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.

On their order page, you can donate to help support the cause or buy the Soul Survivors Program, which is their basic package, and offers a guarantee to witness to a single family member as soon as they approach the age of reason (age 4-5). They include a personal message that you can include in that package. They also have an Extended Package and an Omega Program as well, which is $1 million dollars per 7 year term. (30 day trial for only $4,995!)

If you click on the buy button for the Omega Program, it doesn’t take your money. It goes to a page titled “Why are we so sure you are wrong?” This page is linked to several times throughout the site as an attempt to show the light of reason to true believers.

They do promise to fulfill their commitments for the other programs, though and explain in detail on the Mission Statement page how the service works.

So I thought I’d share it with you. For your True Believer friends and family, maybe you can let them know about it.

Related posts

• Are You Rapture Ready? (10)
• Why I’m An Atheist, Not An Agnostic (19)
• Why Do Atheists Have To Rock The Boat? (22)
• Why Didn’t *I* Think Of That!? (15)
• Why Are The Religious So Threatened By Atheists? (20)

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:

• The Skeptic’s Dictionary
• Wikipedia
• 2Think.org

Related posts

• Critical Thinking For Everyone (4)
• What Are You Doing November 19? (10)
• The Fine Art of Baloney Detection (2)
• Religulous: We’re On The Road To Nowhere (3)
• Pure Atheism vs Skeptical Atheism (8)

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.

But I’ve found that there are many different interpretations for this concept. You can see a whole page of them here.

Here’s another one:
“Critical thinking is best understood as the ability of thinkers to take charge of their own thinking. This requires that they develop sound criteria and standards for analyzing and assessing their own thinking and routinely use those criteria and standards to improve its quality.” Elder , L. and Paul, R. “Critical thinking: why we must transform our teaching.” Journal of Developmental Education, Fall 1994.

What makes a critical thinker? Here are some attributes:

• asks pertinent questions
• assesses statements and arguments
• is able to admit a lack of understanding or information
• has a sense of curiosity
• is interested in finding new solutions
• is able to clearly define a set of criteria for analyzing ideas
• is willing to examine beliefs, assumptions, and opinions and weigh them against facts
• listens carefully to others and is able to give feedback
• sees that critical thinking is a lifelong process of self-assessment
• suspends judgment until all facts have been gathered and considered
• looks for evidence to support assumption and beliefs
• is able to adjust opinions when new facts are found
• looks for proof
• examines problems closely
• is able to reject information that is incorrect or irrelevant

Just about anyone can learn to think more critically. Even more importantly, you can use it in nearly every aspect of your daily living. You already think all the time, but if you are not consciously trying to think critically, your thoughts will be more biased, distorted, partial, uninformed and prejudiced. You’ll make decisions based on your emotions and feelings, you’ll rely on your “intuition” and your gut instinct, which can sometimes be useful but can often be quite flawed.

One way that flawed thinking is noticeable is through Logical Fallacies, which we talk about here at HDC.

Here are some other resources that you might find useful:

• Critical Thinking on the Web
• Foundation for Critical Thinking

Well, that is enough to get us started. Do you have any great resources for learning to think critically that you would like to share?

Related posts

• Some Great Advice by Robert Gula (1)
• Religulous: We’re On The Road To Nowhere (3)
• Occam’s Razor: Part 1 of Our Critical Thinking Toolkit (1)
• Logical Fallacy 7: The Red Herring (11)
• Logical Fallacy 11: God of the Gaps in Science and Faith (4)

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.

So if you’re saying, “I’m a creationist”, you’re not just saying, “I favor the arguments for creation”, you’re saying, “I, as a person, my identity is as a creationist”. So if you’re attacking creationist claims, you’re attacking that person as well, their self-identity. So how do you challenge the beliefs, but don’t threaten them on a personal level?

40:14 Geoffrey Monroe did a study that is very sobering, because what he found was that, his particular study used stimuli that had to do with things like homosexuality and mental illness. He had people who thought homosexuality and mental illness were the same thing, and he had people who had the view that there’s no connection. Then he presented them both with statements that confirmed or disconfirmed that.

What he found was disturbing. People who’s views were challenged by this evidence, so believed disconfirming information, so if I thought that homosexuals have higher rates of mental illness, then I read a scientific article that said the opposite, those people tended to devalue science itself. That is, they rated lower the ability of science to answer questions like that, even beyond that, that it generalized to other issues other than the one that was challenged.

So it wasn’t even just, “this is a bad study”, or “I disagree with the conclusions” it was that “science itself cannot answer a question like this”. They become almost postmodernist. They would say, “well, you can have your science, but that doesn’t answer these questions.”

People at my university usually reserve two areas where “science can’t touch this”: religion and things like love or sexuality. They say, “Yes, you can have your data but these things are immune to faith or the wonders of the emotions, but science can’t address that.”

It seems also that a lot of pseudo-sciences tend to cluster together. You’re going to hear on a christian radio network, typically, obviously creationist stuff, but climate denialism comes in there, a lot of times there’s a lot of pseudo-science-y herbal remedies that you’ll hear late night on the christian talk shows.

It does seem to be that once you distrust one area of science, it’s not all that hard to start being more skeptical of others.

42:07 It spreads. So, what Monroe’s work is suggesting is the reason that happens is the person has some sort of cognitive dissonance. “My view is apparently disconfirmed by this study, so therefore this study cannot be valid, and studies in general probably aren’t valid.” They bring out things like, “even scientists disagree” or “facts can be twisted”.

What Monroe’s broader point to the debate of how information is presented is that often you can change that, or you can blunt that response by packaging the information in a less threatening way. That is, if somebody’s emotional factors are involved in this, if they are hurt, or if their worldview is challenged, if you present the information in a way that allows them to maintain part of their worldview, they are less likely to have that compensatory defensive response.

His argument is that you can use language that is relatively more accommodating. Like instead of saying, “we argue” that you instead frame it as, “here’s what the data says”. Or that you allow them to affirm part of their identity in another area.

So the way that some of these studies work is, let’s say you’re studying group boundaries like nationalism or patriotism. If you present the information like, write an essay on things that are good about America, and then present them with information that might be challenging, like slavery or something like that, then the person is more likely to accept that information because they’ve had the chance to affirm their broader values in a different context.

If I’m somewhere talking to a christian face to face, and we’re getting into a theological debate, I found myself instinctively but then later deliberately using a lot of morally loaded terms when talking to them. Instead of just saying, “you’re wrong on this position, that’s not the most valid argument”, you say things like, “well, I know you believe in integrity, I know you believe in worshiping god with all your heart soul,  and mind. I think integrity requires us to use the same standards to judge our own arguments that we would others.” Now what that’s doing, I’m still making a critique of their position, but I’m affirming some part of their moral identity. I’m not attacking them, “you’re a bad, ignorant person”, I’m saying “you’re a person who wants to live a life of integrity. Here’s an opportunity to have more intellectual integrity.”

45:05 The evidence suggests that if you frame a response within the person’s own worldview as much as possible, that it’s less likely to be alien to them and they can just dismiss it. For example, about the environmental movement becoming more christianized, or rather that the christian left movement, that if you package things in terminology like “creation carer” or “global warming stewardship”, that the persons are more likely to receive that rather than deny that.

The point is that if you frame an issue that is less likely to be threatening, or if you allow the person to affirm other things, like “religion is really great for you, it sounds like it’s done great things, but”, then that makes the person less likely to have a defensive response where they just say “No, I’m not going to listen”

45:54 So the question is, can we do this in a way that preserves our intellectual integrity? Do we have to lie to them, and coddle them and say, “oh this is really great” when we don’t think it is? Or can we frame things and still preserve our own beliefs?

~What follows is the RD guys hashing out their ideas and thoughts, which are interesting. They don’t really agree that it’s a good way to handle arguments with religious people, but have a listen for yourself to get their full thoughts.

What do you think? I want to mull it over some more, but I think affirming someone’s moral identity, appealing to their sense of integrity, would be a good way to go, to not alienate them. But I agree with the guys that winning a tiny little battle isn’t really that satisfying. Although part of me thinks it might help, another part thinks it might be harmful, as the guys mention how people mix pseud0-science with real science readily, which isn’t acceptable. I also don’t believe that science and religion can mix.

It’s a delicate issue. I look forward to hearing what you think about it, if you care to chime in.

Related posts

• Why People Defend Their Dogma (5)
• People Trust Peers, Not Science (4)
• More Groovy Science 5 (6)
• God Thinks Like You and He Personally Cares For You, Plus a Video To Cheer You Up (3)
• Dark Chocolate and Other Tidbits of Goodness (0)

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.

Related posts

• Why I’m An Atheist, Not An Agnostic (19)
• Why Do Atheists Have To Rock The Boat? (22)
• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• Unexpected Friendship With A Palin Lover (14)
• The Truth About Atheism (5)

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:

“The Book of Eli” has an incredible Biblical message, which tells the story of Eli’s unwavering faith as he honor’s God with his life and follows God’s will no matter how hard the journey may be. We see Eli’s faith remain steadfast as he faces many trials and tribulations,

After Solara joins Eli on his mission to preserve the Bible, she inquires about Eli’s inner-strength. He explains to her that he walks by faith and his commitment to follow God’s will has kept him strong. Later in the film, Solara asks Eli to read some passages from the Bible to her, so he recites several passages that he has memorized, and the beauty of the words move her.

While “The Book of Eli”’s respect for the sanctity of God’s Word and the depiction of Eli’s obedience to God is refreshing and inspiring, especially in a mainstream film, brutal violence and language are pervasive throughout.

Carnegie forces Solara to offer herself up to Eli as a prostitute, as leverage to try to get Eli to relinquish the Bible to him. When Solara comes to Eli’s bedroom door to offer herself to him, he refuses and tries to send her away, but Solara pleads with him to let her stay or Carnegie will hurt her mother. Eli takes pity on Solara and lets her stay. He takes the opportunity to teach her how to pray and tell her about God.

There are approximately 12 uses of the f-word, and the Lord’s name is profaned approximately two times in the film.

While I was disappointed to see the end of the film momentarily stray from its powerful Biblical message by subtly implying that the Bible is equal to other religious texts, this implication pales in comparison to Eli’s last amazing act of faith at the end of the film.

Eli’s steadfast commitment to his faith and obedience to God no matter what the price, embodies Christ’s words in Luke 9:23,

“Then he said to them all: ‘If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me’.”

Ha! They said the F-word about 12 times! How horrible! And they said Goddamnit twice! Now they’re all going to burn in hell forever! lol! And they called that “extreme profanity”. That cracks me up.

Oh, and don’t get me wrong, I’m not against  a character being religious in a movie. Just don’t preach to me when I want to be entertained. It’s offensive.

Related posts

• Imagine a World Without god!? OH NOES! (8)
• How To Talk To A True Believer About Atheism And Religion (32)
• Young Earth Invasion (6)
• You Don’t Have To Pass An IQ Test To Be In The Senate (1)
• Wild Geese by Mary Oliver – My Favorite Poem (2)

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.”

On Monday, Britain’s General Medical Council, which licenses and oversees doctors, found Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct and stripped him of the right to practice medicine in the U.K. Wakefield said he plans to appeal the ruling, which takes effect within 28 days.

The council was acting on a finding in January that Wakefield and two other doctors showed a “callous disregard” for the children in their study, published in 1998 in the medical journal Lancet. The medical body said Wakefield took blood samples from children at his son’s birthday party, paying them 5 pounds (about $7.20) each and later joked about the incident.

The study has since been widely rejected. From 1998-2004, studies in journals including the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, Pediatrics and BMJ published papers showing no link between autism and the measles vaccine.

Wakefield moved to the U.S. in 2004 and set up an autism research center in Austin, Texas, where he gained a wide following despite being unlicensed as a doctor there and facing skepticism from the medical community. He quit earlier this year.

Offit said he doubted Britain’s decision to strip the 53-year-old Wakefield of his medical license would convince many parents that vaccines are safe.

“He’s become almost like a Christ-like figure and it doesn’t matter that science has proven him wrong,” Offit said. “He is a hero for parents who think no one else is listening to them.”

In Monday’s ruling, the medical council said Wakefield abused his position as a doctor and “brought the medical profession into disrepute.”

At the time of his study, Wakefield was working as a gastroenterologist at London’s Royal Free Hospital and did not have approval for the research. The study suggested autistic children had a bowel disease and raised the possibility of a link between autism and vaccines. He had also been paid to advise lawyers representing parents who believed their children had been hurt by the MMR vaccine.

Ten of the study’s authors later renounced its conclusions and it was retracted by the Lancet in February.

At least a dozen British medical associations, including the Royal College of Physicians, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust have issued statements verifying the safety of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine.

This verdict is not about (the measles) vaccine,” said Adam Finn, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Bristol Medical School. “We all now know that the vaccine is remarkably safe and enormously effective… We badly need to put this right for the sake of our own children and children worldwide.”

Related posts

• Your Tax Dollars Teaching Medical Students Pseudoscience (6)
• People Trust Peers, Not Science (4)
• Interesting, Enlightening Evolution (0)
• Drink When You’re Thirsty, Not 8 Glasses A Day (4)
• Dark Chocolate and Other Tidbits of Goodness (0)