Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Post #12 - Sgt Peppers' New Age & Psychic Expo
Last Sunday I had the incredible displeasure of attending the 'New Age Healing & Psychic Expo'. Here is the full program. In trying to think of some words to accurately describe the expo, all that seems to come to mind are money-grubbing assholes. I am of course, being terribly nice.
When I got there I was expected to pay $7 for entry. I thought, oh okay because what's inside will be FREE or at least minimally charged and they need to pay for hiring the hall and other costs. Not so. Every single stall was selling their crap for at least $20 for 20 minutes. Others were selling detox potions and aura photos for even more.
And it's not like they weren't getting many customers. Most stalls had a new customer every time I walked past. The only two stalls that gave me anything for free were what turned out to be Christian 'information'. One gave me a nice little bag of goodies with a lovely picture of a butterfly on it and a sticker.
It came with a book called Rumours of Another World: What on Earth are we Missing?' written by Philip Yancey. He is of course, Billy Graham's (who?) most admired and appreciated evangelical writer, so he is obviously something worth looking into.
The bag also included a catalogue of such priceless DVDs from VeggieTales, who brought us the classics:
Gideon: Tuba Warrior
Hosted by the Pirates Who Don't Do Anything, Gideon is the incredible story of one of the greatest heroes of all time -- the story of a cucumber carefully chosen to defend his people against an undefeated army of over 30,000 excessively hairy and malevolent pickles.
When Gideon's sizable army is reduced to a mere six carrots and six peas, will Gideon be able to defeat the dilly nemesis? Can a few good Veggies stand against an army of thousands? Find out in the all-new, all-exciting VeggieTales adventure ... Gideon: Tuba Warrior!
and
Larry Boy and the Bad Apple
Something is rotten in the peaceful town of Bumblyburg! The Bad Apple has dropped onto the scene and is trying to take control of the town by making all of its citizens give into their temptations. Everyone is in danger -- Mayor Blueberry, Reporter Petunia, Butler Alfred -- even the town's fearless defender, LarryBoy!
Will the good people of Bumblyburg be able to resist the tricks of the Bad Apple? Can LarryBoy see through the sour plot and save the day? LarryBoy and the Bad Apple teaches kids that we can't fight temptation on our own -- we need God's help and the help of our friends.
I also received some lovely words of wisdom personally written by teh god in the form of postcards with pictures of pretty things. One has a rainbow and one has a sunset and one has a garden. It really makes you think, like how god makes all these beautiful things and there is no way that they would exist if evolution and natural selection were the only things guiding existence in the universe. If the latter were the case, then we would also find floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, murder and rape and stuff because if god caused those things, they'd be on the postcards too. If god created everything, he should probably be attributed to causing those things as well, right?
At the other free stall I was beckoned over by a guy sitting at a table. I sat in front of a purple felt cloth and some gemstones, looking very spiritual indeed. He assured me that they had no power and they were just symbols. Pointing to one cluster of gems, he told me how they represent clarity in life because they are clear, and once we achieved that we could move on to the next group of gems which represented relationships, etc. Eventually he got to his point; Jesus was the way to achieve all of these things the stones represented.
So i pressed him a little with some often-used arguments, i.e. how does a good god allow bad things to happen if, by his definition, he created us knowing this would happen. To his credit, this guy was pleasant to talk to and was willing to discuss his personal position. Whatever my criticisms of the bible, he would fall back on claims that the bible fulfills prophesy. "Like what?" I asked. He said there were hundreds.
He told me two. One was that Israel would be destroyed and rebuilt. The other was regarding jesus' resurrection. I had no arguments for that and I didn't particularly want to suggest that maybe the text was written after the events in order to fit with prophecy. Why? Because he wasn't looking for an argument. I'm not bothered by moderates and liberals, whatever their religion. As my mother suggested when I came home to discuss the day with her, when she gave psychic readings people came to her to ask, "why?"
So if people's answers are different to mine, that's okay. It doesn't mean they don't get to avoid criticism and discussion. I think it is abhorrent that people claiming to be psychics charge for what they do. Why do they need to charge people for what they consider to be a gift? That is why they should be criticised openly and repeatedly. Christians believe that the only way to heaven is through jesus and they are the only ones going there. They also believe that all morality comes from god. I disagree; atheism does not imply immorality and that’s why Christianity should be criticised openly and repeatedly. There is some kind of automatic respect given to people’s beliefs that is not given to anything else. In the U.S. parents can legitimately be protected by law from any harm to their children caused by neglect if it can be demonstrated to be based on religion.
And that was my day at the new age festival. Oh, and the scientologists were there giving out free stress tests.
When I got there I was expected to pay $7 for entry. I thought, oh okay because what's inside will be FREE or at least minimally charged and they need to pay for hiring the hall and other costs. Not so. Every single stall was selling their crap for at least $20 for 20 minutes. Others were selling detox potions and aura photos for even more.
And it's not like they weren't getting many customers. Most stalls had a new customer every time I walked past. The only two stalls that gave me anything for free were what turned out to be Christian 'information'. One gave me a nice little bag of goodies with a lovely picture of a butterfly on it and a sticker.
It came with a book called Rumours of Another World: What on Earth are we Missing?' written by Philip Yancey. He is of course, Billy Graham's (who?) most admired and appreciated evangelical writer, so he is obviously something worth looking into.
The bag also included a catalogue of such priceless DVDs from VeggieTales, who brought us the classics:
Gideon: Tuba Warrior
Hosted by the Pirates Who Don't Do Anything, Gideon is the incredible story of one of the greatest heroes of all time -- the story of a cucumber carefully chosen to defend his people against an undefeated army of over 30,000 excessively hairy and malevolent pickles.
When Gideon's sizable army is reduced to a mere six carrots and six peas, will Gideon be able to defeat the dilly nemesis? Can a few good Veggies stand against an army of thousands? Find out in the all-new, all-exciting VeggieTales adventure ... Gideon: Tuba Warrior!
and
Larry Boy and the Bad Apple
Something is rotten in the peaceful town of Bumblyburg! The Bad Apple has dropped onto the scene and is trying to take control of the town by making all of its citizens give into their temptations. Everyone is in danger -- Mayor Blueberry, Reporter Petunia, Butler Alfred -- even the town's fearless defender, LarryBoy!
Will the good people of Bumblyburg be able to resist the tricks of the Bad Apple? Can LarryBoy see through the sour plot and save the day? LarryBoy and the Bad Apple teaches kids that we can't fight temptation on our own -- we need God's help and the help of our friends.
I also received some lovely words of wisdom personally written by teh god in the form of postcards with pictures of pretty things. One has a rainbow and one has a sunset and one has a garden. It really makes you think, like how god makes all these beautiful things and there is no way that they would exist if evolution and natural selection were the only things guiding existence in the universe. If the latter were the case, then we would also find floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, murder and rape and stuff because if god caused those things, they'd be on the postcards too. If god created everything, he should probably be attributed to causing those things as well, right?
At the other free stall I was beckoned over by a guy sitting at a table. I sat in front of a purple felt cloth and some gemstones, looking very spiritual indeed. He assured me that they had no power and they were just symbols. Pointing to one cluster of gems, he told me how they represent clarity in life because they are clear, and once we achieved that we could move on to the next group of gems which represented relationships, etc. Eventually he got to his point; Jesus was the way to achieve all of these things the stones represented.
So i pressed him a little with some often-used arguments, i.e. how does a good god allow bad things to happen if, by his definition, he created us knowing this would happen. To his credit, this guy was pleasant to talk to and was willing to discuss his personal position. Whatever my criticisms of the bible, he would fall back on claims that the bible fulfills prophesy. "Like what?" I asked. He said there were hundreds.
He told me two. One was that Israel would be destroyed and rebuilt. The other was regarding jesus' resurrection. I had no arguments for that and I didn't particularly want to suggest that maybe the text was written after the events in order to fit with prophecy. Why? Because he wasn't looking for an argument. I'm not bothered by moderates and liberals, whatever their religion. As my mother suggested when I came home to discuss the day with her, when she gave psychic readings people came to her to ask, "why?"
So if people's answers are different to mine, that's okay. It doesn't mean they don't get to avoid criticism and discussion. I think it is abhorrent that people claiming to be psychics charge for what they do. Why do they need to charge people for what they consider to be a gift? That is why they should be criticised openly and repeatedly. Christians believe that the only way to heaven is through jesus and they are the only ones going there. They also believe that all morality comes from god. I disagree; atheism does not imply immorality and that’s why Christianity should be criticised openly and repeatedly. There is some kind of automatic respect given to people’s beliefs that is not given to anything else. In the U.S. parents can legitimately be protected by law from any harm to their children caused by neglect if it can be demonstrated to be based on religion.
And that was my day at the new age festival. Oh, and the scientologists were there giving out free stress tests.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Just quickly...
Just a quick post while I compile info for the next actual post.
If you like what you see, click vote on the top left under my weird-looking eyes. You can vote as much as you like.
And please leave comments regarding what you think of my posts, my blog, or any suggestions. If you are not a blogger you will need to sign up to blogspot, but if you have a gmail account I think you can use that.
If you are a blogger, leave a comment with a link to your blog, whether like-minded or not.
Thanks.
If you like what you see, click vote on the top left under my weird-looking eyes. You can vote as much as you like.
And please leave comments regarding what you think of my posts, my blog, or any suggestions. If you are not a blogger you will need to sign up to blogspot, but if you have a gmail account I think you can use that.
If you are a blogger, leave a comment with a link to your blog, whether like-minded or not.
Thanks.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Post # 11 A little bit about the Australian Prime Minister
Our current Prime Minster, John Howard, has a quite a few stances on issues that I disagree with. Some examples include supporting America's invasion of Iraq, his government's abhorrent treament of asylum seekers and refugees, the way he has ignored the problem of global warming, and the federal health minister Tony Abbott, but more about that man who cannot separate his Roman Catholicism from the health and wellbeing of Australians another day.
The issue that that I would like to take up against Howard today is his stance on gay marriage.
All of the following quotes were taken from the pm's own website, which has a record of all of his speeches and interviews.
30 March, 2006
"We’re not going to make marriage celebrants available for these (civil union) ceremonies. We will always seek to remove areas of discrimination against homosexuals, gay and lesbian people, we don’t seek to maintain discrimination but there is a special place in Australian society for marriage, the institution of marriage as historically understood, and we do not intend to allow that to be in any way undermined."
Translation: We are not discriminating against you but you can't get married like us.
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview1848.html
04 August, 2004
"But of course I don't believe the law should be changed, but because there is a possibility - some argue very remote, I don't think it is as remote as all that - but bit by bit, an attempt will be made to redefine what we understand to be the concept of marriage in this country, we should legislatively pre-empt the possibility of that occurring by changing the law."
Translation: Obviously societies change over time, I mean, who would have thought 20 years ago that we would be discussing the possibility of a dude marrying a dude? So, in order to stop change and encourage antiquated bigotries, I'm changing the rules.
"It has been suggested that in some way it is an example of discrimination against gay and lesbian people in the Australian community. I reject that, and the reason I reject it is the reason why I reject a lot of other criticisms that are made from time to time of people such as myself and others who express support for existing institutions, and that is that people often confuse concepts of endorsement and tolerance."
Translation: I'm not discriminating against you but I am.
"And the flaw in the argument that what we are proposing is discriminatory is the simple proposition is that it doesn't seek to take away from others in the community any rights they now have. Rather it seeks to reaffirm the pre-eminent place of marriage and the margin for marriage, if I can put it that way, that has always existed in our society. "
Translation: It's not discrimination if you never had the right. So, if we never allowed women to vote then it would not be descriminatory because they never had the right in the first place.
"We all know from life's experience that longstanding institutions provide encouragement, they provide hope, they provide emotional support, and they also provide a practical way of helping people through life."
Translation: Like the church. That's been pretty good in the past.
"...and I think it's very important that this country express a view, we express it simply, we express it calmly, we express it in terms of reaffirming something we had always taken for granted and something that we do so clearly owe to our Judeo-Christian heritage."
Translation: It's okay, our Judeo-Christian heritage was also pretty much cool with slavery so you can just hand over your luggage to that there blackfella. There's no need for you to carry a thing.
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech1051.html
22 December, 2005
"I think marriage is for men and women. That’s why we amended the Marriage Act. I don’t say that in any sense of hostility or discrimination towards gay people but I believe very strongly that marriage is exclusively a union for life of a man and a woman to the exclusion of others. That is the common understanding of marriage in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and I would be opposed to a recognition of civil unions."
Translation: Again, I'm not being discriminatory but you can't get married because your genitals are like two positively charged ions. Marriage is about individuals who aren't allowed to get married. But it's not discriminatory.
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview1735.html
8 June, 2006
I don’t see it in any way as discriminating against homosexuals, it’s not, it’s designed to preserve the special status of marriage in our community and that’s what it’s all about. When the Constitution was written, the founding fathers gave authority over marriage to the Federal Government and at that stage civil unions, sorry civil unions were not contemplated.
Translation: Marriage is my special treehouse club and you're not allowed because the founding fathers built it in 1901. This was around the time when we killed fags, I mean, same sex-couples.
"The fundamental difficulty I have with the ACT legislation is a clause which says that a civil union is different from a marriage but it has the same entitlements, now that is the equivalent of saying to somebody who’s passed the HSC and wants to get into a particular course, it’s saying to them well you haven’t got the requisite tertiary education score but we will let you go in the course anyway."
Translation: You and your partner don't have the prerequisites in your tackle boxes to join my treehouse club.
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview1970.html
9 December, 1999
"Now I know some people won’t agree with my saying it but the Government believes that there should be preserved a particular place in our society for marriages as they are commonly understood."
Translation: I don't care what you think, normal couples are special.
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/1999/nightline0912.htm
27 May, 2004
"We’re also going to amend the legislation to ensure that same sex couples being, will not be eligible as prospective adoptive parents under any multilateral or bilateral agreement concerning the adoption of children to which Australia is a party."
Translation: We're not letting you have kids either.
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview889.html
28 May, 2004
27 May, 2004
Regarding those superannuationlaws: "The amendments to the definition of dependents will not alter the definition of a spouse, it will
not specifically recognise same sex relationships."
Tranlation: Hmmm... no I think i'll just leave a fiver.
Just a note that I started a thread on the JREF forums on this topic.
The issue that that I would like to take up against Howard today is his stance on gay marriage.
All of the following quotes were taken from the pm's own website, which has a record of all of his speeches and interviews.
30 March, 2006
"We’re not going to make marriage celebrants available for these (civil union) ceremonies. We will always seek to remove areas of discrimination against homosexuals, gay and lesbian people, we don’t seek to maintain discrimination but there is a special place in Australian society for marriage, the institution of marriage as historically understood, and we do not intend to allow that to be in any way undermined."
Translation: We are not discriminating against you but you can't get married like us.
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview1848.html
04 August, 2004
"But of course I don't believe the law should be changed, but because there is a possibility - some argue very remote, I don't think it is as remote as all that - but bit by bit, an attempt will be made to redefine what we understand to be the concept of marriage in this country, we should legislatively pre-empt the possibility of that occurring by changing the law."
Translation: Obviously societies change over time, I mean, who would have thought 20 years ago that we would be discussing the possibility of a dude marrying a dude? So, in order to stop change and encourage antiquated bigotries, I'm changing the rules.
"It has been suggested that in some way it is an example of discrimination against gay and lesbian people in the Australian community. I reject that, and the reason I reject it is the reason why I reject a lot of other criticisms that are made from time to time of people such as myself and others who express support for existing institutions, and that is that people often confuse concepts of endorsement and tolerance."
Translation: I'm not discriminating against you but I am.
"And the flaw in the argument that what we are proposing is discriminatory is the simple proposition is that it doesn't seek to take away from others in the community any rights they now have. Rather it seeks to reaffirm the pre-eminent place of marriage and the margin for marriage, if I can put it that way, that has always existed in our society. "
Translation: It's not discrimination if you never had the right. So, if we never allowed women to vote then it would not be descriminatory because they never had the right in the first place.
"We all know from life's experience that longstanding institutions provide encouragement, they provide hope, they provide emotional support, and they also provide a practical way of helping people through life."
Translation: Like the church. That's been pretty good in the past.
"...and I think it's very important that this country express a view, we express it simply, we express it calmly, we express it in terms of reaffirming something we had always taken for granted and something that we do so clearly owe to our Judeo-Christian heritage."
Translation: It's okay, our Judeo-Christian heritage was also pretty much cool with slavery so you can just hand over your luggage to that there blackfella. There's no need for you to carry a thing.
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech1051.html
22 December, 2005
"I think marriage is for men and women. That’s why we amended the Marriage Act. I don’t say that in any sense of hostility or discrimination towards gay people but I believe very strongly that marriage is exclusively a union for life of a man and a woman to the exclusion of others. That is the common understanding of marriage in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and I would be opposed to a recognition of civil unions."
Translation: Again, I'm not being discriminatory but you can't get married because your genitals are like two positively charged ions. Marriage is about individuals who aren't allowed to get married. But it's not discriminatory.
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview1735.html
8 June, 2006
I don’t see it in any way as discriminating against homosexuals, it’s not, it’s designed to preserve the special status of marriage in our community and that’s what it’s all about. When the Constitution was written, the founding fathers gave authority over marriage to the Federal Government and at that stage civil unions, sorry civil unions were not contemplated.
Translation: Marriage is my special treehouse club and you're not allowed because the founding fathers built it in 1901. This was around the time when we killed fags, I mean, same sex-couples.
"The fundamental difficulty I have with the ACT legislation is a clause which says that a civil union is different from a marriage but it has the same entitlements, now that is the equivalent of saying to somebody who’s passed the HSC and wants to get into a particular course, it’s saying to them well you haven’t got the requisite tertiary education score but we will let you go in the course anyway."
Translation: You and your partner don't have the prerequisites in your tackle boxes to join my treehouse club.
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview1970.html
9 December, 1999
"Now I know some people won’t agree with my saying it but the Government believes that there should be preserved a particular place in our society for marriages as they are commonly understood."
Translation: I don't care what you think, normal couples are special.
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/1999/nightline0912.htm
27 May, 2004
"We’re also going to amend the legislation to ensure that same sex couples being, will not be eligible as prospective adoptive parents under any multilateral or bilateral agreement concerning the adoption of children to which Australia is a party."
Translation: We're not letting you have kids either.
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview889.html
28 May, 2004
Referring to gay man calling in to a talkback radio station: "But you could under the new laws that we’re proposing which liberalise the taxation treatment of superannuation passing between people in your relationship, you could gain a significant, your surviving partner rather, gain a significant tax benefit."
Translation: I'm just gonna leave this 100 bill sitting here and turn around. If someone should happen to take it...
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview891.html27 May, 2004
Regarding those superannuationlaws: "The amendments to the definition of dependents will not alter the definition of a spouse, it will
not specifically recognise same sex relationships."Tranlation: Hmmm... no I think i'll just leave a fiver.
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview889.html
Just a note that I started a thread on the JREF forums on this topic.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Post #10 Corrections
Only 10 posts and already corrections are necessary.
This correction comes about from a thread I started on the JREF forums. I asked people's opinions regarding the Esoteric blog and the arguments I have had with the author in posts 5, 5.1 and 5.2. Someone posted a reply in the thread quoting from his site, "Skeptics often refer to what they call Occam's Razor. They interpret this as ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof’."
This is incorrect. He probably got this definition from me in post #2. In my defence, I think I heard it on the Skeptics Guide podcast. The link I provided in post #2 points to an article on skepdic.com, which makes no reference to extraordinary evidence. It is lazy on both our parts. Perhaps if he's going to argue against a specific term he should check the definitions and explanations from a variety of sources.
The principle of Occam's Razor (or Ockham), according to wikipedia, "states that the explanation of any phenonemon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory."
Or simply, "all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."
I know that Wikipedia is the work of the devil but all the external links, references and sources are right there at the bottom of the page.
So, shame on me for not reading articles related to what I'm writing about. My bad.
This correction comes about from a thread I started on the JREF forums. I asked people's opinions regarding the Esoteric blog and the arguments I have had with the author in posts 5, 5.1 and 5.2. Someone posted a reply in the thread quoting from his site, "Skeptics often refer to what they call Occam's Razor. They interpret this as ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof’."
This is incorrect. He probably got this definition from me in post #2. In my defence, I think I heard it on the Skeptics Guide podcast. The link I provided in post #2 points to an article on skepdic.com, which makes no reference to extraordinary evidence. It is lazy on both our parts. Perhaps if he's going to argue against a specific term he should check the definitions and explanations from a variety of sources.
The principle of Occam's Razor (or Ockham), according to wikipedia, "states that the explanation of any phenonemon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory."
Or simply, "all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."
I know that Wikipedia is the work of the devil but all the external links, references and sources are right there at the bottom of the page.
So, shame on me for not reading articles related to what I'm writing about. My bad.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Post #9 The 'A' word
Does the term ‘atheist’ strike anyone else as ridiculous? In what other situation would anyone describe themselves by what they don’t believe? Does the term atheist presuppose that everyone believes in a deity or deities? I deny the existence of the Greek god Zeus, the Nordic god Jofur, the Sikh god Waheguru and the ancient Egyptian god Osiris. We are all atheist in regard to some belief; a Christian denies the existence of Allah.
I am also an afairiest; I deny the existence of fairies. Yet it would be absurd to refer to myself this way, so why is religion different? People are not born with religion. They may be born into religion, but it is a meme, a virus of the mind.
If I have no way of disproving the existence of a god authority, how can I be so sure that there isn’t one?
The burden of proof is on those making the claim. From that, assuming the authority exists in a way that seems exactly like it does not, I come to ‘agnosticism’.
“Huxley coined the word “agnostic” to describe his position on knowledge and religious belief – that one cannot, and should not claim to, know things for which there is no evidence.”
If a god exists, its nature is inherently unknowable. But so are fairies and I’m still not ready to accept a position any less than afairiest on those. I am not agnostic about the Nordic gods, I choose to live my life assuming there is no supernatural authority.
Take Christianity as an example:
Why does anyone need a book that contradictorily tells us that
I am also an afairiest; I deny the existence of fairies. Yet it would be absurd to refer to myself this way, so why is religion different? People are not born with religion. They may be born into religion, but it is a meme, a virus of the mind.
If I have no way of disproving the existence of a god authority, how can I be so sure that there isn’t one?
The burden of proof is on those making the claim. From that, assuming the authority exists in a way that seems exactly like it does not, I come to ‘agnosticism’.
“Huxley coined the word “agnostic” to describe his position on knowledge and religious belief – that one cannot, and should not claim to, know things for which there is no evidence.”
If a god exists, its nature is inherently unknowable. But so are fairies and I’m still not ready to accept a position any less than afairiest on those. I am not agnostic about the Nordic gods, I choose to live my life assuming there is no supernatural authority.
Take Christianity as an example:
Why does anyone need a book that contradictorily tells us that
- homosexuality is an abomination worthy of death,
Romans 1:31-32
Corinthians 6:9-10 - eating shellfish is also an abomination,
Leviticus 11:9-12
Deuteronomy 14:9-10
www.godhatesshrimp.com - figs are evil
Matthew21:18-20
www.godhatesfigs.com - yet be kind to others?
Romans 12:9-10
Romans 12:15-21
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
