Why I Was Wrong About Ouija Boards

I confessed earlier to being a teen witch. My friends and I thought it would be cool to chant spells and play with the Ouija Board. We didn't know any better and promptly ceased further use once 'strange' things started to happen around my friend's home.

I was convinced that the Ouija Board could communicate with the dead. We put it to the test so many times and, similar to a psychic's advantage, only focused on the number of times it was spot-on rather than incorrect. It 'knew' things about each of us: our secrets, our thoughts, our past.

I am guilty of believing in many of the things that I speak out against on this blog. Again, I didn't know any better. But my recent exposure to science has forced me to admit to my erroneous conclusions about life and spirituality. I find it disturbing that people find it so difficult to say the words, "I was wrong."

I was wrong about horoscopes. The planets' relative positions have nothing to do with my future or behaviour. I was wrong about witchcraft. There is no evidence to suggest that magic is anything more than fantastic, entertaining illusions. I was wrong to believe a psychic, who told me what I must do with my life. I was wrong to believe that God maliciously created me as a skeptic so that he could send me to hell, where I would burn and suffer for eternity. I will continue to live my life with the understanding that these ideas remain false. If new and convincing evidence should present itself, I will change my mind.

I hope that I may bestow upon you, my readers, a chance to be inspired by science and the natural world. It has so much more to offer than fallacious mysticism. The things that I learn, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson once said, "makes me want to grab people on the street and say 'have you heard this?'" Since I have no one else to share it with besides you, I hope that you enjoy.

Now, "Have you heard this?"

Educate to Innovate

Well, it's about time.

"President Obama will announce a campaign Monday to enlist companies and non-profit groups to spend money, time and volunteer effort to encourage students, especially in middle and high school, to pursue science, technology, engineering and math, officials say."

Here are some of the ways to motivate the children:

Discovery Communications has promised to use two hours of the afternoon schedule on its Science Channel cable network for commercial-free programming geared toward middle school students.

Science and engineering societies are promising to provide volunteers to work with students in the classroom, culminating in a National Lab Day in May.

The MacArthur Foundation and technology industry organizations are giving out prizes in a contest to develop video games that teach science and math

2-year focus on science on “Sesame Street,” the venerable public television children’s show, and a Web site, connectamillionminds.com, set up by Time Warner Cable, that provides a searchable directory of local science activities. The cable system will contribute television time and advertising to promote the site.

Sesame Street has decided to add discussions about the scientific method in next year’s episodes, after already planning to incorporate nature into the season.

Programs are expected to begin next year with no official date announced.

“Sony is expected to donate 1,000 PlayStation 3 game consoles and copies of the game LittleBigPlanet to libraries and community organizations in low-income areas. Part of the competition will consist of children creating new levels in LittleBigPlanet that incorporate science and math. The other part will offer a total of $300,000 in prize money to game designers for science and math games that will be distributed free.”

PRAYER HEALING

I'm only speculating, but I think that many are wondering 'why an Atheist blog'? Well, here's why...

Time and again I've seen news stories covering neglegent parents who have relied on prayer to save their children. Time and again, these children have died. When do we finally put our foot down and say, "Enough is enough"? This is just one example of how religious beliefs should not be respected and advocates of rational thought should step forward in protest.

Church Leaders are now pushing for Spiritual Healthcare practices to be covered under insurance as a "ligitimate and viable health-care option." And, what a surprise, they're crying out "discrimination against religion" if the government does not comply.

"But opponents of spiritual care coverage -- a coalition of separation-of-church-and-state advocates, pediatricians and children's health activists -- say such a provision would waste money, endanger lives and, in some cases, amount to government-funded prayer."

It's not only disappointing to learn that so many believers support this ridiculous system, but numerous moderates remain silent and neutral because they don't want to offend the religious organizations. It's one thing - and still a very bad thing - to conduct Spiritual Healthcare using personal income, but to request that the government reimburse the alternative treatment to proper medical care is beyond moral reasoning.

What's worse is that the helpless, trusting children of these families are the ones who will ultimately pay the price. And the cost: their lives. But, of course, they justify this argument by saying, "The issue here is insurance coverage and has nothing to do with child-protective laws."

"Its leaders point to government policies as precedent for their proposal. The Internal Revenue Service allows prayer treatments to be itemized on income tax forms as medical expenses. And a few federal insurance programs, such as those for military families, already reimburse for prayer."

If this is the path our future is taking, I'm going to invest in Fairy Dust as a new medicine! And because it's my belief, you'll have to respect it.

Update: Angie Jackson (Angie the Anti-Theist) has provided me with a link for U.S residents: Petition2Congress, HR 3200 - Prayer is Not Medical Care - http://www.petition2congress.com/2/2550/go/410376/

Loving, Peaceful Gorillas

"Only if we understand, can we care. Only if we care, can we help. Only if we help, can they be saved." 

(Dr Jane Goodall)

Humans are an intellectually cognitive species. It is what separates us from other living organisms and, perhaps, what has given us the "leading edge" in this world. I don't, however, believe that this makes us superior over other creatures.

Although Gorilla's share 97.5% of our DNA, they are, in my opinion, far more gentle. That may very well be the 'cynical me' talking, since I have a transparent vulnerability for animals; particularly those that are endangered due to human arrogance and corruption. Sir David Attenborough appears to agree, stating, "It seems really very unfair that man should have chosen the gorilla to symbolise everything that is aggressive and violent, when that is one thing that the gorilla is not - and that we are." Unlike humans, Gorilla's are known as loving and peaceful primates, capable of family endearment and emotional anguish from the loss of a loved one.

Although powerful and quite protective of their families, Gorilla's will only attack in self-defense when threatened. And even still, they will often attempt scare-tactics (roaring and beating on their chest) before resorting to physical violence.

Ian Redmond, Year of The Gorilla ambassador, believes "that great apes are self conscious animals with cognitive abilities similar to that of a human child and should therefore have similar rights. Ian laments that despite apes being biologically classed together with humans, in law, they still have the legal standing of a piece of furniture. He says: 'It seems to me (and many others) quite wrong that a self-aware social mammal with cognitive abilities similar to a child has the same legal standing as a chair, i.e. a possession to be bought and sold. To me, great apes deserve respect, and the granting of basic rights in law might change atavistic attitudes and help prevent the abuses that humans inflict on them.'

For rights, he proposes that we take the path charted by the Great Apes Project (GAP) which seeks the right to life, liberty and freedom from torture." 

This, of course, leads to a debate about leveling primates on the same cognitive and social structure as humans, which does not resonate with many people. Humans tend to aggrandize their self-worth and consider themselves more important than others within their own community, much less comparable to a "lesser" animal. In fact, a number of people reject the fact of evolution, not only because it contradicts the Bible, but also because the idea of sharing a common ancestor with apes is utterly revolting. 

"Humans are not monkeys," they shout. "I am not an animal." Why so offended? 

Where do you stand on the subject? Should gorillas be treated with the same respect and given the same rights as humans? 
Short clip of David Attenborough's encounter with Gorillas:

Lengthier (22 min), 'up close and personal', detailed documentary on Gorillas. Very interesting. Worth watching from beginning to end if you have the time.

Ghosts, again...

I haven't seen the movie, Paranormal Activity, but I hear it's caused quite a stir amongst believers of ghosts. Or, at least non-skeptics. Here's another video that shows you not everything is what it seems...

Apparitions debunked:

More on James Randi

I have to confess, I love magic shows. My sister and I used to watch David Copperfield and, for a short period, I obsessed over Criss Angel's show. I enjoy it for entertainment value, as I do movies/shows based on ghosts and religion.

But I don't live my life under the assumption that these things are true. It bothers me that mediums, psychics, and faith-healers manipulate people with "trickery" to convince others - and sometimes themselves - that they are capable of pushing the boundaries of science and the laws of physics.

What's worse is that their audience doesn't just believe them, they want and need to believe in it for the same reasons that they want and need to believe in God and Heaven - consolation.

I'm so thankful for people like James Randi who exposes these frauds.
Enjoy!

To Clarify My Opinion on "Moderates"

Let's say, for example, that the CEO of the company that I work for committed an immoral act. Specifically, let's say that he did something to discriminate against women, but was careful to avoid legal reprimand. As a result, numerous women suffered emotionally.

As an employee of said company, would my moral obligation be towards the CEO or the women who were discriminated against? Loyalty or Humanity?

Now, what if I chose to support the CEO, not because I agreed with his actions, but because I felt I owed it to the man who pays my salary? Let's go one step further. What if I were offended by those who speak out against him because, in a way, I feel that by insulting him or my company, they were insulting me?

Would you find this logical?

I don't. And to support someone or something simply because you feel united as part of a collective group is wrong. And by support, I don't necessarily mean congratulating. Sometimes you can say more by not saying anything at all. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" (Edmund Burke).

I don't side with a person simply because they are an Atheist, like me. In fact, I recently carried on a very heated debate with a fellow Atheist where we both disagreed with one another.

And now, the religious moderates and fatheists. There seems to be some confusion as to my, and others', perspective towards these groups. For the record, I don't "condemn" or "blame" moderately religious people, or those that believe in belief. I do think, however, they are not helping the cause against irrationality.

Richard Dawkins said, "… even mild and moderate religion helps to provide the climate of faith in which extremism naturally flourishes." Sam Harris said, "The respect that they [liberal and moderate Christians] demand for their own religious beliefs gives shelter to extremists of all faiths."

Where, in those quotes, do you see, "YOU ARE TO BLAME FOR THE EXTREMISTS" ?

Let's now look at a different example. My sister, for her teaching assignment, wrote a very lengthy paper on 'bullying'. The topic she chose to discuss was not, however, addressing the perpetrators - that's a given - nor the victim. Rather, she chose to highlight the responsibility of the bystander.

I wish I could quote some of her interesting points, but without it, you can see that although spectators are not the ones who are actually inflicting harm onto another, by allowing it to occur is, in it's own way, potentially more harmful. By watching a physical fight in the playground and doing nothing to intervene, you are enabling the behaviour.

What's worse is the issue of loyalty. I consider myself loyal to my friends and family, but if they do something of which I do not agree, I will be outspoken about it. I do not adopt the logic, "Because you are my friend, I must show loyalty by agreeing with everything you do." I know what you're thinking: "Duh." But if this logic is so obvious, why are so many people reluctant to tell their loved one, "I think you are wrong" ?

I can't help but feel that sometimes I am judged simply because of my new outlook. Is anyone saying, "Oh, Alessa is going off on the poor religious people again" ? I notice that moderates fall silent when I discuss an immoral action that a church or a person of faith has made. The moment I tread on religious ground, they tiptoe away and say, "I don't want to be a part of this discussion."

But why, I ask sincerely? Do you agree that Catholic churches and religious groups should pool their hundreds of millions of dollars together to support an anti-gay campaign? Do you think that people should embrace suffering instead of receiving proper medical care? Do you think it's moral for people to trick widowers into believing that they're communicating to their loved ones from beyond the grave when, in fact, they are not?

If you do not agree with these things, then why are you saying nothing? If anything, a moderate has a stronger voice than I ever could. If the members of a Catholic church said to their priest, "I don't agree with this," their words would carry greater weight than if I or a secular group said the very same thing. Moderates that say nothing, in fact, say everything.

I am not blaming. I am not condemning. But, "HEAR NO EVIL. SPEAK NO EVIL. SEE NO EVIL" just doesn't work for me anymore. Does it work for you?