Heaving Dead Cats » lies

Advertisements and Logical Fallacies Part 1

Neece — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:18:38 +0000

Lately I’ve been thinking about logical fallacies used in advertising and marketing. The argument from authority when someone in a lab coat tells you what to buy, argumentum ad populum which is “appeal to the people” because everyone else is buying this product so you should too.

One of my pet peeves is multigrain labels emblazoned on foods lately. Technically the food has more than one grain in it, but they are touting the product as something healthy when they have still stripped all fiber and goodness out, so the health benefits are still lacking. This is very popular in cereals, and unless you read the label you’d think you were buying something healthy, when really it’s just as junky as cocoa puffs.

The “no sugar added” label is another one I find quite vague. There are several different iterations of this one. No sugar added, sugar free, the list goes on. What do they all mean? Again, you have to carefully read the nutrition facts and ingredients to get a better picture of what you’ll be buying.

I guess it’s basically the idea that advertisers must follow the letter of the law but not the spirit of it. So for something like Airborne (which I’ve ranted about before), they can make vague claims that basically say nothing to skirt the issue that there is no science behind their product. Then, to make it worse, they strategically make sure it’s placed near the pharmacy to appeal to authority. I think in some places they have signs saying that pharmacists recommend Airborne. But really, to make that claim you only have to pay two pharmacists to say what you want to be truthful.

I find it all incredibly frustrating and discouraging. And the only solution is to be aggressively proactive about shopping and watching ads or commercials. Be skeptical!

This is part one of tackling this topic for three reasons.

One, I don’t think we can do it justice in one post.
Two, I really want your feedback. What are your pet peeves in advertising? What examples stand out for you? What logical fallacies do you see in advertising and marketing?
And three, I just got the new parts for my computer and have to build my newer, better, faster computer today (with the help of my geek friend, Gary. Thanks Gary!). This is my birthday present from my sweetie. Thanks, my love!

Ok, I’m off to go fiddle with my new computer parts. Hopefully it all goes well. I look forward to hearing from you about fallacies in advertising!

Logical Fallacy Land 1 – intro

Neece — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:46:24 +0000

As you may have noticed, there’s a new conversation element in the sidebar. I added it so people can leave general comments for the whole site easily. You can be anonymous or sign in with all different kinds of accounts, not just google. It seemed like a friendly way to promote communication. Someone posted a video in there the other day with a request for help on how to refute “an arrogant christian”.

Here is the video. I’ll warn you, it’s almost 27 minutes long and incredibly irritating to watch.

Honestly, it’s so ridiculous, I almost decided to do nothing about it. I suggested to the unknown person to get a copy of Atheist Universe by David Mills because basically that whole book refutes this video in very clear and easy to follow detail, without oversimplifying. It’s quite thorough and I highly recommend it.

But then I talked to my mother today. She knows I’m a rather vocal atheist. She is kind of in the middle. She doesn’t believe “all that religious crap” but doesn’t know what to replace it with. She asked me what I believe about the beginning of the universe, if I believed in the Big Bang Theory. So I explained a bit about that, how science works (evidence and observation), how it changes over time to reflect new evidence and observation, and how that’s awesome.

I told her about this video, about creationism and intelligent design, and how silly it was to base anything on a book written over 2000 years ago by desert goat herders who knew nothing of science or how things worked. She asked for a link if I decided to refute the video for the person who left it. She wanted to read it. So I decided I would tackle it after all.

I’m going to do it in stages. It’s simply too long to tackle all at once. Also, I welcome your input, suggestions and refutations! Links to research, science, quotes, specific logical fallacies, anything and everything, is all welcome! Specific is good here, I think. So feel free to contribute. We can do this together much more easily than me alone.

The first thing to point out is the Argument from Authority. The guy in the video is a chemist in a lab coat. That is supposed to make him look like a trusted expert. But how is a chemist an expert in geology, astrophysics, astronomy, anthropology, etc? He’s not, of course. Whatever background he has is irrelevant to what he’s arguing.

Ok, that will get us started. I’m looking forward to your feedback!

The Resurrection Never Happened

Johnny — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:53:02 +0000

Neece posted on the Codex Sinaiticus a few weeks ago. I’ve been digging around, reading it (a little) and about it, and was formulating a reply to add to her article. After a bit of writing, I decided I should just make it a separate article.

Let me start with a little background information. Many Christians mistakenly assume that the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John) are independent accounts of the life of Jesus. Thus they assume that four corroborated eyewitnesses prove his existence, and the validity of every story told of him. Several facts knock this premise on its ear; but somehow Christians hold fast to their belief still.

First, Luke starts his book by stating that he is drawing up accounts “as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses” (in case that is too cryptic, he is admitting these were the stories told to him; that he was not an eyewitness). Second, we have historical and archeological information that indicates the new testament books were written after 45 CE at the earliest; most were after 90 CE. Third, we have in depth analysis and research that has resulted in plenty of proof that three of the four copy from another. Yet still many Christians think them all perfect accounts of the life of Jesus. Even his existence cannot be proven absolutely.

Most scholars agree that Mark was written first, and the other three had a copy or version of Mark they built their work from. The most common hypothesis currently is that Matthew used Mark or a version of Mark (M) in conjunction with the Q document (an as-yet undiscovered document). Luke used Mark and the Q document; as well as at least one other source (L), possibly two (J). The gospel of John came last, in addition to being very obviously written by a Greek (when original versions are examined). “The Gospel [of John] certainly does not appear to have been written by an uneducated fisherman from Galilee, which is who John the disciple is portrayed as in Gospel stories.” John appears to use Matthew, Mark, and Luke; but takes many liberties by using “eloquent Greek prose for the speeches of Jesus” instead of just translating. [SOURCE]

Most of you probably knew this, or knew of it in general, so I’ll get on with the “new” information.

Seems to me there are four pivotal things about Jesus that Christianity builds on: virgin birth, miracles performed, crucifixion, resurrection. How much of the Christian doctrine revolves around the resurrection? How much of the Jesus mythology comes crashing down without his return to life?

The last chapter (16) of Mark tells the story of the two Marys going to the sepulcher to anoint the body of Jesus. They discover the body missing and a “young man” (often depicted as an angel) tells them he is risen (the first half of the chapter: 16:1-8). The second half of the chapter (16:9-20) relates the various appearances Jesus put in with those known to him.

The drum roll… Remembering…

Mark was the most original known story of the life of Jesus.
The Codex is the earliest known compiling of the new testament.

The version of Mark that appears in the Codex ends at verse eight.

In the earliest known telling of the life of Jesus, there was no resurrection. For all we really can gather, the body might have been stolen.

How much credence does this lend to Christianity borrowing aspects of other myths, and adding them to the Jesus myth?

Do you think this could be used as an effective arguing tool for Jesus being a mythical figure?

How Many Gods Are In The Bible?

Johnny — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:00:20 +0000

Let’s start with what is probably the most famous and most used excerpt from the Bible: the ten commandments. Actually all we really need is the first commandment. Exodus 20 verses 2-4 are typically what comprises the first commandment: “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.” I think the second sentence (Exodus 20:3) says it all; Yahweh admits there are other gods, but tells his people he is number one.

Christians vehemently subscribe to the view that the Bible proves the existence of Yahweh. They also view all other gods as fake or myths.

Does the Bible ever actually say the others are fake gods? This might just be arguing technicalities, but as I recall the Bible refers to them as false gods. In fact most of the time the Bible doesn’t even imply that much, often just referring to them as gods.

This seems to indicate that Yahweh (or at least the Bible authors) knew these other gods existed. Yahweh does mention that he is jealous (who would he have to jealous of besides other gods), and that his people should worship no other gods before him. The theme seems to repeat often through the Old Testament: acknowledgment of other gods, and then reinforcing that they are the wrong gods.

If the Bible provides repeated ‘proof’ of Yahweh, doesn’t this same argument work as proof of other gods? Especially when you consider that Yahweh himself acknowledges the existence of these other gods.

So based on this information, couldn’t we imply that anyone who believes in the existence of Yahweh should thus believe in the existence of these other gods? Even if they don’t worship these other gods, wouldn’t it make sense to concede they exist?

But how many other gods are there in the Bible? Probably more than you think, and definitely more than most Christians think.

Some of the Gods Mentioned in the Bible not an exhaustive list
Adrammelech	II Kings 17:31	Sepharvite sun god (day to Anammelech’s night).
Anammelech	II Kings 17:31	Sepharvite lunar goddess (night to Adrammelech’s day).
Asherah	II Kings 23:6 & Jeremiah 7:18	Yahweh’s consort; the mother goddess and “queen of heaven.”
Ashima	II Kings 17:30	Samaritan lunar goddess.
Ashtoreth	I Kings 11:05	Canaanite goddess (version of Ishtar).
Baal or Ba’al	I Kings 18:19	Canaanite god (“lord” or “master”) of fertility, vegetation, and storms.
Baal-berith	Judges 8:33	A regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baal-Peor	Numbers 25:03	Moabite regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baal-zebub	Luke 11:19	Philistine/Ekronian regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baalim	I Kings 18:18	Canaanite gods (“lords” or “masters”), a collective of the different aspects of Baal.
Bel	Isiah 46:01	Assyrian/Babylonian/Sumerian god (“lord” or “master”) aspect of Baal.
Chemosh	I Kings 11:07	Moabite war god.
Dagon	I Samuel 05:02	Philistine/Ekronian/Babylonian god of grain and agriculture.
Diana of the Ephesians	Acts 19:35	Ephesian moon and nature goddess, (equivalent of the Greeks Artemis).
Jupiter	Acts 14:12	King of the Roman gods.
Mercurius	Acts 14:12	Roman god of communication and travel, and messenger of the gods. Also known as Mercury.
Milcom	I Kings 11:05 & 07	Ammonite god of fire (also known as Moloch, Molech, Molekh, or Molek).
Nebo or Nebu	Isiah 46:01	Assyrian/Babylonian/Chaldean god of wisdom and writing (Some scholars think Moses may be a humanized adaption of Nebu).
Nergal	II Kings 17:30	Cuth/Assyrian/Babylonian war and underworld god.
Nibhaz	II Kings 17:31	Avites god.
Nisroch	II Kings 19:37	Assyrian god of agriculture; also called Dagon, and could be a different version of Nusku.
Rimmon	II Kings 05:18	Babylonian/Syrian storm god; also known as Ramman or Rammon, and most likely an alternate version of Baal.
Succoth-benoth	II Kings 17:30	Babylonian fertility goddess (“she who produces seed”).
Tammuz	Ezekial 8:14	Assyrian/Babylonian/Sumerian god of food and vegetation.
Tartak	II Kings 17:31	Avites god.

Then there is Yahweh, how many names can one god have? Besides Yahweh (YHWH) there’s the mistranslated Jehovah, the coincidentally plural Adonai, the name given to Moses as Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, then Elohim and El with all their sub-forms, the poetic combination of El and Yahweh Elyon, the name given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as Shaddai (and there are more).

There was even a time when he was referred to as The Seven: Eloah, Elohim, Adonai, Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, Yahweh, Shaddai, Zebaot.

I’ve run down a side tangent a little now, but think about this for a moment: Is Yahweh even a monotheistic god? You really could argue that he is almost polytheistic. From the Jewish take on him, look at all these different aspects and versions; seems more like multiple gods they tried to cram into one. Then from the Christian take, look at the father, the son, and the holy ghost; seems like its just taking multiple gods and forcing them all into a single being.

Just a final note, check these contradictions on Skeptics Annotated Bible; seems the verses for multiple gods far outweigh the verses for a single god.

Thanks to Norbert Sykes for the original list.

5 Evil and Crazy christian Movements

Neece — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 02:32:27 +0000

Here are 5 christian movements that are crazy and evil. As if any christian-based movement isn’t evil, I know! LOL… anyway, I just wanted to bring these issues to your attention, if you didn’t already know about them.

The Patriarchy Movement: the baptists want to undo feminism and get women back into the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant and subservient to their husbands. 3,000 women have signed the manifesto which was unveiled October 11, 2008. Apparently a lot of our societal ills are because women are so uppity these days. So hey, let’s just go back to the Iron Age where men can marry as many women as they like, drag them around, beat them, and keep them pregnant. That sounds healthy. Obviously women aren’t smart enough to do anything but have babies, cook and clean. Right? WRONG. STFU, already. The 3,000 women who signed that document are so brainwashed, they don’t even have brain cells left to think with.
creationism: those crazy christians are like pit bulls with this issue. They lost in Texas recently (big sigh of relief) but won in Louisiana. How crazy do you have to be to believe in a talking snake and a tree of knowledge and Adam and Eve, etc? Crazy like a fox, because they’re dictating how kids will be taught in school. creationism… doesn’t it say there’s some type of creator? Isn’t that a violation of the Separation of Church and State in the Bill of Rights, since they are pushing this indoctrination into public schools? Why is this even an issue?
Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation: Prop 8, and now this. A private school in California is allowed to discrimate against 2 girls for having “a bond of intimacy” that was “characteristic of a lesbian relationship.” They didn’t DO anything. They were just close. WTF? And this is also dangerous ground because a school or organization can use their religious beliefs as justification for discrimination.
The Indoctrination of Innocent Children: Ok, so this is as old as the very idea of religion, but it’s evil and it needs attention. Most children will automatically follow in the religious footsteps of their parents, especially the kids that are home-schooled (which seems to be used quite a bit by christians to make sure the teaching of their kids are god-centered). It’s wrong, plain and simple, to raise a child to believe in fairy tales. What is different from raising your child to believe in Santa (who was a real man – St. Nicholas of Myra who actually attended the first ecumenical council in 325 CE in Niceaea.)
Ok, I’m tired, and I must admit, I’ve gone off the deep end while writing this list. So here you go, something that is so awful it should make you laugh: I know, I know, it totally goes in with number 4’s indoctrination of children. This kind of stuff will totally screw up your kiddies! The website is here, in case you need some overpriced crazy christian clothes. They offer salvation too. How convenient. wow.. an online shortcut to god.

What religious issues or movements do you think should be on this list? There were so many to choose from, I sort of got overwhelmed. But we can do a follow-up list with your suggestions. Feel free to provide links or search terms in your comments. Let’s all stay informed! Oh, for the follow-up, we’ll include other stupid religions. No sense discriminating against the rest of the kooks.

Thanksgiving and Family Fundie Nonsense

Neece — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:53:14 +0000

Thanksgiving is just around the corner. I’m a bit bummed out that I don’t have a great outfit to wear to dinner on Thursday. Like one of the 30 or so anti-religious shirts my husband Butch I have created on Zazzle and Cafepress with maybe some nice black cargo pants. I just don’t think I could get one shipped to me in time. Maybe if I order soon, I can have something festive for baby jesus’ birthday.

Oh if I only had the nerve. Maybe it’s not nerve but respect for the people who throw the family get-togethers – Butch’s aunt and uncle. She’s a bit on the religious side, so I wouldn’t want to upset or offend her. She’s the kind of christian that I don’t mind at all. I know she’s a christian because she goes to church every Sunday, but we’ve never talked religion and she’s never tried to push her faith on me. She is a good person, one of the few christians I know that I truly respect, because she walks the walk without talking the talk, if you know what I mean.

Her mother, on the other hand, she’s nasty. The typical fundie moron that is unbearable and full of lies and hatred for anyone who actually thinks for themselves. As a schoolteacher, I just wish she wouldn’t be so ignorant about simple facts like oh, I dunno, maybe that we’re not a christian nation, and that the founding fathers created a separation of church and state very deliberately.

She hates Butch and I because we dared stand up for truth and facts last christmas regarding the founding of our country. She was so full of instant indignant rage, spouting poisonous lies about the founding fathers. When Butch corrected her it was really ugly, but she just changed the subject and skulked off. Luckily it was after dessert.

Anyway, it would be nice if she, a freaking schoolteacher, knew that the founding fathers went out of their way to make sure there was a separation of church and state. How blind is she? Doesn’t she know that it protects her as much as me, the godless heathen sitting across from her at the table?

Ugh, lucky for her I’m an ethical atheist, which means I probably will not stick my fork in her eye over the candied yams when they bow their heads in prayer. Then again, maybe it’s just my pragmatism, because no one likes bloodied candied yams.

Speaking of dealing with fundies, I noticed an arguing method that such people use to great effect. Where do they learn this common and slimy method, and how the hell can it be dealt with?

It goes like this: the narrow-minded fundie makes a statement. You refute it with logic. They slide off from that point, never acknowledging that they lost that battle, and immediately attack you with another ridiculous claim that is either A, so outlandish that you are stunned and have a hard time figuring out a rational response to such insanity, or B, it’s got just enough fact in it that makes it hard to refute outright, but easy to believe if you’re a mindless nutjob.

Once you try to refute the second point, if you are lucky and succeed in getting your whole point out, the fundie launches at you with another vicious attack, totally ignoring the previous argument again, keeping you off guard, never letting you get your head together.

Who teaches people to be so calculatingly manipulative? I knew this guy for a couple of years. He was a narrow minded, smart yet mindless idiot, but somehow we got along and I thought we were friends. Last week I mentioned that he had a narrow world view. I know, it wasn’t the most tactful statement and I apologized. He cut off all contact instantaneously.

In an email exchange over the next day or so, he used the technique I just described until it dawned on me, he was going to continue the ad hominem attacks and accuse me of being a heinous person and never ever even acknowledge that I was trying to converse with him, unless he could use it against me. Which he did in twisted ways that frankly boggled my mind.

Finally it hit me. Why the hell was I even engaging with this person? He was a fundie in his own way. I hadn’t realized until then that there is such a beast as the rare atheist fundie, full of the same ridiculous twisted logic and lack of common sense. Bizarro world, that’s what it felt like.

Anyway, I really can’t think of any way to deal with such people except to disengage and not even talk to them. Arguing logic with them is a waste of time and effort, and a source of immense aggravation. They don’t want to argue with you, they want to attack and debase you. It’s pointless, I think.

Of course, I welcome ideas on how to deal with this whole vicious technique. If you’ve had success be sure to share with the class. We all need to know.

Wow, what a meandering path that was! I think I’ll wrap things up by saying THANK YOU.

Thanks for reading, and thank you so much for when you comment. That makes my day. I’m so grateful for so many things, and you are one of them.

And look, I can be happy and thankful for my family, my dogs, my health, my home and all the good things and people that fill my life, and I can do it all without kowtowing to an invisible, angry, hateful, middle eastern, Bronze/Iron Age, childish bully in the sky.