Boobquake - We Need A Double-Blind Test

Jen McCreight's "Boobquake" is quite the meme.  On April 26, women all over the globe will wear their most revealing outfits.  The idea is to demonstrate to Iranian cleric Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi that he is full of shit.

The facebook event alone has attracted 14,000 participants (including your truly).

I applaud this effort but unfortunately the experiment is flawed.  If women in random geographies wear provocative clothing, we will no doubt experience an earthquake or two in some of those areas.  Alaska, for example, has multiple earthquakes on a daily basis.  Random statistical clustering is to be expected, sadly not demonstrating that this Iranian cleric is talking arse gravy.

In order to thoroughly test this we need a number of control groups.

Control Group 1:  Women dressed in burqas in an area not typically known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 2:  Women dressed in burqas in an area frequently known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 3:  Women dressed in burqas in an area occasionally known for earthquakes

Control Group 4:  Women dressed in jeans and sweats in an area not typically known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 5:  Women dressed in jeans and sweats in an area frequently known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 6:  Women dressed in jeans and sweats in an area occasionally known for earthquakes

Control Group 7:  Women dressed immodestly in an area not typically known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 8:  Women dressed in immodestly in an area frequently known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 9:  Women dressed in immodestly in an area occasionally known for earthquakes

Control Group 10:  Naked women in an area not typically known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 11:  Naked women in an area frequently known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 12:  Naked women in an area occasionally known for earthquakes

Control Group 13:  Copulating naked women in an area not typically known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 14:  Copulating naked women in an area frequently known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 15:  Copulating naked women in an area occasionally known for earthquakes

Control Group 16:  All of the above but with men, and then again the above with men engaging in homosexual activities and/or thoughts.

I am volunteering to observe and document Control Group 10, for purely scientific reasons you understand

Critical Thinking Theists - I Think Not

One of the problems frequently encountered with theists is that they just don't know how to think.  In a case of laughable irony I came across a Christian blog going by the name "Thinking In Christ".  I delved in looking for some examples of actual thinking, especially in the form of critical or skeptical thought.  Alas, I came up blank.  This this blog post regarding the Federal Court's decision to rule a National Day of Prayer as unconstitutional is a perfect example of the fuzzy thought processes of your average Christian believer.

"The atheist sneaks across the religious/nonreligious line, steals a bit of morality from the religions he doesn’t claim to believe in, and then sneaks back to bash those religions he doesn’t believe in with their own morals—in which he doesn’t believe. For if atheism is true, then there’s no reason for anyone to care about how you feel about anything. There’s no moral basis on which to stake your claim that I should respect your feelings."

Atheism is not a statement of belief, it's a lack of belief in a deity or deities, so it does not claim to be true or false.  It's not a position that makes claims, an atheist will simply request evidence to support the existence of a supernatural creator, and so far this evidence is embarrassingly (for theists) lacking.  But was irks most is the theistic assertion that morality is claimed by the domain of religion. The canard that atheists "sneak across" to steal morals from the religious and scamper back to the other side is fuzzy thinking at its finest.  Morality is a system of ethics that has evolved to enable societies to function, and morals (ethics) differ greatly from society to society.  No religion required.  Religion hijacks morality claiming that without God there can be no morals and it's every man for himself.  Every religion claims it is the moral religion and that it is its God that imparts morals and behavioral mores upon the innately sinful human being.

But the morals of religion are seriously flawed insomuch as they offer rewards and punishments based on the behavior and beliefs of the individual.  Atheists do not act morally in the hope of a reward and eternal life. or for fear of punishment and eternal torment.  This is the domain of the religious. Theists will argue that if there was no God then they would be free to rape. murder and pillage.  If ever there was an example of the weak morality of religions this is it.  An atheist will be moral because it is the right thing to do, the Golden Rule applies whether religious or not.

It is our evolved nature that imparts morality, not gods, else societies would not have got this far as we would have slaughtered the shit out of each other by now.

"If God doesn’t exist, then there’s no moral basis on which to base your bow to the community, for the community is no better than the individual. In fact, quite the opposite, if atheism is true, then the community is nothing more than one more system to be gamed where possible to get what you want, at the cost of others. The community is something to support as long as it supports you, and not one inch beyond that line."

Again with that "if atheism is true" canard!  The author answers the question himself in that the community must support itself or it will not survive.  God does not give troops of chimpanzees their morality, and yet they have evolved societies and morals that enable the troop to thrive.  I pick your nits, you pick mine.

"The truth underneath all the hubris is atheism comes down to a singular religion, the religion of the triune god me, myself, and I. My feelings are hurt. I feel left out. And if a national day of prayer hurts your feelings so much, why not go after “Earth Day,” which is a pagan ritual enshrined in public policy?"

The theist absolutely owns "hubris" claiming that in this vast universe of billions upon billions of galaxies, we are the special creations of a benevolent god who loves us.  That is the very definition of hubris.  The case against the National Day of Prayer has nothing to do with hubris or hurt feelings, it is simply defending the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.  The government cannot and should not favor one religious faith over another.  The Christians would be the first to complain if the US institute a national Praise Thor, or Fall to Your Knees to Allah Day - and that would be about hurt feelings and a persecution complex.

"I must say that I actually do believe in a rather limited form of evolution. There is one specific species on the face of the Earth that actually can “evolve” into something other than what it started as: Man. For only man has the capability to evolve from being a higher order spirit filled being to a lower order animal, living his live based on emotion and anger. That our courts would sanction and approve of such nonsense as “atheism isn’t a religion,” and “my feelings are hurt,” just shows how awry our entire social structure has gone."

What the fuck is a "limited form of evolution'?  And evolution is not something you take on faith and believe, it's a scientific theory with abundant evidence.  The Theory of Evolution is possibly the most robustly supported scientific theory that there is, with millions of peer reviewed papers, and new supporting evidence coming to light daily.  It is not a matter of belief, and you don't get to pick and choose which parts you believe in "limiting" evolution to the parts that do not contradict your religion inspired dogma.  That is not how reality works.  The authors understanding of evolution clearly requires some work, how does one "evolve" to a higher order spirit?

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.  One more time, and I'll say it very slowly, atheism-is-the-lack-of-belief-in-a-deity-or-deities, that's it.  Would the author claim that a-santa-ism, or a-tooth-fairy-ism is a religion?  I thought not.

Atheism: A Cult to Nothing – Debunked

Stuart Schneiderman describes himself as a “Life Coach Executive” and he’s pitched in on his blog “Had Enough Therapy?” on Dawkins & Hitchens mission to hold the pope accountable for the crimes committed under his watch while he allegedly protected the perpetrators.

He is of course entitled to his opinion.  But what he is not entitled to without being called to task is sloppy research and non-sequitur conclusions.

I rest my case with the sloppy research accusation right up front as he claims Dawkins’ real name is “Dawson”.  I doubt it’s a typo as he repeats the mistake.  Just in case Mr. Schneiderman edits his blog post (and I have no reason to suspect that he will), here is the original text which I include as an image for the record.

Let’s be generous and put that down to a simple mistake as he did at least get Professor Dawkins’ name correct in the closing paragraph.

Schneiderman launches into a defense of the Catholic Church and lets his canon loose on atheist societies including Stalin’s Soviet Republic as not exactly being paragons of morality.  My beef with Mr. Schneiderman here is that he failed to go on to erect the usual canards regarding Pol Pot and Hitler.  I hate it when I can’t call him out on Godwin’s Law.

We can begin with his defense of the Catholic church.  I quote Schneiderman’s blog entry;

“I recall a conversation I had with a Catholic friend many years ago. He had been disturbed to discover the sordid behavior of many members of the priesthood in the past-- such predations do not date to yesterday-- so he asked a cousin of his, a cardinal in the Church, how he could justify his belief when so much sin has been committed in God's name.

The Cardinal was nonplussed. He responded: if the Church had not been created by God it would never have survived this long.”

God clearly created the Catholic Church as can be demonstrated by its longevity!  Do I really need to list religions that are older than, or at least as old as Catholicism and that still remain in existence?  Do I really need to remind Schneiderman that Jews still in fact exist?

Schneiderman continues to suggest that the Catholic Church cannot prevent sin (crimes) but it has the ability as ordained by God to forgive them, and this somehow “proves” the effectiveness of the church.  The pope’s now infamous “smoking gun” letter most certainly demonstrates the church’s ability to forgive its own.  I’m not wholly sure that they have forgiven the Jews for (allegedly) killing their Christ yet though.

Let us now move onto Schneiderman’s facile canard regarding the horrors and deaths caused at the hands of atheists, and of course he brings Stalin and Communism into the mix at this point.  According to Schneiderman Stalin was responsible for as much, if not more, death and bloodshed as the Catholic Church.  I quote:

“If anything, communist dictatorships murdered more people in a shorter period of time than any religion has ever done. If communism was competing against religion, it emerged victorious in terms of body count.”

Foremost Stalin was a dictator operating a brutal totalitarian regime, and the removal of the powerful religions from his country served a purpose in subjugating the population.  Stalin is guilty of many atrocities and many deaths, but his regime was not one based on atheism.  He didn’t kill and torture in the name of atheism, he did this to maintain his political agenda.  That’s it, plain and simple, atheism was incidental to the politics of the regime and the removal of religion was useful.

But perhaps more importantly, the “they do it too argument” is not in any way a justification for the crimes committed by an institution that claims God given moral authority.  The Catholic Church abused, molested and raped those under its care, and an excuse that “atheists did it too” does not fly.  If you are going to hold the moral high ground, you must at least act morally.  The argument therefore falls flat on its face under the fallacy of non-sequitur.

Schneiderman critiques atheists as lacking in something by not having a religion, and this is substituted with the need to practice secular rituals such as NASCAR, 4^th July Celebrations and football.

“Be that as it may, we should also note that people who have absolutely no truck with God or the Bible believe fervently in metaphysical entities like ideas and ideals. As I have said, this amounts to a thinly disguised idolatry.”

With this wibble and woo Schneiderman is arguing that holding thoughts and opinions is a religious practice.  Well it’s not and it’s also not metaphysical, it’s otherwise known as living and breathing and getting on with your life.

"Ideas are metaphysical entities, whether you worship them at an altar or not. Once you accept that they exist, though not in anything like a physical sense, you should next ask yourself whether they exist when no one is thinking them. If gravity is an idea that is expressed in the behavior of physical objects, did gravity exist before anyone defined the concept. And if it did, if it was an idea, well then, who or what was thinking it?"

This is as basic as “if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, will it make a sound?”  Before Newton people were not flying off the planet, Schneiderman is arguing that naming a concept gives it its reality.

Schneiderman’s reasoning is flawed to the extreme and nothing more than wishful thinking.