It's not just malfeasance

XKCD

nospam@example.com (Gorkey) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:12:54 -0600

The infinite possibilities each day holds should stagger the mind. The sheer number of experiences I could have is uncountable, breathtaking, and I'm sitting here refreshing my inbox. We live trapped in loops, reliving a few days over and over, and we envision only a handful of paths laid out ahead of us. We see the same things each day, we respond the same way, we think the same thoughts, each day a slight variation on the last, every moment smoothly following the gentle curves of societal norms. We act like if we just get through today, tomorrow our dreams will come back to us.

And no, I don't have all the answers. I don't know how to jolt myself into seeing what each moment could become. But I do know one thing: the solution doesn't involve watering down my every little idea and creative impulse for the sake of someday easing my fit into a mold. It doesn't involve tempering my life to better fit someone's expectations. It doesn't involve constantly holding back for fear of shaking things up.

This is very important, so I want to say it as clearly as I can: Fuck. That. Shit.
--Randall Munroe xkcd 137

Books!

nospam@example.com (Gorkey) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:49:14 -0500

I've been digging though lists of Books that everyone should read trying to figure out where my next file of material is going to come in. So, this is it. This is a small aggregate of the best that the web seems to offer. These are the best books around.

The next step, I suppose, will be to clean up the list, remove the duplicates, and the many books on this list I've already read, prioritize, and then get busy reading.

Does anyone else have any great book suggestions?

The Road Less Traveled by M. Scott Peck
Humanism: An Introduction by Jim Herrick
Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist by Dan Barker
Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream by Adam Shepard
The Joy of Simple Living by Jeff Davidson
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini
Secrets of the Millionaire Mind by T. Harv Ecker
Management of the Absurd by Richard Farson
Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin
Overachievement by John Eliot
The Magic of Thinking Big by David Schwartz
An Incomplete Education: 3,684 Things You Should Have Learned but Probably Didn’t by Judy Jones
How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett
How to Talk to Anyone by Leil Lowndes
The Irresistible Offer by Mark Joyner
Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich
The Power of Less by Leo Babuta
Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell
The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris

... There's More ... Read the Full Article!

Continue reading "Books!"

Atheists just cut through all the noise and call it all sewage

nospam@example.com (Gorkey) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:53:02 -0500

In a great post today at Pharyngula, PZ Myers concludes with this rant. I thought it was something worth reposting...

What is "the" Christological narrative? There is none, or rather, there's a thousand of them. We know the context, too — that the Bible is an evolving mess of over-interpreted poetry and tribal stories and crackpot history. Why you guys choose to selectively declare one interpretation of one subset of the conglomeration to be the absolute truth as dictated by anthropomorphic vapor, while another arbitrary subset is archaic and doesn't apply anymore, is completely incomprehensible…not just to us, but to you, too.

We atheists actually do address the claims fervently held by millions of people. The sneaky trick the theological wankers pull, though, is that once we've smacked them down, they announce, "Oh, no — we didn't mean those millions of believers. They're stupid. We meant these other millions of believers." It's a big game of whack-a-mole. What you call "obscure Old Testament laws," someone else will call the core of their faith. What you value as the "Christological narrative," a member of yet another sect will call pretentious confabulations.

Atheists just cut through all the noise and call it all sewage.

Advice (we all hopefully are following) from Scott Adams

nospam@example.com (Gorkey) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:03:55 -0500

1. Make a will
2. Pay off your credit cards
3. Get term life insurance if you have a family to support
4. Fund your 401k to the maximum
5. Fund your IRA to the maximum
6. Buy a house if you want to live in a house and can afford it
7. Put six months worth of expenses in a money-market account
8. Take whatever money is left over and invest 70% in a stock index fund and 30% in a bond fund through any discount broker and never touch it until retirement
9. If any of this confuses you, or you have something special going on (retirement, college planning, tax issues), hire a fee-based financial planner, not one who charges a percentage of your portfolio

Everything else you may want to do with your money is a bad idea.

A devotee of atheism - Interview with Richard Dawkins

nospam@example.com (Gorkey) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:16:22 -0500

by Roberta Jansen

In the wake of the upsurge of creationism and the propagation of intelligent design in the United States and Europe, another movement has appeared and begun to grow around the world, led by the biologist Richard Dawkins, one of today’s most prominent evolutionists: the New Atheism.

It is a very strong defense of science and reason in opposition to any and all religion, to any and all gods – and Dawkins is sardonic enough to speak of Thor and Apollo. The debate arrives here with Dawkins himself, one of the big names at the 7th International Literary Festival of Paraty (Flip), which begins next Wednesday. And, not by chance, this is the year commemorating 150 years since the publication of The Origin of Species, the work in which Charles Darwin told the world about the theory of evolution, which would change history forever by separating science from religion.

Responsible for campaigns such as the one covering buses in London and New York with phrases like “God probably doesn’t exist,” Dawkins has a discussion scheduled for next Thursday at 7 PM with the journalist Silio Boccanera on the topic “Deus, um delirio (The God Delusion)” (the title of the book, published in Brazil by Companhia das Letras in 2007) . The debate promises to be polemical. A practicing atheist, and one of the most committed, the biologist throws out, without blinking, remarks like “the Bible is a horrible book,” “I think that much of the evil in the world comes from religion,” and even “Believing in something without evidence is very pernicious.”

In this interview with The Globe, given in Pirenópolis, in the state of Goiás, where he is attending the annual meeting of the Animal Behavior Society, Dawkins spoke about his atheism in action, about the latest news from Iran, and about Darwin and evolution.

At Flip, the biologist launches A grande história da evolução — Na trilha dos nossos ancestrais (The Ancestor’s Tale), originally published in 2004. The work is a kind of encyclopedia of evolution, which takes humans, going through all their ancestors to the beginning of life. Along the way, Dawkins explains the principal points of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution:

“I have dedicated myself to atheism, but I return to science in this book,” he says.

In Paraty, the topic of your appearance is The God Delusion. What do you expect the response to be from the audience in Brazil, which, as you know, is the largest Catholic country in the world and notable for its syncretism with African religions?

Richard Dawkins: My experience in the United States is that, even in a very religious country, there are also many people who do not have a religion, who are atheists and who are poorly represented, who don’t have a voice. One of the effects of my books and of my lectures has been to give a voice to these people, to let them speak. Perhaps the same will be true in Brazil, we’ll see.

After the publication of The God Delusion you dedicated yourself to the cause of atheism. Your new book, to be launched worldwide in September, The Greatest Show on Earth, continues the attack on creationism in being dedicated to presenting evidence for the theory of evolution. Why all this dedication?

Dawkins: The God Delusion is an attack on religion. The Greatest Show on Earth is an attack on creationism. It is true that I have dedicated myself a lot to atheism, but I return to science in this book. The same with The Ancestor’s Tale – they are scientific books about evolution, not religion.

Continue reading " A devotee of atheism - Interview with Richard Dawkins"

James Randi Speaks

nospam@example.com (Gorkey) — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:05:00 -0500

In a controversial video, James Randi, Atheist, former magician, and arch-apostle of skepticism, has vigorously endorsed the Atheist position that Nazareth did not yet exist when Jesus was supposedly alive (above). "The amazing Randi" thus supports a growing number of experts who suspect that "Jesus" was no more than a fiction. In his remarks, Randi highlights René Salm's recent book, "The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus" (American Atheist Press, 2008). In that book Salm (also an Atheist) accuses Christian pseudo-archaeologists such as B. Bagatti, C. Kopp, and E. Richmond of changing and even fabricating evidence to support the fantastic story of "Jesus of Nazareth" portrayed in the gospels. For more information, see www.nazarethmyth.info (Salm's Web-site).

Christian apologists are lining up to try to refute Salm's meticulously researched book that conclusively demonstrates that the town now known as Nazareth was not inhabited at the time that "Jesus of Nazareth" was supposed to have been living there, and it is clear that they must succeed in refuting this book if Christianity is to survive. Without a Nazareth, "Jesus of Nazareth" becomes a close cousin of The Wizard of Oz.

Religious Infighting: Christian vs Christian

nospam@example.com (Gorkey) — Thu, 28 May 2009 09:53:27 -0500

New Scientist has an article about the launch of a couple Christian evolution Websites.

Apparantly, unwilling to continue jamming their fingers in their ears and yelling "There's no evidence for evolution! I'm not listening! LA LA LA!" a group of Christians has modified their stance to one that supports what the rest of us have known for quite some time now; evolution is valid, scientific, and apparant in our world. But with a twist. The stance of biologos.org is that "God did it". So, instead of creating the universe in 6 days along with all of the animals, they've rationalized off all of creation as allegory. No doubt this move is to try to keep from looking batshit crazy to the rest of us.

Continue reading "Religious Infighting: Christian vs Christian"

nospam@example.com (Gorkey) — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:05:49 -0500

Atheist: I'm an atheist.

Closeted Atheist: Oh, well, I think you're going a bit too far. I mean, you can't conclusively prove that gods don't exist.

Atheist: So, you are a theist?

Closeted Atheist: Of course not! I'm agnostic; I don't claim that gods don't exist because that's a non-falsifiable claim. It's not possible to prove a negative.

Atheist: I agree and take the same position. So, why do you call yourself agnostic but not an atheist?

Closeted Atheist: Agnostic refers to a lack of certitude with regard to some question. It means, "without knowledge."

Atheist: So, your agnosticism addresses the question of knowledge: you don't know whether gods exist. Is that correct?

Closeted Atheist: Yes. What's your point?

Atheist: Well, I don't know whether gods exist either.

Closeted Atheist: There. That settles it. You really should be calling yourself an agnostic instead of an atheist.

Atheist: Oh, but I do call myself an agnostic.

Closeted Atheist: Didn't you say you were an atheist?

Atheist: I didn't realize the two distinctions were mutually exclusive.

Closeted Atheist: What do you mean?

Atheist: Well, we already established that our agnosticism addresses the question of knowledge. But what about belief? Does agnosticism really say anything about what one believes?

Closeted Atheist: Of course it does! An agnostic person does not believe one way or the other!

Atheist: I thought you said an agnostic person does not know one way or the other.

Closeted Atheist: It's the same thing!

Atheist: Really? Interesting! Does a theist know that gods exist?

Closeted Atheist: I suppose not...

Atheist: So a theist is really just agnostic--someone who doesn't know one way or the other!

Closeted Atheist: But a theist believes that gods exist!

Atheist: And yet the theist does not know that gods exist. So what distinguishes you from the theist? Do you share the belief of the theist as well as his/her ignorance?

Closeted Atheist: Of course not! I'm not a theist, I'm an...

Atheist: Atheist--without belief in gods--"not a theist." Am I right?

Closeted Atheist: Oh, I suppose you are. I never thought of it that way. I'm an a-theist...huh, sounds terrible.

Atheist: That's okay, you'll get over the taboo.

borrowed from Casey Wollberg over at Atheist Nexus.

Myth: Atheism is based on faith

nospam@example.com (Gorkey) — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:26:17 -0500

Myth:
You cannot prove that God doesn’t exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith.

From about.com

Response:
Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist’s faith.

This claim relies upon the erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and, because some cannot be conclusively proven, then therefore none can be conclusively disproven. So, it is argued, the proposition "God exists" cannot be disproven.

But not all propositions are created equal. It is true that some cannot be disproven — for example, the claim "a black swan exists" cannot be disproven. To do so would require examining every spot in the universe to make sure that such a swan did not exist, and that simply isn’t possible.

Continue reading "Myth: Atheism is based on faith"

Sam Harris at Idea City

nospam@example.com (Gorkey) — Wed, 13 May 2009 10:24:22 -0500

I've enjoyed this video more than once and figured that I would link to it here and include the transcript after the break. The best place to find this and other like videos is at Idea City where I sourced the content.

Continue reading "Sam Harris at Idea City"

Finding examples of evolutionary transitions

nospam@example.com (Gorkey) — Mon, 11 May 2009 09:59:00 -0500

The public birthday bashes and learned lectures are pretty much over, but 2009 remains the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his iconic magnum opus.

"Origin's" first edition of 1,200 copies was an instant sellout and provoked historic debates between science and religion. It still does today, although Darwinian evolution has been confirmed by science repeatedly.

Skeptics protest that, in tracing life's evolutionary past, few if any examples exist of "transitional forms" of fossils - that is, fossils showing a wing as one step toward becoming an arm in the far distant future, or a fin on the way to becoming a leg.

Follow the link to read about examples of evolutionary transitions

So much I want to do

nospam@example.com (Gorkey) — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:21:12 -0600

There's so much that I want to do with this site and various other web technologies. I just don't seem able to find the time to do any of it. It also seems like a lot of the stuff that was fun to play with years ago has been supplanted by simply better and more fun off-site technology.

For example a Forum or Blog just don't seem like the kinds of things to self-host anymore. I'm sure I'm way behind the curve on this realization, but it's hard to give up simply because in a way it's one of those unfinished projects.

So, While I think I will continue in some capacity on the linux side to do something usefully with this site, I think I'll refocus on technologies that are a little more exciting and comprehensive. Sharepoint on the web seems like one of those fun ideas. I will, of course, need some more hardware to accomplish this task as well. :)

Anyway, back to the idea of this site's linuxy usefulness... I think I would like to get back to the original plan of integrating the blog and gallery into a custom layout that integrates the two of them. Right now they're just separate entities.

I would like to keep ranting about religion on the blog and re-establish a forum for people to discuss the rants, but this should probably require some publishing out on blogger and facebook and stuff like that to get the tie-ins back home. If I do this, I would like to skin the forum to also match a coherent site theme.

Webmail... Must also better incorporate webmail.

There are also some people who are using various aspects of my servers for their own purposes, but would like a common set of features to be branded under their site's structure. I would like to see if I can integrate them all together in such a fashion so that I can turn up a new blog/gallery/webmail account fairly easily. if I have to sacrifice software upgrades, fine. As a matter of fact that might be the best way to go about it. Just accept a piece of software and then just let it sit and collect content forever.

I can use this post as a working point moving forward. And since no one else actually reads this, I won't need to worry about any of those pesky suggestions to do things differently or better.

My letter on Mississippi House Bill 25

nospam@example.com (Gorkey) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:12:28 -0600

If you haven't heard, the Mississippi legislature is trying to enact one of those laws that requires every science book to have a note in the front that tries to discredit evolution.

The Full text of the bill is here: Mississippi House Bill 25. But this is the message that they want to include into the science books:

The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.

This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory.

Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things.

Study hard and keep an open mind.

I decided to send a message to the House Education Committee members in Mississippi. Hopefully they can stop this travesty before it gains any traction.

In regard to House Bill 25 -- An act to require language explaining that evolution is a theory -- I would like to point out that this is a carefully worded, disingenuous message.

As we must all know by now, people will mix the truth with misinformation to further their own agenda. It appears that the suggestion that HB 25 makes is a textbook example (no pun intended) of such a claim.

First I would like to agree with the message where it is truthful. It is true that science is itself not fact or truth. Science is a process. There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life, evolution, and indeed, every accepted scientific theory. Given that, we can state that science is a constant struggle toward truth based on all of the gathered facts. We should be able to agree that science is a collection of theories based on those facts that make accurate predictions about our world. The First paragraph of the textbook message seems to agree with this.

Now that we've covered the first paragraph and definitions, we need to point out some very unscientific errors in this bill. Let's start with the second paragraph:
"...a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation..."
This is propaganda. The overwhelming majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution, not just "some", and thus the theory is not "controversial". [1][2][3][4]

"...for the origin of living things."
The origin of life is not the Theory of Evolution, but the Theory of Abiogenesis. [5][6]

"No one was present when life first appeared on earth."
This is disingenuous. There is no requirement in science to only accept direct observation and ignore all other empirical evidence. (This already contradicts the first paragraph of this bill's message.) If there was, we would have never gone to the moon or discovered antibiotics.

"...any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory."
Yes. It is a scientific theory that is massively supported next to the theories of Gravity, Cell Theory, Atomic Theory, and thousands of others that accurately describe our world.

"Evolution refers to the unproven belief..."
This is also propaganda. The first paragraph doesn't claim that science is supposed to be "proven belief", so why is this relevant? Combined, these words outline an agenda.

"...that random, undirected forces produced living things."
Again, this is not Evolution but Abiogenesis. But, let's excuse that fact and I would like to point out that it is still simply wrong. Random undirected forces have been shown to form early life.[7]

"There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned..."
Why repeatedly single out evolution and not the unanswered questions that every scientific theory has? Remember by the definitions this bill assumes, we are to expect that there will not be total knowledge in any theory. So I believe that it's important to ask why the message is singling out evolution?

The note continues on to cite "unanswered" questions for which there actually are some pretty convincing answers.

Long story short, this bill is window dressing on an anti-science agenda, and I beg you to stop and ask yourselves: What message is this intending to deliver about evolution, as opposed to all other scientific theory? Indeed, where is the attack of Cell theory? Of Gravity? Of atomic theory?

I'm sure that you will agree with me that this is simply misdirection by a creationist lobby to undermine good science. Please do not allow a few people, fearful for their ideologies, to further harm American science education.

Thank you for your time

1. The National Science Teachers Association's position statement on the teaching of evolution.

2. IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)

3. From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws

4. Fact, Fancy, and Myth on Human Evolution, Alan J. Almquist, John E. Cronin, Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 520–522

5. Morse, J. W.; MacKenzie, F. T. (1998). "Hadean Ocean Carbonate chemistry". Aquatic Geochemistry 4: 301–319. doi:10.1023/A:1009632230875.

6. Martin A. Nowak and Hisashi Ohtsuki.Prevolutionary dynamics and the origin of evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2008

7. Martin M Hanczyc and Jack W Szostak. Replicating vesicles as models of primitive cell growth and division. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 2004, 8:660–664.

Maybe they'll get the hint.

John Locke Quote

nospam@example.com (Gorkey) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:04:11 -0600

"[F]or nothing is to be accounted hostile force, but where it leaves not the remedy of such an appeal; and it is such force alone, that puts him that uses it into a state of war, and makes it lawful to resist him. A man with a sword in his hand demands my purse in the high-way, when perhaps I have not twelve pence in my pocket: this man I may lawfully kill. To another I deliver 100 pounds to hold only whilst I alight, which he refuses to restore me, when I am got up again, but draws his sword to defend the possession of it by force, if I endeavour to retake it. The mischief this man does me is a hundred, or possibly a thousand times more than the other perhaps intended me (whom I killed before he really did me any); and yet I might lawfully kill the one, and cannot so much as hurt the other lawfully. The reason whereof is plain; because the one using force, which threatened my life, I could not have time to appeal to the law to secure it: and when it was gone, it was too late to appeal. The law could not restore life to my dead carcass: the loss was irreparable; which to prevent, the law of nature gave me a right to destroy him, who had put himself into a state of war with me, and threatened my destruction. But in the other case, my life not being in danger, I may have the benefit of appealing to the law, and have reparation for my 100 pounds that way." -- John Locke

Jefferson Quote

nospam@example.com (Gorkey) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:57:43 -0500

Relevant today with the Federal Government's love with America's central bank.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks]... will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." — Thomas Jefferson