Archive
Guest Article: “The Problem of Induction – A Response” by Alex Papulis
In Dave’s July 29 post, he mentioned the problem of induction. He writes: “The problem of induction will always stand in our way of reaching 100% certainty.” The problem of induction is about much more. In fact, it’s not primarily concerned with certainty. If the problem of induction has no solution, then we are not warranted in making inferences about unobserved states of the world on the basis of observed states.
Here’s a passage from Hume’s An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. Feel free to check out davidhume.org for this and more.
“How is [our natural state of ignorance with regard to the powers and influence of all objects] remedied by experience? It only shews us a number of uniform effects, resulting from certain objects, and teaches us, that those particular objects, at that particular time, were endowed with such powers and forces. When a new object, endowed with similar sensible qualities, is produced, we expect similar powers and forces, and look for a like effect. From a body of like colour and consistence with bread, we expect like nourishment and support. But this surely is a step or progress of the mind, which wants to be explained. When a man says, I have found, in all past instances, such sensible qualities conjoined with such secret powers: And when he says, similar sensible qualities will always be conjoined with similar secret powers; he is not guilty of a tautology, nor are these propositions in any respect the same. You say that the one proposition is an inference from the other. But you must confess that the inference is not intuitive; neither is it demonstrative: Of what nature is it then? To say it is experimental, is begging the question. For all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion, that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance. Let the course of things be allowed hitherto ever so regular; that alone, without some new argument or inference, proves not, that, for the future, it will continue so. In vain do you pretend to have learned the nature of bodies from your past experience. Their secret nature, and consequently, all their effects and influence, may change, without any change in their sensible qualities.”
Dave also wrote in his post that, “[s]cience is the best tool ever discovered for drawing up a consistent and clear picture of the world around us…” If Hume is right, though, the best we can say is that it has been the best tool and that we have no reason to expect it to have continued success. Another way of putting it: scientific inferences are never warranted.
What do you think? Is Hume missing something? Am I missing something? Let me know in the comments, and feel free to ask for clarification.
After completing an economics degree in 2008 at Washington University in St Louis, Alex Papulis just finished a year at Mizzou as a non-degree-seeking, non-transfer Degree-seeking Transfer student. He enjoyed it and is now starting his first year in the philosophy MA program at UW-Milwaukee.
We are like birds
Hello all,
One of the questions we get asked often at our Ask an Atheist table is, “Why get together?”—Why have a group at all? So we all don’t believe in the same thing – so what? Why not get on with our lives and do something else with our time?
The answer, at least on some level, is that getting on with our lives means living our lives, and part of living, for humans, means being part of a group. It’s very important for us, as people, to know that we belong somewhere, that we have friends we can count on to understand us and be there for us.
We are social animals, just like dogs, just like elephants, just like birds. We need each other to be happy and be fulfilled. But even more fundamental than that, we need each other to live. Take birds as an example: Why do birds fly in formation?
Canadian geese flying in a V-formation
Research shows that, while evolutionarily unintentional, bird flight formations are not random: Flying in a formation of 25, each bird can increase its range by 71% (!) versus flying alone. This works because each bird (except the front one) flies in the upwash from the wingtip vortices of the bird ahead of it. Migrating birds rotate which bird takes the front position so that none are unfairly doing all the work of holding up the formation. Military aircraft also fly in formation because—aside from the advantage of maintaining visual contact—formations improve fuel efficiency.
As social animals ourselves, we get similar advantages by living in a group. Some animals, like cats, get along just fine living alone, hunting and finding shelter on their own. But we found a different evolutionary niche, and as a result, we’re able to accomplish so much more than cats. Cats will never walk on the moon unless we bring them there. Cats will never explore the bottom of the ocean, or know what stage fright is like before giving a talk in front of a group of their peers.
In his beautifully-written book “The Origins of Virtue,” which I highly recommend to anyone reading this, Matt Ridley tells us that evolutionary self-interest—survival of the fittest—and mutual aid are not at all incompatible. As the publisher puts it, “Our cooperative instincts may have evolved as part of mankind’s natural selfish behavior–by exchanging favors we can benefit ourselves as well as others.” But this is not a cold and calculating process. Natural selection has favored authenticity as a virtue, and we are quite adept at recognizing and regulating those who seek to benefit by keeping too-close track of who owes what. Indeed, as Mizzou anthropologist Craig Palmer puts it, a virtuous act is nearly synonymous with a pro-social and selfless act, and an non-virtuous act with a selfish and antisocial act.
Milton Friedman, the famed Nobel Prize-winning economist, based on an essay by his friend Leonard Read, used a pencil a symbol of human cooperation—not just for the sake of taking handwritten notes, but for the sake of harmony and even world peace:
The reason that atheists get together is that we can accomplish more by doing so. Not just in terms of activism and education—although this is also true—but because, like birds, we need each other. Sometimes there is nothing more useful in the world than a hug, or just being in the presence of people whom you know won’t judge you for not believing in an imaginary friend. Sometimes all you need is a smile from someone who understands what you’re going through. And that is what SASHA is.
If you take away one thing from this post, let it be this: If you’re an “internet atheist,” know that Reddit is great, blogs are great, YouTube videos are great, philosophy books are great. But if you’re reading this, you’re human, and being part of a group is really where we shine our brightest. Join a local group. If you’ve been to a local group meeting and it wasn’t for you, tell the group or group leaders why. We want to be here for you. If you want a group with more women in it, say so. If you want a group with more people your age in it, say so. If you want a group that does different activities besides Skeptics in the Pub, say so. There are lots of types of groups and lots of varieties of groups, but the most important thing is to be part of one. There are benefits to you that you might only begin to realize if you’re not a regular member, most of them emotional, or to reclaim the word from the religious, spiritual.
If you need help finding a local group, you can leave a comment with your city and I’ll do my best to help you find one. The Secular Student Alliance has a list of groups here. American Atheists also maintains a list of over 1,000 groups here, and the Center for Inquiry has a database of centers in the US and around the world here.
I hope that you’re having a good day!
Until next time,
Dave
Dave Muscato is the 2012 Writing Intern for the Secular Student Alliance in Columbus, Ohio. He is also Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou studying economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday and twice monthly for the Humanist Community at Harvard. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com. Opinions posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of MU SASHA, the Secular Student Alliance, nor the Humanist Community at Harvard.
Follow me on Google+
Follow me on Twitter
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
Welcome!
CLICK HERE FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE APRIL 25, 2013 PROTEST IN SUPPORT OF THE BANGLADESH BLOGGERS
Facebook Event for the Protest: Click hereSkeptical about gods? Join the club — literally!
The primary purpose of this website is to host our daily blog, which starts below this post. We also meet in person on the Mizzou campus every week — see our Events Page here.
There are hundreds of religious official student organizations at Mizzou. SASHA is the only expressly secular student organization at the University of Missouri – Columbia. For Tigers who are Skeptical, Atheist, Secular Humanist, and/or Agnostic, welcome to SASHA, your home on the web for secular news, discussion, local events, original articles & videos, and lots more.
If you would like to know more, Click here to read more About Us
Dear Secular Community: Lest we forget, we’re on the same side.
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
This is a post I’ve been meaning to write, and I saw a great tweet this afternoon that inspiring me to decide it’s time to put this out there. The question I’m curious about is, why do the most important things get overlooked?
This is from Bridget Gaudette, the State Director of American Atheists for Florida, and Vice President of Outreach for Secular Woman.
When I used to be a Christian, I always hated the way some preachers preached about sin & hell, and others preached about love and acceptance. According to the New Testament, both were part of Jesus’s message. And both are effective ways to communicate why (if Christianity were actually true), it’s important to be a good Christian. Research has shown that, in fact, the two methods are about equally effective, just depending on the age of the congregation: For older congregations, preaching about hell keeps people from becoming apostates. For younger congregations, preaching love & acceptance draws them into the religion in the first place. [I am sorry that I cannot find the study I want to cite for this; I will keep looking!]. Or rather, what I hated about it is when preachers would bicker at each other over the “right” way to preach. My thinking was always along the lines of, find what works for your congregation, and use it.
I feel like the secular movement has a parallel division. We have talks and panels on accommodation versus confrontation at conferences—Skepticon 3, for example. It is interesting to us, but as a “dismal science” student, I find this a very inefficient use of our time. When we have so many brilliant, secular people in the room together, is whether we should be provocative or socratic really the best use of our time? Surely there are bigger problems a roomful of trained critical-thinkers with an average IQ in the stratosphere can solve.
Or take more topical discussion on sexual harassment policies. While it’s important for the future of our movement that everyone feels safe & comfortable attending conferences—after all, it doesn’t matter WHAT we talk about at conference if no one shows up—I feel like this is a lower priority than some of the other problems atheists face in the world. We’re all on the same side here.
A little while ago, I made a Facebook cover picture. I was responding to the insulting idea that humans are sinners for doing things normal people do, like commit “thoughtcrimes” of lust—we are animals! This is what animals do!—or fail to be “perfect,” as Christians insist we are supposed to be.
(You’re welcome to download this and use it, if you’d like.)
The part that I think says it the most for me is “My only creed: Do that which is right.” This is based on the motto of the Universal Life Church seminary, an online ordination service, whose motto is “Do only that which is right.” I believe the ULC’s motto is a good ideal but unrealistic as a rule. People aren’t perfect and we should do the best we can, but that’s as much as anyone can reasonably ask of us.
This may be hypocritical of me, but I am tired of reading blog posts about this stuff.
This is a call to people who are making conferences difficult for people to attend: Stop being creeps. It’s really that simple. If you can’t stop yourself from being a creep, don’t attend. Most conferences post videos of the talks online later on, so you won’t miss anything. I just feel like it’s time for us to move on from this. People being jailed, beaten, tortured, and killed because they are atheists. Schoolchildren are learning ridiculous nonsense. People with political power are trying to take away access to birth control and abortion. Children are being raped and religious leaders are covering it up. A hundred billion dollars a year is not taxed because it’s being donated to pseudo-charities simply on the basis of their belief in magic. People are dying because they don’t get vaccinated and they spend all their money and time on homeopathy, acupuncture, and other bullshit. Don’t we have better things to be passionately enraged about? I do.
To be clear, I think that it’s great that some bloggers have chosen to focus on this issue. Harassment policies are something we needed in place at conferences. But now that they are, I would like to see us get to more big-picture issues, and more specific policies that affect greater numbers of people more urgently and dangerously. I would like to see more bloggers focus on coming out. I would like to see more bloggers focus on science education advocacy and literacy. I would like to see more bloggers focus on ending oppression. I am not going to make any friends saying this, but I think we can all agree that objectively, someone asking you an inappropriate question at a conference is less of a concern—or should be—than Alexander Aan’s imprisonment, just as the first example off the top of my head. (If you don’t know who that is, this is exactly what I’m talking about).
I know my privilege is showing. If you think I’m wrong, tell me why, and I will respond to your comments. I just want to see the movement be as efficient as possible in accomplishing our longer-term goals.
- Dave
Dave Muscato is the 2012 Writing Intern for the Secular Student Alliance in Columbus, Ohio. He is also Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou studying economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday and twice monthly for the Humanist Community at Harvard. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com. Opinions posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of MU SASHA, the Secular Student Alliance, nor the Humanist Community at Harvard.
Follow me on Google+
Follow me on Twitter
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com – Iron Chariots Wiki – Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an – AtheismResource.com – TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
Is it wrong to laugh at objectification?
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
This isn’t the sort of thing I usually blog about — I’m a believer in the idea of picking one’s battles, which is why you also rarely see posts on here by me about animal welfare, poverty alleviation, vegetarianism, etc, even though those are also things I care about aside from atheism activism.
Today I’m writing about an incident that occurred today at the Skepticamp Ohio 2012 event. Please note that I am hearing about this second-hand, as I’m in Columbia this weekend and not at the conference. Here’s a copy-and-pasted summary of what happened, confirmed through a few different sources on Twitter and Facebook, as stated by my friend S:
A female presenter made a joking comment about how skeptics should have more children, and a guy in the crowd shouts “Are you volunteering?”
My question to our readers is, is it wrong to laugh at this? Is it even funny at all? Now, I want to make it clear that I’m talking about his statement, NOT the act of interruption during the speaker’s talk. Clearly it is inappropriate to interrupt a speaker, regardless of sex, even when they make a joke, if you ask me. Interrupting a speaker is permissible when 1) there is a technical problem, like a dead microphone or 2) there is a safety problem, like a fire in the building, or a bomb threat. Otherwise, it’s fine to laugh, but don’t shout stuff out. I think we can all more-or-less agree on that part.
As far as the content of what the crowd-guy said, is it actually wrong? Let’s look at a few possibilities.
The presenter set the tone for the exchange by making a joking comment (according to an eyewitness from the conference from whom I got the statement above). Setting aside for the moment that this was probably not directed at any single individual and it was inappropriate for a single audience member to respond to it, I would say that the appropriate response to this part of the exchange is laughter. Like I said, I wasn’t there, but I’m guessing that the audience laughed at this part.
Then, the guy from the audience said, “Are you volunteering?” Now’s where it gets tricky: Did the presenter genuinely think this response was funny? Did she feel harassed, but laugh anyway as a defense mechanism? Did she find it a bit funny and a bit harassing, and laugh partially because it was funny and partially as a defense mechanism? Or did she not find it funny at all and feel only harassed (as the eyewitness felt, both vicariously for the speaker, and as a passive participant as part of the crowd)? I would be interested in hearing the speaker’s thoughts on it, if anyone can tell me who exactly it was, so I might be able to contact her about it.
I understand that there is a harassment policy in place at the conference, and that the matter was attended to. I don’t know what that means, but it’s a start.
So, the title of this post is, “Is it wrong to laugh?” When phrased this way, the topic is more clearly one of ethics. I agree with my friend C.M. that if others in the room are also affected by this exchange and so we need to take them into account in our utility calculation, or whatever system we want to use. But what if everyone in the room thought it was genuinely funny and not at all harassing, including the speaker? Would it still be harassment then?
Now we’re looking at a question more like, “If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?” Or take the example of, “If someone disrobes in a forest with no one around, is it still flashing?” If it’s a public park, I suppose it is, even though there’s little chance of a charge without a complainant. The same, I would argue, applies with this incident: If truly no one was offended, then laughing is totally fine. If even one person is offended, whether it’s the speaker or not, then we start edging toward unethical behavior.
The question is, how do we establish what’s offensive or not until it happens? We can speculate based on previous experience and knowledge of our audience — comedians can get away with saying all sorts of things that we commoners could never permissibly say in a public place — but ultimately, it’s a risk/reward gamble.
Speaking of risk/reward, C.M. also said that “It would have been inappropriate, but not as bad, if the genders were reversed.” I think now we are getting to the meat of it: Is this an ethical problem with harassment, or with sexism?
When asked to clarify, she said, in so many words, that it would do less harm, because women are historically on the receiving end of objectification & harassment. Ah, so we are talking about how much harm we’re causing, not whether or not we’re causing harm. If that’s the case, it’s back to risk/reward: If one person is offended at a “5″ on a 1-10 scale, but the other 99 people in the audience think it’s funny at a “5″ on a “1-10″ scale, is it wrong? Again, it depends on your ethical system. Some people would say that it’s wrong to laugh if anyone is offended, perhaps especially in the case of the speaker. But if we’re talking about less bad, then at what point does it become permissible? Or if it’s never permissible, then why split it into degrees?
Jokes make conferences fun. They make all social interactions fun. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to attend a conference where jokes are prohibited on the basis of the possibility of offense. Even academic conferences (usually!) have some humor. Jokes are all about testing boundaries and sometimes tiptoeing past them. That’s the point. And sometimes the best humor does come from audience interaction, especially from mocking. It’s a tool in the humor toolchest — just look up “heckler” + the name of your favorite comedian on YouTube, or consider this interaction from the late, great Sydney Morgenbesser, the famous Columbia philosophy professor and jokester:
During a lecture the Oxford linguistic philosopher J.L. Austin made the claim that although a double negative in English implies a positive meaning, there is no language in which a double positive implies a negative. To which Morgenbesser responded in a dismissive tone, “Yeah, yeah.”
Consider another Morgenbesser great:
Morgenbesser was leaving a subway station in New York City and put his pipe in his mouth as he was ascending the steps. A police officer told him that there was no smoking on the subway. Morgenbesser pointed out that he was leaving the subway, not entering it, and hadn’t lit up yet anyway. The cop again said that smoking was not allowed in the subway, and Morgenbesser repeated his comment. The cop said, “If I let you do it, I’d have to let everyone do it.” Morgenbesser replied, “Who do you think you are, Kant?” The word “Kant” was mistaken for a vulgar epithet and Morgenbesser had to explain the situation at the police station.
Some people will find this second one offensive. That’s the point. The police officer certainly did, and took Morgenbesser into custody over it. But is it wrong to laugh at this on the basis that someone finds it offensive?
I would say, no. You have to weigh the good with the bad. If our rule is, “If someone finds it offensive, or might find it offensive, don’t say it,” we are losing out on a lot of good stuff. Consider George Carlin’s “Words You Can’t Say On TV” stand-up bit without anything potentially offensive, or Ricky Gervais, or Aziz Ansari, or my favorite, Jim Jeffries. Whoever uploaded that Jim Jeffries clip linked in the last sentence even provides us with a nice little disclaimer in the description, reading “Warning: Highly likely to offend die-hard religious types.”
Or alternatively, is our rule that we shouldn’t laugh at something that has the capacity to offend someone, or a group of people, who have a personal or demographic history of oppression against the subject of the joke? Especially if the person laughing has a historical association with the oppressors, whether personal or ancestral?
I think the most anyone can ask is that we do the best we can. We should do our best to be patient and understanding when someone offends us, and explain why we are offended and what a less offensive alternative might be. But keep in mind, if your only reason for disliking some statement is that it offends you, then what you are really saying is you lack good reasons for intending others to change their behavior. In the words of Richard Dawkins:
You will not say, ‘It’s offensive, it’s offensive.” You will say, ‘No, you are wrong here, and you are wrong here, and you are wrong here,’ and that’s what you should do.
I don’t remember who said this, but I once heard a statement that has stuck in my memory. When you say you are offended, what you are really saying is that you cannot control your emotions, and instead, you want to control other people’s behavior. I’m not sure I entirely agree with it, but I wanted to share it with you, and get your feedback on it.
I think it’s important that we keep in mind that “feminism” means “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men,” not turning the tables so that it’s the reverse of the 1950s’. Similarly, we must keep in mind the different between sexual objectification and sexism. Anyone can be the subject of objectification, and anyone can be the subject of sexism. Women are much more commonly the subject of both of these than men. Although there is a historical element, and privilege plays a role in audience reaction etc, I think it’s important that we remember that, if we really want to call ourselves feminists, we ought to be just as bothered by this statement:
A male presenter made a joking comment about how skeptics should have more children, and a woman in the crowd shouts “Are you volunteering?”
as we are about this one:
A female presenter made a joking comment about how skeptics should have more children, and a guy in the crowd shouts “Are you volunteering?”
In fact, as I mentioned to the eyewitness previously mentioned, I would have just phrased it as: “A presenter made a joking comment about how skeptics should have more children, and someone in the crowd shouts ‘Are you volunteering?’
In an ideal world, it really says the same thing, and that’s what we should be striving for, right? If we achieve social equality, and reproduction has nothing to do with the story, then why even mention what sex the speaker or audience member is?
Very curious for your thoughts on all of this, folks! Thanks for reading. If you comment below, I will respond!
- Dave
P.S. I do think skeptics should consider having more children, or alternatively, adopting. This is something the religious folks have quite a monopoly on. I also recommend this clip, for laughs and for illustrative purposes 
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou studying economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday and twice monthly for the Humanist Community at Harvard. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com – Iron Chariots Wiki – Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an – AtheismResource.com – TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
SASHA Guest Post: “Deliver Us From Virtue” by Rocket Kirchner
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
Today’s article is a guest post by musician, activist, long-time friend of SASHA, and Christian evangelist Rocket Kirchner.
Lao Tzu says that when a man praises virtue, he turns other men into criminals. WOW! Now, that is really throwing the gauntlet down. I have always found it ludicrous how we humans actually think that we are moral, ethical, virtuous people, and that we actually waste our time seeking to exalt such nonsense. Seems like we need a good absurdist comedian and a busload of clowns to dance around us and burst our pompous bubble. In the Middle Ages they had what was called “The Feast of Fools,” where one day out of the year, people would dress up as magistrates, popes, and cardinals, in a mock ceremony — Harvey Cox wrote a great book on the subject. The somewhat equivalent to this in the Far East is called “Nasty Night,” where monks walk around one night of the year and yell nasty things to anyone or anything.
When we seek to be good, we play with fire. This fire culminates in us externalizing evil (as if we are above it), and establishes the fundamentalist mindset. It matters not what one believes, or what one does not believe, that makes one a fundamentalist. What makes one a Fundie is praising virtue as if it has any intrinsic quality of authentic goodness in and of itself. In reality, this activity has the makings of constructing a ladder of self exaltation over others.
The complete blindness of the man who thinks that his good is the good is the peak of attachment to an illusory self. The root of every bloody political revolution, be it religious or anti-religious, or just plain an ideology of thinking that it will make a difference and make the world a better place, has separated humans from each other. The minute we think we are good, we are doomed. The only crack that we have in an kind of real goodness is not to be conscious of it, not to seek it, but rather to simply love people in word and in deed including loving those who hate us. We must seek to serve others and forget about all of this moralistic crap. Period. For only love and servanthood can deliver us from virtue, and being delivered from virtue is the same as being delivered from evil.
Rocket Kirchner is a long-time friend of SASHA. He is a professional musician, pacifism activist, Christian evangelist, and life-long student of philosophy.
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current,NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
Is this even legal?
Hello all,
I came across this great website called Fiverr.com. Similar to Facebook’s “What’s on your mind?”, Fiverr asks, “What are you willing to do for $5?” The ideas is that you can hire someone to do some task for $5. Examples include drawing a custom logo in Illustrator, recording a custom 30-second jingle for your company, brainstorming business names, drawing a caricature of you for your website, etc. I imagine this is especially useful for underemployed people who want some extra income, or for self-employed customers on a budget who need a quick turnaround and artistic skills they don’t personally have.
One particular offer stood out to me enough that I wanted to blog about it. For $5, this couple will “send positive thoughts to whoever [sic] you want,” for “a whole day.” Wow, what a deal! Positive thoughts for a whole day from TWO people, for only $5! That’s like 31 cents an hour! Surely there are laws against that kind of slave labor…
Until next time,
Dave
P.S. I’ve just discovered that the same couple has ANOTHER Fiverr offer available! For an additional $5, they will send positive “healing energy” TO YOUR PET throughout the day! Wow-ie! It’s so cheap, I feel a little guilty! I sent them this message: “Hi, I have some questions about the healing energy for pets. Does this work? Do you have any training in this area? Thank you for your time!” I’ll let you know when I hear back from them.
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou studying economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday and twice monthly for the Humanist Community at Harvard. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
Rush Limbaugh is not famous: He’s *infamous.*
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
Hello all, Dave Muscato here, and I’m going to talk to you today about Rush Limbaugh.
Sure, you’ve heard his name. You’ve heard reports about some of the things he’s said. He’s been in the news lately for two reasons especially: for calling Sandra Fluke a “prostitute” and a “slut,” and for being inducted into the Hall of Famous Missourians at the Missouri State Capitol. For each inductee, there is a bust of the person in the foyer, right between the rooms where the House and Senate meet. Other famous Missourians represented here with busts include Samuel Clemens (pen name: Mark Twain), Sacajawea (who appears on the United States $1 coin), writer Dale Carnegie, President Harry S Truman, Walt Disney, scientist/inventor George Washington Carver, saxophonist Charlie Parker, astronomer Edwin Hubble, and 30 others.
The initial announcement of Limbaugh’s consideration for induction pissed a lot of people off, especially Missouri’s Democratic lawmakers, who signed a letter protesting the selection. Limbaugh is a major advocate of conservative Christianity and right-wing politics, despite being married 4 times (divorced 3) himself. His on-air accuracy has been called into question by Senator Al Franken and others. Quoting the previous link:
A defense fund report authored by Princeton University endowed geoscience professor Michael Oppenheimer and professor of biology David Wilcove lists 14 significant scientific facts that, the authors allege, Limbaugh misrepresented in his book The Way Things Ought to Be. The authors conclude that “Rush Limbaugh … allows his political bias to distort the truth about a whole range of important scientific issues.”
Limbaugh was also, during a period in the early 2000s, a drug addict. He was arrested and charged with “doctor shopping” (seeing multiple doctors for the same condition for the purpose of obtaining duplicate prescriptions, usually for narcotic painkillers, without notifying each doctor that another doctor is already treating the condition).
I am barely scratching the surface with this guy. Feel free to poke around Google for more info. He is a hateful man, a shock jock who says anything he wants so long as it gets attention, and he has seemingly no problem with making up information, or at least with failing to fact-check. He is not a role model, unless you desire to be a bigot.
The reason for the title of this article is that there is another English word that fits the bill much more appropriately:
Rush Limbaugh is not famous. He is infamous.
There is an important difference. Famous means “much talked about; well-known; honored for achievement; celebrated.” Infamous means “having a reputation of the worst kind; notorious as being of vicious, contemptible, or criminal character; having a bad name as being associated with something disgraceful or detestable” (see citations below).
Limbaugh is vicious. He is contemptible. He is — literally — a criminal. He is a disgrace to journalistic integrity, and I detest him for what he has done (and is doing) to twist and poison the minds of his listeners with false information and heavily-spun political rhetoric and bias.
As someone originally born in Missouri, and as someone who has lived here 26 out of my 28 years, this really pisses me off. I remember going to the State Capitol in Jeff City on elementary school field trips and seeing the Hall of Famous Missourians. It was inspiring. It was exhilarating. I am angry that the excitement I felt as a kid, visiting the Hall for the first time, will be contaminated, corrupted, poisoned in this way for future generations of young Missourians.
The person who selected Limbaugh for inclusion in the Hall, House Speaker Steven Tilley, when asked about the choice in a radio interview I heard Monday on our local NPR station, said that (paraphrasing) although some people may not agree with the choice, the Hall of Famous Missourians is intended for famous people who are from, or heavily associated with, the state of Missouri (emphasis in original). He stressed that not everyone likes the same celebrities, but that doesn’t mean Limbaugh isn’t deserving of this. In other words (my words), it’s not a Hall of Heroes; it’s a Hall of Well-Known People from this state.
Rush Limbaugh with his bronze bust in the Hall of Famous Missourians, Capitol Building, Jefferson City, Missouri
Tilley took some extra heat on Monday following the induction ceremony, because the time and date of the ceremony was not made public until literally 20 minutes before it began. Unlike previous induction ceremonies, which have been open to the public and to other members of the House & Senate, this was an invitation-only ceremony, with armed Highway Patrol officers guarding the room. Democratic lawmakers were not invited. Republican members of the House & Senate & their staff attended, as well as Limbaugh and his entourage.
Representative Tilley, I have a suggestion for your next inductee:
How about inducting the outlaw Jesse James?
Jesse James was a gang leader, bank robber, train robber, and murderer who was assassinated at the age of 34 by a member of his own gang, Robert Ford, in an attempt to collect a state reward for his head. He became a legend of the Wild West. There are a half-dozen museums dedicated to him. He is a very high-profile figure of Missouri history and symbolic of an entire era in the history of the the post-Civil War United States. He is arguably one of the most “famous” people ever to come from the great State of Missouri. There was even a major Hollywood movie made about him in 2007, starring A-list actor Brad Pitt.
I personally do not see Jesse james as much of a role model, but surely someone as well-known as he deserves a place in the Hall of Famous Missourians.
Looking forward to your response.
“famous.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (17 May 2012).
“infamous.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (17 May 2012).
Until next time,
Dave
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Follow me on Google+
Follow me on Twitter @davemuscato
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
Things change, Jed.
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
Word Origin & History:
matrimony
c.1300, from O.Fr. matremoine, from L. matrimonium “wedlock, marriage,” from matrem (nom. mater) “mother” + -monium, suffix signifying “action, state, condition.” Related: Matrimonial.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas HarperThe word matrimony honors women as mothers. Who are the mothers in these so-called same sex marriages? These perverts do not want to be mothers; they hate children and hate God, the source of life. Nor do they love one another. We need to restore the”holy” to holy matrimony.
My response (on his wall):
Things change, Jed. The year 1300 was 7 centuries ago. Even as a Christian, since you are a Protestant, you would almost certainly be burned at the stake for believing the things that you do today, if we were to go back to the 14th century. Christianity itself has changed immensely since then.
There is a difference between a change over time, and a perversion. Also, have you ever even met a gay person? It seems hard to believe that you have, given that you are saying things like “they hate children and hate God…” I know many gay Christians who love God and love children, and I know that you do, too, because some of the people I know are also some of the people you know.
Jed, I want you to think hard about what you are saying. You are getting to that age now, when thinking about what you will accomplish is lower on your list, and it’s time to start thinking about how you will be remembered. Your grandchildren are going to grow up viewing gay marriage the same way that people of my generation see interracial marriage: as nothing wrong or perverted at all, and as a beautiful way to demonstrate their love for each other publicly to the world. If you persist in these falsehoods, these lies about gay people about which I know you know better, you are going to be remembered as an intolerant bigot. You are going to be remembered the same way people of my generation remember racists who fought against desegregation. I just want you to think about that.
My real question is, why do you feel it necessary to lie about gay people, to demonize them in this way and assassinate their character? Are you afraid that being honest and telling the truth about them will somehow make them more human, more equal? We both know that gay people do not hate children. Why would you even say something like that, if not to demonize them? Is it because you don’t actually have any good reasons for disliking them and discriminating against them, so you have to resort to lies?
Please name one gay person who actually hates children and hates God. I would like very much to meet one, and ask him some questions, if he exists. Surely there are gay people who don’t WANT children of their own, but hating children is something different than not wanting kids, just like not believing your god exists is entirely different from “hating” your god.
Looking forward to your response.
Another person, Stephen S, also posted this, which I thought was great!
in lesbian marriages there are two mothers i hope this helps
Until next time,
Dave
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
No such thing as atheists?
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
I read this blog post by PZ Myers about Missouri representative Emanuel Cleaver. In a TV appearance, he said that there is “no such thing” as an atheist, because “no respectable atheist would walk around with something in his pocket that said ‘In God We Trust.’”
I wrote to Cleaver on his website about this. To send him your thoughts as well, click here. Below is what I wrote.
I caught part of your interview with Candy Crowley in which you said there’s no such thing as an atheist, and your reasoning for this was that “no respectable atheist would walk around with something in his pocket that said ‘In God We Trust.’”
My name is Dave Muscato and I’m an atheist. All that means is that I don’t believe any gods are actually real, the same way you and I both don’t believe Santa Claus is actually real.
Putting aside for the moment that your reasoning is a textbook example of a “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy, you may or may not know this, but the phrase “In God We Trust” was not added to US paper currency until 1957. You read that correctly. The phrase was added to our money as a religious response to the so-called “godless communists” during the Cold War.
I would greatly prefer to carry around US money that didn’t have this 1950s addition. Perhaps, as a lawmaker, you could take a stand for separation of church & state, and advocate that this phrase be removed from our currency?
In the meantime, I’ll make do with what’s issued, just like my fellow 25-million or so atheist Americans do.
I have to say that in Matthew 19:21, Jesus said, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions, and give the money to the poor.”
Using your logic, shouldn’t I say that there’s no such thing as a Christian, given that no respectable Christian should walk around with any money in his pocket at all?
I would love to hear back from you about this. Looking forward to your response,
Dave Muscato
Vice President, University of Missouri Skeptics, Atheists, Secular Humanists, & Agnostics
dave@davemuscato.com
Here is the relevant part of the interview:
Tell Cleaver what you think about this, and please copy & paste what you send him in the comment section below – I’d love to see it.
Until next time,
Dave
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
