
I am proud that one of my posts has actually been cited in a few different semi-scholarly places. That post was in response to Tony Perkins, President of James Dobson’s Christian lobbying organization “Family Research Council". Mr. Perkins stated in March 2007 that there are "stacks of peer-reviewed research" that show abstinence only education is effective. <br />
<br />
Due to Mr. Perkin's statement, I started reviewing the "peer-reviewed research" that he cited. And I found that it was all a sham - a facade created out of whole clothe to give people against birth control something to point at. I wrote up what I found in a post called, "<a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2007/04/lets-examine-proof-that-abstinence-only.html">Let's examine the proof that Abstinence Only education programs actually work</a>".<br />
<br />
Some of the posts that I'm the most proud of have to do with the intersection of religion and human rights. Specifically how some religious positions limit human rights. The post that most demonstrates this is, "<a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2008/01/if-abortion-is-murder-then-coffee-is.html">If Abortion is murder, coffee is manslaughter</a>". In this post I explore the implications of declaring humans to exist as persons under the law from the moment of conception. If a blastocyst has the same rights as a born human, then how shall we treat those women who are guilty of the death of their unborn through criminal negligence? Later, I followed this post up with, "<a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2011/11/abortion-vs-personhood.html">Abortion vs. Personhood</a>" - which further clarifies terms, and explains why the chance of miscarriage can increase due to a woman's actions. This leads to grave implications if a zygote is legally the same as a born person!<br />
<br />
As an atheist, my blog contains questions and responses to Christians. Of course, I'm not a "big name" atheist, so I get relatively little discussion. Still, I have to ask. For example, <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2007/04/heaven-full-of-sorrow.html">how can anyone be happy in Heaven if there is a Hell</a>? Or how about this, <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2006/09/mind-hacking-god.html">if an atheist can recreate the experience of the Holy Spirit at will</a>, what does that say about people who base their faith upon this experience? Here's another question - <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-can-i-contact-that-sweet-old-lady.html">if you try to witness people into a religion, what happens when that religion is proved false</a>? In this case, it can be both funny, and extremely sad.<br />
<br />
And I answer questions that have been put to me. "<a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-i-believe.html">What do you believe?</a>" "<a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-is-atheism-important.html">Why do you discuss atheism</a>", and my favorite, "<a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-simple-answer-to-bother.html">What's the point of life if you're an atheist? Why bother?</a>"<br />
<br />
I've tried to inform and teach in my blog from time to time. I'm very much interested in art, and most love Romantic Realism. Over a 3 year period from 2005 to 2008 I posted "<a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/search/label/Atelier">Friday in the Atelier</a>" about art that I love. <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-is-art-part-i.html">I also posted a 3 part series called, "What is Art?"</a> where I explained the difference between the skill of Pierre-Auguste Cot, the unskilled "happy accident" produced by Jackson Pollack. And I speak about Pablo Picasso - who had skill but decided to use as little of it as possible so it wouldn't interfere with the time he spent with wine and women.<br />
<br />
One of my informational posts that gets heavy traffic is about <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2013/09/i-from-pg-agressive-selling-tactics.html">the aggressive selling tactics shown by members of the Core Gas Aggregation program</a>. These are the people who knock on your door and say, "Hi! I'm from PG&E! Can I look at your latest PG&E bill?" My take is that if you have to lie to sell your product, then you don't deserve the sale.<br />
<br />
There's been drama in my blog. Frankly, I wish I could have avoided the whole <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/search/label/Possum">"Possummomma" affair</a>. I am left saddened and confused by my friendship with Chris - who is no longer communicating with old friends. I haven't heard from her in years now - although I see occasional updates on Facebook. I am still not making any conclusions on the matter, one way or the other. But because of this drama I have become much more wary of offering assistance to any blogger.<br />
<br />
And that is sad, because I've been the beneficiary of assistance when I needed it most. <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2010/01/grief-comes-in-waves.html">On the death of my late wife, Won Chong</a>, I received over $3,000 from very kind people all over the world - which helped me fly to Korea and bring Won back home. That was a dark time for me, and my blog updates dropped off dramatically after that.<br />
<br />
I've had other dark spots in my blog. Not quite as traumatic, but traumatic at the time. For example, <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2008/06/leena-19-feb-1994-14-jun-2008.html">when my dog Leena died</a> - it shook me deeply. From my point of view now, it seems like the foreshadowing of Won's death.<br />
<br />
There's been bittersweet. <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2012_02_01_archive.html">Losing my dog Tasha, just after proposing to my wife Wendy</a>. That is also a whiplash of the heart. Wendy and I have recently lost another dog due to old age. I've yet to write about her, but I expect that I will. I've heard it said that owning a pet was owning delayed heartbreak.<br />
<br />
But there has also been healing. Finding out that <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2008/08/introducing-ronald-lee-darsey-of-texas.html">my scumbag ex-stepfather was in jail for his crimes</a> was extremely healing for me and my sister. And knowing that my sister had some part in putting him there made us both do a fist-pump of triumph. <br />
<br />
And <a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2011/05/if-you-see-me-as-blur.html">buying a house together with Wendy has also been amazingly great.</a> I had not thought that I'd ever be married again, but I lucked out and found a perfect mate.<br />
<br />
My blog posting hasn't increased to the point where it was before 2010. But that's for mostly happy reasons. I'm a homeowner, a newlywed, and more active in my hobbies of woodworking and aquaponics. I have also started researching several possible books, and have been writing a little. I hope to become more serious about that.<br />
<br />
I do write in a much more trivial manner, much more often, on Reddit. Look me up as Calladus there to see what I've written. Don't expect too much of it to be very profound.<br />
<br />
And now, at the ten year mark, the question remains. Do I continue blogging?<br />
<br />
Yea, whenever I think I have something to say, I'll blog about it here. It probably won't be amazing, and I will probably never have a large audience. But it will always be what I'm thinking about. And it may occasionally be profound.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-13129921204928339612015-08-20T19:31:00.000-07:002015-08-20T19:31:00.035-07:00What do you say at an atheist's funeral?First, don't be alarmed. This isn't about me. I've got plans to spend a few more decades on this planet. Longer, if possible!<br />
<br />
But I recently ran into a conversation where a very nice Christian pastor had been asked to speak at an atheist's memorial. Much of this person's family was religious, but the deceased and a few family members were decidedly atheist. The pastor was at a loss of what to say that wouldn't offend someone.<br />
<br />
I sympathize with the pastor - if he is truly empathetic then he is in a difficult position. The answer is much easier to someone who lacks sympathy and rests on the black & white worldview of a devout evangelical. That person would just declare the atheist to be lost from God, and take the opportunity to evangelize to the rest of the people at the memorial.<br />
<br />
This pastor is one of the good guys. He wanted something meaningful to say about an atheist. <br />
<br />
An atheist usually doesn't believe in an afterlife - but there is still the very human urge toward some sort of permanence. There is still the human hope that we matter.<br />
<br />
I think it is appropriate to celebrate our good fortune of being alive. <br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins, in his book, "Unweaving the Rainbow", speaks of this good fortune:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?” </span></blockquote>
I agree that this sentiment is true, but I also think it lacks feeling. It lacks that spiritual poetry that Carl Sagan was so good at creating. I also think that it lacks our own expression of how we will miss others.<br />
<br />
Here is how I would say it.<br /><br />We are here today to remember and celebrate the life of someone we love. Think of (deceased's name) life as a rock thrown into a pond. Think of the ripples and waves from that impact, and how they influence others.<br />
<br />
Every life is like this. Every splash we make in the pond we all share creates ripples that reach out and touch other people. Each person touched by someone else's waves are influenced as their lives in turn create their own swells. It is an ever-expanding series of concentric waves that touch us all.<br /><br />
Each of us is influenced by these echos of the waves of past living people. We are touched by the crests and furrows of the actions of people we have never known, and will never know. We are also caught up in the breakers from those who have made a huge splash in their lives.<br /><br />In this way, one life can impact many.<br />
<br />
Our words and actions also have permanence. What is done can never be undone. This is a great benefit of our lives! <br /><br />If you speak the truth, give aid to a stranger, help a friend, hug a child, kiss your lover - these words and actions happen in a point in time. And when they happen, they can not ever un-happen.<br /><br />When the Earth comes to an end, when the Sun finally dies, when the entire Universe ends - that simple kiss will still have happened. It will never un-happen. That small moment in time is eternally fixed at that point.<br />
<br />
Your friend, partner, child or parent may die. You may age, and age or disease may rob you of your memories. It doesn't matter. That moment you had with them won't un-happen.<br /><br />How shall we celebrate the life of the one we loved?<br /><br />We do this by remembering those permanent points in time that we shared with them. Those cherished moments that happened, that can never be undone.<br /><br />We celebrate their lives by telling the stories of the one we loved. Tell the funny stories, the sad stories, the meaningful stories. Tell them all!<br />
<br />
In sharing these stories, we are emphasizing those points in time in their lives. We are amplifying the ripples of their lives into a swelling wave, into a fun splash that is echoed among us. The influence of our loved one expands even further through our stories.<br />
<br />
And for us who remain behind, what should we take from this? I'll tell you. <br /><br />What we do matters, because it matters right now!<br />
<br />
We should live with joyful exuberance, we should act out of compassion and sympathy and love. We should seek happiness for ourselves, and for others, because it matters. And yes, we can strive to make a huge impact in this little pond we all share, but it is better to be joyful - to joyfully throw our rocks into the pond!<br /><br />Hold close those who are dear to you. Do it for yourselves. Do it in memory of the one we loved and lost. Do it to make that perfect moment that will never be undone!Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-84496944292942050402015-08-17T06:43:00.000-07:002015-08-17T06:43:00.111-07:00Humans need vitamin C to live. This implies that evolution is true.So humans need vitamin C to live. We get vitamin C mostly through fruits and vegetables.<br />
<br />
But what if humans can't get vitamin C? Lack of this vitamin leads to Scurvy, a disease that leads to death. There is lots of evidence of sailing ships losing much of their crew and passengers on long distance voyages because they didn't have a source of vitamin C onboard.<br />
<br />
This leads to an interesting question. What about the Eskimos? The Inuit and Yupik live in the Arctic. During the summer these people had access to grasses, berries and seaweed, and could get vitamin C from that. But winters in the Arctic are long and dark. Plants became unavailable to them.<br />
<br />
So these people got vitamin C from animals. Seal liver and whale blubber both have good concentrations of vitamin C. (Only if eaten raw! Cooking vitamin C destroys it!)<br />
<br />
The Inuit didn't get Scurvy.<br />
<br />
This leads to another interesting question. Why do these animals have vitamin C in them, and we don't?<br />
<br />
It turns out that most mammals don't have to eat foods rich in vitamin C because their bodies make vitamin C naturally.<br />
<br />
Ascorbate (the "ascorbic" part of ascorbic acid - the scientific name for vitamin C) is a basic requirement for life by all animals and plants. It is made internally by every plant, and almost every animal on Earth. Dogs and cats make their own vitamin C. You could get vitamin C from fresh Cow liver. (Raw, of course.)<br />
<br />
But in apes, monkeys and humans, the ability to make vitamin C is... broken.<br />
<br />
And I mean "broken" literally. Animals can synthesize vitamin C from basic carbohydrates through a series of chemical steps in the cell, driven by enzymes. In humans, this sequence of steps is interrupted at the very last step by the lack of one specific enzyme.<br />
<br />
Scientists can detect these steps being performed in our cells, and can see what is missing. On investigation, it has been discovered that the gene that makes this enzyme in other animals is not functioning in humans.<br />
<br />
At some point, our Simian ancestors suffered a genetic mutation that turned off vitamin C synthesis. But no one noticed, because of all the fruits and vegetables that were being normally consumed as part of a standard diet of anthropoids - apes, monkeys and humans.<br />
<br />
This mutation would have been a harmful mutation if circumstances had been different. Our ancestor who couldn't produce vitamin C would have died, leaving no offspring. But vitamin C was still readily available by eating fruits and vegetables rich in vitamin C, and since this was our ancestor's diet this genetic mutation was neutral - not deadly.
<br />
<br />
This leads me to other questions. Are there other animals that are unable to produce their own vitamin C? The answer is yes. Most bats, all Guinea pigs, some birds. And what is interesting is that their vitamin C generating machinery is "broken" in different ways. For example, Guinea pigs also have the same missing enzyme, but it is due to a different gene malfunction. It's not the same gene as the one in humans.
<br />
<br />
Another question. We humans are learning how to do "gene therapy". And restoring the process that produces vitamin C in our cells seems like low hanging fruit (excuse the pun). Can we not "fix" humans so that our progeny will produce vitamin C naturally?
<br />
<br />
I've discovered that there are lots of people looking at this, and some studies and experiments indicate that restoring vitamin C synthesis is possible. But really, we still don't know enough about human cells to guarantee that there are no unintended consequences. Like a higher risk of cancer due to the method of genetic modification used.
<br />
<br />
And lastly, an observation. The study of why humans don't synthesize vitamin C naturally only makes sense when considered together with the theory of evolution. Without this basic foundation, we are unable to understand what has happened and why. Instead we would be left with silly ad-hoc non-explanations like, "God did it".Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-12196932933172939382015-08-16T11:00:00.000-07:002015-08-16T12:45:22.514-07:00Atheist (الملحد), Nonbeliever (اللاربوبية) - whatever you call them, the Islamic world has banned them.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-92KFD6JQQ3s/VdDnhLCktbI/AAAAAAAAEbw/XRk9h5oVSFM/s1600/beheading.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-92KFD6JQQ3s/VdDnhLCktbI/AAAAAAAAEbw/XRk9h5oVSFM/s200/beheading.jpg" width="158" /></a></div>
In 2014, Saudi Arabia, one of America's closest allies, created a new terrorism law. This law, along with various royal decrees by the king of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (سلمان بن عبد العزيز آل سعود) has created a legal framework that criminalizes dissident thought or expression as a form of terrorism. The punishments are severe.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/03/20/saudi-arabia-new-terrorism-regulations-assault-rights">From Human Rights Watch</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">On January 31, Saudi authorities promulgated the Penal Law for Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing (the “terrorism law”). The law has serious flaws, including vague and overly broad provisions that allow authorities to criminalize free expression, and the creation of excessive police powers without judicial oversight. The law cites violence as an essential element only in reference to attacks carried out against Saudis outside the kingdom or onboard Saudi transportation carriers. Inside the kingdom, “terrorism” can be non-violent – consisting of “any act” intended to, among other things, “insult the reputation of the state,” “harm public order,” or “shake the security of society,” which the law fails to clearly define.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">...</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">The interior ministry regulations include other sweeping provisions that authorities can use to criminalize virtually any expression or association critical of the government and its understanding of Islam. These “terrorism” provisions include the following:</span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #990000;">Article 1: “Calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based.” </span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
So you can't question Islam. You can't point out that it is silly, has no evidence to support its claims, and that a secular worldview is a valid point of view.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #990000;">Article 2: “Anyone who throws away their loyalty to the country’s rulers, or who swears allegiance to any party, organization, current [of thought], group, or individual inside or outside [the kingdom].” </span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
This would seem to indicate that you are not allowed to immigrate from Saudi Arabia to another country. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #990000;">Article 4: “Anyone who aids [“terrorist”] organizations, groups, currents [of thought], associations, or parties, or demonstrates affiliation with them, or sympathy with them, or promotes them, or holds meetings under their umbrella, either inside or outside the kingdom; this includes participation in audio, written, or visual media; social media in its audio, written, or visual forms; internet websites; or circulating their contents in any form, or using slogans of these groups and currents [of thought], or any symbols which point to support or sympathy with them.” </span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
Since "atheism" is a form of terrorism, then an atheist club is defined as a "terrorist organization". This means that I'm officially a "terrorist leader" due to my position as the president of a local atheist group.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #990000;">Article 6: “Contact or correspondence with any groups, currents [of thought], or individuals hostile to the kingdom.” </span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
Like sending an email to the American Atheists. If you are caught doing this, you are also a terrorist!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #990000;">Article 8: “Seeking to shake the social fabric or national cohesion, or calling, participating, promoting, or inciting sit-ins, protests, meetings, or group statements in any form, or anyone who harms the unity or stability of the kingdom by any means.” </span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
Good by any sort of gathering to discuss civil rights in Saudi Arabia. It's the Kings way, or the chopping block for you!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #990000;">Article 9: “Attending conferences, seminars, or meetings inside or outside [the kingdom] targeting the security of society, or sowing discord in society.” </span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
So by attending an atheist get together, you are a terrorist.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #990000;">Article 11: “Inciting or making countries, committees, or international organizations antagonistic to the kingdom.”
</span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
In other words, you are not supposed to encourage any other country, perhaps America, to insist that Saudi Arabia follow basic human rights.<br /><br />
My thoughts on this - I'm the leader of an atheist organization that I helped to form. I meet with others in this group to discuss various topics. Some of these include how silly Islam is, and how messed up it is to live in an Islamic society like Saudi Arabia. I correspond with the leaders of other groups, both large and small. <br />
<br />
And I think that King Salman of Saudi Arabia is a big poopy head, and a vile opponent of basic human rights. I encourage the citizens of Saudi Arabia to overthrow him and install a democratic government.<br />
<br />
All of this rates me as a vile terrorist by the standard set in Saudi Arabia. I should probably not travel there.<br />
<br />
I'll also point out that even though it is banned, <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121559/rise-arab-atheists">there are increasing numbers of atheists in the Islamic world</a>, including Saudi Arabia. And just like here in America, the religious fanatics are losing their grip on power and they are becoming more fanatic in response. They are becoming dangerous because they are being cornered.<br />
<br />
This is why Islam is dangerous. Because the Islamic leaders of the world cannot stand to have their religion questioned. They consider this to be "blasphemy".Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-85889737499837691482015-08-15T06:03:00.000-07:002015-08-15T06:03:00.368-07:00I've got an amazing blog update coming!I'll be posting something amazing, just a week from today, on the 22nd of August!
Well, amazing to me. Still, I'm pretty happy and somewhat astonished about this upcoming blog post!
Stay tuned...Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-88651246755257289902015-07-05T12:08:00.003-07:002015-07-05T13:27:16.559-07:00How many times is "God" or "Christianity" mentioned in the United States Citizenship test?Before my late wife died, she passed her Naturalization test. She never got to be sworn in.<br />
<br />
I was reading the most recent version of the study questions for the civics portion of the Naturalization test. You can find it, along with a Naturalization self test on the <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test">U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website</a>.<br />
<br />
A quick search of the study materials brought up zero mentions of God, Jesus, and Christianity. None whatsoever.<br />
<br />
This is because the <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html">Constitution of the United States</a> does not mention any deity. The only mention of religion is in Article VI - "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."<br />
<br />
People are losing their minds over the recent SCOTUS same-sex ruling, and claiming that America has lost its Christian foundation and that it is in its "last days" along with the rest of the world as Armageddon approaches. <br />
<br />
But according to Christianity, we've been in our "last days" for the last 2,000 years. So pardon me if I don't hold my breath.Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-64598203826756930572015-06-28T15:15:00.000-07:002015-07-05T14:34:41.372-07:00Was it almost "Adam and Ewe" instead of "Adam and Eve"?Since becoming atheist, I've come to enjoy reading the bible much more than I did as a Christian. It just seems more fun to learn when there is no pressure to pass a test at the end of class!<br />
<br />
I'm also having fun reading Christian apologetics. (<a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2014/01/do-you-have-book-that-will-make-me.html">You are encouraged to recommend your favorite apologetics to me!</a>)<br />
<br />
I keep running into little tidbits in the Bible that make me wonder. Genesis 1:18-20 is one of my favorites. <br />
<br />
Here's the setup. God has finished his creation. He worked for six days, and rested on the seventh. Rain wasn't invented as yet, so the plants and animals just dealt with a divine automatic drip watering system. God made the Garden of Eden, and an orchard, where he placed Man, plants and animals. He tells Adam to take care of the orchard, and to not eat the fruit from the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.<br />
<br />
Everything is set, but something is missing. To quote the Bible, (NET translation), <a href="https://bible.org/netbible/index.htm?gen2.htm">Genesis 2:18-20</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">2:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. <i>I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him</i>.”</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">2:19 The Lord God <i>formed out of the ground every living animal</i> of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">2:20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam <i>no companion who corresponded to him was found</i>.</span></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ra7Pcg_GtZw/VZmd_YlJPJI/AAAAAAAAEYA/HnBlSLi8k-A/s1600/sheepinbed.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" height="179" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ra7Pcg_GtZw/VZmd_YlJPJI/AAAAAAAAEYA/HnBlSLi8k-A/s320/sheepinbed.jpg" title="" width="320" /></a></div>
You have to ask yourself - is God stupid?<br />
<br />
He has just figured out that Adam needs a mate, and instead of immediately creating one, he sees if Adam wants one from the laundry list of animals that God created. You get the impression of a long line of animals, presumably mostly female, and Adam saying, "Nope. Nuh huh. No. Not that one. No..." as he works his way through the lineup.<br />
<br />
How different would our world be if Adam found just one animal to his liking?<br />
<br />
Would a sheep be temped by the serpent? Would there be original sin?<br />
<br />
The truth is that many different creation mythologies teach that humans and animals are equals in the distant past. Cultures predating the Bible have left evidence that they believed this. So it is no surprise that the idea finds itself in the Bible. Biblical stories often find their roots in the stories of earlier religions.<br />
<br />
I've had religious people argue with me that I'm not interpreting this correctly, that this is a mistranslation, and that the Hebrew word עֵזֶר (’ezer) means "Helper" instead of "Companion". Which isn't true, this word implies an equal role in the relationship - not a subordinate role that the word "helper" would imply. (The same word is used elsewhere as a label for Eve.)<br />
<br />
If you want to see a Christian tap dance, bring up this verse and watch how fast they try to explain it away. The truth is much more simple - the text is accurate as is because it taps into older creation myths.Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-50886184917177225382015-06-17T19:19:00.000-07:002015-07-05T13:35:00.626-07:00Belief in a divine enforcer precludes true morality.<a href="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2006/10/hateful-christians-answers-in-genesis.html">I've written before of the Evangelical Christian fallacy</a> that without God, atheists are allowed to do as they please, since they lack any moral guidelines.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0Yzc2XWEzLw/VYL0-q72tAI/AAAAAAAAEXQ/ZpoE2upLD6c/s1600/paul%2Bhill.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0Yzc2XWEzLw/VYL0-q72tAI/AAAAAAAAEXQ/ZpoE2upLD6c/s200/paul%2Bhill.jpg" width="181" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Paul Jennings Hill</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Atheists find this argument to be troubling at best, and downright scary at the worst. If the only thing holding a Christian back from rape and murder is the fear of punishment, then such a person should be avoided! <br />
<br />
It is also possible for a Christian (like Christian minister, Paul Jennings Hill) to use their religion to justify murder as an ethical action.<br />
<br />
When a Christian is serious about basing their ethical guidelines on the Bible, it is reasonable to ask how they interpret the Bible in order to find those allowed by the Bible. Mr. Hill, for example, had an interpretation that may be very different from other people.<br />
<br />
But all of this is a different argument.<br />
<br />
<b>I contend that the belief in a divine lawgiver and enforcer actually precludes ethical behavior on the part of the believer.</b><br />
<br />
Let's make it clear. The Bible states that people who act in a manner that pleases God will be rewarded, and those who do not will be punished. Matthew 25:31-46 is quite clear that our actions will be judged.<br />
<br />
We must question whether it is even possible to act in a moral manner when a person's very thoughts are under constant scrutiny and their actions and thoughts are being weighed to see if they are a "sheep" or a "goat". Whether or not a divine judge actually exists would seem to be beside the point. The real belief that a divine judge actually exists will influence a person's actions.<br />
<br />
If a Christian does good, by giving to the poor, comforting the sick, or just being a friend in a time of need, there must remain some awareness that God's judgement upon them is tracking their actions and adding those actions to their "book of life". And this is more than action - the Bible makes it very clear that a Christian is even judged by his or her own thoughts.<br />
<br />
Even if a Christian has the best of motives, even if they are truly altruistic, they must be aware at some level that their actions and thoughts are being monitored by the being that will judge them as being worthy of Heaven, or condemned for that other destination (which varies among the different Christian denominations.)<br />
<br />
This knowledge reduces all lofty motives to the level of merely covering one's ass.<br />
<br />
If you do good, some part of you knows you will be rewarded. If you do bad, that same part knows that you will be punished. Knowing this, how can a person claim that they are acting out of a moral purpose? How can a person act ethically when that person is under constant surveillance and a promise of reward or punishment for their thoughts and deeds?<br />
<br />
I submit that it is only possible to act ethically when one is sure that there is no reward or punishment for one's actions. The true belief in the existence of God precludes true morality - only those people who act without the expectation of reward or punishment, now or in some afterlife, are capable of morality.<br />
<br />
A true example of morality is an atheist who does good in secret, free from the judgement of humanity and divinity.Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-47196951417422662472015-06-11T10:14:00.000-07:002015-06-11T10:14:02.742-07:00The Stupid QuestionIt is likely that at some point in your life, someone has said to you that, "There are no stupid questions". That person was probably trying to make you feel at ease in a learning environment.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately that person was incorrect. Possibly they didn't know any better. But the truth is, there is most definitely such a thing as a "stupid question".<br />
<br />
A stupid question is a question that is asked with the intent to halt discussion and interfere with learning. It is asked with the intent to belittle the subject at hand and the person talking about that subject. Stupid questions are used make black insinuations about the receiver's character and morals.<br />
<br />
The person asking the stupid question will defend him or herself by saying, "It's just a question" or "Don't be so touchy" or "Why are you taking this so personally?"<br />
<br />
"When did you stop beating your wife?" This is an excellent example of a stupid question. It impugns the recipient's moral character, and forces the recipient to take the time to unpack the question, dissect it and answer it. It could be an excellent "drive by" question that would derail any conversation. It is never asked in the spirit of conversation or learning. It is never asked by someone seeking truth.<br /><br />"Were you there?" This is a favorite question of creationists. This isn't just an example of a stupid question, it is a very common question that pops up in discussions with creationists all the time. <br />
<br />
Like any stupid question, the person asking the question is not looking for any sort of answer that increases knowledge or seeks truth. Instead, the creationist asking this question is trying to shut down the conversation in order to declare victory over the other person.<br /><br />Again, a stupid question is asked in order to stop the discussion. And in order to answer the question, it must be unpacked, examined on its own and then answered. Which of course derails the conversation - which accomplishes the questioner's goal.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/05/creationism_and_evolution_in_school_religious_students_can_t_learn_natural.html">Creationists love this tactic of asking stupid questions so much that they actually instruct school children to ask these questions in science class</a>. <br /><br />Don't allow yourself to be tricked into asking a stupid question by people with an agenda. Instead, learn how to ask smart questions. Ask a question that is designed to elicit further explanation, to encourage teaching, to enhance your own learning.<br /><br />Ask, "How do you know?" That is a smart question.Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-41950060612371633942015-04-22T22:33:00.000-07:002015-04-25T10:23:21.685-07:00Most of my money is "Godless".<p>America has two mottos, the first is "E Pluribus Unum" proposed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson in 1776, and adopted in 1782. It is a Latin phrase that means "Out of many, One". Which by its very nature includes all Americans. It leaves no one out. This motto is part of the Great Seal of the United States.</p><p>Our second motto is, "In God We Trust". It was adopted in 1956, during the Second Red Scare and that period of McCarthyism where America was reacting to the "Godless Soviets". It is a motto enacted out of fear. This second motto is inherently divisive, since it divides those Americans who do not believe in a God, who do not believe in one god, or who do not agree that the God of America is a Christian God (as opposed to Hindu or Islamic).</p><p>This has led to secular efforts to remove God from American money.</p><p>I say that this is no longer necessary. God is on very little of my money.</p><p>Let me explain.</p><p><a href="http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-uQoFu1kGHzE/VTlcwtXwHeI/AAAAAAAAEUw/QKQ0ugvWf4c/%25255BUNSET%25255D.png"><img style="float: right; border: 8px solid White;" src="http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-uQoFu1kGHzE/VTlcwtXwHeI/AAAAAAAAEUw/QKQ0ugvWf4c/%25255BUNSET%25255D.png" alt="Facebook image" width="300" height="38" /></a></p><p>You can find lots of people online who will exclaim, "You don't like 'God' on your money? Then give it all to me!"</p><p>Yes, this is a "Gotcha" statement by immature people who believe they are being clever. But the reality is, lots of people - maybe most - just don't carry that much "God" money on us.</p><p>Let us assume that I would be willing to transfer to you all the money in my possession that has "God" printed on it, if you would agree to transfer all the money in your possession that does NOT have "God" printed on it.</p><p>Let me look around. I've got $40 in two twenties that I'll use to pay the gentleman who cuts my grass. I've got a couple dollars, and about three dollars in quarters. There may be an additional few dollars in pennies, nickles and dimes around my house. All together, it is probably less than $60 total - and that's being generous.</p><p>But what about my bank account you ask?</p><p>I have several bank accounts for various reasons. I'll look at the statement for my "personal allowance" account for March of this year. I deposit money in this account as my personal allowance, that I allow myself to use for things like eating out, buying toys or books, or shopping online. At the end of March I had a balance of $323.15.</p><p>In my statement, there are no photographs of this money. My online statement is more up-to-date than my printed statement, but even this lacks a hyperlink to images of my money. I can't point you to the actual hundreds, twenties, and ones that make up the balance of this account. That is because as long as it is in my bank account, it does not refer to bills or coins, but is instead merely numbers in a computer accounting system.</p><p>But surely those numbers are backed by actual paper and coin?</p><p>No. <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12770.htm">According to the Federal Reserve</a>, the numbers in my bank account are backed by collateral - collateral chiefly represented by government securities. So perhaps some of the numbers in my bank account are backed by Gold or Silver, but more likely, they are backed by the National Debt of the United States - which is also columns of numbers in an accounting system.</p><p>Nowhere in these columns of numbers does "God" appear.</p><p>When I go shopping, whether to purchase gum, gasoline, or a new roof for my house, I don't pay with god-based money. Instead I pay with a debit card, a credit card, or in very rare cases - a cashier's check, money order, or personal check. None of these forms of payment have the words, "In God We Trust" on them.</p><p>In fact, <a href="http://press.capitalone.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251626&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1858502">I'm allowed to personalize my credit card</a>. So I put a "terrible atheist" symbol on it. One that has been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansy#Symbolism">in use for over 130 years to represent secular, humanist, and atheist causes</a>. I branded my atheist credit card with a field of Pansies. Every time I use it to purchase something, I am literally paying with atheist money. (Well, atheist credit, at least!) And at the end of the month, I make my accounts balance by going online to my credit card company, and transferring a column of numbers from my bank account to my credit card account.</p><p>No God involved.</p><p>So you can see that my bank accounts, my mortgage account, my retirement accounts, and my credit card account have no dealing with God or gods. They are not representing, nor represented by a deity. They are merely numbers in differing accounts, held by a polite fiction that our society has agreed to pretend means something.</p><p>So if I give you the approximately $60 that I have in Federal Reserve banknotes and coins that have "In God We Trust" printed on it, then you should give me all the money you have that does NOT have "God" printed on it. All those numbers in columns in your bank account.</p><p>No, you won't have to purchase banknotes to do this - <a href="https://squareup.com/">I have my own debit / credit card reader. They are free to get, and easy to use!</a></p><p>Or, I'll happily take a cashier's check.</p>Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-77686483878901532912015-04-08T20:14:00.000-07:002015-04-24T20:14:47.007-07:00I attended the Jehovah's Witness Memorial Celebration<p>On Friday, April 3, 2015, I attended the Jehovah's Witness annual memorial celebration of Christ's death.</p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKHSa0CfEtSt1TYSNuCRxQZapf-lxDYnt9EWd2UrwObKjb1eYG9hoBD-MIDShsBn1K5Z04_TDHim8crpgHMhi83CWbeXX5p9-eVFjaiAqPb_btsvBCx6dxZwxQn0BVfJdi4oEy/"><img style="float: right; border: 8px solid white;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKHSa0CfEtSt1TYSNuCRxQZapf-lxDYnt9EWd2UrwObKjb1eYG9hoBD-MIDShsBn1K5Z04_TDHim8crpgHMhi83CWbeXX5p9-eVFjaiAqPb_btsvBCx6dxZwxQn0BVfJdi4oEy/" alt="Invitation to attend memorial - click to enlarge" width="250" height="345" /></a>Yes, I was invited. Three very nice JWs arrived at my door, and presented me with an invitation. They said it didn't matter what I believed, or did not believe.</p><p>So of course I went! I even dressed up for the event!</p><p>The event was held at the Verdi Club, a banquet facility in Fresno. <a href="http://verdiclubfresno.com/fresno-ca-banquet-facility-photos.htm">It's a somewhat stark looking place</a>, surrounded by a 6 foot chain link fence, <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/place/36°46'27.9"N+119°50'37.8"W">It's on a rough side of town</a>, near the highway and train tracks.</p><p>When I and a friend arrived, security for the event was obvious, with off duty police, security guards, and people in suits and sunglasses directing traffic. I guess we were dressed sufficiently, because no one stopped us from walking into the event.</p><p>We were greeted by lots of people welcoming us into the event, and shaking hands. We found seating on the second row from the front.</p><p>The event reminded me a lot of the many hundreds of hours I've spent listening to a "teaching preacher", who explained where a particular tradition came from and why we were all following it now. This was interspersed with a couple of hymns and some prayer. Very little was different from my upbringing in the Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, except this speaker tended to drone in a monotone. This wasn't nearly as exciting as the worship I've experienced in American Baptist, Korean Baptist or Korean Pentecostal churches. It took a serious effort to distill the drone of the officiant into something I could process.</p><p>The one thing that I did find very interesting, that I did not already know, is that <a href="http://thejehovahswitnesses.org/memorial-celebration.php">communion is restricted to the 144,000 who the Holy Spirit has already selected to go to Heaven</a>. So when communion was passed around, I was interested to see that no one partook of it.</p><p>It would seem to me that partaking of communion would be a sign of hubris and narcissism by anyone who did so.<br /><br />I've always felt somewhat indebted to the Jehovah's Witnesses, since it was a witness who got me thinking about religion in general, and that started me on my investigation of cults, and later of religions in general. That self-study of religions where I compared one to another is what led me to compare my own beliefs to what I had learned, and found just as little evidence for those beliefs as I had for all the other cults and religions I had studied.</p>Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-91798162188898634222015-03-09T19:01:00.000-07:002015-04-06T18:47:59.613-07:00A quick check in on Ronnie<p>So Ronnie got out of prison in September 2013. What's he been up to since then?</p><p><img style="float: right; border: 8px solid white;" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/-ZXJduVdh7RQ/VP83YrSVv9I/AAAAAAAAET0/RvVkdknBP2k/%25255BUNSET%25255D.jpg" alt="" width="250" height="237" /></p><p>First, he is required to check in with the Texas Department of Public Safety sex offender registry once a quarter for the rest of his life. They take photos of him and update his other information at this time.</p><p>From his latest photo, you can see he is really working on covering up his receding chin with his beard. His hair looks mussed... which is interesting because he was usually very careful about keeping it neatly combed.</p><p>He's not wearing a military surplus jacket. Maybe it just wasn't that cold when this photo was taken. Or maybe because it is difficult for Ronnie to claim they were issued to him while in the Army... 40 years ago. He's 63 years old at this point.</p><p>When he was released, the TDPS listed his new address at a religious rescue operation called, "New Birth Outreach Ministries". This facility has 24 beds, and supports the homeless, battered men and women, and veterans. They don't seem to support families or children, which is a good thing considering that Ronnie is a pedophile. New Birth has been in business since 2006, and is run by a minister and his wife.</p><p>The street address for "New Birth" is still listed as his place of residence. So I think he is either living there full time, or is partly homeless with his home address at this location.</p><p>So now I'm wondering if he has dropped the, "I used to be Army so I'm confident and capable and know everything" shtick he used to snow everyone with. Perhaps now his new thing is, "poor (almost) homeless veteran". I wouldn't put it past him.</p><p>When I knew Ronnie, he was a skilled chameleon. He could be very charming at the drop of a hat. He could seem very sincere when he was playing someone. I can't see him letting those skills go to waste. If it meant 3 hots and a cot, I could see Ronnie being very sincere while in Church on Sunday.</p><p>The reason why I think he is actually living there full time is that Ronnie was never lazy - he was industrious, and he had that "good ol' boy" attitude and ability to work hard and be handy with lots of things. He would make himself useful around the ministry.</p><p>You can find him on the <a href="https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/SexOffender/">Texas Sex Offender Registry</a>.</p>Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.com0