We’ve all heard of Eternal Earth-Bound Pets and their awesome service of saving pets after the rapture (I wrote about being Rapture Ready here). Well, the other day I was contacted by another fine atheist service, Rapture Orphan Rescue: A service providing the Ultimate No Child Left Behind.

Here is their Mission Statement:

We are a Rapture-proof service that will ensure that your youngest family members will be given the religious instruction that you would have wanted them to receive. More than just letting your rapture-orphaned sons and daughters [know] that you love them, we will witness to them so that they too may be Saved and reunited with you at the end of the Trials and Tribulations.

This is based on biblical verses that state that we are all born in sin and that we have to reach the age of reason before we can be saved. The site goes into detail on the home page explaining why your baby is born an atheist and isn’t guaranteed to be raptured.

The problem seems to be that the children christians will leave behind will then be taken in as wards of the state, and then might be marked with the sign of the beast. This service will take the child before that stage and make sure they are never marked, which would be a bad thing according to Revelations 20:4. Read the rest of this entry »

The other day I wrote about Critical Thinking and how important it is. But knowing it’s good for you and actually using it in your daily life are two very different things. I want to put together a Critical Thinking Toolkit.

One important tool is going to be Occam’s Razor: “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). That’s it in a nutshell right from William of Ockham, a Franciscan monk and English philosopher, theologian and logician in the 14th century.
Another way to put it is: The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. But don’t get confused by the term, simple. It means: The hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one. When giving explanatory reasons for something, don’t posit more than is necessary. Or, don’t make any more assumptions than you have to.

So let’s say you have 2 competing hypotheses that are basically equal in most respects. Then this principle would suggest that you choose the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions while still sufficiently answering the question. In science Occam’s Razor is used as a rule of thumb (a heuristic) to help researchers develop good models.

In your life it can help you make decisions and choose what to think and what to believe (or not believe). You can use it as a heuristic as well, a great rule of thumb in your Critical Thinking Toolkit.

Sometimes atheists use Occam’s Razor to argue against the existence of god since everything can be explained through natural means without complicating it with the supernatural.

Another example: Crop circles. There used to be 2 competing ideas for where crop circles came from. One was that flying saucers from an alien world made them. Another was that a person  (or people) used some type of instrument to make the designs in the grass. Since there is no evidence for the flying saucers from outer space, and given how complicated and how many assumptions need to be made to make that argument work, Occam’s Razor would suggest that the simpler explanation would be that humans did it with instruments. That is the argument that makes less assumptions.

Of course, the second argument could be wrong, but until there was more information, it was the preferable hypothesis. Then 2 guys admitted to the crop circle hoax in the 1990′s. So that ended that debate for most people.

A quote by Carl Sagan is appropriate here: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When it comes to the supernatural, Occam’s Razor is a very valuable tool indeed.

Sources:

For some time now, I’ve wanted to talk to you about critical thinking. I remember the bad old days when most of my thinking was emotional and reactive and I had no idea that such a thing as critical thinking even existed. It wasn’t a happy time. Over the last few years I’ve learned to think for myself and I can’t express how liberating and empowering that is.

If there is one gift you can give to a child or anyone else, it is to teach them to think for themselves. The educational system doesn’t teach this important skill. It teaches rote memorization and focuses on test taking. Therefore it’s up to you to learn it for yourself.

Unfortunately, I’m self taught and have no formal training in this realm. Which means sharing it with you is harder. So instead of putting it off even longer, I thought maybe we could explore the subject together and develop a plan for sharing with others in our lives or on the web. First, let’s define it.

Here is a quote: [Critical thinking is a] desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture. ~ Francis Bacon (1605)

Here is the short and sweet definition:

Critical Thinking: n: the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion. Read the rest of this entry »

The other day I gave you a transcript from a lecture. The article was titled Why People Defend Their Dogma. At the end I promised a follow-up with some practical advice. And here it is. They did another episode of Reasonable Doubts, Episode 70, where they talked about how to persuade people, especially about science. They talked about a professor who has done some studies. I have written up a transcript of the salient parts of the conversation.

Partial Transcript:

37:18 If the goal is not to score points, if the goal is actually to persuade people, if the morally superior goal is to win minds rather than just make people look stupid, then tone really does matter. Psychology has some things to say about how we should best go about trying to persuade people to really, any position, but even more specifically to a scientific position that they may otherwise feel threatened by,  or may conflict with their worldview.

38:07 It’s an empirical issue. What is likely to be persuasive or off-putting or not is a testable question. There are people right now researching how you package factual issues and seeing if that affects the rate at which people believe, disbelieve or deny them.

One of the examples of this, there is a researcher who’s name is Geoffrey Monroe from Towson University who has done some studies on peoples’ willingness to agree with belief consisting information as opposed to information that’s inconsistent with beliefs as a function of things like how the information is presented to them.

So he had a piece on Science and Religion Today where he folded this into the debate about, do you alienate people by using blunt language that offends them. The theory behind this that people don’t, as most people probably realize, they don’t simply make up their mind on the basis of factual, cognitive, cold type calculations. This is one aspect that frustrates us, is that when we are debating with somebody, it quickly becomes apparent that the facts of evolution in some cases won’t make a difference, if the person has an emotional investment.

So people hold attitudes because they are linked to aspects of your self-identity. As stated in Terror Management Theory, if you have a worldview that can be threatened, you get defensive. You circle your wagons as if attacked. In the same way, with factual issues like scientific-type things, religious people hold these as part of their broader self-identity. Read the rest of this entry »

This is funny! I have no idea if this site is legitimate or what will happen if you install their software, but this is a funny concept. Godblock filters out religious websites from your children.

Here is how the site describes the software:

GodBlock is a web filter that blocks religious content. It is targeted at parents and schools who wish to protect their kids from the often violent, sexual, and psychologically harmful material in many holy texts, and from being indoctrinated into any religion before they are of the age to make such decisions. When installed properly, GodBlock will test each page that your child visits before it is loaded, looking for passages from holy texts, names of religious figures, and other signs of religious propaganda. If none are found, then your child is allowed to browse freely.

And here is their reasoning:

In the last century, the United States has seen a resurgence of fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalist Evangelicals, Mormons, Baptists, and Jews have held back progress in science, human rights, civil rights, and protecting our environment. How can we reverse this trend and join the rest of the world in the gradual secularization of society and government?

Most deeply religious people are born into their religion, but even children raised in a secular household are vulnerable to content on the web. That’s why we’ve produced GodBlock. GodBlock is a web filter that blocks religious content. It is targeted at parents and schools who wish to protect their kids from the often violent, sexual, and psychologically harmful material in many holy texts, and from being indoctrinated into any religion before they are of the age to make such decisions.

Makes sense to me! Of course, using a filter as a “babysitter” for your kids, to protect them from content, doesn’t seem like the best way to handle difficult material like sex or religion. (Then again, I’m not a mother, so maybe it’s different if you have kids. I welcome your opinion).

I would think that you can’t really shelter kids from religion. Letting them see it as the cultural dogma that it is and then explaining it to your kids might work better. If your children are too young to explain stuff to, they probably shouldn’t be surfing the internet alone anyway.

But this is, at the very least, a very interesting proof of concept. I like it!

Like I said, though, I have no idea if this is legitimate and have no idea if the software is safe. If you use it, feel free to review it below.

Anyone can go to IMDB for a movie review these days. Or, like me, you can read the little blurb on Netflix and make your decision that way. Usually I just want to know the basic premise of the movie, who’s in it, and who directed it. I don’t listen to the opinions of many people (famous, friend or family) when it comes to recommendations and the like because most people don’t know me very well. All they can tell me is what they thought of the movie for themselves, not for me. And I’m an Odd Duck, to be sure. I don’t like a lot of things that are raved about. And movies or things that most people don’t care for I think are great. I don’t often agree with popular opinion.

Why am I going on about this? Well, there is one thing I absolutely have zero tolerance for; a bible thumping movie. I can’t stand religious propaganda shoved down my throat. Not long after Left Behind went to DVD my dad rented it thinking it was Sci Fi. (we used to go out to dinner and watch a movie afterward as sort of a regular family night) I saw that Kirk Cameron was in it, thought that was a bad sign, but gave it the benefit of the doubt and promptly wasted 2 hours of my life to that dreck. That night Butch (my nearly perfect husband) and I made a pact never to sit through a horrid movie again.

So when I see a movie preview that could look like it’s a “God Movie” I would rather steer clear. Unfortunately a lot of god movies mask it in the previews, and some movies that really don’t have a strong pro-god/pro-religion tone might look like it in the previews.

Enter Christian Answers Movie Reviews! My friend Dan shared this site with me and now I am passing it on to you because I actually found it useful.

I picked a movie I was leery about, The Book of Eli, and here’s what I discovered. First, they describe a lot of scenes so it is a bit of a spoiler. Second, I learned it’s a pretty god-heavy movie that would probably set my nerves on edge. Here’s part of the review: Read the rest of this entry »

The AP has an article titled Britain bans doctor who linked autism to vaccine.

This is great news! My first question is why it took Britain so long to make such a move. My second concern is that he will just come back over here where he is worshiped by idiots like McCarthy and her ilk. And my third concern is people will still worship him and continue to avoid getting their children properly vaccinated, causing suffering and even death for innocent kids everywhere.

LONDON — The doctor whose research linking autism and the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella influenced millions of parents to refuse the shot for their children was banned Monday from practicing medicine in his native Britain.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 study was discredited — but vaccination rates have never fully recovered and he continues to enjoy a vocal following, helped in the U.S. by endorsements from celebrities like Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy.

“That is Andrew Wakefield’s legacy,” said Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “The hospitalizations and deaths of children from measles who could have easily avoided the disease.”

Wakefield’s discredited theories had a tremendous impact in the U.S., Offit said, adding: “He gave heft to the notion that vaccines in general cause autism.”

In Britain, Wakefield’s research led to a huge decline in the number of children receiving the MMR vaccine: from 95 percent in 1995 — enough to prevent measles outbreaks — to 50 percent in parts of London in the early 2000s. Rates have begun to recover, though not enough to prevent outbreaks. In 2006, a 13-year-old boy became the first person to die from measles in Britain in 14 years.

“The false suggestion of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine has done untold damage to the UK vaccination program,” said Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. “Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that it is safe.” Read the rest of this entry »