Quote: Thomas Jefferson

“This, too, is but a branch of our moral duties, which are generally divided into duties to God and duties to man. If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such being exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to-wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D’Alembert, D’Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.” — Thomas Jefferson letter to Thomas Law Poplar Forest, June 13, 1814.

A good point to be sure.

Oooooh, I had a comment referenced.

I feel all famous and stuff.

Greta Christina cited a comment I made on Pharyngula about the Atheist's Wager and even referenced this site.

Here's how Tatarize (of God Snot, Where God's Not) put it in the Pharyngula comment: "Do good, then if there's a evil God everybody is still screwed. If there is a good God then you go to heaven, if there is no God then doing good is its own reward."

Tom Lehrer, dead birds, and religion

It seems a little odd, when just one line tends to ruin a song. One very notable example is Tom Lehrer's Poisoning Pigeons in the Park (lyrics) well, at one fairly interesting section the lyrics go:

And lack of propriety,
And quite a variety
Of unpleasant names.
But it's not against any religion
To want to dispose of a pigeon.

Well, it doesn't seem to be against any of the Abrahamic religions. If anything, the reduction of animal suffering is the furthest thing from the religious text's agendas. If anything, increase of suffering for animals seems to be the goal (in order to clean the sins of others). Although the following line is "So if Sunday you're free" -- which would count as work on the Sabbath for some Christian faiths, though much of those faiths ignore most of the commandments so there's not much of an objection there. Judaism still holds the Sabbath on the 7th day ("For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it" -- Which makes the Christian switch to the first day seem a little less hallowed). And that isn't the specific claim. The specific claim is killing the pigeons not the day of work.

However, there are rather obvious objections to killing pigeons within Jainism and wanting to kill pigeons within Buddhism. It is strictly speaking against at least one religion "to want to dispose of a pigeon" -- I have nothing against the slaughter of birds but I can't stand inaccurate song lyrics!

Shorter: Lee Siegel

Shorter: Lee Siegel

"I didn't read Mr. Dawkins book but let me just say atheism destroys imagination."

We'd probably even object to Peter Pan being talked about as if he were real. Talk about buzzkills!

We few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Lecture on religious violence.

Hopefully a lot more material will be coming out of AAI in the coming days and weeks.

Nihilism

Dressing up in black leather is man's work!

Superdickery of the highest degree.

A purpose for an appendix?

A group of Duke University Medical School surgeons and immunologists propose that the appendix may serve as a safe-house for bacteria. So apparently your appendix serves to cater to bacteria. Yes Mr. Bacteria! No Mr. Bacteria! You aren't special. Your body is specially made to cater to bacteria.

Though, grains of salt. These are doctors not evolutionary biologists. Though, lets not poke too much fun at doctors, but they are doctors after all. In summation: Doctors, *eye roll*.

Modern Christianity

Oddly funny. Oddly true.

Atheists seem to focus more on the quality of religion still being false and completely undermining science, reason and rationality. Sometimes we overlook exactly how pathetic mainstream Christianity is.



There is something really hollow about religion, where the newer bits don't care they just want to be paid. And you can't exactly say they should focus on the real bits, because there are no real bits.

Atheists in foxholes...

Says more about foxholes than atheists.

Evolutionary Algorithms to avoid Patents.

If you ever wanted confirmation that patents aren't there to improve innovation take note of the Evolutionary Computation Conference which showcases (among other things) some new technology that evolved via evolutionary algorithms. One of the notes is a "high performance Wi-Fi antennae (evolved to avoid patent fees)" -- Which isn't a hard thing to note, you just put in fitness blocks that say if you use the important features here here or here you're less fit. You simply evolve a good design while avoiding certain designs. You hamstring your design process.


Which brings up an interesting problem with patents. Obviousness. Who is this criteria suppose to apply to? If it's obvious to an evolutionary algorithm shouldn't that count? I mean, isn't that the entire point of obvious criteria to determine if some idea is simply the next obvious step in the making of something and compare that to what else could be done. The point is that the obvious next step shouldn't be grabbed and patented but rather people should know that their hard work won't be for nothing and they will get paid for their innovation. This, sadly, is nothing like the patent system works.

You could in theory patent all of these adaptations and run the program again to avoid these and again and again. Sometimes there are certain bits which are needed. The Good Tricks to designing things that are obvious and are the way things are built.

Dawkins/Lennox: Download

Worth a listen.

RichardDawkins.net has the download.

Kid Nation: An attempt to earn raitings and poison souls.

So actually entertaining, not for the general "Oh look at how they are doing this they are so good at this that and the other they are doing a great job building a town." Nope. It's fun to watch because they are all little monsters and the show is trying to encourage such a thing.

Kid nation is established as a faux-capitalistic communistic oligarchy split up into factions.

The older mature kids want the 20 grand that this stupid government is able to hand out every show, and so they work hard and get pissed when it's handed out to people for having a birthday or various other reasons. One of the odder characters is Taylor who works as a beauty queen is on the council and does no work regardless what job they get assigned.

Which seemed a little bit bitchy until in the third episode she's seen comparing her leadership with President Bush. Ah, now it all makes sense. My dislike is justified. They have a nonsense economy where they play for different jobs, for unequal pay, and unequal work. The upperclass does nothing for ten times the pay and the laborers do a lot of work for pretty much nothing.

The council needs to start giving the council gold stars.

Regardless your role you get your pay for the week regardless if you do any work at all. This is the reason communism tends to fail, and so long as people can't kill you for doing nothing... why work?

All the food and such is provided by the state.

Though, they say there are no adults the town is actually crawling with them.

You have a pathetic communistic state run by children, and as the older kids have long since figured out the only real thing are the 20 grand the council hands out. The show is oddly entertaining for all the wrong reasons. All it needs is to start selling votes for the gold stars to make the corruption complete. Can children make a town work when a bunch of stupid stuff happens all the time and made up jobs are made up for no apparent reason at all.

Though beyond being faux-capitalist it's also faux-oligarchy as the producers have this amazing book they apparently wrote the day before to explain to future generations how they should try and make their town work.

Alternet ran bit about Kid Nation teaching kids to be capitalist. In reality it's teaching kids to be communists ruled by an unseen dictator.

Divinely Hidey God.

One of the comments from the God Delusion debate (see below) struck me as rather funny. I know, they are all comic gold but this one was just classic.

"Amazingly strong Dr. Lennox. If a Atheist where a thinking person surely he/she could admit they don't know all there is to know and that God could exist in the part they have yet to know."

God could exist in part they have yet to know?

"I've been looking for this God of yours for a while and haven't found it yet. So I'm an atheist."

-- "Have you checked under that rock?"

"Yes."

-- "How about that one?"

"Yes."

-- "And that one?"

"No."

-- "See GOD exists! I TOLD YOU SO!"

As if God is some kind of new species of snail.

Lennox/Dawkins Debate.

So PZ had the good sense to clue us infidels into a debate over the God Delusion, via a large number of Christian radio stations.

The format was intended to go as follows:

1) Some read from Dawkins' book.
2) Dawkins says that he wrote that.
3) Lennox pitches a McGrathian fit.
4) Goto 1.

This was admittedly "frustrating" to Dawkins who promptly started to ignore the stupid rules and rebut Lennox on his next chance to talk. The debate then had Lennox getting crushed pretty hard, mostly because Dawkins didn't need to think of new replies as everything Lennox said was stupid and long since disproven (and long since worked out with the best replies).

As I don't have a copy of the Audio some of PZs commenters pointed out the debate comments on the shows site. PZ also made the pointed out the structural problems. To the credit of Dr. Don McDonald, on the show comments he noticed it too. Dawkins should have been defense and going second rather than the pathetic situation of making the argument at the end.

The comments are rather classic:

"Dawkins conceded much more in the debate than I expected. 1. That God cannot be disproved. 2. He had no explanation for morality. 3. That we don't know the origins of the universe. 4. That the staggeringly evident hypothesis would be creation.

1. Didn't read the book. He says that.
2. Didn't read the book. He gives a good explanation for morality as he did in the debate.
3. And?
4. Complete misrepresentation.

Or as Jason Bradfield notes,

"Dawkins got owned. He got completely ripped on the morality issue and historical issues. He also got ripped on the celestial teapot stuff, which is a category mistake. Dawkins can't deal with God as He is explicitly revealed in Scripture. He has to create his own "created" idol."

Jason doesn't seem to understand a lot of what was said, but he's sure the Dawkins got kicked.

That's it, I'll use bait to attract folks. Here creationists! Come and get it.

I only deny God because Professor Richard Dawkins tells me to.

I don't really understand evolution, but I know it lets me ignore God and sin all I want.

I hate God because bad things happened to me.

I hate God because I'm bitter.

I hate God because I don't feel love.

I have no morality, so I can sin all I want. I can tolerate homosexuals, wear clothing of different fibers, I daresay shellfish and disrepect for my parents are quite doable.

Science is my religion.

I think that atheists should get in charge and wipe out the theists.

Now that the hook is baited. Hopefully the fish start biting. Then I use those fish as bait for the bigger fish.

Come to my blog, there's a lot of creationists to laugh at!

Blessed are the ...

Blessed are the passive aggressive threateners, for their enemies will know the truth when they are burning in hell for their arrogance!

Ironic Quote of the Day: Frederick Douglass

I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress. - Frederick Douglass

There's little doubt that that quote is utter bizarre when we look at the Republican party of the day. There has been a rather odd switch in party loyalty over the years. The positions of Republicans like Lincoln and Douglass are now only found within the Democratic party and the traditional Democratic party positions are the staple of modern Republican party. It's a sad monument that the party of Lincoln died in the south. There had been a number of shifts over the 20th century and finally sealed the fate in 1963 with the Civil Rights Act, that's when the Democratic party lost the south, and in an odd twist took every position as the party of Lincoln.

House vote:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

Over the next several years, the parties just flipped over. And in the 1994 slaughter-fest, the Democrats lost the south completely. And in 2006 the Republicans lost what bit of the NE they still had. Though, there are senators in Maine still and perhaps a straggler or two.

The supporters of the party of Lincoln would be the first to vote against Bush.

Amateur blogging and amphisbaenia.

So, the other day my young cousins brought some critter to me asking if it was a snake or a worm. I recognized it as an amphisbaenia, though reluctant to make the determination at the time (also forgot the word just remembered that there was a worm reptile). I told them to put it outside beyond the reach of their younger sibling (who initially found they guy). Wow, I thought to myself, I read about those things but never thought I'd see one. I looked for some more pictures of them on GIS then I remembered, that I had a blog and and a webcam. But, alas, I couldn't find the guy outside. So no, confirmation that I was right, my memories are fading perhaps it was just an odd looking snake that happen to look exactly like a worm. Perhaps it was a stick, or a piece of spaghetti... without pictures I don't know what to believe and I'm subject to second guessing. And considering there aren't any species of amphisbaenia in this area I could easily be wrong. Perhaps there's some other kind of snake that looks exactly like an earthworm with bright colors, seemingly two heads. Perhaps there's some kind of worm with a spine (from the feel of it). I just don't know.

The entire point of this post is to say, my amateurish 'wow that's awesome, let's not take and post pictures to my blog' style blogging will end. Pictures of cool stuff rather than second hand "it looked like a snake/worm, but also looked like it had two heads, was about four inches long and had some bright colors" in the future for me. Thank You. My apologies.

I'm fairly sure I got the order Squamata right.

Spirituality and the 95% withdrawal.

There seems to be a certain idea that for everything there is a Golden Mean. If there's two sides which are categorically opposed, the truth lies somewhere in the center. In reality one side can, in fact, be completely wrong. With fundamentalists and atheists we have the moderate theists who agree with atheists in spirit when they address the problems of fundamentalism but refuse rather to accept atheism is the answer rather the truth lies in the middle, not no God or too much God but the Just Enough God of spiritualism.

How can you be a rational individual while not being a crazy fundamentalists and don't want to be called an atheist? You can just take some extremely wishy-washy middle ground either it's claiming to be agnostic (not in the proper sense but in the weak atheist sense) because you don't disbelieve in God as you claim atheists do (you just don't have any evidence that he doesn't exist either), or the higher power claim laced with large amounts of special pleading. There simply MUST be something more! THERE MUST! THIS CAN'T BE EVERYTHING! Note that when they say "this", they are referring to everything. And then there's spirituality, where they believe in something vague and spiritual. Who could argue with that? Or the liberal Christianity side where you pay occasional lip service to Jesus without having read any part of the Bible or going to church.

The idea that the truth lies somewhere in the middle and that going all the way to one side opens you up to criticism. Which is pretty well the reason why the Democratic primary front runners all support this plan for a 95% withdrawal. Oh, we'll remove everybody from the Iraq except one brigade who we will have in this one bunker. You're surrendering! You're going to lose this war! "No see because I have a bunch of guys in a bunker somewhere during this civil war, that's why I don't really lose. I'm spiritual. None of this, it was a bad idea from the start and I'll completely wash my hands of it, I'll just wash my hands of as much as I can without being called a coward. I have just enough God... and just enough stupidity."

We really need to make the middle less solid ground, politically, religiously, and practically. Collaborators shouldn't be tolerated.