The Everything Else Atheist

Sexism in the Atheist Community

2012-01-03T07:08:00.000-08:00

Let's start this out with what's happened in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church had a problem with pedophilia. That can be expected, after all Catholics are made up of the general population, and some people happen to be pedophiles. It's bound to happen in any large organization. What's important is how the organization deals with the problem.

They need to treat it like a problem: they need to report the problem to proper authorities, shame the offenders in their own community, apologize deeply to the victims, and put protective systems in place to ensure that the problem doesn't happen again in the future.

That didn't happen. What did happen was that they denied a problem, labeled it a PR problem, and tried their best to sweep it under the rug, ignore it, or blame the victims. They excused the offenders and enabled them and their anonymity by shuffling them around and did everything possible to deny that anything was a problem. When it erupted to the surface, they had to take different tactics, still just as slimy. They complained about being unfairly yolked with the blame. They did everything but address the issue and ensure that it wouldn't happen again in the future.

And that sort of response is the kind of response that I'm seeing in response to sexism within the atheist community. The atheist community has been having a problem with misogyny. And that's to be expected. After all, atheists are made of people, and some people can be misogynistic. The important thing is looking at how atheists deal with the problem. Unfortunately, there's been denial of a problem, blaming the victim, fervent apathy towards admonishing people on the internet, misguided attempts at defending free speech, and complaints about being unfairly yolked with the actual perps.

And those are all the wrong reactions. When someone in your group does something bad, the group need to react with unity in correcting the behavior. At the very least, individuals need to not interfere with those who are doing the right thing. Because otherwise it's just enabling the problem to continue. It's saying that we're okay with the status quo. We shouldn't be.

Zelda's Demonic Influences

2011-12-26T23:24:00.000-08:00

Russell and I have been enjoying our own games - me Skyrim, and him Zelda: Skyward Sword. I've been watching him play a little bit of it, and I laughed at the scene where you pray to the goddess of Skyloft. "Devil worship! Encouraging satanic beliefs!" I could practically hear the orthodox Christians scream.

In fact, I searched for Christian reviews of Zelda, and was not disappointed.

"Tons of religious content in The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword. The goddess is all over this game. As well as the goddess reborn. For me this is a major turn off. I do not comprehend why the religious content was ignored when The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword was regionalized for a country where the majority are Christian. I understand they have that belief over there. But shoving it down our throats in a generally respected and loved franchise is going to turn people away from this franchise." - Family Friendly Gaming Review.

I'm not sure which "that belief" they have "over there" that FFGR is referring to, but I think perhaps the reviewer didn't account that it's a game that's set in a fantasy world where mythical creatures happen to live, some of them powerful enough to be called a goddess. There's no indoctrination of a religion, because it's made up. I think that Christians get their pants in a bunch when they are dealing with fantasy religions, because in their mind it's not possible to enjoy the religion as a nonexistent myth, but it offers some temptation as a real religion. That, and fantasy religions tend to have demonstrable effects in their fantasy worlds, while the Christian religion doesn't.

But when it got to the scene where Batreaux was introduced, I knew that Zelda was really going to piss some people off. Here was a demon who was really friendly. I could practically hear the arguments: Nintendo promoting siding with demons, listening to demons, helping demons! Clearly demons are not to be trusted, and yet here is the hero on a quest to help a demon. Nevermind that it's friendly, good and kind. Nevermind that it does good things. It has horns and looks satanic so it must be evil. Besides, as we all know, good works are not the judge of heavenly worth - trust in God is, and that demon and all the inhabitants of Hyrule (er, Skyloft?) are doomed.

Strangely, my search for any condemnation of Batreaux came up short. It seems that Christians were ignoring Zelda. I think they just haven't caught wind of it yet. The conservatives aren't going to be playing Zelda, and the moderates aren't going to care. It's too bad there won't be any fireworks from Focus on the Family or some other religious group, but then again I'm glad that we won't have to deal with their whining over something so unimportant. It's one more step towards putting religion in the fantasy section.

Skepticism in a Fantasy Setting (Skyrim)

2011-12-25T08:58:00.000-08:00

I've been playing a lot of Skyrim lately, and while I went into the game blind to much of the mythology, I've enjoyed picking up and reading a lot of the books in the game. For those who don't know, the books in Skyrim are real books, usually only a few pages long, although several include multiple parts. So anytime a book has an interesting-looking title, I'll give it a go. Some are pretty awesome: The Legend of Kratley House, or The Locked Room, Wabbajack, or Thief of Virtue. I've managed to find part one of The Lusty Argonian Maid (part two has still eluded me - and I know I can cheat and find a copy in Riften, but I'm trying to find one in the wild).

But one of the more thought-provoking books has got to be Azura and the Box. I've always wondered what an atheist or a skeptic would be like in the middle of a world saturated with magic. An atheist in the kind of world where gods granted healing, boons, and cured diseases with measurable effects would be a bit like someone denying the moon landing. I've always thought it'd be a bit silly to be an atheist in a world like Tamriel, until I read this story of a skeptic in Skyrim.

In the story, a Dwarf decides to test a god. In the story setup, it's revealed that Nchylbar discovered that many of the worshipped gods are actually nonexistent. This rarely happens in fantasy worlds, but it seems like it'd be a pretty common occurrence. Fantasy people are no less gullible, and would still be wont to invent their own gods, look for false positives, or be swayed by the fervency of others. After all, in a world where some Gods definitely exist, they cease to be extraordinary claims, and many people would not require extraordinary evidence.

I've actually run into a bit of incorrectly-held beliefs in Skyrim. In one instance, a non-native of Skyrim encounters a non-magical giant bug and claims he thinks it's a daedra [demon]. In another book, a lesser demon is worshipped for powers he does not possess (the ability to dodge blessed arrows - in a twist of fate the arrow catches up with him in the end) and his followers invent stories of believers dodging "the bolts of a thousand archers, of moving through oceans without getting wet." (Vernaccus and Bourlor). Here, even in a world steeped with real magic are people believing in claims that are not at all true.

In fact, in this sort of magically-steeped world, over-ready belief would be an even greater intellectual danger than in our own world; the need for skepticism would be even greater. Imagine a very fervent Harold Camping in the world of Tamriel: how would we be able to tell whether Camping's god existed, or whether the doomsday description was accurate? In our world, Camping is easily ignored. What if he existed in Skyrim? We'd need independent confirmation of a scientific nature: double-blind consultation from various priests, peer reviewed research/divination confirmable by multiple shrines, and with plenty of documentation. Claims require evidence, and evidence requires testing.

When it comes to testing, though, that becomes even more more dangerous when dealing with the whims of a god. We have managed to test and harness nuclear reactions, but only with proper caution, research and applications of science. But gods have a mind, make them even more dangerous to study. Imagine something as powerful as an atomic bomb, but with emotions as capricious as any person, and with no vested need to keep the world alive. The scientist of a god must be a very cautious and calculated person indeed. Studying the deities would require as much tact as intellectual honesty.

And so we get to the story of Azura and the Box. In the book, the dwarf asks his friend to summon the god Azura, so that Nchylbar might test her knowledge, which she claims to be absolute. He then asks her to divine the insides of a box. She gets it wrong, thanks to some simple sleight-of-hand from the dwarf. Her own claims about her powers were exaggerated, and this man examined them, and prodded their limits. He was skeptical, and tested a god-claim, and found that the evidence didn't support the claim.

His friend was terrified, and some of his own student witnesses did not support the test he had performed. They shunned and disagreed with the skepticism and the scientific testing, claiming it to be dangerous. (And indeed, I'm not sure if I've got the lore correct, but there are claims that the dwarves race was wiped out by peeved-at-being-ignored gods.) At the end of the story, Nchylbar dies, ambiguously either by Azura's rage or from the satisfaction of one last great addition to knowledge in his old age.

But this man was bravely testing the limits of a divine power. This is what a good skeptic looks like in a world of magic and gods. He tests the existence of gods. He examines their limits, looks at their claims and suspects everything, especially from those who may have a vested self-interest in maintaining a lie, or who are too afraid to challenge a lie.

But when it comes down to it, real things have testable and repeatable natures, and nonexistent things have neither. And while technically a theist - he believes in the gods after all - he goes about testing them in ways that can actually objectively show which ones are real and which ones are fake, and some indeed are fakes. Looking at how a skeptic deals with gods in a world where gods are real starkly contrasts with our own world - no testable existence, no testable powers. I'd say Nchylbar would easily reach the conclusion that our world lacked any sort of divine influence at all.

Review of Choosing a Good Wife Part 5, Y-Z and appendix

2011-11-25T07:19:00.000-08:00

U: Ultimate Marriage Buster

So what's the ultimate thing that ruins a marriage? What would you say? Abuse? Hate? Lack of love? Infidelity? Well, consider that this is a Christian, what would they say: lack of god? Disagreement on religious issues? Not enough prayer? Porn? NO! It's family planning.

You must remember, this man is a Catholic, and apparently he has bought into the Catholic notion that contraception is evil wholesale. He's already promoted having large, quiverful families, and here he apparently reveals the natural extension of that: not using birth control. Which is interesting, because even the majority of American Catholics have embraced birth control.

But not Mr. Wood. He tells us that babyless marriages lead to more divorces, so you should have kids so that you two will feel obliged stay together. Notice again he doesn't cite babies making your marriage more fulfilled, happy or joyous. The truth is they are stressful, emotionally and financially draining, and likely to increase conflict in the relationship. The majority of heater domestic abuse starts during a woman's pregnancy. But they will absolutely make you feel like you have to stick it out for the sake of the kid.

He emphasizes with twisted statistics that contraception means marriages are much more likely to fail. He seems to toe the Catholic line about sex being only for married conception; a sort of biological procreation necessity. Enjoying sex for its own sake is dangerous: it makes you selfish enough to divorce. But then, he does an inexplicable 180 and states that unlike the filthy animals, HUMAN sex is much more than just for procreation. It's also a unitive profession of love. Apparently, according to his dogma, humans somehow are not allowed to experience sex for only procreation, or only fun. They must always be intertwined.

He then mentions offhandedly that this is why "masturbation, homosexual acts, sterilization, contraception and acts consciously intended to interrupt coitus and thwart procreation" are sins. Quite a lot to throw out all at once, with absolutely no evidence - biblical or logical - to back it up. I notice also that he doesn't include postmenopausal or otherwise infertile couples in the list of forbidden matches.

And of course, despite him specifically mentioning "consciously intended to… thwart procreation" he goes on to endorse the rhythm method of contraception. Which is a method for thwarting procreation. It makes no fucking sense. I mean, I'm glad that diehard catholics have made themselves a loophole, but it's still using the science of probability to attempt and thwart contraception. Sure God could interfere if he wanted to, but he could interfere with a condom just as easily, right?

Can you tell that this is my favorite chapter so far? At the end it goes even further down the rabbit hole. "Assault against fatherhood: The contraception movement is a deceptive assault against fatherhood. As a man, one of your highest priorities in a married life is cooperating with God in bringing forth a new life. Nothing else you ever do will have such lasting importance." Sexual pleasure without the risk is apparently a deceptive form of castration. You have to be sure that you marry a woman who will comply with your request to be a baby machine for you. I think that the crazy here speaks for itself.

The biblical justification: "Be fruitful and multiply". Also, a passage in deuteronomy where grabbing a man's junk will get a woman's hand chopped off to justify how important a man's ability to procreate is: More important than a woman's ability to use her hands.

V: Vocation of Marriage

Here by vocation of marriage he means, quite literally, a job. Marriage is a job, and if god has assigned you that job then you had better well do it. He gives not too terrible advice, reminding the reader to spend time with their family, to not let a rich well-paying job get in the way of quality time with the wife and kids.

However, I'm not sure how the author expects men to pull this off. We already know you're supposed to have as many kids as you can, so how are you supposed to support them? The women aren't supposed to work, here he tells men to reject high-paying jobs, and earlier he even suggests that men take up two jobs to handle the financial responsibilities. He's creating this impossible scenario that eats away the family financial stability at both ends and creates unrealistic expectations. Someone who follows his advice would end up living very close to the poverty line setting back progress and society. He would have us return to a darker age.

It only makes sense that the end of the chapter advocates making time by getting rid of all those beeping electronic gadgets. Technology is scary and dangerous.

W: Wine - a Blessing and a Marriage Buster

Interestingly, here Wood takes a stance that's more permissive than I would have guessed. He calls alcohol a blessing, and indeed the scripture does have Jesus turning water to wine (and he references this!). He mentions that he enjoys wine with his wife, and that he witnessed a lot of drinking while serving in Guatanamo. I feel that he gives some leniency with alcohol merely because that's his personal vice. Considering his stance on premarital dating, that he allows alcohol threw me for a loop.

Interestingly enough, because he calls alcohol a "blessing", I feel that he would regard my personal decision to teetotal yet another rejection of God's Blessings. I think I fail his criteria at every single turn.

He goes on to advocate very serious warning about alcoholism though. First off, he blames alcohol for domestic abuse. This is absolutely not true. Alcohol can serve as a trigger domestic abuse, but the root of the problem is an abusive person. I can't tell you how many times I've heard women excuse abuse by blaming drugs and alcohol, but in truth the abuser demands power and control continuously, drugged or not.

He also warns against marrying a loose woman who likes to enjoy alcohol too much. She must not be "the life of the party". Here it is saying that you must like a woman who is modest and reserved, who subjugates herself and is not too boisterous or outgoing.

X: X-ray Her Words and Her Heart

Ha, X is always X-ray.

Here he gives a page of good advice, which sadly corresponds with it being one of the shortest chapters in the book. Practice listening, listen to what the woman is actually saying. That's great advice! Empathy and understanding and listening are key to a relationship.

But then the very next page contains its own facepalm, with a section titled, "The consequences of marrying a woman with an unruly tongue." It goes on to single out women, and warn the man against a woman who bitches about things all the time.

The biblical justification: "A wife's quarreling is a continual dripping of rain." Comparing a wife to Chinese water torture, ouch. Of course, considering the time, the woman was probably bitching about stuff like being sold off by her father, her requirement to keep her head covered, and her inability to teach the scripture. Women are such bitches, amirate?

Now it's not bad advice to say that you should marry someone who says kind things instead of cruel things. In fact, the best predictor of divorce is the ratio of positive-to-negative interactions (6:1 is the bare minimum, 10:1 is on track). But the book doesn't call out the man to watch his tongue. It just says to make sure you watch your wife's tongue. And it did it by calling such women "unruly". Might as well go whole-hog and just call them uppity.

Y: Your Move! What are you waiting for?

Modern Society has really befuddled things with this notion of equality. Let's simplify it: Men woo and women get wooed. So man up, go out there are engage! Once you have followed all the steps in the book, of course. Don't be afraid of commitment, God has your destiny chosen, and so your marriage will be great. You know, if you don't rush into it before really making sure that you're hearing God clearly.

Z: Zero in on What I'm Saying

This chapter just exists to reinforce that all this shit is necessary, because it's in the bible. You need to listen, you need to do. You need to engage in archaic family courtship, you need an accountability partner, you need to follow proper sexual morality. Also, don't worry because God will give you a wife.

Appendix:

The Personal Courtship Commitments contract was just so awesome, and summed up the book so perfectly, I felt that it would be best to include the whole thing. So here it is transcribed. Note that it is labeled a "Sample" but it's obviously what the author feels to be the best example of such a contract.

I, (NAME), hereby designate (NAME) as my accountability partner regarding the standards and commitments in my personal courtship plan listed below.

Brief description of accountability item (ABC's chapter number). By referring to the ABC's chapter number, you are giving a fuller meaning and context to your brief commitment statement.

I will not date, court, or marry an immodest woman. (Ch.1)

I will take the time to really get to know the family of any woman that I am interested in. (Ch.2)

I will not overlook dysfunctions in family background (Ch.2)

I will not engage in premarital sexual relations or cohabitation. We will not spend extensive time alone during our courtship and engagement. (Ch.3)

I will not allow excessive career pursuits to put aside marriage and family life. (Ch.5)

I will not marry someone desiring a permanent full-time career, even when we have young children. (Ch.7)

I will only marry with the full blessing of her parents and mine. (Ch.8)

I will court and marry someone who fully shares my faith. (Ch. 9)

To safeguard our relationship, we will postpone physical affection until we are married. (Ch. 10)

My fiancee and I will take a premarital inventory before publicly announcing our engagement. (Ch. 12)

I will marry someone who fully shares my commitment to the Church's teaching on sexuality. Once engaged, my fiancee and I will take classes on Natural Family Planning. (Ch. 21)

I will not marry a binge drinker or a person who gets drunk. (Ch. 23)

I promise to notify my accountability partner whenever I think that I might have an interest in courting someone. I give full permission to my accountability partner to use any lawful means to hold me accountable to my personal plan. [No Saving Silverman, awww]

After serious reflection and with a firm reliance upon the grace of God, I commit myself to these standards when choosing a wife.

{Space for signatures}

It's just so full of archaic advice, okay advice and then completely out of left field bad advice. It's ridiculous. I can't believe that he thinks someone would agree and go along with this. He spends one more page hammering home the importance of having someone else help you stay accountable to these standards. Because he knows you won't stay accountable to them by yourself.

The Screwtape Letter

There is one final appendix, and it's just bizarre. It references C.S. Lewis' fictional demon Screwtape, and then gives a fanfiction letter on Screwtape's view on internet pornography. Apparently this demon is jumping up and down at porn's ability to mess up boys and ruin their sex lives. He stresses the importance of not allowing Christians to know about pornography's detrimental effects so that they can continue wreaking havoc. It attempts to be clever, but is over-the-top and just ridiculous. Here are a few choice excerpts.

"With Internet pornography we can finally bring down the guardians of the Christian family. The fools still don't realize that the technological temptations are waging war against their very souls, bringing to completion a more-than-a-century-long-campaign to destroy the Faith by destroying family."

"A husband's pornography addiction has shown a unique ability to undermine trust and intimacy between spouses."

"Finally, we must keep up our guard against the Head of THAT family. Never forget how the Head of THAT family was used by the Enemy to ruin or dear servant Herod's plans to kill the so-called Holy One."

"Just be sure they don't discover the Enemy's perfect model for husbands and father, or our plans will get derailed."

Yours diabolically, Screwtape

It's just like some kind of 80's cartoon villain who loudly proclaims his evil plans to his minions and expresses exactly how it could be unraveled, hoping that the good guy isn't around to listen. It's just so transparent. I am not sure if he thinks he's being genuinely clever.

The whole book is just so ridiculous and crazy that it's hard to believe at points. Looking through the very back of the book, I noticed that there's a similar guide for women, "The ABC's of Choosing a Good Husband." I'm pretty tempted to pick that one up and read about all the mistakes I made in choosing Russell.

Review of Choosing a Good Wife Part 4, P-T

2011-10-28T13:05:00.000-07:00

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

P: Pray for a Good Wife

The inspirational story: A man went to go pray for a wife at a school chapel and then ran into a girl whom he dated and then later married. Praying had immediate and tangible results! What a compelling testament to his faith!

Of course, what makes this story so compelling is how unusual it is. Usually prayer doesn't work in such a predictable manner. Typically when you pray, there's no answer, sign or direct benefit. Usually when you pray, it's like nothing happened at all. But of course, this story is used to say that god will provide. This story is a bit on the creepy side, because it really seems to imply that the woman's consent is not really needed. The guy prayed, and then god assumedly made the woman respond.

More than likely though, the man just had dating on his mind, saw a nice, eligible religious woman, and introduced himself. The story even admits that they vaguely knew of each other before, and he had just then taken it upon himself to ask her out. He got some placebo swagger from the prayer, and the context put her in a new light. It could have been anyone. I've definitely been in that situation of not thinking of someone romantically until the right context was provided.

The biblical story: Abraham sent his slave out of the country to buy a wife for Isaaic. Rebekah was brought back and immediately fell in love with her new husband. (Genesis 24:64-65)

Wow, this story was so ridiculous that I can hardly believe that it's in here, but given what this guy has endorsed in the past, it's not too much of a surprise. He really seems to be promoting this idea of a parent-led courtship, and the natural extreme of that is an arranged marriage. And of course, since the marriage is arranged by God through the father, it will all turn out in the end. It's just this weird idolizing of subservience - especially on the part of the woman - and allowing your parents and God to control your life.

Christian Advice: In this chapter, he fully exposes his Catholic bias, I suppose figuring that by now even the heathen Protestants would be willing to listen to Catholic superior knowledge. He advises men to pray to the holy family and to the archangel Raphael, because of the story in the book of Tobit. The idea of the demigods helping out is certainly not new, but it certainly won't do anything special either.

At the very end of the chapter, there is a bit of good advice you could sift out: try to meet people at events you enjoy. Not bad. Of course you have to wade through all this crap to get it, but that's pretty similar to the bible.

Q: Questions to Ask Before Saying "I Do"

This chapter really is just a list of questions, with a little bit of preface that the tougher ones such as "health status, previous marriages, and abusive family situations" should be asked by a priest or a premarital counselor. Which is odd; why wouldn't you be able to discuss those things yourself with the person you will be married to? Wouldn't you like to know, for example, the sexual health status of your future mate? How about why they got divorced?

Anyway, here are some of the more ridiculous questions.

Which of your parents paid the monthly bills for your family? (Not sure why this is important? I guess it's to make sure she comes from a gender-typical family.)

Which of your parents led family prayer time, if you had one? (Again, not sure on the purpose. I guess to make sure that she's religious and that her father led stuff, like he should.)

Who do you think should be primarily responsible for a child's discipline: the father or the mother? (Again, deciding if she adheres to gender roles)

Are you more outgoing or private? (This question doesn't seem appropriate to ask at any stage in the relationship. If you don't know them too well, then it's a bit forward, if you do know them a bit, then you should be able to figure it out).

Do you take any exceptions to the moral teachings of the Church? (You certainly wouldn't want one of those rebellious types).

R: Romeo Online

For all the precautions against falling into sin in previous chapters, this one is curiously devoid of the temptations of cyber sex. Indeed, it seems that Mr. Wood believes that writing is a good way to keep a romance chaste. He goes out of his way to idolize the past, and gives this excerpt from an 1808 smitten lover, "Excepting my obligation to God, my heart, my affections, my undivided and unreserved love are yours." He claims that any woman would swoon over this line, but I think I'd prefer someone who knows the definition of "unreserved". Apparently, Wood thinks that in the past people writing to each other were saints, but allow me to counter that with another excerpt, one from A Valediction: Forbidden Mourning from 1611.

"Anne, you and I are like the pointed legs of a compass

And though it in the centre sit,

Yet when the other far doth roam,

It leans and hearkens after it,

And grows erect, as that comes home."

Quite dirty, I'd say.

After pining for a more elegant time of written correspondence, he shows his age by believing that all youth communicate with horrible AOL "Wassup" slang. WTF, ROFL.

At the end, he recommends Christian-specific dating websites, but warns that not all of them are Christian enough (and indeed 90% of lay chartrooms should be avoided completely). He does run into a bit of a sticky situation with recommending dating sites, however. Consider this: If you are indeed using a Christian dating site, then you are taking the initiative in the relationship; it's out of the parent's hands. This is too far removed from a parent-arranged meeting. How on earth can you get the parents involved to supervise the relationship?

No joke, he suggests starting out on your second correspondence with a lady by asking her for her father's number to ask for permission to court. He admit this seems extreme, but insists that it is necessary and charming. I find it very creepy and controlling.

S: Scarcity of Women

Here he addresses the "forever alone" whiners who complain about the lack of good-enough women. I would imagine what they mean is the lack of subservient-enough women.

Here he urges men to expand their horizons: get involved with the church in new ways, give single women around them a chance, and get involved with online Christian dating sites. He assures us that using a dating site is not "desperate": meeting people in secular locations like a singles bar is desperate.

The inspirational tale: A woman restricted her dating pool on a christian website to men in her area. One man decided that he really wanted her and pursued her, explaining that he'd travel across the country to pick up a million-dollar prize if he needed, and she was better than that. They're now married.

This is actually a very creepy tale. Having studied abusive relationships, they often start with this whirlwind of romantic gestures, but still tied in with a lack of boundaries. This man didn't respect her wishes to date in her area. He didn't think that he should have to respect her desires, and that's even before they met or exchanged any sort of meaningful conversations. This man won't accept no. His falling so head-over-heels and idolizing her will lead to disappointment when she can't live up to his impossible standards, and he will become angry and blame her. I can't even imagine how their relationship will turn out. To hold this up as a positive example of a healthy relationships just boggles me.

T: To have and To Hold

Citing the catechism, Wood warns us that divorce (or "Christian divorce") is not an option. The bible says that you can't get divorced, so you have to make sure that the decision is one that lasts for a lifetime. He says that once you're in, you're stuck, so you'd better be very certain that you're ready for a lifelong commitment. Not even a caveat for abuse, hate, or someone falling out of their religion. Now of course, marriage is a personal decision. You should be able to get out whenever you want. If the two of you have a 5-minute marriage plan, well that's your decision. Your marriage should last as long as you both shall want.

But of course, he does allow that one biblical out: death. Apparently once one of you goes to heaven, the other is free to cheat around until they meet up again in heaven again. This might seem like an oversight, but it certainly does make sense when you consider what used to be the purpose of marriage: large batches of children, and an assurance of the man's offspring being his. If one dies, they have to get remarried to keep those goals going, and in fact the bible does contain commands for a widow to marry her brother-in-law. Of course, this edict is skipped as well. Nearly every time the bible gives explicit relationship legal advice, this book seems to skip over it.

Next Episode: The Ultimate Marriage Buster

A Review of Pornography: Slaying the Dragon

2011-10-16T22:16:00.000-07:00

Thanks to a very generous fan, I got myself a used copy of the anti-fun propaganda Pornography: Slaying the Dragon by David Powlison. It was hilariously awful.

Let me start by stating my position on pornography: it's great as long as all parties involved are safe and consenting adults. Pretty basic stuff. Once all of that is satisfied, porn is a fantastic source of recreation, much like gaming or exercising or cooking or watching regular movies. Masturbation is just a natural source of fun that's safe, cheap and satisfying.

Now of course because of all those things, the church absolutely hates masturbation and porn and vilifies it. It makes something natural and safe into something evil and shameful. It creates this shame out of the human condition just so that religion can offer this salvation to the guilt through prayer and forgiveness. But of course, for the majority of people, it's an unachievable goal. In much the same way that the symbol for virginity is a sieve carrying water, it's enshrining the impossible and creating a need for forgiveness when people fall short of that physical impossibility.*

But of course, they still try. And so we have propaganda like this. David Powlison's Pornography: Slaying the Dragon sells hope to those trying to achieving the impossible. It's a 20-page small book where "Bob" is being interviewed by "DP". Heh. It's a manifestation of this disturbing hate for porn, and the creation of need for God. It even goes out of its way to admit that. "God's love broke the shackles, the bondage to this sexual idol, and caused me to cry out to him for help. He keeps reminding me that I must keep relying on him." And indeed, in the typical Christian propaganda style, it offers very little advice other than the obvious, and instead focuses on the difficulty and the perverse nature of the invented problem and the absolute necessity for God to intervene and help. It creates this need and then offers the solution. Also, "bondage". Heh again.

The book starts out with a description of a normal and healthy formation of a teenage sex drive. "[T]he material I looked at became extremely explicit. I developed habits of masturbation, and I developed elaborate sexual fantasies about women I actually knew." Normal behavior. But of course, it's treated as disgusting and reprehensible. "I knew that looking at sexually explicit material and spinning fantasies were wrong. I was full of guilt and struggled a lot to overcome it." As he got older, he maintains the guilt, "My mind engaged in a secret life that I sough to have satisfy me."

They never really explain why it was wrong, why he wracked himself with guilt. They can't give any good reasons, because it's just arbitrary. That's the kind of arbitrary morality system you get when you believe that morality comes from God: shit just often doesn't make sense, and you are a horrible person. Later, they do explain why porn is wrong: it distracts you from God. That's it. They don't even try to give it some kind of real-world implications. Just that God is jealous and demands that you give him all your thought, all your positive emotions, all your mind. "You can't serve two masters. You can't serve me [God] and your sexual idolatry. You have to choose one." God can't stand knowing that you are greatly enjoying something that doesn't involve HIM. Imagine if that logic was applied to other things. You can't enjoy coffee, air conditioning, books, socials, knitting, they distract from God. Imagine that. "You can't serve God and your knitting idolatry," how much sense does that make?

He continues, "God was gracious, and I overcame a lot of temptations. Sometimes I would go six months between indulgences in pornography." This is absolutely hilarious. God was so merciful and so greatly desired for me to pay attention to only Him that He only made it something that torments me constantly and helps me stop sometimes. To borrow from the Epicurus-attributed quote, Is God willing to prevent masturbation, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is pervy. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh porn? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? He goes on to brag about how he stunted his sexual healthy by refraining from having premarital sex, and by eventually willing the porn think out of his mind for good.

And of course, he used to think about about porn a lot. Because he never allowed himself to masturbate (6 month stretches at a time, you'll recall), he would fantasize about women constantly: imagining women he knew in porn situations, looking hungrily at the singles area in (gasp!) church, and even attempting to make his wife more like a playboy bunny. It's tricky to tell because of all the hyperbole, but it sounds like he has a distorted view of sex as something shameful with objects, and he just hates on those objects. He says, "I divided women into sex objects and friends, and the two categories never mixed together." Even Cracked authors know that it's healthy to be friends with the person you're fucking. It sounds like this guy tried so hard to distance himself from seeing sex as normal that he made the women he lusted after into just objects instead of people with their own drives to make them easier to reject. His rejection of porn was coupled with him objectifying women. And that's a point I think that doesn't get made enough. By treating women as these tempting harlots - instead of just normal people - he made these women into objects and did not treat them as a person. The religious thoughts and the rejection of porn is what made him objectify women.

Sometimes the concerns he has about porn are just so incredibly out there in left field that I have to wonder what the hell is wrong with this man: does he really believe that these are consequences of porn, or is he actually on the verge of being a legitimate skeeve? He lets us know that thankfully, "God preserved me so I didn't make my daughter a sex object. I saw her as my daughter and respected her as that." Did he really think that watching porn would make him fantasize about his daughter? What the actual fuck? Later he also asks, "Would I commit adultery if I had an opportunity? Would I go on to molest children? Would I get aroused homosexually? I saw I was capable of anything." That little quote right there is just so full of backwards logic, that it's staggering. He doesn't seem to realize how same-sex attraction works, you don't stare at boobs long enough until you realize that it's not enough and you go after cock instead. He also seems to think that's how child porn works: one day you just run out of adults to look at so you go after the younger generation. But that's what happens when you have this negative view of normal sexuality, the deviations are given equal weight to the normal, and a healthy enjoyment is not allowed to form.

He goes on to brag about the sex life he now has. He doesn't retreat to porn when she isn't in the mood. He claims he doesn't get angry at, or manipulate his wife now, but she's now the only sexual outlet he has in his life. If she doesn't consent to sex, he won't let himself get off. That's a lot of unfair pressure on the one partner; she shouldn't have to be solely responsible. That burden IS a form of manipulation. He goes on to describe what sounds like a pretty unhealthy relationship. "I used to get self-righteous and even use Bible verses to criticize her. I've got a long way to go… I've asked God to help me see my wife as a person, not a sex object… I've also learned to forgive her for things she's done to me… I really want to freely forgive her." Again, this just sounds like he's blaming his wife for getting him hot and bothered, for switching on those lustful thoughts. Luckily, he's kind enough to forgive her for those trespasses.

So let's get down to brass tacks. How can you quit porn? Well, apparently going to a counselor 10 years ago didn't help. Neither really did having an accountability partner. What he does is cry out to god for help when he starts to feel lust coming on. "Right now I'm being seduced by the dragon of my soul. Help." Properly embracing Jesus Christ ended up saving him from falling into sin. But of course, that was the technique that he had been using since he was a teenager. So what actually changed? He mentions an experience with a man who confessed to wanting to have an affair, but I feel like that wasn't quite it either. He never explicitly comes out and says it, but it sounds like years upon years of self-hate, loathing and disgust finally pushed the thoughts out of his mind, much like achievement of true double-think at the end of 1984. He succeeded in killing his sex drive. And he decided to write this book to inspire others to do the same.

*(For those who identify as asexual or have little or no drive. That's normal too. Like natural blondes, the hair bleaching companies are not going after you.)

Review of Choosing a Good Wife Part 3, K-O

2011-10-10T18:39:00.000-07:00

Part 1

Part 2

K: Know Yourself and Your Future Mate

I almost fainted. This is the second chapter that actually has some good marital advice. Just like the bible, however, you have to really dig through muck and wrong information to find it.

The good stuff: If there's a problem in the relationship, don't assume that it'll get better. Weigh whether this issue getting worse is a deal breaker (because they're likely putting more effort into it now than they will later). Wow, solid advice?!

Of course, Wood recommends getting to take the time to slowly get to know your partner very well before settling down, so that you can iron these issues out beforehand. (Well, you will know them very well except for how well they can kiss.) Of course, this is where stuff gets confusing. If you're not supposed to go out on dates, and you're not supposed to hold out too long lest you fall into the temptation of sin, how are you supposed to get to know your partner?

Under the watchful gaze of her family. You must do everything with her family, with your family. It just emphasizes the creation of this unbreakable social tie to the husband, to the family, to the church, making it so that leaving any part of it becomes that much more difficult.

It's hilarious because they emphasize not making decisions in a fit of lust, but if you can't have sex until marriage. I can see how that would prevent lustful desires overpowering you.

L: Love is Blind - but Premarital Inventories Aid Sight Recovery

This chapter is filled with suggestions for other Christian companies that offer premarital counseling and programs. The book has been doing a steady job of telling the reader that not only is this a hard decision, but it is one that you must make while balancing impossible standards of morality. It warns you that your own judgement is weak, that it requires this mysterious other to keep it going, and here is happily gives you resources to the others. I can only imagine the filth these premarital counselors give; if the book is merely a gateway, I'm worried about what the hardcore stuff tells its audience.

Now of course, premarital counseling is a good idea. Russell and I got a discount on our marriage certificate by taking one, and it was pretty fun. Guides on how to have healthy relationships wasn't as class I got to take until college, and honestly more people need to learn the basics like how to have a healthy argument, how to have a good rapport, and how to be accommodating. Even regular-day people don't get these messages from media: the last time I read Cosmo / Men's Health, the advice included crap about lying, tricking, and manipulating (eg: insult her a little to make her like your challenge, flirt with others to make him jealous, pretend like you're busy when you're not, etc, etc). People need good relationship advice and premarital counseling is a good way to get that.

The problem is that usually Christian-based services care less about what works than they do about what the bible says. The bible says women are subservient, so they glorify the woman's role of being herded by her husband. There's no emphasis on equality or egalitarian roles (which does correlate with happy healthy relationships and good conflict resolution skills).

M: Marriage is a Sacrament - a Mystery of Grace and Love

I absolutely love the title of this chapter. Marriage, what is it? I dunno, some kind of mystery! Interestingly enough, that mystery never does get explained. It's just a "sacrament" or a "covenant". This chapter decries how the government has tried to take the magic out of a marriage by defining it and giving it rules. That apparently is horrible to this mysterious mystery of a sacred sacrament.

The biblical justification: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it"

They also compare marriage to the unity of the burning love within holy trinity, making this into some kind of weird threesome of a relationship between the two married people and Jesus. Perhaps this threesome is the mystery that is being so heavily alluded to.

More biblical context: "As Moses was told to remove his shoes before the burning bush because he was standing on holy ground, so with reverence are we to regard the sacrament of marriage".

I uh, what? Kind of a weird tie-in.

N: Narcissistic Women

The sexist advice: Well, this whole chapter, for sure. I will say that it's generally very good advice to avoid someone who has an inflated ego, but if your religion tells you that women are inherently inferior to men, then your definition of an inflated ego is someone who thinks they're equal to you.

Among the warning signs are someone with good looks, wears makeup, has intelligence, talent or wealth. She is more likely to attribute these blessings to her own self-motivation instead of god. If you've read the original Stepford Wives, this is the sort of stuff the Stepford Husbands were complaining about. He also warns against damaged women from broken homes. The author instead urges men to seek women who are more modest and humble (read: they won't believe that they deserve better.)

O: Occasional Fights are Okay - Really!

The good stuff: In the middle of this book, right after the chapter about uppity women, is a chapter that's nearly completely good advice with just a few bible verses sprinkled in. Not surprisingly, it's the chapter that the author embarrassingly admits is based on "secular" research. It's all about how to have a fight that doesn't devolve into hurt. The basics of that, quickly:

1. Avoid personalizing the fight with insults. Discuss only the single issue.

2. If you need a break, say so and take time to come back later. Don't keep going in a heightened state.

3. Extend an olive branch and accept olive branches from your partner.

4. Make sure that the positive interactions in your marriage far outweigh the negatives.

They even mention PREP (premarital training) and that there are Christian alternatives.

The biblical justification: "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger". There are two other proverbs that say about the same thing. While this doesn't add much, I'd like to point out how, as advice, it pales in comparison to the knowledge added by secular research. Look how little the bible verse adds to the knowledge of how to treat a partner. It's almost like a fortune cookie message. Research has inspired this chapter, not god.

Next Episode: Pray for a Good Wife

Review of Choosing a Good Wife Part 2, F-J

2011-10-10T07:49:00.000-07:00

Part 1

F: Family Finances

This chapter is about deciding whether one or both spouse should be working. And by one spouse, they mean parent, because you will obviously be having kids and you will have to raise those kids. And then of course by parent working, they mean the male. Because the man works and the woman stays home. The book just starts out with the assumption that the woman will stay home by doing things like pointing out that "motherhood" is a full-time job, and might be tricky for the woman to do in addition to a work job.

It's ridiculous, why isn't there a worry that the father might have trouble balancing his parenthood with his job? The father can't stay at home? And the automatic assumption that you will be having kids, and plenty of them? All the questions are begging the question that the woman should stay home and take care of the kids. It asks you to consider the "negative socialization of daycare" and the mother needing her energy for nurturing. According to this guy, men can't nurture, and women can't adequately work. He goes out of his way to warn against this, insisting that female breadwinners should only happen when the man is sick or temporarily incapacitated.

He biblically backs this up with…
The biblical justification: Sirach 25:22, "There is wrath and impudence and great disgrace when a wife supports her husband." How incredibly insulting to the man, and to the woman that they must be stuck in these rigid gender roles. What a slap in the face to any progress.

Of course, he realizes that this is a tricky financial situation, sometimes two incomes are needed. So what's his solution? The father should get two jobs. And of course, he will need to get two jobs instead of one highly paid job because thank to Chapter E he got married right away before getting a higher education. Luckily, this will not interfere with child rearing because the man doesn't interact with his kids anyway.

G: Generosity in the Service of Life

I assumed this chapter was going to be about doing good works together as a couple. I was wrong, it's about pumping out kids, as many as possible.

According to the author, "the main purpose of marriage is kids." Having no kids, or even only one kid is a "profound mistake", and he then goes on to brag about having 8 kids and badmouthing couples who both work and have no children, and badmouths birth control.

Every single chapter gives more insight into the barely-hidden level of crazy that this guy endorses. He absolutely believes that his decision to be Quiverfull is the only fulfilling kind of marriage, and the only proper kind of marriage. He brags about the social teasing like it's a badge of honor. And indeed, when you look at that kind of financial decision to have so many children, it's no wonder that he thinks men should take two jobs and women should stay at home, they are nothing more than Christian baby machines.

The biblical justification: "Be fruitful and multiply." "Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them".

More edicts to create a Christian army via procreation.

Sexually repressed: "Once you're married and have a child, pray this prayer a year or two after the birth of each child: 'God, do You want us to have one more child? If You do, Lord, please put Your desire in both our hearts, so that our desires match Your desire."

It's pretty sad if you need to pray to god once every few years to see if you can get turned on.

H: Honor Your Father and Mother

This chapter makes a big deal about keeping ties to the parents, because otherwise you will have an unhappy marriage. Couples who sever from their parents are doomed to mimic them. This just continues the cult-like sphere of influence parents and the community must have over the couple. They must still be subservient to their parents and deeply tied to the Church community. All tied into it is the myth of the wiser elder, the more intelligent parent, the subservient relationship. It's a creepy, but short chapter.

I: Interfaith vs. Same-faith Marriages

The cautionary tale: A guy marries an otherwise great Christian woman. But she came from a different Church than his, and now that they have kids he's worried their hostile religion will rub off on his kids.

Interestingly, this chapter does have some good relationship advice: figure out where the two of you stand on your faith before you get married and before you have kids. Fantastic advice, that I've given myself.

But the problem with good advice from a bad source is that it gets followed up with bad advice, and if you don't know the difference, how can you disentangle the two? It warns that not only this lead to marital discord, but it may lead to you going to church services by yourself. Imagine how alone, how embarrassed, how ostracized you will be if you go to a religious service without your wife. They will think of you as less of a man because you are not controlling what your wife does, and you will not be a proper part of the community. Most horrifically, you might not be able to decide by fiat the religion of your children. They might get exposed to the other faith, and, he warns, be given a choice! Truly horrific.

J: Just How Far Can We Go?

Sexually repressed: It appears as if Christians have realized that vaguely telling kids not to "have sex" or to "save it for marriage" has left a lot of sexy wiggle room. This chapter addresses that by telling kids that best-case scenario they should refrain from kissing before marriage (author admits he waited until engagement to kiss).

To keep people accountable, he yet again brings up the suggestion of having an older accountability couple check in to make sure that they aren't… kissing. The level of suggested influence and control over someone's life is just getting scary. All this to prevent fun. So why kissing? Apparently that's too far down the slippery slope. Kissing leads to petting, and that leads to… an ungodly union.

The biblical justification: Selected quotes from Song of Solomon, e.g.: "Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it." Song of Songs 6:7.

Supporting remaining chaste by quoting the man who had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. How are we supposed to take this seriously?

Sexist message: You have to refrain from kissing because the man gets aroused too easily to hold back, and he will want to take things to the next level. Apparently women don't get hot and bothered, they just passively allow what the guy wants.

Next Episode: Know Yourself and Your Future Mate

Review of Choosing a Good Wife Part 1, A-E

2011-10-07T10:54:00.000-07:00

Not too long ago, I finished reading A Billion Wicked Thoughts, a book about porn searches on the internet. It was interesting, but not quite what I expected. A very vanilla explanation of evolutionary psychology with some study data sprinkled in. It was a lot of psychology theory I had already studied ad nauseum, and not much analysis or discussion of methods and data from the focal study, which is what I really wanted. I think it's a fine book, especially for people who would like to know the psychological history, but I found the generalizations a bit annoying (men like this, women like that, gay men like the other, and lesbians merit a paragraph). On the whole, though, it was a pretty sex-positive book. Which got me thinking about all the Christian sex-negative books. Combine this with the adverts on Wretched Radio (credit to JD for turning me on to that crazy) and I decided to go out and find some crazy anti-porn propaganda.

One trip to Half-price Books didn't yield quite the book I wanted (although a fan might!), and I settled for another one instead: The ABC's of Choosing a Good Wife: How to find and marry a good girl. I skimmed through it, and it did have an anti-porn message, so I decided to give it a go. Also, because my marriage to Russell Glasser is coming up, it felt even more appropriate. I could let Russell know if he was indeed Choosing a Good wife. (Spoiler: probably not.)

I liked the introduction to this book, because in reality the connection between the bible and good relationship advice is really stretched. The bible has a lot of smut that's just men and women whoring around, and whenever the bible does give specific advice or edicts, it tends to be really dark stuff, like having a rapist marry his victim, and treating the ceremony like a property transfer. I can bet that kind of concrete bible advice is not in this book.

Additionally, like most Christian media, the focus is not on providing advice that works, but advice that glorifies religion first and then maybe also discusses the topic. They care more about glorifying god than writing a good book. Look at how awkwardly the author has to bend over to stress that having a good relationship is important, but not too important: "Except for the decision to make Jesus Christ lord of your life, choosing a wife is the most important decision you will ever make." Groan.

Each chapter is a letter (because it's the ABC's, you see) and I'm 5 letters in an already pulling my hair out. I was unprepared for this level of just ignorance. So here's A through E.

A: Attraction

The uplifting story: Pen pals meet each other for the first time, and the guy is willing to give an ugly girl a chance… at friendship. Luckily, the pen pal was actually a hot girl instead.

I'm not really sure what the point of this story was. This man fell in love with the notes written on the edges of a book, tracks the woman down and then goes to meet her. Kind of a creepy way to meet, but that's getting close to hypocrisy territory for me, so whatever. When he gets to the meeting point, he sees this totally hot babe who flirts with him, and barely manages to contain his excitement and wait for… some dumpy cankled woman wearing the rose. His boner falls, and goes to meet her resolving to be friends, but the ugly, unmarryable woman tells him the hottie was just testing him.

So, yay? The point was supposed to be something about inner beauty, but outer beauty was the reward, and the ugly woman was still treated as unsuitable material. Also the descriptions of how the man was just so bedazzled and enthralled really makes me wonder if he masturbates enough.

The cautionary tale: This chapter was lucky enough to have two stories. A college man sees a hot babe and decides right then that he wants to marry her. After dating for a bit they do get married, and it turns out not to work.

This one just cracks me up. It is nothing but a set up for eventually saying that dating and trusting your own instincts will fail. If you date, if you evaluate that person yourself, you will fail. Dating is not a reliable method for finding a mate. I also loved how they emphasized that the man decided at first sight that he wanted to marry someone, and then her consent or input was not important. I don't think this author really knows how people decide to date. Or perhaps he is confusing "wanting to marry" with "wanting to fuck".

The biblical justification: "Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain."

The sexist message: Did you know that women are totally hot babes by the grace of God? "God designed a woman's body to radiate more beauty than any of His other works." Great, where does that leave men? Down with the snails? Also, this sort of thing seems to be intended to be a compliment, but it's really just objectifying, making women like sculpted pieces of art instead people.

Also, did you know that while God loves creating art, he absolutely HATES displaying it. "Many Immodest women are literally 'letting it all hang out'… A lack of modesty in a very real way profanes the sacredness of a woman's body." Of course there's this bullshit imposing modesty standards on how women dress and display their own bodies, because according to Christianity women don't own their bodies. They're temples to God.

B: Before you Say I do, Beware of the Trigger Effect

The cautionary tale: You dated a woman who seemed nice, but then she suddenly snapped a few years later.

Again, this is trying to set up the notion that dating, trusting your own judgment will fail. You can't just date someone by themselves, you have to get involved with the family. There's warnings against women who come from divorced families. There's a fair amount of pseudscience about women growing up without a man being emotionally disadvantaged because of the lack of a good male figure in their life. They also caution against women who were sexually assaulted, but are polite enough not to blame her for that embarrassing situation.

The biblical justification: none offered.

C: Cohabitation

Backwards thinking: This chapter seems to use cohabitation and premarital sex interchangeably, which isn't surprising, considering that they use statistics that couples cohabiting before marriage are slightly more likely to get a divorce, and try to tie that together with premarital sex also increasing the likelihood of divorce, which is not true. It's very telling that they use staying together in a marriage as a measure of the marriage's success, not couple happiness or relationship health. It's much more likely that couples who would never cohabit would also never leave a marriage, even one that was abusive or loveless.

The author claims that focusing on verbal communication is important (more important that physical communication. I wonder about this author's sex life. Do he and his wife never talk about what they want from sex? Also I wonder how he thinks that two aspects of a relationship that are so intertwined wouldn't grow together. It's like saying, "I'd rather not focus on steering and acceleration at the same time, just one first, then the other." The two parts of the relationship are linked, and it's silly to expect one to magically stay off, then switch to full intensity while the other is slowly grown.

Biblical justification: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! DO you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall become one".

I like how as the chapter progresses, it gets more and more accusatory. First, it conflates living together with sleeping together, then sleeping together with hiring a prostitute. That's what this man thinks about women who cohabit: it's just a man hiring a prostitute. He completely strips the relationship of the emotional meaning and family structure and just makes it only about the sex. Christians get really hung up about that.

The cautionary tale: A story out of left field. A navy man got swindled into a marriage by a floozy who wanted to kill him to collect the insurance money.

I'm not sure what the point of this story was, considering this was supposed to be about cohabiting. I guess this is more exciting? Anyway, again, it confuses living together with sleeping together, and then also with being slutty and now also murderous. I think it's just try warn caution against those evil women who just want to settle down and take advantage of you.

The chapter ends by warning me that if I'm cohabiting, I should put down this book and fix that right away. Well, that's me. I feel insufficiently motivated.

D: Dating or Courtship?

Anti-science rhetoric: While trying to promote their ideology using statistics, unfortunately the majority of science disagrees with their antiquated ideas. So they have to disparage modern thinking. The book goes on to say that "Enlightened" societies have mistakenly bought into this culture of dating. He promotes ancient courtship monitored by the family as far superior. He goes on to laughably claim "Courtship will gain popular appeal in our culture as positive results are demonstrated in the lives of twenty-first century 'courtship pioneers.'" He cites no evidence, but has faith that courtship will lead to fewer divorces and better family cohesion, but really the main thrust of his argument is that family monitoring will curtail premarital sex.

Creating this family dependence, this close-knit cohesion is a really common cult tactic of Christianity. It makes a social dependence on the family, the religion and the church, and ties them all together to prevent leaving or deviation. Getting the family involved with the romance is just another way of this. This shit got creepy fast.

Laughable advice: And then it gets silly again right quick. The author suggests that instead of going out on dates, have dinners games and everything with the families. If the two of you are away in college, seek out a Mentoring Couple. He even gives organizations that seem to specialize in this and (coded?) abstinence pledges for males. If all else fails, he advises, stick to chaperoned dates. And of course, ask the father before even starting courtship.

Sexist message: Did you know that men who abstain are gallant? "Men are capable of great gallantry… Rather than being a semi-barbarian fixated on self and taking advantage of women, you can become a gallant man, self-sacrificing for the welfare of the woman in your life." The language harkens back to Mr. Bachmann's lisping decrying of the gay barbarians who need to be tamed. Again, it's this same sort of fake compliment that's actually just a form of objectification. A man who doesn't have sex is a knight, and a man who does is a filthy barbarian. It's sexist and creates these unrealistic expectations that hate on being human. It tries to sexy up the knight figure by claiming that "Every girl dreams of that special knight who will appear and claim her as his own forever." which again, just makes the man into some sort of objectified dream object.

And of course, how does this treat the woman? Pining away, waiting for someone else to come and fix them. They also cannot consent to sex, as sex will interfere with their welfare, but can only be taken advantage of.

Biblical justification: none, which is too bad. The bit about "a special knight appearing and claiming her as his own forever" would have really fit in with the biblical edict of rapists marrying their victims.

E: Earlier or Later Marriage?

Anti-science rhetoric: Get married at 20-25. Any later and you will fall into the temptation of sex. Don't worry about finishing college, don't worry about building up assets, and don't try out the relationship first. Besides, your marriage prospects dwindle the longer you wait.

Biblical justification:
All of that advice gets trashed in the advice of some quoted preacher who gives this long speech:

"But at the season of marriage, let no one defer it. Behold, I speak the words of a matchmaker, that you should let your sons marry. … When your son is grown up, before he enters upon warfare, or any other course of life, consider his marriage. And if he sees that you will soon take a bride for him, and that the time intervening will be short, he will be able to endure the flame [of passion] patiently. But if he perceives that you are remiss and slow, and wait until he acquires a large income, and then you will contract a marriage for him, despairing at the length of the time, he will readily fall into fornication. But alas! The root of all evil here also is the love of money. Theremore I exhort you first to regulate well their souls. If he finds his bride chaste, and knows her body alone, then his desire will be vehement, and his fear of God the greater, and the marriage truly honorable, receiving bodies pure and undefiled."

[brackets belong to original author]

That speech is supposedly based on 1 Thessalonians 4:3 "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication." Quite the extrapolation, don't you think?

This is all nonsense because it flies in the face of known statistics. And the book even admits that (marriage at 20-21 is twice as likely to divorce as opposed to 24-25, yet they still recommend 20 as a good age). Statistics say that it's best to get your own ducks in a row before you get married to someone else. Figure out who you are, what you want to be, where you want to go, and get a financial plan together. Get yourself right before you get with someone else, and the quality of the relationship will be vastly improved. In a way, the book has to acknowledge this, but worms out of it by saying that you should wait a little bit but not too much.

It encourages some establishment, because really that's what works, but cautions against too much establishment or else there will be a temptation to have sex. That's it' that's the only reason. The best thing about this is that he mentions that Jews became men at 12, so maybe modern people should start working on getting careers earlier instead of waiting so long to go through so much school and really maximizing their potential. Of course, the complicated stuff that we need to do now as opposed to 2000 years ago often need much more training. The complicated social and training structure along with longer lifetimes is outstripping our biology's onset of puberty, and he'd rather shed all that advancement to prevent the hormones from making unwed couples have sex.

Next episode: F: Family Finances

How to stay Closeted as an Atheist - Pt. 2

2011-09-28T16:51:00.000-07:00

This will be a multi-part series about being closeted as an atheist. It's intended to be a guide and a source of comfort.
Part 1 deals with the reasons many people choose to stay closeted.
Part 2 deals with actual advice and tactics.

There's one incredibly important bit of life-advice that I feel takes precedence over any other advice about staying hidden. Work towards your financial independence. Start saving money, looking at the cost of objects, and stop eating out. Put birthday cash, paychecks and allowances into a separate (secret) bank account. If you are under 18, legally your parents can take everything you own, which will not help much if they decide to kick you out as well. Sure kicking you out of the house is illegal, and while the law varies from state to state, the most likely solution from Child Protective Services is they will force your parents to take you back, or provide alternative shelter for you (i.e. military school, Christian re-education camps).

If you are over 18, look into government aid: food stamps, subsidized housing, and other services. Get a job if you can and do everything possible to save money and sever their financial hold over your life. This is the advice I wish I'd had first and foremost on dealing with fundie parents. It may be tough to save up and focus on the long-term, but it's vital.

Part 2: How to keep your non-belief a secret

I'd like to reiterate that all of these pieces of advice are aimed at atheists who need to stay in the closet, for financial, emotional and physical health.

The key is to always keep a low profile. Accept that there will be something you constantly have to hide, shove down and bite your tongue about. It will be emotionally draining, and it will hurt. And I am truly sorry that you will have to deal with that. I know when I had to keep closeted, I got through it by repeating to myself that I just had to make it through one more day with my Stepford Christian Wife smile, and just focused on getting through life one day at a time. Any time I contemplated suicide, I argued myself into just waiting it out one year, and if I was still in pain, I'd reconsider then. Little wonder that many teens turn to self-mutilation, hair-pulling, harmful drugs, abusive relationships, or other forms of self-destructive but self-empowering behavior. It can be pure emotional pain, and it's not fair that you have to deal with it.

1. Church/Worship life

Keep a low profile in your church. Attend a regular number of youth services, meetings and volunteer events like car washes, soup kitchen duty or other good works. Many churches do tangible volunteer work or extra bible studies, if you get involved in the lighter stuff, it can make it less suspicious to reject other forms of involvement (teaching/indoctrinating at Sunday School, attending Church Camp). Keep in mind also that if you attend bible studies, you will be well-armed for debating theists when you eventually do come out; having a thorough knowledge of the Bible is very useful.

In general with church, just go along with the flow. Ask non-threatening questions ("what's the best way to love your neighbor?"). Don't argue or disagree, especially in the place of worship. Churches have seen a drop-off in attendance, and they're very wary of losing their flock, especially the younger generations. Pastors are not out to get you, but they will do whatever it takes to save your soul, even if that means getting together for a prayer meeting with the church elders and your family. Church officials are especially worried about their youth, and will watch you like a hawk. Don't give them any reason to suspect you.

2. Social Life

In your social life, keep a low profile. It can be stifling, but go along as best as you can with all the arbitrary rules. Don't give any reason to suspect. Dress modestly and cleanly, hang out with approved friends, don't talk back, reject excessive alcohol and drugs (this will also help you save some money, by the way), keep your hormone forays under wraps.

Are those kinds of demands sort of arbitrary and over-the-top? Yes, they are. You should have the chance to experiment with your own style, fun and love interests. You should have parents who support and protect you, while allowing you to discover yourself. Unfortunately, the religion is interested in placing itself at the center of attention, it loathes any competition and tries aggressively to stomp them out. Most Christian denominations also love saving troubled teens; the recovered from drugs, alcohol and sin is a favorite story. They will go after you aggressively.

If you do want to have your fun and avoid suspicion, do your best to lie. Lying can be tough; it's easy to forget the little parts and it can be easy to get caught. Come up with a story and stick to it. The best way to create a convincing lie is to substitute small details. For example, instead of talking about the atrocities in Leviticus in your school's Atheist Club, you talked about God's Laws in your school's Church Club. (Don't attend the atheist club meetings if you find that too risky). Interestingly, I was discovered because of my social life, dating Russell Glasser was kept under wraps until my parents noticed a suspiciously large phone bill to some person in Texas.

3. Family Life

Your family will be the ones that will notice signs of your irreligion most, simply because they are around all the time and it gets too exhausting to keep your guard up all the time. They won't be looking for signs that you are straying, but they will simply have the advantage of more opportunities to catch you. They will notice if you sigh at saying Grace, if you aren't praying, if you seem less than excited about going to Church. Do your best to initiate those sorts of things on occasion. If you are accused of being lackluster, don't get defensive, because that is a definite warning sign. Let them know you will pray for guidance.

If you have younger siblings, it can be tough, but don't try to deconvert them. For starters, they may snitch if they're concerned or just feeling vindictive. You don't have to participate any more than you feel comfortable in the indoctrination of your brother or sister, but think about their situation: they will be living with your family for longer than you. It will be easier for them to cope and fit in if they are still true believers, if you successfully pull them out of ignorance but not out of financial independence, they will be in the same miserable boat you are now. Let them keep their faith, and later after you've achieved independence, you can come out to them.

4. Internet Life

The internet can actually be a place for you to find a supportive social group, but it has its own dangers. With everything written down, it creates sets of undeniable and concrete documents that can really be incriminating. The advantage is probably in your court here, because it's entirely possible that your parents don't know how to fully take advantage of extracting information from your computer.

When browsing the internet, use Private Browsing / Incognito Mode, a mode that prevents history from being recorded. Keep tabs on your history and cookies; delete any that might be suspicious. Make sure to purposefully visit Christian sites so that they do get logged in the history. Some parents may be fancy enough to install a keylogger, without telling you. Check your computer's processes. When it comes to hiding your internet activities, there are plenty of resources from all the people interested in hiding their porn searches, and that might be a good place to start looking for advice.

Most importantly, watch what you say and how it can be traced back to you through Google, Facebook, or other social networks. Create a separate account and personality for any atheist-friendly activities you do online. Have separate Blogger accounts, emails, and forum usernames. Make sure that your real name, email and other identifying information is never tied to the atheist one. For more detailed guides on how to hide identities, look for information on how to protect your privacy online, how to make your social networks presentable to businesses. Interestingly, I believe that advice on how to hide an affair would be relevant as well.

5. Seek support secretly

Without having a support system, life can get very lonely. Know that there are people who care and want to help, and are facing similarly frustrating situations. The internet is probably the best and easiest way to find a kindred community, and do so with the least amount of danger. There are plenty of blogs, forums, TV shows, and chat rooms where you can talk to others and ask for help and emotional support, and offer it to others.

There are also probably other people locally who are going through the same troubles, although it can be more dangerous. Look for people who don't close their eyes and bow their heads when they pray, take note of members of the Atheist Club and talk to them outside of the meeting (or go to the tamer Philosophy Club). Remember to keep these social connections hidden and switched up in code.

It is tough and unfair to have to keep this huge secret. It can be painful, but sometimes it's a better place than having to deal with cruel and fundamentalist families. These measures can often help safeguard physical and mental well-being. It's sad to me that the threat of atheism can often cause such tears in families, and force people into these painful positions. But it's important to know how to tackle the problem.

The next parts will have to deal with being uncloseted, and how to support others who are in the closet.

How to stay Closeted as an Atheist - Pt.1

2011-09-23T13:38:00.000-07:00

This will be a multi-part series about being closeted as an atheist. It's intended to be a guide and a source of comfort.
Part 1 deals with the reasons many people choose to stay closeted.
Part 2 deals with actual advice and tactics.

Part 1: Why Stay Closeted

Coming out can be incredibly tempting, but it might not always be feasible. Before going much further, this is aimed at youth still living with and dependent on their family, although I will deal with other situations later.

There is a very strong human desire to be accepted and loved for the person you are. We want to be a part of the social community, we want to love and be loved, and we realize that love is not exactly real if part of it is a deception. There will be that thought, "Does my family really love me, or just the fake version of me I present?" It can be very tempting to expose the unlikeable side and hope to still be loved.

There's also a very strong desire not to lie to those we care about. Most of us feel guilty deceiving our loved ones, and there's a strong desire to ditch the guilt. There's a reason that Catholic Confession became so popular: it's nice to have someone to admit our shortcomings to and then be given direction on how to fix what we've done wrong. It can feel very wrong to lie to family, and there's a deep desire to set that right. Confessing can offer a feeling of relief and like taking a step towards putting things right.

However, those feelings are deeply instilled genetic instincts that can often lead people to make poor decisions. Move past them.

Many religious people have been deeply trained to love God and religion more than their family. They know the story of Abraham and Isaac, and if asked, most of them (hesitantly) agree that if God commanded it, they would sacrifice their own child. They aren't allowed to put mortal ties over the needs of their heavenly father, that's a major part of their belief system. If they believe enough, anything that threatens God takes precedence over anything that threatens the family. They have been thoroughly trained that atheists are the enemy, and they will not be accepting or loving of an atheist in the family. It will not happen.

This is completely the fault of the religion, the culture, the indoctrination that promotes God over family. It robs parents out of opportunities to form good and healthy relationships with their family, because that's not what the religion cares about: religion is only interested with promoting itself, and it doesn't care who it hurts in the process. It's a virus. It prevents parents from being as accepting and loving as they should be. It's because of this religion that parents lash out at children and withdraw their love. They have been made to be incapable of loving atheists because of their religion. They won't accept a child who comes out as an atheist. It's unfair, it's wrong, it's despicable, but that's the mindset that they've been pushed into.

The need to be loved is a strong human desire, but it can't be placed above the need to be safe, secure and cared for. If it's likely or even possible for family to react negatively or viciously, don't come out. Realize that the religion has infected their ability to recognize priorities. Realize that they have years upon years of indoctrination, and that takes a long time to sort through and discard. It's not your fault and in a way it's not their fault either. An atheist living with Christian parents is a fantastic, lovable, great person, and they deserve to be properly accepted and loved by their parents. This doesn't always happen. It's better to stay closeted because of this.

Many atheists will also want to come out of the closet because they feel this immense guilt about lying to their family. We humans are honest creatures, and we feel bad about lying (well, as long as we're not psychopaths). It's tough to push through, but that feeling of guilt is unjustified and not useful in this situation. Feeling guilt is for when you've done something wrong, when you've hurt someone. Being an atheist is not something to feel guilty about; you should feel proud that you've applied logic and reason to something you were taught to just accept as a child. Realize that being an atheist is a good and positive trait, and not something to feel guilty about.

In the same vein of rejecting religion, reject the notion of sin as well. Lying is not a sin. This can sound strange, but many lies are positive; take for example lying about hiding a slave refugee, and the impact that can have on the ex-slave's life. Similarly, lying about your religious status can mean a lot of difference on how you get treated. Pretending to be a Christian can sometimes be the only way to prevent financial severance, emotional attacks, hate, bigotry, rejection and even ostracizing. Honesty is a privilege for those with good intentions and goodwill. Honesty is for those who will cherish and care no matter what.

There is no god or higher power who will judge you if you utter falsehoods. There are only real-world implications. So make sure that the real-world consequences will be positive. Feeling guilt can be an irrational emotion in this case, and even if we do recognize that it doesn't fit, it can still plague us. Remind yourself that confessing will only serve to relieve that feeling of guilt, and nothing else. We've already established that family members are forced to accept God first and family second. Being told about your atheism may only cause them to trigger an aggressive attack stance. It may cause a moment of relief from guilt pangs, but it will cause much more long-term damage and emotional pain.

Keep in mind what can be some of the worst-case scenarios. Re-education "boot camps" that are famous for abusing teens, insistence on homeschooling to reduce outside influences, emotional abuse, physical abuse, church/family group religious interventions, attempted exorcisms, refusal of higher education, even expulsion from the household. On the tamer side there can be blackmailing, manipulation, exclusion, disdain, belittling, and other cruelties. Youth have very few rights or resources for addressing these kinds of reactions, making the process and the reactions incredibly dangerous. Youth can be incredibly vulnerable, and it's perfectly acceptable to protect yourself. Staying safe is a high priority.

Of course, not all families will react this way. Many theists are accepting and loving, or at least polite enough to be tolerant. They might be only disappointed and sad, but still accepting of family members. Or they might be indifferent, or even proud. And it's nice to know that there are people out there who will perform the minimum of good parenting. This guide is not about those parents. This is about parents who are likely to react in a volatile manner.

Future segments will deal with concrete strategies.

On the potential rise of "Beliebers"

2011-09-15T15:38:00.000-07:00

(skip to the bit about Christianity?)

First, on the shallow obsession with pop sensations

I'd like to preface this with a note about vacuous teen pop music. I will freely admit right now that I am quite musically ignorant, or at least, educated enough to know how ignorant I am. I played the flute for quite awhile, spending hours each day practicing; my wind orchestra got to travel to Germany and Austria to perform, second best in my class, and in competitions we always swept up first place. But while I do have a musical background, I am pretty out of the loop when it comes to modern music. I can recognize talent, difficulty and good technique, but I don't necessarily have the ability to call specific bands or songs to mind.

That being said, I can easily recognize that Justin Bieber is not a talented or gifted singer, and his songs are mediocre at best. The same with many pop icons throughout the years. I can semi-proudly say that I never found the appeal in The Backstreet Boys or The Spice Girls. I say "semi-proudly" because it's not much of an accomplishment to avoid falling for crappy music. And their music is absolute crap. A whole bunch of love songs based on… well, just romance. Two heterosexual people who love each other for no particular reason. A guy who thinks a girl is amazing. A girl who wants a guy to think she's amazing. Yawn.

Now here comes the perhaps unexpected viewpoint: I never hated or went out of my way to insult them for things other than their music. I never hated Justin Bieber. I was disappointed in his popularity, but to hate someone for being mediocre? Sure, his music's crap, but that's not much basis for spewing venom. I agree it's disappointing that someone so talentless would become so popular, but that's not Justin's fault. It's the fault of the masses who buy into mediocrity. It's an error with human psychology, and to blame Bieber would just be shooting the messenger, in a way.

Besides, interestingly enough, hating on pop stars only makes them more desirable by their fan base. It puts their fans in a position where they have to defend their attraction, and when people are forced to defend their beliefs, those beliefs get strengthened. The more effort you have to put into defending or carrying out an action, the more you will believe it was correct. So hating on Bieber wouldn't dent his popularity, wouldn't change human psychology or the system taking advantage of it, and would actually strengthen his fanbase.

Really the root of the problem is this obsession and promotion of ancient attractiveness markers. Bieber is loved not for his music, but for his features: his symmetrical face and youthful hair. The things that make him attractive are nothing but shallow evolved psychological markers of fitness. It's not a surprise he's mostly popular with heterosexual girls. Same thing with the Backstreet Boys. I remember the girls of my generation professing to me their great love the singers. Apparently they were pretty hot, and their songs were oh-so-romantic.

But this is a problem with what girls are supposed to value. The sexist culture that discourages women from being interested in math and science extends to their idols. If girls are told that intelligence is unimportant, why would they care if the guy they like has a brain or not? He just needs to be handsome. If girls are told that what matters is becoming a wife, then what does compatibility matter? All that's needed is some unspecified "love". There is a whole industry and culture that's promoting these ideals, and not necessarily as a conspiracy but just because it's already in place and convenient and makes money.

Bieber is just a symptom of a culture that promotes shallow and superficial as good romantic partners. He'd be out on his talentless ass (or at least limited to photo shoots) if these girls were encouraged to value better kinds of personalities.

What needs to change is to get girls interested in intelligence, to get girls idolizing men who are intelligent, driven, smart and funny. To appreciate real talent instead of some fake crap. To value people who have real imaginations and contributions and abilities to interact and compatible beliefs. I like to say (again semi-proudly) that as a teen I was infatuated with intelligent, driven and skilled people. Nothing could hold a candle to Spock's skeptical eyebrow raise. (And still, I can't truly find a guy attractive unless he's demonstrated a good level of intelligence.)

Now it's all fine and good to be sexually attracted to people for purely physical reasons. That's why porn exists, and girls should be allowed to look at porn. If Bieber were treated as a porn star by these girls, I think there would be no issue. It'd be no different than Stormy Daniels or some such similar lady. I see no problem with girls thinking about Bieber as some sort of meat, and not giving two shakes about his personality. But they're not. He's treated with the sort of attraction reserved for romantic partners. These girls are not separating the physical attraction from the romantic attraction, and so they become enamored with a vacuous personality.

The consequences of Bieber Fanaticism

This shallow love for his personality has consequences. He's expected to give some details about his life and his beliefs. And, no surprise, those beliefs are just as shallow and unintelligent as his music. He admits he doesn't think about deep issues. So it's no surprise that he views himself as a devoted Christian and promoter of faith and is working to promote that with his songs, interviews and twitter. He aims to cultivate "Beliebers" with his newest book “Justin Bieber: ambassador of Christ".

He's being used, just like The Jonas Brothers and the Twilight Saga to promote Christianity to teen girls in a shallow manner. The Christianity is being packaged along with all the other shallow messages. It's working because the girls are romantically attracted to these people instead of just sexually attracted. It's tying Christianity to this ridiculous, shallow pop star by appealing to his good looks. The religious culture is promoting this shallow, dumbed-down, skill-less Christian boy as an idol to girls, because really that's all they want girls to be.

And it's this strong tying-in of Christianity that's just the final vacuous straw. It just makes so much sense that he and his agents would tie together the religion with the rejection of thought, the rejection of science, the rejection of intelligence that it makes me furious. These girls are being taught to be good dumb Christians.

Now, I think there is hope. Most girls, I think, grow out of the shallow phase of their lives. They realize there's more to love and romance than just shallow attraction. They do a better job at separating their enjoyment of meat from the need to attach romantic urges to them. They get a good taste in music. Now sure, there are plenty of women who haven't grown out of that. There's a whole group of middle-aged women who think Twilight was written for them. Romance novels sell almost exclusively to post-teen women. Backstreet Boys are still performing. But still, those adult women who enjoy Twilight etc. are I think (hope!), in a minority.

Which means when they grow out of their childish love for Bieber, they will shed the values attached to Bieber. The vacuous fascination with some nebulous "love", the obsession with his face and hair, the desire to date him, and more than likely, the admiration for his devout faith will fall by the wayside as "silly" teen feelings. They'll be viewed as childish. I am willing to wager that at some point in his life, when he is too old to be a pop icon anymore, Bieber will himself be embarrassed by his previous devotion.

In much the same way that Veggie Tales makes Christianity more accessible to children, the cartoon also make the religion as a whole associated with childish behavior. And that's what Bieber, the Jonas Brothers and Twilight are doing: making Christianity into a childish belief. Attaching Christianity to Bieber might be a good way to promote a temporary surge in teenage faith, but that faith will likely wane with the love for Bieber. They're making faith into something shallow and childish. So while I am frustrated at this latest attempt at indoctrination, I wait patiently, knowing that it will inevitably backfire on them. These women will go to college, they will get an education, and their shallow taste in music, men and faith will evaporate. Bieber will become unimportant, and so will the Christianity tied to him.

Lord, Save Us from Your Crappy Propaganda

2011-08-26T22:19:00.000-07:00

All the Christian lunacy lately has left me craving logic and reason. In an attempted knowledge bin, I downloaded all the good-looking documentaries I could find off of Netflix. I got topics covering everything from Carl Sagan's Cosmos, to The Hero's Journey, to Lewis and Clark to the Atheism Tapes and Trembling Before G-D to Gay Sex in the 70's. I haven't gotten through them all, but what I have watched so far has been pretty fascinating and refreshing (namely, Gay Sex in the 70's).

One of the documentaries that I got and put in my "atheism" pile was "Lord, Save me From Your Followers!", which looked like a cheesy, sarcastic and biting documentary about how religious people are douchebags. I was completely wrong. It was a Christian documentary for Christians by Christians.

It had a good 1-minute start, some anti-Christian quotes, and some Christians saying nasty and dumb things. However, my first indication that something was off was the cheesy intro. It had those cheap but "edgy" graphics that old people use when they're trying to look hip, cool and happening to the kids. Words were surrounded by a black rectangular jagged shadow, and the words were aligned at slightly off angles, because that is all edgy. Here's their logo, which perfectly captures the style.

I know that's one thing to focus on, but it was really a symptom of the style of the movie: an attempt to be relevant when it really isn't. I was disappointed with the weird pseudo-hip production quality, but I initially chalked it up to just a poor editor in some indie flick and kept watching.

My first real red flag started when the narrator started talking about how Christians aren't very "Christian", which as you might have noticed, is my pet peeve. Not too long ago, I shredded that little plea in my another. It's very strange to glorify Christianity as a positive thing to aspire towards, it's not an ethical or wise system. The final flag was when the movie portrayed gay rights advocates as intolerant, about 8 minutes or so in. And from then on the movie was a rollercoaster ride of ignorance, bigotry and hate packaged as some kind of positive, loving moral Christian sermon. I was just awestruck at how every turn their evil message was embraced and promoted and excused. I watched that whole thing, and while I knew that I needed to pause and start over to document it, I couldn't look away. So I planned to watch it again, and document each segment.

The narrator starts by giving his background and introduces us to his silly suit - a collection of bumper stickers and Jesus/Atheist fish glued on at random spots onto a white jumpsuit. It looked ridiculous in that same pseudo-hip fashion, like a guy trying too hard to be silly in a youth-orientated way, but is really just demeaning towards the intelligence of his youth organization. Turns out he mentions he's a Christian right off the bat at this point, but I must have missed it in my first viewing.

The nagging begins with various people guilting the audience into not being Christian enough. Bill Maher chastising Christians for not being Christian enough, the one token professor (to give the appearance of intelligence) telling people to look at The Sermon on the Mount and the Red Letters of Jesus. I've already mentioned I've torn apart why it's fantastic that people are not more Christian or Christ-like. He was a nutbag crazypants. And Matt has does a great destruction of the sermon on the mount speech. They transition to talking about how Christianity needs a facelift so that it doesn't look as scary or as hateful. This it turns out, is the core message of the movie. Christianity needs better PR so that it looks loving, while keeping all of the same hate and bigotry.

After taking to people in the streets and getting mixed message about what people think about Christians (equal parts holy, good, loving with fanatical and war-like), he gives the answer - stop framing the question as an antagonistic matter of right and wrong, just come together and don't let it bother you. Now, of course Christians don't want to address these problems and questions in a view of right and wrong, because they will always lose. They are the ones who are wrong. About pretty much everything. So when things are framed in a question of what is true and correct and what is morally superior, they will always lose. Of course they are trying to change the frame. Interestingly, they show an interview with Ann Coulter where she's absolutely right. She believes Jesus would endorse a book that "belittles an entire segment of the American population", and points to the encounter he had moneychangers as an example. The hatred of Ann Coulter is biblically sound, and the makers of this "documentary" have no way to counter that. So of course, they don't. Her hate speech is just glossed over. They never say why this story isn't a Biblically valid example of how to behave. They just give sort of platitude about atheists needing to scapegoat, and give a flashy cut to the next point…

That Christians are no longer able to insulate their youths against arguments and logic outside of the Christian sphere. They can get information from other sources, and this is viewed as a horrible tragedy to them, because of course Christianity crumbles when you give it enough logic and facts and reasoning. It cannot be defended against the onslaught of information. In fact, Christians are realizing this more and more, as you can see in a recent article by Russell at the Atheist Experience blog. Pathetically, the weapon the documentary wields against this anti-indoctrination of teens is a Christian rock band, Battlecry. In addition to the standard songs and sermons, the band also sponsored an anti-gay rally on the steps of the San Francisco capital, which went down about as well as you'd imagine.

The movie rips into the counter-protestors, showing them as blaring bigots, sarcastically calling them "tolerant". In an interview with a Battlecry singer, he admits surprise that he had caused anyone offense, "We had stuck our finger in a hotbed, and we didn't know it." The Christians maintain that they were just innocently holding a rally to praise Jesus, nothing else, and that these rag-tag fags came out to protest that. I absolutely love that they give the standard line, "Oh, we love homosexuals, we just don't like what they do." They came to the gay capital of the world to denounce the evils of being gay, and didn't see why anyone would have a problem with that? How incredibly self-absorbed. It's ridiculous to expect to be able to call someone's love evil, and then be surprised when they disagree.

It's just so clear that it's the same bigotry, the same hate, just repackaged in a more slippery format. After that, they interview a cross-dressing nun, who feels bad that his counter-protest was "yelling at kids". It seems like what they left out or de-emphasized from the interview, was that Sister Mary Timothy means that these kids have been indoctrinated by their parents and by the same church this movie promotes, and that's what needs to really be fought, but these cowards are putting their kids in front of them as some sort of human shield. The movie then goes into this tirade belittling the counter-protestors for being angry and mean, and "sympathizes" that they must have been poorly treated by some Christian in the past, completely overlooking what they are doing right then and right there. They are the ones marginalizing gays, calling them sinful and evil, and calling them to repent. They are the ones protesting an imaginary moral decline. They are the ones doing these things, saying these bigoted statements and pushing these horrible messages.

All of this was only 8 minutes in. I kept intending to follow through and watch more of the video, but I just kept being unable to bring myself to do it. The ignorance, the hate, the self-blame and loathing, the guilt, and so subtly packaged as to be acceptable, mainstream and "moderate". It's disgusting. I can only imagine how much worse it gets, and if I ever get the stomach for it (or a good watching buddy) I'll post on the rest of the movie.

Text Adventure Awesomeness - Call for Testers

2011-07-29T01:46:00.000-07:00

I've got a new adventure game, and I'm looking for testers.

It's hard to believe it's been nearly a year since I released Divis Mortis at last year's Interactive Fiction Competition. There were plenty of other really cool games, like "Leadlight", "The People's Glorious Revolutionary Text Adventure Game", and "One Eye Open" really stick in my mind. The one that was the best, in my opinion, was "The Warbler's Nest" about a mother trying to determine if her baby is really a changeling. It took a dark look at the fantasy that often gets romanticized in adventure games.

Two of the other games released at last year's competition were "The Bible Retold: Lost Sheep" and "The Bible Retold: Following a Star", parts 2 and 3 in a series. The bible stories were overly cutesy and silly and made no sense. As I mentioned in my reviews last year, they felt on par with the children's propaganda Veggie Tales. There was an attempt to bring slapstick to bible stories, which just felt so disingenuous to the real meaning that it was difficult to get past that disconnect.

Anyway, the two authors (who say they're not Christians themselves) have stated that they don't intend to continue the series because of Bible-discriminatory backlash. They think that the problem is people don't want to play a game about the bible. I disagreed. I remember thinking that it was the portrayal and not the subject material that made the games lukewarm and uninteresting. I speculated that a game where you are the Angel of Death in Egypt, tasked with perpetuating the final plague would be much more interesting and memorable, with a real message.

And so I've done it. I made a game where your whole goal is to kill children. It sounds pretty ridiculous, but man, it was a bit of a downer to write. Anyway, I'd love to have fellow Atheists beta test it, and give feedback.

Here's what you can do if you're able to help:

1.
Widows people, download a Z-code interpreter.
Mac people, download a Z-code interpreter.

2.
Message me with an email address. This game cannot be released into the public before the competition, but I can share the game one-on-one with a few testers.

3.
Play the game, making sure to start a >TRANSCRIPT at the beginning, and to make notes in-game using ">* You misspelled Pharaoh there." asterisks.

4.
Send me that transcript, along with any additional notes you have about the game.

The competition is all about judging games on the first 2 hours of play, so short games are encouraged (and this is short, maybe 15 minutes?). The things I really need examined by Atheists are historical/biblical accuracy, but things like broken puzzles grammar mistakes, and weird . spaces or periods in sentences might also need attention.

Thanks in advance, to everyone.

I do have a longer game planned as well, that is a bit less dark, but there's still a LOT of self-testing I need to do on that (as well as 2 or 3 more major features) before it's ready for Beta.

Politeness and Listening Skills

2011-07-11T15:31:00.000-07:00

Many of you fellow Atheists probably have Christian relatives, friends or coworkers who are concerned about your godless status. You see, in their minds your lack of faith upsets their God and He's going to send you to Hell. They probably go out of their way to remind you of that fact... over and over again. "You should just believe so you don't go to Hell", "Aren't you afraid of what will happen if you're wrong?" "Don't you want to be in Heaven with the rest of your family?" etc, etc, etc. To them, they are troubled over your supposed plight, and are trying to save you from a terrible fate. To them, their question seems legitimate. They don't realize how incredibly offensive and/or annoying these sorts of offhand remarks are.

To us Atheists, who have stepped back and looked, we are horrified at the actual implications. A never ending torment, worse than any sort of hot irons, waterboarding, fingernail extraction combination you could imagine. Forever and ever and ever. It's sickening to even think about. Infinitely more suffering for one person than Hitler ever inflicted in his lifetime. Just for not believing in God. This is appalling. Now of course, the theist is just completely ignorant of what a horrible statement and worldview they are endorsing with the concept of Hell. Perhaps they are just focused on Heaven, perhaps they cannot grasp infinity, perhaps their god-loving doublethink does not allow them to admit any sort of wrongdoing from their deity, or perhaps they rationalize it as justifiable, or self-inflicted. However, we Atheists know how horrid the notion of Hell is, and we are just blown away not only by Hell itself, but by the passive endorsement of the concept from Christians.

And of course, many of us Atheists are just annoyed. "Not the same stupid argument appealing to a thing we don't believe exists" we sigh to ourselves. Pascal may have given the argument a name, but it'd be immensely popular without him. Theists view Hell as a real threat and the Bible as divinely inspired, so of course to them whipping out the threat of hellfire is a persuasive argument. They have no idea just how unpersuasive threats of hell are to us Atheist, and that's the problem.

Those Christians don't realize how we Atheists feel about being "reminded" of Hellfire. They don't understand how offensive and annoying bringing up damnation can be. So if, or when, an Atheist asks a theist to stop bringing up Hell, they can't really grasp the request. Refusing blissful salvation makes no sense to them. To them, they're just stating a fact and offering a polite reminder, and they're being very underwhelming, in fact, with their persuasive techniques considering how serious this Hell stuff really is. They'll probably never understand the disgust of Hell because they can't looked at the issue from a non-believer's perspective. And so, they dismiss the request and "silly" and "dumb" and "impolite" the Atheist just being standoffish. They don't understand the Atheist's feelings, and so they reject them as invalid. They don't honor the request, they get peeved at perceived conversation control, and if given a more detailed explanation for the request, they dismiss the explanations too.

That's pretty close-minded. A good rule of thumb when dealing with sensitive topics around minorities (or individuals) is to trust what that minority or person is saying. For instance, many people might not know that "tranny" is an offensive term, akin to "Nigger", "Fag" or "Dyke". The proper term is "trans person" "trans" or just "male" or "female" (depending). I have seen people within the TG community explain this, and I take their word on it. (A good argument I saw in their explanation was that basically if the slang is commonly used in porn, it's usually a slur). The point being that those theists who keep preaching to their atheist friends about hell after being asked not to are being assholes. It's a scummy move to continue to do something offensive, defend the offensive behavior, or in any way ignore complaints from someone who is pointing out breeches in social niceties, and most of us Atheists have been on the receiving end of those sorts of scummy moves.

With all that said, I'd like to move on and give my opinion on what happened with Rebecca Watson in the elevator.

I have heard a lot of people defending Mr. 4AM, insisting that what he did was not an uncomfortable social faux pas. I've heard arguments saying that she was not in danger and that there was nothing sexual about the offer. Mostly I've heard arguments that this woman should not have gotten uncomfortable, she should have not announced her discomfort to others, and most of all she should not have told others not to make people uncomfortable in that way. I've seen these excuses from men and women; this is not a gender issue but an empathy issue.

The people down at Atheist Experience have already made some great arguments for why Rebecca was correct, and have expressed their frustration for the Atheist Community's endorsement of their right to make people feel uneasy without good reason. Russell's post especially did a great job of showing why that sort of "It's a free country I can do what I want" argument is just a jackass way to ignore being empathetic, and while it seems like there's not much more to say on the issue, I do have a slightly different way to communicate the issue.

I read Reddit pretty regularly, and at about the same time that this was getting really heated, someone submitted a completely unrelated cartoon story that pretty nearly mimicked Rebecca's experience. Reddit user Hatesauce narrated this 2-part saga (cliffhanger resolved) about a scary social exchange that happened late at night.

(For those who can't see the images: Basically what happened was that a 3AM, a scary-looking neighbor knocked on his door asking for a lighter "for a birthday cake". After the redditor said he didn't have one, and suggested going to a gas station for one, the neighbor asked for him to open the door and rattled the door knob, attempting to open his front door. In part 2, this cliffhanger ending is resolved with the attempt failing (it was locked), but the neighbor noticing a dime and sticking fingers underneath the door in reaching for a lucky dime.)

The joke of the cartoon is in the funny expressions and relatable horror of the encounter. I'd say most people agree that this experience was genuinely scary and threatening, and both stories happening so late at night certainly adds to the unease.

But, most of the objections leveled against Watson can be used against this cartoon as well. First of all, there was no real danger. The door was locked and the man was thus safe on the other side of the door. This is much more safe than being enclosed in a metal closet and pressing a button to escape, the scary man can't even reach the protagonist! And yet, I think we'd both agree, there is something quite scary and terrifying about this, even without the pressing threat of physical harm. The threat is still there, underneath the surface, with that sort of invasion of personal space and typical methods of interaction.

Second of all, this neighbor was only asking for a lighter. He made no reference to threats of harm, drugs, or an intention to steal, as some people may have speculated. He was only asking for a lighter for his birthday cake. If Rebecca assuming that the coffee meant something sexual was silly, then the door-answerer is similarly silly for assuming some sort of alternative motive. The fact that they don't directly propose what they are actually after doesn't matter. Humans are creatures of nuance and subtly; we don't always express our feelings or desires directly. (Although I have to admit, I have no idea what the door-knocker guy wanted, but I seriously doubt it was a lighter for his 3AM birthday cake.)

Finally, we come to the final bit the matches up - announcing the discomfort to others. Only here does the cartoon slightly deviate from Rebecca's story. Obviously both people made their stories public, but for the cartoon instead of telling the story straight, a bit of comedy is interjected, with the fear and the horror given (exaggerated) facial expressions. Perhaps seeing the pictures makes it easier to relate to. Maybe if Rebecca had make the story into a cartoon, the story would have made more sense. Here it is in a similar format. Does it make more sense now?

The other major change is that the cartoon's story did not involve the artist asking the public not to do the creepy behavior; that is, there was no panel that said, with a frightened face turning towards the audience, "Please don't do that people, it'll make your neighbors feel uncomfortable."

And I think that it's this part that most people have the problem with - someone trying to ask them to behave in a certain way socially. And I think being offended by social requests is ridiculous. As with my example earlier of the Christian who continues to lecture about Hell after being asked to stop, it's a scummy thing to do, even if you can't see that from your perspective. This part is just so ridiculous, I don't even want to touch it. Russell did a better and more thorough explanation of this aspect on the AE blog, I suggest you consult that for further reading.

Amway Makeover

2011-06-04T21:49:00.000-07:00

So I've been keeping busy on the skeptic front, but in a slightly different way. Many of you may or may not know, but one of the first things that ever made Russell a famous internet star was a website he made about how Amway is a scam. Long story short - he was being recruited, took awhile to think about it, rejected the offer, was teased by Amwayites, and vowed an internet vengeance. Russell's story itself is fantastic. It's a great reminder that even those of us raised as skeptics need to constantly be vigilant, after this was a 4th generation atheist almost sucked into one of America's biggest financial scams. That, and Russell is fantastic with his ability to tell a story and write convincingly. I recommend checking it out.

Now, if any of you are wondering what Amway is, I can sum that up too. Basically it's a pyramid scam where you sell soap/toothpaste/chips/computer/cars/etc and recruit others to do the same. Everyone up the chain gets a cut, and you're required to sell X number of products each week. Except nobody buys their toothpaste etc. from neighbors, so individuals end up just buying all that stuff themselves. On top of that, there's enormous pressure to constantly buy and listen to motivational tapes, books and seminar tickets. Only the top layer of recruiters who viciously market their motivational material make any money. This sort of structure happens in pretty much any MLM.

Anyway, as the years went on, the site fell by the wayside and has been gathering dust for quite awhile. I enjoyed the story so much, that I figured it was time for a spruce-up, so I went and redid the filing system, added some tactful color, and gave it a slightly better format, checked for outdated links, and tweaked the FAQ page just to bring it a few years forward.

I have to admit, my own website design know-how is a bit rusty, but I think that it actually came together quite nicely, with a system that's not only easier to navigate but slightly easier on the eyes. I'd still like to web 2.0 it a bit, but I tried my best to keep true to the original feel while still maintaining the original feel. Here's a picture of the old style, just so you have something to compare it to:

Yikes, eh? The new layout:

The other thing that I did was organize all the emails by month instead of just by really large chunks. Apparently there are hundreds upon hundred of other un-uploaded emails locked away in zip files somewhere, but it was enough work just redoing those several years. Honestly, reading through all the email responses was one of the major perks of restructuring the site; it's a bit like listening to Atheist Experience callers. Here are a few choice samples that just scream out their religious indoctrination parallels:

"Since I have been involved in this business, my productivity and joy for life have increased. This is not because I am in a cult or brainwashed. Public schooling brain washed me more that this does."

"I have been researching internet sites about Amway for about a year. I am interested in the business. My research is pretty extensive and I have found that the negative sites involve personal anger and frustration much more than the other sites. [...] Do you realize that your research only picked up the negative and you automatically assumed complete truth in the "cult" stuff?"

"found your story both insightful and funny, and have to compliment you on what you were able to "discover" in such a short period of time while never actually becoming an Amway distributor or using their products."

"In the Amway structure, the folks at the entry level bear the risk of nonprofitability by receiving virtually no money until their organization generates sufficient revenue to justify the creation of profit. What is wrong with that?"

You catch all those religious-typed arguments? Amway has made my life better! Why would you put all this effort into being negative about something other people enjoy? You can't dismiss Amway because you're not even an Amway scholar! What's wrong with having a chosen few at the top while the damned languish at the bottom? It's amazing to watch the fanatical fervor with which these people defend their poor financial decisions because they can't admit that they're wrong. Amway is designed to scam money out of people while at the same time making those people absolutely devoted to the cause, much in the same way religion tells you to fear God's wrath and hellfire, while in the same time basking in God's love.

It encourages this crazy double-think where you have to push away the thoughts about how horribly the system doesn't match up with reality (after all, you're losing money...). Reality just gets shoved back and they end up investing so much that they can't admit that the system doesn't work, and they just push harder.

One of my favorite pro-Amway arguments is from a guy who was in the business for somewhere around 5 years, defended the system vigorously, but when it came time to admit how much money he'd won/lost with the business, he uses the line-fed cop out, "I don't discuss my finances with strangers. Sorry, nothing personal." As if the finances of a business that requires you to recruit others are better off private! It just reeks of the faith argument: just have faith that I'm making money, okay? You don't need to see spreadsheets or balanced numbers, just go off of personal faith. That's at least better than the noble lie for Amway: where ex-Amway people admit they lied to others about their finances to feel better about their investment.

Interestingly enough, the whole Amway business forcefully tied itself to religion, promoting itself as equal with faith and patriotism. The business had a pretty blatant religious angle, promoting the American God who wants individuals to become successful businessmen via the amazing system of Capitalism and Free Market Enterprise. One guy chose to write in with this "insult" "I bet you don't even believe in God!". Heh. They lumped in some gloppy sexism with it too, insisting that when it came to Amway or the wife (because the men do the business), you should choose Amway over your wife. The company really sold itself on this crazy warped American ideal, and piecing all the psychological pieces together made for some amazing reading.

Really demonstrating this mind-flaying brainwashing is this one fantastic story about attending Amway seminars written on April 5th, 2000. This guy really goes into the detail of how Amway uses all sorts of sleep-deprivation, peer pressure and constant reinforcement techniques to nail in their victims and make them devout followers. I highly recommend reading it, if nothing else.

And then of course, there's all the stories from ex-Amway victims looking to let off steam by sharing their stories, and concerned letters from people that know others who got sucked in. It all makes for a really great read, really fantastic stuff.

So go and check out Russell's story, read through some of the mail, and really enjoy yourself. It's been a fantastic lot of fun fixing this all up, and I'd love to see it get more light because there are some really great stories in there.

Post-rapture wrap-up: Skeptics and Doubt

2011-05-23T09:08:00.000-07:00

(See Part 1: Christians in the Skeptic seat)

2. We're Atheists because we doubted

One thing that I haven't really seen talked about is a reaction that I think many skeptics and atheists had in reaction to the Camping claim: a brief moment of doubt. I say that I think many skeptics have had this, because I know I did and I am extrapolating. That, and I know that admitting to a "moment of weakness" by considering religious claims can be embarrassing to admit to in a community that has thoroughly rejected religious claims to be false and in a community where any admittance to considering a religious claim is viewed as a foot in the door to those peddling religion. We'd prefer to not to allow any footholds for the same old debate.

But I think that the truth is, we atheists gave the claim some thought. We stopped and considered the other side. We were the ones who were momentarily open-minded enough to consider that we were wrong. If you had pinned down one of us and asked how how certain we were that the rapture wasn't going to happen, we would have probably told you that we were over 99% certain, but that there was the slimmest of the possibility that we were wrong, because we are intellectually honest. To contrast, ask any Camping believer how certain they were, and they'd have said 100% without hesitation.

The Camping believers didn't allow themselves any level of doubt, any amount of considering the other side. It's 100% certainty that they're right. The only mistake they made was believing in something that was testable. They made something will be demonstrated right or wrong. If the claim had been that the rapture will be in 100 years, they'd have continued on with their complete certainty their whole life, most likely. There wouldn't have been the opportunity for doubt.

Then when the rapture didn't happen, their response was complete confusion, backpedaling and excusing. "I thought it would happen, maybe this was a test? Maybe we saved enough people to call it off?" They are still clinging to that certainty, their faith. Their reactions are still in the context of not allowing for a "Plan B" at all, as they themselves said. While the responses from affected believers has been scarce, I have yet to see responses along the lines of "I was wrong. This was wrong, our faith and thoughts were wrong." Imagine for contrast's sake if the rapture had happened, what would the skeptic's response? "I guess I was wrong, but it seemed really unlikely." Their first reaction would be, "I was wrong even though I was really rather certain it wouldn't happen."

For the Christians, they was no admittance that the other side might be in the right. As mention before, they believed 100%, no plan B. Interestingly enough, even on the disbelieving side, non-Camping Christians would tell you with 100% certainty that this man was a false prophet, and that he shouldn't be given any validity. They would have left no room for doubt, even to consider this man's position. The problem isn't with the rapture or not the rapture, it's with believing things 100%. The problem is with the 100% certainty.

Now of course, this isn't saying that you should just leave your brain open to allow for any old claim, or to give equal weight to all claim. Giving all claims equal weight is a fallacy much worse, in my opinion, than believing in one claim 100%.

But it is to say that <1% of uncertainty skeptics gave to the rapture claim was an admirable and proper response. That amount of weight allows for a claim not to be dismissed outright, but to be given enough time to be dismissed based on logic instead of a knee-jerk. While we didn't give much mental effort to the other side, we did give some mental effort. And giving that mental effort is the important part of being a skeptic. Many of us started out christian. And dismissing anti-christian with a knee-jerk is what keeps people in the religion. When we were Christians, what brought us out of that belief was admitting we might be wrong, and thinking about the other side, even if briefly. That less than 100% certainty allowed many of us to leave Christianity. The doubt is the hallmark of a good skeptic.

Now of course to recap the rapture on may 21st was a claim that didn't deserve more than a couple of seconds of thought. We saw that this guy just pulled a number out of a hat (well out of a book) and we've already done the thinking on all of the other god nonsense, so we were able to quickly put 2 and 2 together. We gave it a moment, but not any more than that. We din't agonize over it. We did the mental calculation and moved on, content with our 99%+ certainty. We give it exactly the amount of thought and contemplation that it deserves: a couple of seconds. But that's more contemplation than the Camping Christians would have given on the 20th to the claim that they were wrong.

And that's why we're better at discerning the truth. We are open-minded enough to give the other side a glance, and then decide what to do from that. Frequently enough, after that glance the proper course of action is to ignore and move on. In fact, the vast majority of the time that's the correct response to these kinds of religious claims. But that ability to think about it first is what makes us good skeptics and truth-seekers. We care about truth, are willing to consider if we're wrong and admit if we ever make a mistake. That's to me the unsung message of this whole rapture debacle.

Post-rapture wrap-up: Christians in the skeptic's seat

2011-05-23T06:47:00.000-07:00

Well, the Rapture has come and gone with much more of a whimper than a bang, and while it was painfully obvious what was going to happen, I think that there are two important points to bring up about this from the atheist/skeptic perspective. First of all, this makes a great teachable moment for mainstream religion. The contempt for Camping's irrationality is the same sort of contempt that atheists have for mainstream religion. With that said, the second point is that skeptics reject the rapture claim because it's something they logically examine, instead of something just dismissed out of faith.

1. A lesson for Christians about how it feels to be an Atheist

The vast majority of people, even Christians, believed that these May 21st rapturites were crazies. To atheists, this was amusing and strange, after all the average Christian believes in The Rapture. They believe that everything Camping claimed would happen was true, they just disagreed on the specific claim of the date (dateism) and the ability to know the date (gnosticism). To sum up, most Christians were in the position of Agnotic Adateists, while Camping was a Gnostic Dateist. They were carefully hesitant to believe in a faith-driven claim.

For this fringe group, the mainstream christians got thrust into the position usually taken up by Atheists. They knew that these claims had no merit, had no evidence behind them, and they took a position very similar to atheism about that specific claim. Now, they dressed it up with verses about "false prophets" and "no man can know the date" but the reality is that they'd have rejected those claims even without those verses. The verses were just an excuse to support their own skepticism. Of course, it's too bad that they can't just cite their own rational thinking, but must hide their disbelief behind the guise of having even better faith, but that's another topic. The fact is, that these people accepted that it wasn't good enough to accept a claim based on faith or divination. They needed more. And that's what we atheists say all the time.

That's exactly how atheists feel about most christians. Atheist feel that most christians are just believing in some person's word on faith without any reason or evidence. We feel that the divination happening now or 2000 years ago doesn't matter. It's still silly to believe in.

Interestingly enough, mainstream Christians didn't stop at just ignoring or dismissing Camping's belief, but they thought it was bad enough to deserve scorn, ridicule, anger and frustration. Now sure, many Christians were emotionally sympathetic, and many Christians were just trying to distance their own beliefs from "the real crazies", but the fact remains that many people thought this was ridiculous, and heaped on the scorn and teasing. Or they got angry and Camping stealing life savings to support his mansion and cars along with the billboards and bus ads. They were disappointed with the wayward believers, and they were angry with the stolen money lining this liar's pockets. But of course, this is how we atheists feel about the mainstream religion's manipulation of purse strings. And of course the everyday church budget all across the nation, wasting money on adverts, radio shows, mission trips, buildings, full salaried positions, mansions, expensive cars, etc. every day at every street corner. We are upset with the huge evangelists stealing and wasting people's lifesavings (albeit a small amount at a time) on a lie and a falsehood. It makes us upset to see people so manipulated and exploited, and we are angry at the perpetrators and frustrated with the gullible. The only difference is that the specific date wasn't a mainstream adaptation, and that it was visibly and suddenly demonstrated to be wrong (as opposed to the gradual realization that 6-day creationism is wrong, for example). The atheist position is to be frustrated by these sorts of claims that affect lives, and now many Christians have gotten a taste of what it's like with this highly publicized but clearly wrong faction of Christianity.

With that point said, I'd like to make an aside:

I am rather sure that nobody affected by the rapture letdown will read this post, but if you do, know that everyone makes mistakes. When you believe things on faith alone, there's no way to filter out the rational from the irrational. That is why we skeptics do not believe things on faith. We want evidence and reason. It was faith, not you, who made this mistake. It was the world who told you that believing things for no reason is a virtue. It was the religion who manipulated you and used that to take your money. You are already suffering enough. Now that you've been shown to be wrong, take the time to mourn, and when you're ready come join us in the rational camp.

Continue with Point 2: Skeptics and doubt.

On right-to-act and promoting good

2011-04-16T14:55:00.000-07:00

I've run into a very interesting phenomena recently where a mean or backwards or bigoted action happens, observers comment on how that is a bad action, and then it's defended with the plea "but they have a right to do that". This magical invocation of rights is both baffling and frustrating, to say the least. It seems to be playing into the bad behavior by shielding it with a non sequitur of "rights". This defense seems to say that as long as an action is legal, it's immune from criticism. The "rights" argument is such a non-defense, that it's almost as bad as when theists appeal to faith: they're both admitting that the argument is lost. But let's give this some more concrete examples, hmm?

Let's say a major pharmacy labels and sells its own homeopathic water. Now sure, homeopathic remedies are legal as long as they don't make any claims, but is it still ethical or wise or good or moral to do so? No. It's not a good thing for a pharmacy to be selling this crap, and making money from doing it is no excuse. Any good-minded citizen would have a problem with their pharmacy selling and endorsing junk, so they call out the pharmacy doing so. They protest, petition and campaign for a positive change: the removal of homeopathic water from the shelves. This is a good step forward for all parties involved (except the scam artists).

It's at this step that I've noticed that for some unfathomable reason, a slew of people will band together defending the pharmacy for exercising its rights to carry junk. As if that means that asking and pressuring them to stop carrying that junk is somehow violating their rights. As if speaking out about something sketchy is more heinous than the sketchy act itself. In this appeal to "rights", the focus is shifted away from what we should want, should encourage and should aspire towards, and moves just towards accepting what is. It also says that the rights of the wrongdoer to do wrong trump the rights of the people to protest. This is ridiculous.

Very frequently businesses do incredibly shady and immoral things that happen to be okay with the law. That doesn't mean we should just roll over and accept them. We have an equal right (and superior ethical standing) to push for a better change, whether that's by lobby the company or lobbying for a change in the law, and by working together positive changes can and will occur. But that collective power to push for a better change should never be dismissed by defending a bad decision.

I've seen this happen on small scale as well. Perhaps one person makes a bigoted slur, others point out how wrong this is, and still others pile in defending the slur by invoking "free speech". Free speech has nothing to do with encouraging others not to be an asshole. If the only way you can defend something you've said is not with the befit that it has but by simply saying that you're allowed to, then you're just being a scumbag, and we have the ability to call that kind of statement out as scummy. Not only that, but recognizing and belittling and making socially unacceptable bigoted comments is a positive thing. Shaming bigoted comments is a positive way to move forward our society. Sure they have a right to be bigoted, but unless there is some sort of government censorship law going on, defending it just makes no sense.

There is a reason that "lawful vs chaotic" and "good vs evil" are on separate planes when it comes to alignment. An action can be lawful and yet still evil, and that is what these kind of things - selling quackery, slurring minorities, and donating to bigots - are: they are lawful evil. Should lawful evil be socially defended or excused? No! Evil actions should always be shamed and shunned, and depending on their legality they should maybe be prosecuted. But defending them is just counter-productive to bettering society.

(**Now, a slight caveat. Sometimes people instead decide to shame good or neutral actions, for example a man wearing a skirt and heels out in public. This isn't an evil action, it's not harming anyone or being cruel or insulting to anyone. Public shaming of that sort isn't designed to add more good to the world, but to force people into specific kinds of social boxes. The aim of social pressure should be for bettering mankind, not promoting some kind of arbitrary social norm.**)

How "The Sims" helped make a skeptical point

2011-04-13T10:28:00.000-07:00

I'll preface this by saying that I frequently enjoy less-than-current games. One of my more enjoyed franchises has been The Sims, I'm not afraid to admit. It's fun to play a positive game about improving lives and working hard, and I really appreciate the fact that same-sex coupling is treated with complete nonchalance. It does have its faults - the promotion of a life system where your happiness can be purchased by constantly buying new things - but no game is perfect.

So anyway, I was playing Sims Castaway Stories, (which, interestingly enough happened to be lead game designed by Jeff Dee), when Russell's son Ben comes up to me. He sees the character creation page, and after creating a horrific monster with all the facial features slid to one extreme or the other, he asks to help create a copy of himself.

We make his physical likeness just fine, and then it comes to matching his personality. We carefully weigh his different traits, likes and dislikes before we come to an acceptable representation of his personality. Now every Sims game that I've ever played has used astrological signs as shortcuts to assign personality points to different triads. Click on a sign, and the personality points change to a pre-fab setting. I've never liked this passive endorsement of woo woo, but I've always just sort of tolerated it.

It was just at this moment between completion and pressing "finished" that Ben glances over and notices that his Sims astrological sign doesn't match his real-life sign. He makes an exclamation to that effect and moves the mouse to change it. I cry out in protest, but too late. He makes the switch too fast for me to stop him, and completely lose the correct personality. He looks at the screen confused, "But that's my sign?" he asks. He doesn't realize that in the game, there is a real implication for picking your sign; he thought it was some sort of just fluff trait.

I calmly explain that in the game that astrological signs are actively tied to personalities. Your sign actually represents how an avatar will behave in-game. I explain that his personality doesn't fit his sign, because the astrological signs have just been made up. It's all just guesswork and arbitrary assignment. Really, there was only about a one in twelve chance of him getting a personality that matched his because it was just chance. Stripped of the ability to make general platitudes and given concrete values, astrological signs fail to match up with reality.

Russell and I have explained why Astrology is bunk to Ben before, but I've always come away with the feeling that it didn't sink in. He'd usually end the conversation with, "Yeah, but my forecasts tend to be right…" and at that age, sometimes the numbers game and the Barnum Statements and the ignoring misses can be hard to explain effectively. Here was a time where his forecast was demonstrably wrong. And they were wrong because they applied hard figures to usually soft predictions. As we clicked the personality stats back to their representative position, Ben watched as the star chart flickered wildly before settling on some other sign, I could see the lesson clicking for him: Astrology doesn't really represent who I am; it has no basis in fact; it's just all made up.

And The Sims: Castaway Stories happened to do a way better job of this than any demonstration or argument than Russell or I had made ourselves in the past. Sometimes good skeptical teachable moments come in odd and unexpected places, so always be ready to make it into a lesson.

But why don't you check the wardrobe for Narnia, just in case?

2011-04-08T14:58:00.000-07:00

Pascal's Wager is the argument that I get most frequently from my caring Christian family. It's very difficult to counter, because when you have a kindly, genuinely concerned grandma telling you that she doesn't want you to suffer, and what do you have to lose if you believe, but Christianity's wrong? When dealing with families, often the goal is very different than to persuade the Xtian that they're wrong. The goal is to demonstrate that this is an argument that doesn't affect you at all, that you are happy how you are, and you would appreciate not being proselytized to.

I know of two common responses. One goes: Well, what if you're wrong and Christianity is actually the wrong religion? What if Islam is real, or some African water spirit? But the thing is, I've had this question but to me when I was a theist, and I didn't get the argument at all. Those religions are "obviously" fake. It didn't make any sense to compare the truth with a fake religion. It felt like I was discussing a local bill trying to come off as intellectual interjected, "Oh yeah? Well, what if 9/11 was an inside job?" I'd just roll my eyes at the stupidity of the other comment. Bringing up other religions as potentials for the truth just activates a built-in bullshit detector. They're already inoculated against giving other religions a chance at being right, so it doesn't really give the impact that the argument needs. It also muddies the issue: are you defending Isalm as a viable alternative?

Now, the "what if you're wrong" argument has its place. It's a good way to demonstrate that Christianity is just as silly as the other religions. It's just a regional myth that Christians happened to be stuck with because of their parents.. It deserves just as much intellectual respect (read: none) as other religions. It introduces the idea that not everyone agrees that Christianity is the one true religion, an important fact that is important for indoctrinated people who have been raised to think of only one religion. The argument of "what if you're wrong?" can be very important in contributing to the deconversion of someone who genuinely cares about the truth. But remember, you're dealing with concerned grandparents.

The other argument I've heard, I've found much more merit in: comparing their religion to a fictional book character. Usually I hear the fear of hell being compared with the fear of Voldermort. It's not really scary, because it's not real, and that's what you're conveying. The fact that this isn't scary for you because it's not real. My only quibble with this method is bringing up Voldermort. Harry Potter has already gotten enough fundie ire for promoting witchcraft, that I hesitate to draw attention to it as an argument against believing in Christianity. Some people are legitimately afraid of Harry Potter for promoting witchcraft; they don't see it as fictional. Mentioning Voldermort can also evoke a bit of a self-defense sympathy shut-down, even if it's subconsciously. So after some thought, I've come up with a better comparison: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

This classic Christian-styled myth doesn't set off wary alarm bells, and it's a story that many people know very well. To us atheists, using Pascal's wager is akin to telling us that we should buy up wardrobes and check them frequently in case one has opened up a portal to Narnia. Imploring us to buy at least one cheap wardrobe, before we die, just doesn't make any sense to us. We simply don't believe that any wardrobe at any time will ever lead to Narnia. Even if a wardrobe was gifted to us, we wouldn't indulge requests to check it nightly for Aslan, because we believe the Narnia story to be fiction. While it wouldn't take much effort (or even much money considering) to check a wardrobe for Narnia frequently, it doesn't make sense to do this. This is why we aren't Christians. No matter how small the amount of work you have to do to get right with God, it's not worth it for something that doesn't exist. Similarly, we're never going to be afraid of The White Witch. And quoting scripture is as persuading as quoting Mr. Beaver.

This is my new favorite variation to use on family because it conveys the message of why we don't just acquiesce to Pascal's wager. It allows us to clearly state our position without activating instant self-protecting blinders that happen with mentioning other religions or a disliked fiction story. It allows them to empathize and understand (although still disagree with) our position. And that's the goal. So the next time a caring family member asks you to reconsider because of heaven or hell, say to them, "I don't believe in heaven or hell in the same way that I don't believe in Narnia, so if you were to ask me to buy a wardrobe and check it frequently for a passage to Narnia, I wouldn't do that either because I don't believe it exists."

Even better would be to pose it as a question to them. "If someone were to tell you that you should buy a wardrobe and check it frequently in case a passage to Narnia opens up, would you do it, even 'just in case'? (waits for no) That's right, because you don't believe that Narnia or a passage to it exists, and that's how I feel when you ask me about heaven." By answering that question, you are forcing them to consider the question and put some thought into it. Asking questions allows them to use their mind and philosophically engage the problem, instead of just letting whatever you say slide off and be ignored.

I did actually get to use an underdeveloped version of this argument against my grandma, who had been trying to appeal to me that there was no harm in just believing anyway. It ended up working pretty well to convey why I don't agree with that argument, so it's something that I will be keeping onto for later.

The Devil is a Dumbass

2011-03-26T09:41:00.000-07:00

One of the more interesting aspects of Christian mythology is the trickster character of The Devil. There's plenty of stories and attributes given to this man, and practically every story depicts the devil being beaten handily and offering no real threat, not even by mortal standards. This foolish imp is bumbling and nothing more than an irritation, which in my opinion is an attempt to bolster the believer's faith and ego, as well as to avoid any real philosophical mind problems. The Devil's nothing but a dumbass strawman.

Take this great song that Pandora's been throwing at me over and over: The Devil Went Down to Georgia. This song is absolutely awesome - fantastic fiddling, great rhythm, everything you could want musically (and if you don't think so, then whatever, it's just a song). But let's look at the devil's strategy.

He challenges a top-notch fiddle player to a fiddle-off, offering a gold violin vs. his soul as the stakes. Johnny accepts, the two play some songs, and then the Devil bows his head in defeat and leaves. It just smacks of a bad cartoon villain: he's sticking to the terms, accepting them, not looking for loopholes, accepting defeat and bowing to the superiority of some measly mortal. The message of this story is that the devil is unthreateningly weak and you can beat him easily. Also, the fact that he's rejected God constantly needs to be coupled with a message of stupidity. It's a comforting and necessary message for the downtrodden Christianity. It makes the common person feel powerful, and intelligent particularly when they aren't in real life. It also makes them feel incredibly gifted. People enjoy stories where they can out-smart someone clever; just look at the stupid myth of the Christian student taking on the professor. This rehashed story of the common man out-smarting someone intelligent is incredibly popular.

You'll notice that the devil in most stories is particularly easy to outsmart. If god hating all the same people you do is a sign that your god is made up, then being smarter than your devil is a sign that it is made up as well. The fact that the devil is so easily outmaneuvered is really symptomatic of how these stories aren't meant to offer any sort of moral dilemmas or philosophical problems, but to just give the listener a sense of superiority, even when it's undeserved.

Of course, The Devil Went Down to Georgia is meant to be a fun and fanciful bit of fiction with the devil as an excuse to do some mean fiddle solos. So let's take a real legend about the devil, in fact my absolute favorite story about the devil.

Several years, I read a book about Irish/ Celtic myths and legends. It was pretty cool; I read about banshees and will-o-wisps and other stories from that text. But the best story that has absolutely stuck with me for years goes something like this:

The devil decided that he'd trick a fisherman out of his soul, but first he had to follow the man to figure out the best way to manipulate him. So he follow this man around, observing his day-to-day tedium. He follows the man out to his job near the chilly sea, and sees him blow on his hands to warm him up. The devil takes note of that. Later at dinnertime, the devil observes the man eating his soup. The soup is too hot, so the man blows on it to cool it down. With this observation, devil realizes that this man is a formidable foe, for from his lungs he can blow hot and cold air. The devil decides not to mess with a man who can blow both hot and cold and looks for someone else to steal.

That's it. That's how this man outsmarted the devil. Now, I might be misremembering some details (soup or handwarming first?) and if anyone has info about this myth, I'd love to re-read it. But really, the fundamental outsmarting-the-devil story is about anything but celebrating intelligence. It's about feeling superior. Here is someone feeling superior about beating some supernatural being who completely lacks any understanding of how the world works. It's all based on ignorance, and encouraging a feeling of superiority based on that ignorance.

Now technically there are two possibilities: either the joke is that the devil doesn't understand basics of thermodynamics, or it really was that people back then didn't understand what made things "hot" and "cold". The second choice means that the people were ignorant about thermodynamics, and celebrating what they view to be a unique trait. It may sound silly, but creationists now are celebrating the "irreducible complexity of life" and many features they believe makes creatures uniquely special and amazing (eyes, flagellum?). The invention of a human-specific "soul" shows that Christians think that there is something unique and special about humans that applies to no other creature. So the celebration of blowing hot and cold is nothing more than a celebration of a real-life physical feature that people really did find amazing. In this interpretation, the devil is incredibly ignorant because the creators of the story are ignorant. The devil is merely a reflection on their own misunderstandings of the world. It shows the stupidity of a religion that celebrates taking scientific explanations on faith and discourages looking for rational answers. [And if you are having trouble grasping the concept of the hot/cold thing, don't sweat it! We've all been there, and the only way to fix not knowing something is to ask and look for the answer. Whenever two things that have different temperatures meet, they bring each other closer to some middle temperature. To simplify it: Blowing "cold" air (80F) on a hot soup (120F) makes the soup colder (100F) and the air warmer (100F). Blowing "hot" air (80F) on cold hands (40F) makes the hands warmer (60F) and the air colder (60F).]

The more likely (I hope) explanation is that the tellers of this tale were trying to poke fun at how dumb the devil was: that he couldn't understand what is ultimately a weak and easily-explainable power. But this makes the devil so implausibly dumb that it's not even comical. It wold take someone not too bright themselves to think that an eternal supernatural power hadn't figured out how hot and cold works. To really believe that the devil could be so thick and so easily scared off by such a non-trick is really astounding. Not only that, but if changing something's temperature were a trick, the man's ability to change it only a few degrees is a not impressive at all. The devil can create hellfire that I'd imagine can burn at hundreds, or thousands of degrees. Why would lukewarm breath impress him?

The story quite clearly makes the devil so dumb to promote Christianity as the logically intelligent and superior mindset. It is coupling the feature of being dumb and the feature of rejecting God, saying that only dumb creatures reject God. After all, the number one rejector of Christianity is the devil, and he was dumb for doing so, right? The story is all about trying to promote Christianity as intelligent, and trying to make Christians feel superior for being smarter than the devil. It's also trying to make the Christian feel like the devil has no actual power to trick them as long as they have god on their side. Which brings me to another point.

It's comforting to think that the semi-powerful malevolent being that is out to get you is completely incompetent, and will never succeed. If Christians had thought that the devil actually could pull some powerful tricks, then they'd be forced to actually look at everything and evaluate it objectively -using science. It's an interesting aside to note that an intentionally fictional genie would have handled The Devil Went Down to Georgia better. A genie would have actually introduced some kind of trick: curse/physically break Johnny's fingers, make it so the judges of the contest are all lesser imps, or have the competition is postponed until Johnny is old and has arthritis, or best yet make Johnny only imagine he is playing a fiddle when there is nothing but air. All of these options are more akin to what an actual trickster god like the Devil would actually do if it were just a little bit clever.

And if the Christian Devil was that clever, then he'd be smart enough to mess with holy texts and religious leaders. He'd introduce false and horrible things into the Bible with all the people thinking they were really there all along. If the devil were that clever, then the best way we'd have to combat him would be to use science to objectively fact-check everything and come to our own conclusions, instead of just trusting in a religious authority. A clever devil would mean that people would have to question everything - including their own religions. And that's why the devil can never be too clever. He can never present real philosophical challenges, because they might press followers to think too deeply. He can never call into question the holy texts because he's too dumb for that. He must always be satisfying silly so as not to provide any real threat.

Pseudoscience and meme fitness

2011-02-24T12:46:00.000-08:00

I certainly do appreciate Richard Dawkins for propagating the concept of memes within our society, because it makes this not only a concept that is easy to understand, but one that fundamentally makes sense. If we look at science, and pseudoscience as memes designed to combat a real problem, it becomes increasingly obvious why things like talking to the dead, homeopathy or any other pseudoscience nonsense still exist.

When faced with a real problem, there are many ways that a meme can combat the problem. It could fix the problem right there, it could work to solve the problem sometime in the future, or it could pretend to fix the problem.

It's a no-brainer where science and pseudoscience fall on that scale. Science fixes, or looks for fixes. Pseudoscience only pretends to fix. It seems that right there and then, we should be throwing pseudoscience out on the curb. And that's what most skeptics like myself do: if it doesn't work, don't keep it. But the problem is that meme survival is dictated by acceptance, not necessarily utility, so let's amend this.

There are two main ways these kinds of meme can gain acceptance and propagate: it can be useful, or it can be appealing. [There are more, but let's focus on these.]

Almost all of science is utilitarian, even if that utility is just in providing an accurate explanation that can give predictions. We certainly like to point this out: science gives us vaccines, cars, GPS systems with traffic reports to our phones, packaged food, skyscrapers, birth control and on and on, while pseudoscience gives us warm fuzzes. Science gives us answer to questions, it gives us useful tools to better know about our life. Because science can thrive perfectly well by being useful, science has never needed to put effort into being appealing. Science can and does often put effort into being appealing, but the thing that makes science survive is its utility. Johannes Kepler initially hypothesized that the planets fit into a neat geometric pattern that God used to showcase His design.

He was crushed when he had to admit that the evidence did not show a neat, symmetrical pattern, but instead ellipses because the geometric design was so appealing. That theory lived because it matched evidence, because science survives based on reality, not appeal.

Pseudoscience, on the other hand lives based on how appealing it is. If a pseudoscience is not interesting, it dies. It can't survive by being useful, because it isn't. The only way a pseudoscience can survive is by being damned appealing, and so it excels at that. Talking to the dead, vaccine denialism, homeopathy, reiki healing, acupuncture, "The Secret", and "What the *** Do We Know?", they all have things that are appealing to them. They are all personally relatable, address concerns, and offer simplistic, accessible explanations. There are very few unappealing pseudosciences, it's a bit like asking to name an unsuccessful mutation. If it's unsuccessful, it doesn't get spread.

But, while It's pretty tough to find examples of unappealing and failed pseudoscience, I do have one example: Time Cube. This website is dedicated to a nonsense speculation about the actual shape of the Earth. This claim is not popular because it's too muddled, too unnecessarily complex, too impersonal, too sloppily presented, and so on so on. It's not presented in an appealing format at all. I can just see 9-11 conspiracy nuts, birthers, lizard-men believers, reincarnated Atlanteans and all the other run-of-the-mill kooks getting together and laughing at this, that's how unappealing it is. The only reason it exists is as a funny example of someone who's obviously wrong.

Contrast that with something like "What the ***** Do We Know?" This is a pseudoscience that personalizes and empathizes, has explanations that are appealing in an easily accessible format. This is a successful pseudoscience meme, because it's attractive. And it has to be, or else it would be as much of a laughingstock as Time Cube, and its meme would die off.

Science, on the other hand, has little need for appeal. If you've ever been inside a real research lab, you'll notice that most of the equipment is ugly, complicated and impersonal despite being extremely expensive, useful and amazing. This junky-looking piece of crap spectrometer cost thousands of dollars but it can analyze the content of a compound. It's incredibly useful. Very few, if any labs use giant touch-screen monitors, sleek and white gizmos or huge robotic arms, because they're often just useless bells and whistles.

Now, science can and does make itself very appealing. Just check out any sports car, or look at any smart phone, or watch modern-day special effects. A lot of work and effort has gone into making those things as appealing as possible, because those are the practical applications that the public regularly interacts with. They have to be appealing or else they don't sell. The appeal problem lies with the underlying science, the utilitarian foundation.

So what should science do? It need to focus rigorously on being appealing. Science needs to realize that it's in a red queen battle with pseudoscience, and if it doesn't run as fast as it can, pseudoscience continue to pull people away in all sorts of new and crazy ways. I've written quite a lot about how real medicine can work to make itself more appealing, and that's a start to edging out the quacks. Real medicine practitioners need to start addressing their patient's emotional desires and be more appealing. They need to listen to problems, be open and friendly, and come across as someone who cares instead of just acting like they need to rush out as soon as they can. Once patients learn that their emotional needs can be met with real medicine, the fake stuff won't have any advantage. That's one example of a practical application.

With the basics, we need to have more programs like Carl Sagan's "The Cosmos", we need to have more lectures explaining how evolution works, we need to have more Dawkins, more Neil DeGrasse Tyson, more Bill Nye, more Mythbusters and so on. These are amazing fantastic people who have done a great job being appealing ambassadors of science. Just because science doesn't need to be appealing to survive doesn't mean science is never appealing, and we need to be more encouraging - finically and socially - of these educational and PR opportunities. I think that Dawkins summed it up nicely by saying "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fuck off." We need to be a part of a society that is constantly saying, "I want to learn more about the world, I want to be part of discoveries and facts and learning."

So what should pseudoscience do? It should start caring about whether their positions actually address the problem or only pretend to fix it. If they only pretend, then they need to really re-evaluate their lives. They are providing a scam that is pushing over real science and real wonders just to promote their made-up bullshit, and that's not acceptable. There are plenty of real ways that you can make the world more amazing, go and focus on those.

[Speaking of appealing scientists… rawr!]

Valentines Day Atheist Experience Special

2011-02-14T18:34:00.000-08:00

I have a present for all the fans of the Atheist Experience TV show. I've been helping Russell go through and organize all his old books, movies, games and CD's, and I ran across several unlabeled VHS tapes. About half of them were taped TV shows like 24 and and Angel, but I found that some of them were old episodes of the Atheist Experience.

Only one or two of the tapes still had tolerable video quality, but most of them were jumping and unwatchable. After finding out the date of the video I was watching, I checked on the AE archives and discovered I was listening to a lost episode. I'm betting that the rest of the AE tapes, around 7-8 altogether (one case is slightly damaged) are also lost episodes. I had just found a bit of history!

So, today I did my best to record it. I set up a microphone to catch the audio of the show as it played out of my TV. I know that's not an optimal setup, and the audio quality sounds like it might have suffered from that, but I don't have the correct cables/equipment/know-how to properly record the audio/visual. Russell is saying I should get a cable that hooks directly from the VHS player to the computer, so I will look into that. The visual is pretty bad; I'm not sure that hooking directly to the VHS player would help with that. I did take a picture of the TV screen (just to further mangle the technology), but I wanted to give an idea of what the hosts looked like back then.

I tried to get a shot of the famous "Love Rings" at the end of the show, but my camera kept missing them. Oh well. Fair warning: The audio intro has some really bad static, and there's a low level of static or something throughout the whole recording. As I said, I have a reasonable expectation that this can be cleaned up, but I was really excited to get it out.

Until then, enjoy this lost episode of the Atheist Experience: Atheists on the Web - March 12, 2000.

The show sure has come a long way. Technology advancements aside, not much has really changed politically. Gay marriage, creationism in textbooks, crazy psychics, and baffled theists getting the basic concepts explained to them. Pretty interesting how much progress we've made, we've had to do it through repetition, repetition, repetition, fighting the same old battles. A big thanks go out to the hosts for sticking it out this long, and giving the same patience and care for the past decade plus. I'll be contacting the ACA webmaster as soon as I get quality stuff, and you can look forward to the rest of the episode being added soon!

Edit: All 7.5 episodes have been recorded much more cleanly. I've sleuthed to the best of my abilitity all the hosts and the air dates, and now all that's left is to get the episodes to the appropriate people. I'm looking forward to more people getting to know what the show was like back in the early days, when Martin wore a tie, Jeff wore suspenders and they ALL wore giant black nerdy watches.

Some Love for Carl Sagan

2011-02-04T10:05:00.001-08:00

When I was younger, many of my female friends would fawn over teen pop stars. They'd drive themselves into the most terrible fervor over some guy they'd never met.

I guess now sparkly vampires are more popular, but in my days it was Ricky Martin or N'Sync. It was something I never understood.

Some people suggested I was a lesbian, which was really a weird implication: if you don't like the kinds of guys we like, you must not like any guys at all. But anyway that wasn't the case, because I definitely liked guys at my school, just not these famous pop stars I didn't even know.

The message of the songs was always the same: I love you whole lot and will for a long time. Maybe the message of long-time commitment was really that appealing, but there was no other substance to the songs. It felt like they were presenting love in a vacuum, like a single thought in an otherwise emotionally and mentally empty room.

For the longest time, I just thought there was something completely broken in the brains of these teenagers to be so infatuated with a famous stranger. What could they possibly see in someone they had never met or talked to? I figured I would never understand. Until one day, I watched Carl Sagan's The Cosmos (also on Netflix Instant, where I watched it).

Here was a man who had everything, and loved sharing it with others. He explained the universe, the nature of reality, who cared about technology, advancement and science. This was a man who wanted to reach out and touch the stars, and take some soil samples of their planets along the way. His scope of interest was understanding the universe itself.

Furthermore, this man not only had a great understanding of cosmology, but he used it to give a humble humanist perspective and meaning to the world.

He cared about evaluating life and empathy and intelligence. He cared more about understanding and singing whale songs than about writing some profitable catchy cords.

And during the course of watching that series, I finally understood the phenomena of crushing hard on someone famous.
And so, like most enjoyers of niche fantasies, I went to the internet for help.

But not Google, nor DeviantArt, nor anywhere else I tried could find anything with Carl Sagan more revealing than some stray chest hairs.

Sometimes you have to just accept what little you can find,

but this was incredibly disappointing. Not for me, but for what it means our culture values as sexy traits. I wish there was more love and appreciation for intelligence in the world. It would have been nice if this man had been featured in Playgirl. If this suggestion seems taboo or weird, well then that's at odds with the notion of celebrating intelligence. If singing about "love" as an isolated concept is vacuous, then so is doing that to science. Science deserves to be coupled with other parts of our everyday life. A good mind is very sexy, and I wish that appreciating the hotness of mental prowess was more popular.

For me personally, I wish I had known about Carl Sagan when I was younger. I wish that this was the sort of idol marketed to teen girls as someone to aspire to and crush on. I wish that Carl Sagan had been accessible to me to have been my teenage hero when I was younger. But I didn't even know about him. I feel like I was cheated and told that all there was for me was this singular empty concept. I feel like it's time to change. So I am here, publicly embracing the sexiness of science.

(P.S. While I think Carl Sagan is a total stud, my hormones will always belong to you, Russell and your huge brain.)

Maybe you'll change your mind.

2011-01-10T10:48:00.000-08:00

Now that things are getting serious in my relationship with Russell, in that we're engaged and planning the wedding, I've noticed an odd trend. People seem to be guessing that the next step will be babies. And in that is the unsettling assumption that the purpose of heterosexual marriage is to procreate. And that's a tad uncomfortable for people to assume about me/us, but I can see why people would make that shortcut, and if they ask me, then what they are doing is giving me an opportunity for that assumption to be dissolved. Really that's not the issue. Here's the issue, which I've encountered several times, nearly verbatim:

Caring other: "So, do you plan on having children?"

Me: "No, it doesn't interest me."

Caring other: "Well, maybe you'll change your mind."

"Maybe you'll change your mind." This has always bothered me every time people would tell me this, and it took me awhile to piece together exactly why, but I feel like I've put it all together by now, so I'll go through all the subtly offending social pressures that this phrase exerts. All of these points are positive responses to those pressures.

1.) There are plenty of equally valid decisions people can make about their lives. Using this phrase implies that not having a child is not a valid decision. And the obviously offensive part of that is that a person is being treated as if her personal decisions where not her own to make. But of course, central to this is the notion that there is a wrong decision to make. That somehow, making babies is the preferable option instead of one option among many.

2.) Not all women, even married ones, want babies. Askers usually follow up with the maybe bit because "no" was a surprising answer to what the asker thought was a foregone conclusion. Instead of supporting this, "Oh, more power to yah!", they choose the response that shows the most disrespect for a decision, insisting that the woman will one day presumably see reason and change her mind. It is not just idle chatter, it is selectively pressuring this woman to decide to have her own babies. I've yet to hear anyone use the "Well, maybe you'll change your mind." line on a pregnant woman (or to someone married, or engaged, or studying for a profession).

Moral qualms aside, this is because insinuating that a pregnant woman should change her mind is seen as an incredibly rude affront to a clearly thought-out and celebrated decision on behalf of the woman/couple. A baby is a happy thing, why would you question it? That it's socially acceptable to question childlessness by choice shows that this is not viewed as decision that is not legitimate, thought-out, or celebrated. Having no babies is something that gives me and many others joy and a sense of contentment.

3.) Stable people change their minds: about careers, about marriages, about plenty of things, but there's no reason or excuse to second-guess their life decisions. As I mentioned before, imagine chatting up to someone you barely know, and upon learning that they are engaged you tell them offhandedly that "Well, maybe you'll change your mind." You'd never dare, because that is a positive life-decision they've made for themselves and you'd be considered incredibly rude to make such a presumption based on so little knowledge about the person. And that's how being childless should be treated: as a positive life decisions that someone has made for themselves.

Often, the asker will follow up with an anecdote about a friend who changed her mind and did decide to get pregnant. This ups the ante, by instead of treating me as an individual, making a generalization about women from one story, and then applying that generalization to me. And that generalization is that women are emotionally/hormonally unstable and change their minds. All it takes is the correct application of hormones and social pressure and their wills will just snap. As I said before, I bet they do change, just as much as everyone else changes their minds about other similar life decisions. They still need to be respected for the decisions they are making now.

4.) People of all ages are valuable. This is the silent reminder of your biologically expiration date, as if your value will somehow be diminished after you hit a certain age. The implication by the asker is that you will somehow lose value after you are unable to bear children anymore. You only have a certain number of years to crank out a kid, so hurry hurry hurry! As if somehow you need to rush to beat some arbitrary clock that means nothing to you anyway. It's like those limited edition coin commercials, it's true that you have a limited amount of time to call and order one, but it has no appeal to you anyway.

All of this, the separate assumptions and unspoken social efforts, it all adds up to a sexist atmosphere where women are not treated as individuals in charge of their own independence, but as piece of duty-bound procreative biology. And that's really the heart of all discrimination: not treating people as individuals but as something that has to fulfill an expectation. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect and as an independent individual. Everyone deserves for their decisions to be respected. So respect others, and stand up for yourself.

Stop asking Christians to be More Christian

2010-11-27T10:08:00.000-08:00

So there's a famous quote from Gandhi that I absolutely hate. I won't bother to repeat it, simply because I don't want to give it any extra authority, but it basically voices a sentiment that I hear often, and from fellow Atheists to boot: if only Christians would follow their messiah and holy book better, they would be better, kinder, more accepting and progressive people. Basically, that Christians need to be more "Christian".

The assumptions made by this are both puzzling and offensive.

The first is that, for whatever reason, the Bible and Jesus are some kind of amazing examples, if not outright guides of moral reasoning. They're not. The Bible is a vile book which is full of condoned and proscribed murders, rape, mutilations, and other sorts of bizarre evil. The Bible is a horrible thing to emulate or agree with, and indeed you can see that people who follow it the most closely are the one who are the craziest.

Take the success of missionary efforts in places like Uganda. These people are following the letter of the law. When the Bible says to take gays to the edge of town and stone them, Christians push for a law that will make it happen. In Nigeria, when the bible says not to suffer a witch to live, Christians follow it. Here in America, we have a sizable minority shilling for young earth creationism at the expense of logic, facts and reason. I know, and have heard of many Christians who seem to approve of the Uganda gay-bashing, and wish it was more acceptable here. These are the kinds of people who are following the Bible most closely. They are the ones who are more Christian than your average church-goer.

The Bible is not some absolute standard of good morals: understanding, compassion, conservation, community and aid. While it occasionally promotes something akin to progress or tolerance (Can you believe some Samaritan helped someone? Those guys are usually assholes!), you have to really pick and choose. And at that point, you're no longer relying on the Bible, or Christian values. You're outright rejecting many of the core values of Christianity while claiming to embrace others. You're making your own moral judgments, and basing those off of harm, cost and benefit. You're the one who says gays and heteros alike should both live happy and free lives. You're the one who says that witchcraft isn't real, and even if it was, witches shouldn't be killed. You're the one who says that the Earth is old. Those are decidedly un-Christian values. And un-Christian values are far superior to Christian values. I frankly do not want Christians to follow the teachings in the Bible.

And of course, Jesus isn't any better. I picture him being a lot like the modern-day Fred Phelps. To repeat, Fred Phelps, to me, is the most Christ-like person I know of on earth. Sure, Jesus preached some nice things on occasion, but those are the only values you ever hear Christians repeating. You rarely hear them boast about the time he flipped out and cursed a fig tree because it wouldn't bear fruit out of season. Or the time he fashioned himself a cat-of-nine-tails and attacked merchants and their wares, driving people and animals out of the marketplace. Or the time he warned that not believing in god will get you beaten like a slave. Or the time he told his disciples to steal a horse (donkey?). Or the time he drove out devils by herding 2000 pigs off a cliff. Or the time he told a grieving son to abandon burying his father.

Jesus was one unstable, self-aggrandizing nutcase, if he actually existed. He'd go off the handle at inappropriate times, spout nonsensical parables filled with bad advice (if your wasteful son runs out of money and comes back to you for more money, invite him in with open arms). He was just some crazy rambling nut. He didn't even have the moral fiber to reject slavery, to reject racism, to embrace female equality, to promote sanitation, empathy and overall kindness. Jesus didn't stand for these things. He only stood for doing what he felt like at the moment, whatever fit with his self-aggrandizement. You do not want people to be like Jesus. If people actually behaved like Jesus, we'd be more fucked than we are now.

I feel like I've driven home the point enough that Jesus is not the best of role models. The puzzling thing to me, is that I feel like many atheists who use this "Be more like Christ/Christianity" are already aware of these tales and facts. So I think the true spirit of the sentiment seems to be "Be more like liberal Christianity, the Christianity you are always promoting as a shining example of how to be a good person". But take a razor to that, and you are left with "Be a good person". And that's the message we should be promoting. Be a good person.

Christianity has worked hard to make itself as a synonym of morality. Christianity needs to promote itself as virtuous; it needs to wrap itself up with social necessities. Because if you can be a good person without God, if you can have a good life without God, if there's no evidence for God, then what use is Christianity? So Christianity wraps its tentacles around virtue and morality, promoting itself as not only a legitimate source, but as the only acceptable source. That's absolutely false, and our moral strives forward have come by rejecting what happen to be Christian values. Telling people to behave more Christian only serves to support the notion that Christianity is a moral authority, and that's not something I want to promote.

Jesus is not someone to emulate. Christianity does not have good values. Stop saying that Christians should be more Christian. We're lucky that they aren't. We want them to stop and think about their values, not try to adhere more strictly to Christian doctrine. What we are telling them instead is to pay more attention to their bible. Well fuck that. Be less Christian.

IF Comp 2010 - Divis Mortis, Reviews of Other Games

2010-11-18T10:03:00.000-08:00

Skip ahead to the reviews

This year I decided to try something new for fun, and wrote, coded, and entered a game into the 2010 Interactive Fiction Competition. I wrote Divis Mortis using Inform 7, and while that language was incredibly user-friendly and my vision was clear, I definitely ran into unexpected obstacles from not having an IF-background. It ended up being a lot of work, often from odd things like me not knowing that "S" was a universally-considered shortcut for "go south", and that you could "Look at brushes" and follow that up with the command "get them" or that you could "take all" (what a cheap cheat!). I realized that I had a lot to overcome, so I read through reviews from previous years, tested and coded until I was blue in the face, and then came at it again and did it some more.

The writing, coding and testing experience was really frustrating overall because of my noobishness on the subject, but the perfectionist in me constantly pushed for a better and better game. I honestly started out not knowing how to program locking a door, and while I should have done some warm-ups, I just kept at it, and I'm proud of what I produced: Divis Mortis, an interactive survival horror where you find weapons to fight off zombies, get food, and create shelter. It ended up being really well-implemented; I gave everything a "look at" and "take" response; I gave multiple weapons, I went the extra mile to make sure that objects and situations seemed organic (as opposed to, for example "You are in a room and can see blood on all the walls. You also see a lamp.", I would write something like, "Blood splatters the walls and floors of this room. One side of an extinguished lamp is dented and covered in coagulated blood." That's not actually in the game, but huh, maybe it could have been.) I made sure that in general things that could kill/injure THEM could be turned to yourself.

There are a few instant deaths, but these are largely "UNDO"-able, and in fact there are marauding zombies for which it should click in your mind, "There are zombies and they will come after me and I don't know how long I have, I should probably find a weapon first thing." This is definitely the mentality I should have communicated better.

There were two places where people really had trouble with the game; the first was a glitch where it seems that if you used up the first weapon in the game, and didn't find another one, the wandering zombies would disappear and not attack you. That was okay, because otherwise the game would have been too harsh on the player for not hurrying, I think.

The other problem was (spoiler spoiler) that barricading the front doors was not enough, you need to cover them too or else the zombies will just keep coming because they KNOW THERE IS FOOD THERE AND THEY SEE YOU IN THERE AND THEY ARE SO HUNGRY and they will shamble into those doors until they push them open. Covering the doors with the table will prevent them from seeing in, and their minds are so simple they will forget that they saw movement inside and shamble away. I needed to hint that better, because opening the doors when they're only half-barricaded results in a death.

Two other shortcomings I admit to: (SPOILER) I should have made it more obvious that the crazy guy was a mass-murderer; this was a casualty of a last-minute change where I removed dead bodies from the basement because I wanted the protagonist to feel reasonably safe going down there. The other was that trying to eat the fresh corpse in the second room should have ended the game there, giving you a text where you decide to embrace the spreading infection and join the zombie masses, although approaching a zombie usually works as well.

I did a lot of poking fun at what even I with my limited knowledge of traditional IF could suss out. You can see some of the jokes with the batteries, the lamp/flashlight. I updated that little puzzle to be more contemporary with modern times. I also had a bit of a twist at the end (spoiler, spoiler) where the protagonist meets a friendly male survivor at the very end, and the two of you can end up together (provided you're polite and free him immediately instead of examining the pipes or other time-wasters). Since I never revealed the protagonist's gender, it was interesting watching reviewers muse if they are a gay male or a hetero female, and I am not going to say which; either way makes me happy to poke at the boring same-same hetero male protagonist.

I ended up getting 11th place out of 26, and in a year where I'm told the mean and modal scores were ridiculously higher than average, I'm proud of that placement. There was a 6-week gag period where I wasn't allowed to discuss comp games, and during that time I wrote reviews for nearly all of the other comp games in a forum for authors-only, and I will place them below here, in order of how they did in the competition. Most amusing to my regular readers will probably be my examination of the two Bible Games.

My top 5 favorites are (in no order): Leadlight, Rogue of the Multiverse, The Warbler's Nest, The People's Glorious Revolutionary Text Adventure Game, and One Eye Open. I give a shout-out to the tribute game Ninja's Fate, as something else I really enjoyed too.

I have already started a new game for next year, I'm going to take a completely different path, and I'm keeping the actual premise under wraps, but here's a fun little thing I've programmed into the rough draft...

Table of Guy Nudist replies
nudist
"A girl passing by giggles, but gives you a wide berth.[paragraph break]"
"Two guys walk past, turn, and shoot you a bemused smile.[paragraph break]"
"A student hurries past, sighing at the sight of you.[paragraph break]"
"A passer-by seems shocked by your attire.[paragraph break]"

Carry out going east from Jeff's Living Room:
if the player is not wearing a pair of underpants and the player is not wearing a pair of pants:
say "You're not exactly decently covered, are you sure you want to go outside?";
if the player consents:
choose a random row in the Table of Guy Nudist replies;
say "You walk outside. [nudist entry]";
otherwise:
say "You decide to get a bit more covered first." instead.

Anyway, onto the reviews from all the games!

Aotearoa

Rogue of the Multiverse

One Eye Open

Despite being the other horror author of the comp, the idea of zombies and dead things and creepy crawlies is something I cannot handle because it keeps me up at night with worry, so it was with great trepidation that I started this one.

But I have got to say that this thing blew me away. Tapping into the psychics research craze of the 70's to create a horror just worked really well, and the surrealism of the environment with the combination of dead bodies and demonic creatures just created this completely otherworldly place where shit was going as wrong as it could possibly go. I enjoyed how things changed without you (rarely anything game-necessary), and I felt that the puzzles were awesome:(Spoiler) using a demonic washing machine to eat red goo in your suit, amazingly random and perfectly hinted so that it seemed sensible when it needed to happen.

I haven't finished the game as of yet at 1,000 moves and 6 hours, and I am a bit stuck, but I can feel like I'm so very close, and just needed to take a break.

There have been a few bugs (and apologies, I didn't transcript), one that seemed to leave me trapped in the autopsy room for way more turns than I can tell should have happened, but where I feel like I'm really losing out is witnessing people die - am I supposed to figure out a way to save them during their death scene? or by winning the game, does that fix it so that their deaths never happened? Since I haven't gotten to an ending yet, I can't really tell.

I do want to say that I love the concentrate mechanic, and how it was hinted at in the very beginning. It would have been nice to know that I could concentrate about just a room from the very beginning, but that's just a minor detail. Also, I liked how instead of walking into walls, the parser would tell you directions you could be going instead. That is something I would love to borrow for my future games.

People have mentioned that the notes mechanic was nice how it combined things, and that WAS nice. But I found that if I forgot what a document was called like the one to the door combo, then I had trouble navigating back through my notes to find it, and couldn't find a verb even from the verb list that'd help me.

And finally, an odd compliment, I know, but the About section was very well-organized and professional-looking.

The Blind House

Death Off the Cuff

Mite

The People's Glorious Revolutionary Text Adventure Game

Flight of the Hummingbird

Okay, I finally got to play this one, and I really enjoyed it. I think it did a great job of building up the superhero as someone believably lame. Not so lame that we're venturing on Squirrel Girl, but just competent and powered enough that maybe he should be doing circus acts instead. I thought the flying mechanics were pretty cool, but I really had trouble mentally mapping this one. I've really discovered that growing up with pictured adventure games has left me handicapped unable to create mental maps, and this one required lots of thought. The majority of the puzzles seemed to make sense - fuel the rocket, figure out the right dance of power switches and flying through hatches. I think I hit the 2 hour mark when it got to the blast-off for the rocket (I didn't find the crowbar, that one was kind of unfair), and that was a good cutoff mark for judging, I'm glad it was split in 2 like that. One thing that I had trouble with was convincing myself to go down into a trap pit, even after I saw there was stuff I needed down there. I was expecting some sort of monster, but there was nothing. A fight there would have been cool. The rocket thing was interesting, and I felt really boss when I figured it out, but I wonder if some sort of ASCII art could have been used here:

[A lame attempt at ASCII art, blogger html throws a fit at me using carrots and I don't much care to look up the web-safe way to represent them]

See? It's a... rocket ship... with 3 thrusters firing west and 2 firing south (pushing you up and north)... Okay, I suck at ASCII art, but I bet it would have been possible! Look, I even named the ship: the Dread.

Inside the spaceship had another cool touch, I absolutely LOVED how there was a crate full of stuff to take out the major superheroes, but instead he got The Hummingbird. It made me wonder, what would have been The Hummingbird's weakness? A big flower? Some sugar water? The mind boggles, in an amusing way. I did have some trouble dealing with the guards and had to resort to hints. In the end I got 45/51, and I'm sure I lost points for screwing up the rocket re-entry. I wonder if there was a peaceful way to get rid of the goons, maybe unlock the gaming consoles? All-in-all, a great fun game, with a fantastically detailed minor superhero. The puzzles and implementation could use a bit more detail, but nothing that detracted too terribly from the game.

[NOTE: a fellow author suggests The Hummingbird's weakness is Insulin.]

The Warbler's Nest

Gris et Jaune

Oxygen

The Bible Retold: Following a Star

This is a post-results review, as I kept all my reviews civil among fellow authors, and I had trouble enough keeping Lost Sheep civil.

This game certainly tried to pull out all the stops. It had a map image that changed based on your location, for starters, and from what I hear, it had very engaging puzzles, but I absolutely couldn't get into it. The first dozen or even two dozen turns were on rails. I wasn't allowed to take a sword (I'll fight them off with my fists!, an NPC jokes), I was only allowed to follow these NPC's blathering on about how they were going to see their Christian savior. The text was just so unnatural and stupid; ""We must follow the star," Melchior proclaims bluntly. "We must honour this future king, for he will be mighty and powerful."".

After a ride to Bethlahem (on camels named Deuter, Job and Numbers, GROAN), we are sent with the errand of getting gifts for the baby god. Which just strikes me as being as dumb as the scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. "I am God! I can conjure anything I wish, offer you infinite aid, and have infinite knowledge of where everything is, but you must go out and get me a few palty gifts from the local market."

There was an effort to make things silly, slightly scandalous (let's just buy the baby a rattle and diaper, har har) and light-hearted, but it was as painful as watching a children's version of a bible story, a la Veggie Tales. Imagine that, you are playing a Veggie Tales game.

I made it to the second part where I got offended at subtle racism, and quit there. There was a puzzle that involved fake Latin ("Pleasa leava the bagum where it isa,") like some kind of Italian stereotype, and I just lost all interest in seeing where else this game was going to go. Making fun of pronunciations of various races and ethnicities is one of the things that really pisses me off, because the ability to hear variations in accents is something fixed at a young age; it's like making fun of someone for being color blind. I couldn't even force myself on further. The first instance of racism was in the cover art of the game. It consisted of a bunch of scraggly-looking arabs missing teeth and looking none too pretty. I initially thought that was fanstaic! Finally, a media which did not Anglocize biblical characters AND acknowledges the lack of hygiene 2000 years ago, and the effect that would have on appearances. My excitement was short-lived, however, when I noticed an Anglo-saxon, red-haired angel leading the troupe. Somehow, having White, pristine, pager-toting angels next to filty, creepy Arabs strikes me as worse racism than just making everyone white, as if God has preferred races.

My confusion on this story, and the other one Lost Sheep (the two authors worked together), was that apparently both of the authors denied being Christian. Why anyone would make a Christian storyline otherwise is absolutely beyond me, because they subject material is often such horrible nonsense, that it makes no sense as a good story unless you actually buy into this crap, especially when I found out that a previous edition of The Bible Retold series featured a superhero Jesus that required you to look up bible verses to solve puzzles. The author claims that zhe did it because the bible is "a public domain source of easy-to-understand stories that are in many cases quite amenable to text adventure adaptations." and the author of the Lost Sheep agrees "they are just stories that we thought would work well as text adventures." and then gripes about the discrimination that Bible stories face because they are interpreted as trying to send a message. Well, if it quacks. I think that's like complaining that you've gotten criticism about releasing yet another dungeon or cave-based game. You really have to have a completely new angle, or else it's just completely boring and monotonous. My suggestion was to have a time-traveling rogue F things up royally so that the locals think he's a god.

Both authors plan on abandoning the series because of the bad reactions and "discrimination" against Bible Stories, but I think that they've just been barking up the wrong tree. You are allowed to enter up to 3 games per year, and in addition to a serious entry, I plan on making a small, maybe 5-roomed game where you are the final plague in Egypt and your mission is to gain access to Egyptian homes and kill their firstborns, ending of course with killing the Pharoh's baby. I think this visceral and realistic portrayal of a beloved Bible story would be: interesting, horrible, and definitely more deserving of the title "The Bible Retold".

Leadlight

Well. Hol-ley crap. I had decided to power through the rest of my games and review them all today (4 left!), but Leadlight, you stole the show. I played for what must have been 6 hours, and even still I only got a score of about 50, so after I finish writing this review, I'm going back to attempt that max score. I am not sure what it was, but this was far and above my favorite. It had that classic feel. It grabbed my full attention and had me constantly planning on how to make optimal moves and what to do better next time. One of my first actions was to walk east unarmed right into the arms of a zombie, and that being my phobia, freaked me right out. I immediately got sucked in and determined that I am going to beat these fuckers. Every action had me on the edge of my seat, and while the dangers were often unforgivingly random, I think that's what being in a surreal horror situation would be like.

One of my favorite spots was where you find a woman sitting on the fountain, tip it over, find out it is only a doll, leave and then there is the same description as the doll being on the fountain but FUCK NO THAT IS A ZOMBIE HOLY CRAP.
That was my thought process there.

The puzzles started to get trickier inside the school itself, and some of the puzzles seemed more arbitrary (why a bell, for instance?) fighting multiple foes was something that was really draining. I am not sure if I should have just taken better advantage of the save / reload functions, or if I missed some food, but by the end of the game I won with like 3 HP left.

Anything I can complain about would just be quibbles, for instance the misspelling during combat, and the lack of "X" (although [blank] worked for G (so handy for the fights!), and N, S, E, W all were fine). {note: EX works, I didn't realize that.}

This game was just, I dunno, fantastic. A masterpiece. I have a gold standard of adventure games, somewhat obscure, but I am sure many here will recognize it. There is a scene from Jeff Vogel's Exile III: Ruined World screenshot where you enter a crypt, and no matter how many torches you light, they are extinguished and your map goes black, coupled with a simple text explaining the extinguishing and the deathly chill. You just know monsters are going to appear. That specific event scared the crap out of me with 8-bit pixels and text, and ten years later it's still memorable. I think that Leadlight parallels this with its execution and construction.

Edit:

Played it through again, Missing 2 weapons and 5 secrets, so I'm giving it another go!

Gigantomania

Under, In Erebus

There are two things I am proud of in this game, one that I figured out that the puzzles were wordplay-based and that I got naked first thing. Preemptive nakedness.

I've discovered by now that I can't find my way around maps to save my life, so I mapped this dark underground cavern, and I have to say that the OCD in me enjoyed the fact that the island was symmetrical. (I redid my map, just to make it look nicer.)

Onto the actual gameplay. I feel like, this is what an afterlife would be like for an adventure gamer. They'd be thrust into an underground cavern with all sorts of odd and mysterious things, hints and puzzles. This game also felt like that because honestly it took awhile to figure things out, which you'd need in the afterlife.

As I said, I felt that the puzzles were word-based, but I fell just short of figuring out how to create those words. I was trying to figure that maybe putting the sheep in box 2 would get me _H_, because the 2nd letter of sheep is an H. I checked other reviews and then figured out that it was an ewe. After that it became pretty smooth sailing, but overcoming that realization hump was the doozy, and it's tough to suggest better ways to overcome that hum, because once you know the secret, it's really difficult to go back and decide if the game is well-hinted enough or too poorly hinted.

Once that fell into place, the rest of the stuff was pretty manageable to create and manipulate, and it was an enjoyable game that had a lot of cool extras programmed in. I feel bad because I realize that for many people, playing the actual game won't start for at least an hour in (does the time it takes to map the game count as playing it?) One quibble, I felt pretty horrified at vaporizing/sacrificing the sheep, but I do like to think she was just transported back to her cave.

Cool premise, cool puzzles, a bit of a learning curve, but if I was stuck in Erebus, I'd enjoy this game.

There is a post-comp release where many of the shortcomings have been fixed, and I'd recommend looking into that.

Pen and Paint

The 12:54 to Asgard

The Bible Retold: The Lost Sheep

I found this game rather amusing, but not in the way I think the author intended.

First, a note about the layout: my first and only difficulty with this game was getting a sense of the landscape. I decided to first explore my territory and got lost quite frequently because I'm bad with direction, and all the places were variations on "Field". I had to write myself a map of the area, and then I felt really silly when it was basically revealed as a 5-room map. This probably says more about me than the author, since I have trouble with many maps, but a bit of diversity would be nice.

Knowing that in the parable, the shepherd is God/Jesus and the sheep is a person, I find it amusing how incredibly hell-bent the player is on retrieving his sheep, for recovery's sake only. This is a sheep that clearly does not want to be in the herd anymore, hiding in bushes, crossing streams strong enough to potentially drown people, and finally climbing a mountain firmly established as scary and "looming". As myself, I feel like leaving well enough alone, and letting this sheep find his/her own happiness, and not forcing the sheep to do anything. After all, if I were omnipotent I have no need for sheep, really, so the best I can do is allow them happiness, so I struggled to put myself into the mindset that I must find this sheep. Especially if it means abandoning my 99 other sheep who could actually use my help and protection.

As God/Jesus, however, I understand fury at this disobedient sheep and embrace the intention that must be returned to where I want it to be, no matter what the cost. It seems only fitting that in the obsessive quest to re-enslave your sheep, you end up burning it, forcing it nearly to drown, then to climb a perilous cliff-face before you finally corner the cowering creature. The text says you call all of your friends and neighbors to celebrate the return of your sheep... in a party which I can only imagine contained lamb chops.

I was disappointed by the lack of implementation of SMITE, but PRAY had the good sense to include the amusing response of "... Unfortunately, the Lord seems to be conveniently engaged elsewhere." Too true.

I really laud the author for restraining from overt proselytizing, because that's something that can really kill gameplay. There's nothing so bad as an "education" game that put education over game. While it was short, it had no bugs, and a cohesiveness, and that means that while it didn't have much "education" in it, it also didn't have much "game" either.

Mentioning the Juniper Bush immediately made me think of the scene from Life of Brian, although after burning it, it was probably intended to be a reference to Moses, and I fully expected the burning bush to be implemented as a communication device with God, but it wasn't, and I feel like that was probably for the best.

I expect this game to get flack for having Buffalo in Bethlehem, but meh, that's just a technical detail, that doesn't affect gameplay or tone, so it's not an issue. Anyone who harps on this is just looking for ways to needle games instead of enjoy them, and ignore them.

I would recommend picking a more obscure story, one where the outcome isn't already known, or introducing more obstacles and extrapolations.

Heated

Ninja's Fate

Being a pirate person (GLARE), I find myself not as familar with ninja lore, and I stubbornly didn't examine the very things I was holding, which would have been a good idea to get the lockpicking device right away, and I felt foolish about not solving that puzzle.

When it came to the rest of the game, fun times and silliness abounded. I loved the unpaintable wall, the competition gallery, and I went around trying to paint everything.

The maze was daunting until I realized it was just there to be silly, not to actually be navigable, and it made the maze into something (gasp!) fun! While the foe attacks got tiresome after awhile, I enjoyed the variety greatly and smiled at all the cool stuff there was. The game really seemed like a great tribute to a wonky writer.

I managed to get 3 of the endings by myself, and the other endings seemed pretty reasonable enough from the hints section, but if anyone gets ending 6, share! I was disappointed there was no seppuku-styled ending possible, but that's just quibbling.

The trapdoor that's always closed seemed to tease away, maybe that had something to do with ending 6? or maybe it's just a ye can not get ye flask device.

Fun, silly and a great game!

[Later, I wrote:]

The more I think about Ninja's Fate, the more it grows on me and I find myself thinking of how sweet it is. I liked the museum, I did go back and figure out the trap door stuff, the wide expansive maze with poor implementation and randomly generated descriptions and attackers, the wall, the bust, the descriptions. I thought combining the elements of his work was a great way to pay tribute. I feel like it was really very clear what the significance of each wing was meant to be, and even though (as my first year participating in IF) I've never played anything by Panks, I feel like I really got to know who this guy was and what he did: persistently made the same kind of game over and over with a determination like it was very important. I feel like I got to know his character and make a sort of connection. I dunno, maybe I am just a sentimental type, but I'm treasuring this for what it is - a great memorial done in the style of Pank's passion. I think this did a good job of presenting unsuitable gaming elements while not making them game-breaking or game-interrupting: it captured the style without making it actually a bad game. I enjoyed it!

I want to say thank you for this entry, it's been something I've enjoyed as a unique experience.

Sons of the Cherry

East Grove Hills

A Quiet Evening at Home

The Chronicler

Halloween and the Hell House

2010-11-04T00:44:00.000-07:00

So Russell and I went to a Hell House on the night before Halloween. After I'd moved to Texas was the first time I'd ever heard of a Hell House, and the idea was equal parts ridiculous, mystifying and horrible. I wanted to go last year, but Russell was still burned out from 5 hour wait and 4 hour drive the year before, but this year I was able to finagle ourselves into a local haunt with a shorter wait. The tactics of the Hell House were under-handed and overdone, and it really worked on some of the more impressionable there. It was a pretty disgusting display of brainwashing, but I'm glad I went. I really had a sense of being some sort of historian blessed with the ability to go back in time and witness primitive beliefs in action, where to these people the world actually is demon-haunted. I'm going to give a chronological breakdown of the event.

Russell and I were in front of this very nice gentleman and his two sons. He looked pretty Texan, being the only one wearing a cowboy hat, and we found out he was in the military, stationed here temporarily. We chatted him up, and he was a nice fellow. He was quite intelligent, and Russell and I both later speculated about him perhaps being a fellow atheist. I suspect he's at least some sort of wishy-washy Christian-Deist hybrid. I wonder if his kids' mother (or whoever raises his sons while he's in Iraq) was any sort of influence for them coming out to this event, but I digress.

Russell and I were also next to a rowdy-enough group of teen friends, about 15 or so (this meant that Russell and I got put into a group that was several people too big, which made some of the tighter situations uncomfortable). The number of teens was actually the first thing that struck me about the Hell House - the primary audience was for teens and young adults, which was something I hadn't really thought about before. This is an event aimed as guilting and scaring and manipulating a vulnerable and uncertain group of people, and indeed many of the scenarios revolved around teens.

The first room was forgettable enough, it was just a video of a guy explaining that we would be experiencing scary stuff that was representations of what could be lurking Just Beneath the Skin. The only thing notable about this, was that the guy was wearing a police uniform, an obvious ploy at lending the establishment credibility - this message is 'endorsed' by law enforcement.

Scene 1: The Devil and a demon were in a drawing room, and the Devil was explaining to the demon the rules of Chess - you have to knock out a few pawns (us people) so that you can eventually get to the King (GOD!). It is supposed to answer the question of why demons would care about people, but all it does to me is raise more questions. Is the all-powerful god actually in danger of being checkmated by the Devil? Do they have equal arsenals in their holy war? Many believers would say no, of course not. The more apt analogy is portraying the demon and a few devils as … 1 bishop and let's say 6 pawns. And on God's side… we have 1 king (with the powers of a queen), 2 rows of rooks and a few pawns. Oh, and God gets to arrange where every piece is to begin with. And God gets to make as many moves in one turn as possible. There is no game. There's no reason why any of God's pawns should be exposed to any danger. It makes no sense.

Scene 2: A heterosexual couple meets in a bar, the man fidgeting over the woman being late. First we learn that the man has an anger problem, he gets mad at his girlfriend for being late. Then we learn, from a snickering demon, that he actually has a wife and is seeing this girlfriend on the side (for some reason they call it a girlfriend instead of a lover, or mistress; an attempt to make it less exciting?). This situation is resolved when his angry pregnant wife shows up and shoots them both, all at the goading of some nearby demons. Suffice it to say, this was a bit of an overreaction, and acted out more like a telenovela or a local play. The most horrifying part was that the bar had un-racked, and yet vaguely triangularly-arranged billiard balls.

The Christian Message: They make it clear with his fancy phone that he has plenty of money too, he's the man who has it all - sex and money, but he's still angry because his live is obviously missing GOD. The girl has her own vice too, aside from being a covetous homewrecker, she's tardy and doesn't call to let him know. It's also hinted that she might have "who knows what", a reference to STD's so veiled, that if you didn't already know what they meant, you'd miss it.

What should have been the message: Relationships should have good communication skills and should always be striving to maintain a spark. Discuss and be open to the possibility of extra-marital relationships and be respectful of your spouse's opinions. Divorce and breaking up with your lover is always an option. Empathize with others - call if you're going to be late. Use protection against STD's and pregnancy (condoms). Do not frequent a bar that doesn't even bother to re-rack their pool balls.

Scene 3: A soldier came running into the bar yelling at us all to move out. Since usually the demons were the ones prodding us on, this was a surprising change. We got herded into a metal shipping container, where the walls got banged on, then into the back of a blacked-out van (all 20 of us). Our van drove us in a reckless fashion to another part of the church. This answered the questions I had about how the Hell House could have possibly been hosted in something so small as the garage. We got shepherded out and yelled at. The demons explained that this man had PTSD, and the demons kept whispering evil things that he should be killing us. The soldier fought back against the demons, and they taunted him that he could get out of this by telling authorities that "the voices made me do it." The guy killed a girl who was earlier revealed to be a plant, got surrounded by S.W.A.T. members and then shot himself. The demons lamented that he only listened half the time and didn't kill us all when we had the chance. This part really scared some of the girls in our group, and they were crying and screaming and writing away from masked demons.

First, a story from my past. My private flute teacher in high school was the best in town, and had recently been taken in by Scientology. I was a hippie Christian at the time, so I really didn't care. One day, she told me that she had learned that all the suffering on the earth was caused by the tortured spirits of another race invading our bodies (legit Scientology dogma) and wasn't that cool? I shrugged it off as silly back then, but that is how I categorically envision these demons. As the volcano-trapped spirits of an alien race interfering with humans in non-specific and unidentifiable ways.

The Christian Message: I had to wrap my brain around what the message here was supposed to be, but I think I have an answer. It is asserting that the demonic influence to ruin lives is constant threat, and requires constant vigilance, not just vigilance half the time. That demons are always trying to fuck up your life and cause pain and torment.

What should have been the message: PTSD is a serious matter, and requires adequate treatment and understanding. Killing people is something that should be highly discouraged and disdained. Wars are serious business and should not be started on a whim.

Scene 4: A monitor shows two people greeting each other with smilies and winkies in a chat room, overlaid with Matrix-style scrolling green code. I think this must have been the same tape from the nineties. We then go into a room where the heterosexual couple meet each other for the first time in the guy's living room. He makes several advances at kissing, she rebuffs them. She goes to the bathroom, the demons taunt the man that all the other girls would have sex with him, and was he going to take being rejected? He spikes her drink, she feels a bit woozy, then a few seconds later he forces her into the ~~bathroom~~ bedroom, and we watch a slow-mo and fuzzy video of her being forced onto a bed. Then I think she runs out crying, and the man swaggers back to the couch with a grin.

The Christian Message: Dating is bad because it can lead to sex. If you don't offer that sex, you will likely be raped. If you meet someone independently, on the internet, (as opposed to say, in your church, with the guidance of your parents and your pastor), they will rape you. Men will stoop to any level to have sex. Women are unable to defend themselves or practice basic safety.

What should have been the message: Dating can lead to all sorts of relationships, and sex is often a wonderful part of that. Bring protection to a date, just in case. When meeting someone off the internet, meet them in a neutral location like a coffee shop or restaurant or out bowling. Do not leave your drink around uncovered. Do not rape people. If someone says no, they mean no: just go masturbate or whatever. If you are raped, and you can handle it, report it, see a doctor. Likely the rapist will strike again, and you could be saving several future potential victims. If you're a raped female, take some Plan B to prevent a pregnancy from even happening, which leads into…

Scene 5: The raped woman, 5 months later, deeply regrets having that abortion. A roommate tries to comfort her, and offers to bring her to church. The raped woman denounces any help, saying that she doesn't need a god that abandoned her and let [the rape] happen. A fair point. The demons continue to haunt her about the baby she murdered, she's a murderer, she murdered her baby. They show a video of tiny bloody hands and bloody aborted fetuses. The woman, who had taken to cutting herself, finally cut herself deeply enough to kill herself and end the pain.

The Christian Message: Do not have abortions, they are murder. If you are raped, carry the baby. Do not report the rape (technically this is never addressed). If you are suffering, turn to your friends in the church who care about you. If you are in trouble, you should go to church.

A note about the video: The video was pretty gross, but I have to say, I was just as nauseated by a video of knee arthritis surgery, and I squirm in disgust right now just remembering that video where chunks of cartilage were removed. The implication that removing an unthinking brain-dead bit of flesh is somehow worse than removing an unthinking brain-dead bit of cartilage just floors me. What grosses me out more is watching conditions of say, pig farms and slaughters, because as fond as I am of humans, I believe that right-to-life-and-well-being should be based on cognitive abilities, not the shape of your body.

What should have been the message: Use contraceptives for sex. This sex turned out to be non-consensual, but since the Hell House offered no examples of consensual sex, it's always a good message. If you have unexpected sex, there is Plan B, which can be taken within 5 days (2 days optimally). In fact, you can always ask for a prescription preemptively and just pick it up if you ever need it (if you live in a state where it's not over-the-counter). Abortions provide a useful service that allow women to get on with their lives, continue their college educations, and get a shot at a meaningful life where they can have a planned conception (if they want to) and offer the child a life worth living. If you are having trouble, or you see a friend in trouble, go to a professional, not to a community group that vilifies you and says they have a miracle answer to everything. A loving God would not allow rapes to happen.

Scene 6: Inside a high school cafeteria, a loner kid is eating lunch. A snotty popular girl comes up to him and offers him a piece of pie. I didn't catch quite what happened, but it seemed he was too shy to accept this offer. Either that or she snottily retracts the offer and then chides him for believing it. He bows his head in shame, runs into the bathroom and runs back out with a gun. After waving the thing at a teacher and fellow students, he shoots a girl. I think it's the girl who offered him the pie, so maybe she was being mean to him. The demons cackle and urge him to take his own life for being so evil, and he complies.

The Christian message: Reach out to others so that they won't go on a rampage and shoot you up. That pretty much parallels the central christian dogma: be a Christian so god won't torture you forever.

What should have been the message: It gets better! High school might seem like a sucky time, but just tough it out. Try to seek out hobbies and friends, be positive and creative whenever you can, and maybe you can meet people with similar interests. If you have negative parents, or family, or classmates or teachers, just remember that one day you can never see any of them again, if you so choose. Never go out of your way to harass or bully people. Always put yourself in their shoes, and show empathy and compassion. Even if you don't have common interests, you should say hi and be friendly.

Scene 7: A drug pusher for some vague narcotic attempts to skim a little off the top. The dealer notices, and tells the pusher he can make it up by "going to a joint where they like 'em chubby". (This brings up an interesting observation, for me. Most of the actors were the stereotypical svelte and pretty. Many of the demons were overweight. I can't help but think about the discrimination that went on in the casting call.) The pusher starts to walk away, dejected, then whips out a gun on the dealer. The dealer is a true gunslinger and pulls out his piece first. The cackling demon is this scene is wearing a bandana to symbolize his gang relation. The demons assert that this could be something that happens to anyone, and pointed out Russell. To his credit, Russell gave a fake gasp and threw his hands back in a surrender. I think they were trying to scare him into taking this seriously, but the idea of Russell pushing drugs on the street is just laughable.

The Christian message: Don't get involved with drugs, pushing or dealing or taking. Drugs are markedly for recreation, and recreation is bad. It will lead to a bad lifestyle where you are eventually expected to be a gay prostitute, and that is icky! Also, don't steal.

What should have been the message: Drug trade causes a lot of violence because they are black market. If these things were legalized, they'd be cheaper, well-controlled, and we wouldn't have these gun-toting gangsters shooting each other up. When was the last time your coffee dealer, or any coffee dealer for that matter, shot up a local barrista? How about a wine shop? Or a cigar shop? The truth is that there will always be recreational things you find unsavory that others want to do, but as long as it's consensual and nonviolent, it should be a-okay. Being gay is just something some people are, like being brunette or blonde. Sex is something you should always do consensually, not because someone forces you to.

Scene 8: The car crash. There was a crashed car with blood outside, and a vague emotional movie about accepting Jesus before you die. The movie was so wishy-washy that I really can't remember any details.

The Christian message: Accept Jesus and ask for forgiveness, before you die. It could be at any moment, so always be prepared!

What should have been the message: Live your life as healthily as possible, while enjoying it to the fullest. You don't have much time, so make the most of it.

Scene 9: Death, and Hell. We got crammed into tiny coffin-shaped doorways. A woman next to me was freaking out, and grabbed onto me in terror. I tried to comfort her by saying "It's not real," which I meant in more ways than one. She continued to clutch onto me down a long passageway, and I told her it was quite alright and that I didn't mind. I felt horribly that anything in this could actually be scaring her, could be making her afraid of eternal torment. We stood in hell where demons writhed in front of us, reaching out… grahhhh! I think the Devil cackled about having knocked out so many pawns that night and that he was closer to his true goals.

The Christian Message: You don't want to end up in hell, it sucks. Be a Christian.

What should have been the message: To quote Russell's son, Ben, "God's not real! The Devil's not real!"

Scene 10: Heaven. The (apparently bumbling) demons ushered us into heaven. That sure was easy! One seems to ad-lib, "Don't let them tell you about that Jesus guy!" How comically inept. I feel like I am watching a nineties action cartoon where the villain's side kick messes things up royally. In heaven, a segment of Passion of the Christ was looping, and I got to see Jesus flogged by a roman about 5 times. Another TV was looping a picture of Jesus happy and anglo-saxon and smiling. A huge cross was on the wall. A woman apologizes for scaring us, and tells us that if we've been in similar situations, that we're not damned to hell because we can just ask for forgiveness. She then tells a story about how she was abused as a child, grew up and started hitting her own kids, but then stopped when the pastor confronted her and made her into a real christian. She invites people to come into a separate room and accept Jesus as their savior. Only two or three people went in, and one was definitely the girl who had grabbed me in fear. I knew they had just reached out and created this fear in her, they broke her down and made her cry and now she was just turning to them. It was disgusting. I was delighted at the look of surprise on the woman's face when so few people went to the next room to pray.

So now, let me sum up the experience. First, I would like to say that I was glad same-sex relationships were pretty much completely ignored. I really get heated about gay rights, and I would have been pissed if that had been included. With all the recent suicides, and the it gets better campaign, I would like to think that the church had the good graces and sense to avoid guilting teens into feeling bad about same-sex feelings. I wanted to email ask if this was the case, or if it was just normally a topic they ignored, but I didn't want to really put that thought into their heads. Second, the experience was a lot longer than I anticipated, and I feel like for the amount of work and the number of scenes, the $16 for the two of us was well-spent.

The biggest thing that struck me, was the absolutely over-dramatic ridiculousness of the whole thing. The theme of the year was "Beneath the Skin", although I suspect that they just pick a name that sounds cool, and do not actually change the themes year-to-year to fit exactly. But the implication was that in every one of us, just beneath the skin lies an angry, self-centered, cheating, raping, baby-killing, murderous, drug-dealing psychopath, and without god those demon-implanted desires will take control of our lives. It was like Heart of Darkness meets The Twilight Zone, times 10. It was that ridiculous. Very few, if any people are so evil as made out in these "typical" scenarios, and yet these people have spent about thirty minutes telling us that. And of course, they don't just do it at Hell House, but every day of every week. You aren't enough, you are evil, you're doing all you can to just barely contain your disgusting demon-tainted soul. They do a fantastic job of creating these fears, these problems, condemning us for the fears, and then letting us know that they thankfully have the solution. It's such a great self-perpetuating meme, that they don't have to be aware of it.

And of course, most of the things that the demons were whispering only exist because of extremest Christianity. Preventing divorce and encouraging the death sentence for adultery? Pretty sure that's Christian and in the bible. Sex is evil and only causes hurt and pain? Yep, that's Christianity. Haunting a woman by calling her a baby-killer? You don't need demons for that, just look for the picketers by a health clinic. Encouraging cafeteria teens to exclude a loner? Nothing quite encourages divisions like religion. Drugs cause violence? Why do we have these crazy blue laws in the first place? Christianity has invented many of these moral problems itself and has the nerve to claim it's the solution. I remember once, one of my family members confided in me that eating shellfish always made her uneasy, because the bible says it's an abomination. That's what I feel like this Hell House was, a long infomercial about invented moral problems.

The Christianity being preached there and all over is just hateful and divisive, except for those shining few moments when you feel warm and happy because you're out of that hate. I have to ask, while all these demon-whisperings were going on, where was God, where were the Angels? For someone all-powerful and all-loving, no angels were sent out to pluck bullets from the air, to whisper words of encouragement, or to vanquish the demons. It's as if God just didn't care. And really, that's the point.

What the Bleep Do we Know? - A Gameshow of a Movie

2010-10-20T11:31:00.000-07:00

I dread writing this, because I know that the para apologists will come flocking, but ah well. It need to be said and they can quack all they want, since that is really their only recourse to being dismissed by science, by reality.

Russell and I rented What the Bleep Do We Know, as my request, and we suffered through this botched documentary/ parable over two sittings.

I found the title especially appropriate because sitting through the movie was a bit like being quizzed. Facts and falsehoods were spewed out in nearly equal proportions, and it was your job to separate the two. Facts about brain rewiring were interspersed with claims that water is receptive to emotions. Protein cellular synthesis mixed with claims that aging is a result of poor diet. Nearly every scientific claim was exaggerated and distorted in nearly every way.

Russell brought up the example of the natives unable to see the ships: a tale so completely bogus, the fact that it never set off alarm bells for the show's producers and in fact they still defend its inclusion is an alarm bell in itself. I'd like to point out that this claim was sandwiched with a study about cats raised in an environment with vertical stripes being unable to see horizontal stripes (or vice versa). This is a true study with the correct results, sadly enough for those kittens. It's one I learned about in my psych. classes. This study was submitted to scientific papers, has passed peer review and is included in textbooks. The ship tale doesn't even have a primary document or a reason to believe the primary document even if it was found. The fact that there was no distinction between these two stories just shows the complete lack of a reality filter.

What really gets my goat is that there are people who watch this, and want to believe it, and because there are these charlatans who sound plausible, they will. Without an education in that specific science, they have no reason to doubt the filmmakers.

While it's tough to think up things you don't know that well, I'll give an example: building construction. I kind of know a little about building construction, there's some steel and some supports, and some bricks, and some wood, and some plaster and wires and pipes, but I have no idea how it all goes together. If someone told me you needed 4 cornerstones for a typical house, I'd believe it. If they told me only 1 corner stone, I guess I'd believe that too. Or if they told me it was really 1 corner stone for every actual corner, or 2 cornerstones for every load-bearing wall, those all sound equally plausible to me because I'm completely ignorant about cornerstones and, as something scientifically studied, I know that someone reasonably qualified should know the answer and I would trust that person.

This movie takes advantage of that, completely. It takes advantage of the fact that so few people know all of these really intricate details of biochemistry, particle physics and quantum mechanics. But it does well because it also takes advantage of that desperate need for a metaphysical connection to a deity, for an answer to something "larger than life". It taps into this need for a connection, and overarching desire for a connection is the thing I find most disgusting.

Willfully ignoring or dismissing contradicting information because there is something you just really want to believe in is an attitude I will never understand. What ultimately allows communities to form and grow around attitudes such as those in WTBDWK is this cult of examining evidence and searching for answers, but only as long as they agree with you. The notion of a biased search offends me more than any religion, for this is how religions are formed. Getting rid of Christianity is all well and good, but a more important task is this superstition and wishful thinking. The new age self-created and tailored beliefs strike me as more intellectually offensive: reality is just whatever you dream and want it to be.

Which leads me into my next rant about the movie: encouraging schizophrenics to stop taking their medication. I was never very much into clinical psychology, but I know enough to ID schizophrenia. Tallguywrites has a fantastic explanation of what it's like to have S. It's not scary or violent, you just feel and experience things that aren't there. You make connections that aren't there. You often have feelings of grandeur that aren't real. This film shows as the woman's path to redemption her crushing her medication, her accepting visions and manifestations, her drawing connections that aren't there, her imagining herself as other people. The film then encourages this viewpoint that reality is most real internally, not externally, implying that others who encourage you to seek help are the ones that are wrong. This is a very dangerous message. It's already difficult enough for people with S to believe that they've figured out the world and others are just jealous and conspiring trying to stop them. This film's message of reality is self-creating and ignoring external information is downright dangerous even before combining it with having hallucinations.

I'd like to finish this rant by turning to Ramtha. Setting aside the crazy notion of channeling a spirit, why would you believe an Atlantean anyway? What kind of predictive powers would you give to a supposedly super-advanced civilization that sank because of some wave? And why doesn't Ramtha point to the location of the sunken continent? Surely there'd be some amazing knowledge there, a few artifacts at least. Pointing out the fact that they brushed over all of this in the documentary just beats an intellectually dead and dishonest horse. There was no love of reality, and instead an embrace of desires over truth.

I got to give it 1 star in Netflix, which was more than it deserved. All-in-all a horrifically bad movie, if you think you can handle a night of lies and frustrations.

Family Craziness: An Epilogue

2010-10-12T16:12:00.000-07:00

Well, my family's craziness has ebbed and flowed, and finally came to an end, of sorts.

There were threats, attacks on character, and coercion. My parents badgered a meeting, Russell and I requested that it be a conflict-free meeting, and they refused. I honestly thing they were trying to set up some sort of anti-atheist intervention with my family there and my extended family calling in. We got everything from the eye-rolling "I don't see where you get your morals," to Russell being a cult leader, to Russell being whipped by me. Well, what an honor to be in control of the leader of one of the foremost atheist cults.

Stuff got increasingly abusive and threatening, with my estranged drug-addled father threatening to stalk and run down Russell and I, making his intentions clear by cursing a storm, leaving several messages one after the other and by leaving a tip to "any police listening" about a car infraction. Shit hit the fan when I found out my parents were actually collaborating with him. After talking about it, we both decided that severing all communication with all parents would be the best line of action.

Sometimes, I swear if it hadn't happened to me I would imagine it all a bit of a hyperbole. The most amusing thing about the whole ordeal was the self-important notion my parents had that somehow they had some sort of control and duty over my life, even as an adult who has moved away. The sentiment that I must still honor them as superiors was something deeply embedded in the mind, in spite of every bit of reality they were faced with. They seemed to have this unshakeable belief that parents are inherently superior and obeyed, no matter what. The man of the head of the house also seemed to fuel some of their confused advice alternating between Russell stepping up as the man of the house and forcing me to visit home, and urging me to act without Russell's anti-family influence and come visit home.

I certainly gave it my best. I urged them to drop "the anger within their heart" (a bit sappy for me, but Christians eat that up) and to have a "happy, healthy and respectful relationship with family". It fell on deaf ears who would never compromise or emphasize. I feel like this is an important story to tell on the heels of the It Gets Better campaign.

I want fellow atheist, or gay, or other teenagers feeling alone to know this. Sometimes there are parents who are just crazy and hateful. They will never understand you and will never attempt to understand you. They will do everything in their power to make you into what they want, even if it means harming you. My youth pastor told me that in the parable of the lost sheep, shepherds would break the legs of wandering sheep to keep them from wandering anymore. I have no idea if it's true, but the fact that he thought it made for a good metaphor for Christian kids speaks volumes about the mentality of these kinds of people.

Your parents may never get better, but your life will. One day they won't be able to hold you back. One day you will have the power to get your own job, to get your own place, to make your own decisions. One day you will be the once deciding how they will treat you. Just hold in there, because it does get better.

Back when I was still under my parent's thumb, whether because it was college or because I lived in their house, or something, my life was a living hell and the notion that it would get better was something constantly on my mind. I would get through one day at a time, focusing on how much better my life would be once I got out and away from my parents.

And it has. All that stuff is now in the past. Russell and I are getting married with a Back to the Future theme in a year, my parents aren't, and indeed can't stop that. It does get better, always keep that in mind. We've gone to the Renaissance Faire, we're playing games, going swimming, watching movies; I'm jobhunting and programming for fun and almost to the Lich King, and having a fulfilling life. It gets better.

Happy Holidays!

2010-08-03T10:05:00.000-07:00

As very few of you probably are aware, Ramadan - the Islamic month of fasting - is coming up: August 11th - September 9th. Now, I've never celebrated Ramadan at all, and truth be told I now barely even celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa. But, as I understand it, the phrase "Happy Holidays" supposedly encompasses all of these major holidays. These words are supposedly more inclusive, addressing the major holidays of the Abrahamic faiths, as well as the Solstice, Saturnalia and any other holidays people of various creeds may happen to celebrate. "Happy Holidays" is supposed to be a compromise, not a perfect one, but one that is more encompassing than endorsing any one specific religion. I call that bluff, and I use Ramadan as my evidence.

If "Happy Holidays" were truly a universal greeting then I would expect people to be saying Happy Holidays about now, in acknowledgment of the upcoming holiday of Ramadan. Or, people would be saying it around the Jewish time of Passover (which is arguably a much bigger holiday in the Jewish faith than Hanukkah). But this is not the case. Nobody will start using that supposedly multi-faith phrase until around Halloween. The truth of the matter is of course that "Happy Holidays" is just a subtle way to say "Merry Christmas", a way that society reminds itself that this, the biggest of Christian holiday is coming up and you better be involved and celebrate it like a normal American. "Happy Holidays" is just a way to make Christmas into the one big and only religious holiday. The influence of the social manipulation is very subtle and decisions to enforce or follow them them are rarely made on a conscious level. Using this phrase at Christmas time (and at no other time of the year) sends a quiet message to society that Christmas is the only legitimate holiday worth being "Happy" about. Recognizing compliance in the manipulation can be upsetting, because people want to be inclusive, they don't want to be exclusive. But the overwhelming reality is that "Happy Holidays" is, by nature of its usage, discriminatory.

Interestingly, the few and extreme Christians who agree with excluding other religions and who fight against "Happy Holidays" are the only ones who benefit from a phrase that is so Christmas-centric. This movement is ridiculous because "Happy Holidays" functions to promote Christianity as the one and only normal major holiday. As I have said before, these words are never uttered near Ramadan, Passover, or any other non-December holiday. It's incredibly clear that the phrase only pretends to acknowledge other religions, and any attack on Happy Holidays from the faithful seems to belie motives that are repulsed by anything foreign. Fighting for "Merry Christmas" as opposed to even a flimsy pretense of inclusiveness to me is just the epitome of self-importance and aggrandizement and selfishness.

So I will be experimenting with saying Happy Holidays to random people. I'm slightly hesitant because public workers usually get the brunt of the "Merry Christmas" retaliation, and I don't think it's fair to hassle service employees instead of the problem. Then again, this is one of those social undercurrent problems that can only be thwarted by everyone making small but meaningful changes, and that means getting people involved who may or may not care.

The most obvious problem for saying "Happy Holidays" now, for Ramadan, is that it's just confusing. And that's the point. These words are not some sort of compromise or middle-ground unless they really do apply to all holidays. Saying "Happy Holidays" now would just expose that bias, the misleading plural in the phrase. So I will be saying something like, "Happy Holidays", and if I get questions, follow it up with "Ramadan is coming up. I don't celebrate it, but maybe you do. Happy Holidays is something that applies to all."

The thing is, I can see some religious people being offended by this. Because by using Happy Holidays for Ramadan, you are implying that Christmas is a sidenote in the greeting. The message becomes, "Happy Ramadan, but if you don't celebrate that then I guess happy whatever the heck you do celebrate that whenever you do celebrate it." That is marginalizing the message Happy Holidays sends out during Christmas to every other religion. That's why I feel that this is an important point to get across and am willing to try out saying this for the next month.

One final bit of musing. Given the number of religions and major religious holidays, you'd have to be saying "Happy Holidays" all year long. Which just points out further the stupidity of the phrase. The only way it could serve its purpose of being inclusive is if you did say it all year long, with no particular religious holiday in mind. And then, really, it has lost any utility. Socially, it's much better to be saying, "Thank you" or "Have a good day" or some generic other kind good-will. I personally would be much happier not using Happy Holidays at all, not for Christmas or Hanukkah or Ramadan or anything else. But that's not going to happen until others see why it's offensive. But until then, Happy Holidays.

Philosophy of the definiton of life

2010-07-08T13:21:00.000-07:00

Life and Computers

So one of my current philosophical quandaries is how to define life. It's really something that continues to be a problem, most famously in defining viruses and dealing with the possibility of androids. To me, the idea of computer intelligence was the largest problem. Imagine a computer that functioned with thought and emotions indistinguishable from a human. Would this be considered alive?

As an atheist who doesn't believe in a soul, I would say the answer is most definitely yes. You and I are just a couple of meat machines that spit out emotions and thoughts. An android would be just a silicone machine that spit out emotions and thoughts. To discriminate against a thinking being because of its makeup or origin would be laughable. This video illustrates the point much better than I could, where two computer aliens are disgusted by the concept of meat-based intelligence.

So, to me, a computer like Star Trek's Data would definitely be alive. But, what if it was a computerized cat, or mouse, or cockroach? Or a computerized bacteria? Would that still be "alive"? How about an entirely new species? One that is only a computer program, say an ATMachine? Is that an immobile android animal, on par with the "intelligence" of an ant? Is "Hello World" on par with a small snippet of DNA? Does every time I kill a process equate with squishing an unfeeling roach? This sits less easily with me than accepting Data as being alive.

Perhaps I should take this time to go over the currently accepted definition of life. Life requires self-regulation, organization, chemical [organic] metabolism, evolution, response to stimuli, and reproduction.

Data misses out on that reproduction thing, and depending on how you classify it, he misses out on metabolism too. Now reproduction is essential to evolution, but is evolution an essential component to calling something alive? I don't feel like it is, I think that the ability to evolve is not directly tied to being alive. After all, Data would never evolve, nor would any other computer intelligence. But then does that mean that things which are not alive could evolve? Absolutely; we already see evolution in prions: bits of folded infectious proteins like Mad Cow disease. More damningly, we can program computers to simulate evolution. Are those programs actually evolving? Those objects are encountering limited resources, strains and reproduction… of sorts. The lines with life and evolution keep on getting muddled.

So I propose something seemingly odd: life, intelligence, and evolvability be classified as separate things.

Life would be something that exhibits memory: encounters with novel stimuli produce a permanent change in behavior; for a more famous example, a sea slug (Aplysia) has a gill withdrawal reflex to protect itself from water jets (like how we blink). Scientists can expose the gill to puffs of less-scary water, and eventually the slug stops having the gill reflex. It has learned. Goldfish can be trained to swim through colored hoops. This sort of learning can be accomplished by software that has built-in mechanisms to self-adjust based on previous knowledge. Is is aware of the learning? That would be intelligence.

Intelligence would simply be self-awareness. This is the most tricky thing to gauge from an outside viewer. Even something as simple as asking can go awry. Asking A.L.I.C.E. if she is alive will produce a definite yes, but is her response true? The earliest test we have for self-awareness is the Mirror Test: will something be surprised when you marker a dot on them and show them in a mirror? If they recognize the mirror is themselves, and are aware of themselves, they will react. But creatures could be self-aware and still fail the mirror test. They could be sleeping, uninterested, not a creature that relies on sight, or able to recognize themselves and not the mirror. Don't even get me started on how many extra hoops you'd have to perform the mirror test for a computer program. To me, the mirror test is the definite no-no line for when it comes to unreasonable killing. It doesn't matter if it's a human, some other kind of animal, a computer intelligence, an alien, if it's self-aware, then killing for fun or sport or pleasure or material gains or any other silly non-reason should be pretty much obviously wrong. Killing a person (even to steal their stuff) is wrong, removing life support for a brain-dead person or some sperm is okay. Dophins, elephants and many apes have passed the mirror test. Kind of neat to realize we are not alone when it comes to intelligent creatures of this world. Following that logic, killing a dolphin is wrong, killing an ant is cool. The trick is of course the uncertain stuff in the middle: how to determine what's conscious and what's just knee-jerking. As science advances our understanding of intelligence, this should become easier to detect, but at the moment we don't have the ability to discern intelligence below the mirror test. This is the least satisfying, because we don't know. But admitting that uncertainty is an important part of advancing our knowledge.

And finally evolvability: the ability for organisms to change the basic structure of their progeny through reproduction and selection. Notice I do not say natural selection, because human-selection is still evolution, and really there isn't a clear division between natural and artificial selection, especially if you just view humanity as one kind of natural pressure on a species. How evolution works I feel like has been explained pretty well, but I figured I'd throw in a link to quailasoup's explanation of evolution, it's one of the best explanations I've ever heard (especially for those with questions) perhaps seconded only to The Selfish Gene. This sort of evolution would cover everything from things with genes to computer programs with objects that experience similar kinds of pressure, mutations and change.

I think these sorts of definitions more accurately reflect the possibility of computer or non-genetic intelligence.

Sick of Saying "Probably"

2010-05-14T07:31:00.000-07:00

Let's begin by defining terms.

Theist: someone who believes in a god.
Atheist: someone who lacks a belief in a god.
Gnostic: someone who is certain in their position.
Agnostic: someone who says that certainty can never be truly acquired.
(Solipsist: someone who believes that only their own mind is real.)

Like the vast majority of atheists I've ever encountered, I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I'm starting to reconsider that position, at least in shorthand.

Let's take something that's tangible: tables. I believe in tables. And I would say that I am certain about this belief, the one where I believe tables are real. I'd label myself a gnostic tableist. And the vast majority of everyone else in the world would too. In fact, it'd be rather silly to go out and say that you didn't believe in tables.

But imagine a world where the validity of tables was under constant question (first year philosophy students, for example); everyone in that world was skeptical of tables, the way we are skeptical of fairies. If I traveled there and revealed myself as a gnostic tableist, I am sure that some atableist would point to a table and ask me how I didn't know I was imagining it or that it was a hologram. I'd have to admit that I guess I couldn't know for certain but that I was pretty sure there's probably a table there, and if I performed any of my own tests, that I was pretty sure the tests were accurate, but there could always be some mistake in my mind. The tables could be some elaborate illusion foisted upon me. I'd be forced to change my position from gnostic tableist to agnostic tableist, because really when it comes to tables, I am just using my senses to perceive that table, and perhaps those senses are wrong.

But then of course if I am wrong about tables, I'd have to be wrong about the mug that rests on the table. And the machines/workers that make them. And even the workers running the machines. How can I be sure that anything is real? And now I've been forced into some sort of weird agnostic asolipsist position: I'm pretty sure that everything outside of my mind is real, but the answer is forever unknowable. This is true. I can't rightly say that I'm certain about the existence about anything. But it's not a very useful division between gnostic and agnostic.

It's the same thing in reverse with commonly rejected fairy tales. If you asked me, I'd tell you I'm a gnostic asanta clauseist: there's no Santa, and I know it. If you pressed and whined about extreme cases, however, I'd have to admit that I'm an agnostic when it comes to Santa Clause. Maybe there's a SC on another world. Maybe Santa steals from parents, mindwipes them, takes a cut, then buys gifts for their kids with the remainder. Maybe Santa Clause is love. Maybe Santa Clause drives us to give gifts. Sure those things are possible. And now I've become an agnostic asanta clauseist Technically, I'm an agnostic afairyist and an agnostic abansheeist as well, but those really aren't useful. I am now agnostic with everything I believe in and don't believe in (except for my own mind). I've become an agnostic asolipsist: I don't think that only my own mind exists, but I can never really know. And technically this is correct, but it's not very useful, is it?

Clearly the only practical difference between gnostic and agnostic is degrees of certainty, or usefulness. It's useful for me to be agnostic about life in other parts of the universe. It's not useful for me to be agnostic about life in other parts of the city. There's nothing useful about claiming agnosticism with Santa Clause. There's nothing useful about claiming agnosticism with tables. There's nothing useful about labeling yourself as an agnostic asolipsist.

Now, I would say that there's nothing useful about claiming agnosticism with gods, but there is: placating the theists. It's just peer pressure, years of people asking 'How can you say you're sure?'. Atheists have retreated into this agnostic atheism because we are constantly being badgered by theists and . Well, to them I say, how can you be sure there's no fairies? That there are tables? That there is wind? How can you be sure love is real? It's useful to say that some of those things are real, and some are not.

The thing is, I'm pretty certain that there's no probably god. As certain as I am that there's no fairies and no banshees. However, in real life I'd never have to go around conceding in the slim but real possibility of Santa Claus. It's not useful. Before becoming an atheist, I'd never have batted an eye at someone saying "There's no Santa Claus." I'm a gnostic asanta clausist, and nobody is going to freak out. And now, I'm sick of conceding the (slim but real) possibility of a Deistic, camera-shy or other fringe possibility creator. To me, it's not useful to keep on placating theists by claiming myself an agnostic atheist. So I'm taking that step. There's no gods, either. I'm a gnostic atheist.

Belated Easter Tidings

2010-05-06T08:26:00.000-07:00

Okay, so first off, I haven't blogged in awhile. After having moved to Austin to be with Russell, I've had to spend less time chatting online with him, and therefore less time on my computer writing stuff. I'll try to improve that… by just blogging more that is. It took me awhile to get this one out, but it is a long and good story.

The occasion I've had that has brought me out of hibernation: Easter Sunday.

Russell and I had been intending to go see a church service and blog about it for awhile, but we're both lazy and often have Ben (who doesn't want to go.) Well, we finally decided to get around to it.

I liked the timing of going on Easter because there would be plenty of new faces to facilitate blending in. Also, Easter should be the day the priests bring out the big guns when it comes to convincing people to believe and stay.

Russell had friendly enough relations with Kyle Miller, senior pastor of Great Hill Baptist Church, and since Kyle was kind enough to sit in on an AE show and even make a guest spot on the show, so we decided to return the favor.

My first impression of the church was that it was huge; I've never seen California churches that big, and the entry hall was the same size as my old church's chapel. With the huge domed ceiling and the blasting AC, bookshop and coffeeshop, it felt more like the central hub of my college than a church. I marveled at how they paid for it all, although not for long after the church mentioned their "Raise the Roof to Lower the Debt" fundraiser. Russell pointed out that they were like one of those businesses who expanded during the good times, and is now facing the recession.

I have to say that the pews were sparsely populated. They packed about as many as my small church had back in California. This wouldn't have been especially noteworthy except for the fact that it was Easter, the day when the place should be brimming. I want to consider it a triumph of encroaching atheism to thin the numbers so, but then again it was the 11:00 service, which is usually the least attended.

We got to meet with Kyle before and after, and he was as cordial and kindly as ever. I always feel nervous around especially kindly christians, because either: 1. They are being kind because God has told them too, which means they don't really like you but are just tolerating you because their god has told them to, or 2. They really are that friendly and a nice and outgoing person, but then give credit of their demeanor to God. Kyle seemed quite keen on getting to meet again with Russell, and I imagine he wouldn't mind being the one who converts such big game as a host of the Atheist Experience. Of course, he is just a really nice guy to get to meet with.

The service started off with the typical monotonous Christian Rock sing-a-long. The purpose of this of course is to pump endorphins and encourage those warm fuzzy feelings. Before I get any further with this, I want to touch on something important that I don't think gets brought up enough. Often and usually these manipulative tactics aren't made deliberately, exactly the same way genes aren't selected consciously. These are just memes that have ended up working. So when a manipulative tactic is used, it's not necessarily that the pastor has decided, it's just something that has worked and survives.

So it started off with the music, which was blaringly loud. I couldn't even hear the voice of the other people singing around us, which I hope to take as a sign of lack-luster. Russell and I were the only ones sitting. I hate being made to stand for anything when you are in a sitting environment, it's just silly. I couldn't force myself to pay much attention to the song lyrics, but I did catch everyone's disgustingly favorite metaphor in this line: "I know I'm sinful man covered by the blood of the lamb". Looking back on Christianity, I can't believe how disgusting that is and how I just accepted it.

After alluding that the sermon would be about Lazarus, the preacher came up and the preaching started. The preacher awkwardly complimented everyone for looking pretty and dressing up today. It felt like a half-hearted attempt to flatter us and make us feel accepted, except for the fact that he wasn't talking to anyone of us in particular so it just sounded like a lie. Not to mention that he sounded uncomfortable when he said it, making it seem even more of a lie. Since Churches really only have lies and emotional manipulations as their tools to bring in the crowds, if this is the man's best attempt, then I can understand why the place was almost empty.

He started off with some awful child story about why lilies bloom. His kid came up with the answer - that they bloom because they are like Jesus - they start off as a seed, but then are magically transformed. Of course, the parents were all proud of this answer. I'm disappointed for multiple reasons. First of all, that is not why lilies bloom. The parents have just taken a teachable moment of plant biology and replaced it with God Did It. No longer satisfied with the god of the gaps, their god's taking over even the things as well-documented as seed germination. No doubt the little girl gets rewarded with affection for giving god credit instead of actually finding out the real answer. Disgusting. Additionally, saying that lilies are like Jesus still wouldn't answer why they bloom. Imagine if you asked why glass is hard and I said that it's because it's like a rock. Is that an explanation? No, now that's just shifting the mystery to why rocks are hard. Furthermore, the pastor admitted that many people take creative license with children's stories, but assured us he hadn't. Yeah, right.

After that supposedly heartwarming story, he launched into the meat of the resurrection message. God has standards, we don't meet them, Jesus stepped in front of God, Jesus absorbed God's wrath intended for us. This was of course a "great demonstration of the love of god". The ridiculousness of this message has been pounded into atoms so many times, I even hesitate to waste time on it. A loving god tortures someone else so that he doesn't have to torture you. Because you deserve it. He glosses over this part because everyone already knows it, and if you think about it too much, it starts to not make sense.

After this humbling message, we get a bit of a lecture for not attending (apparently all the regulars talk about us behind our backs! The scandal!), also we get introduced another message of the day: God wants you to give 100% to him. He makes a point of making 50% and 90% inadequate. While he harps on this point again and again, it has to be said that he doesn't actually believe it, and he can't. He has nice clothing, a nice family, assuredly a house, etc. He knows that this standard is too high, but he's trying to have really high expectations that we rise up a little bit to meet and maybe just come to church once a week, I guess. The problem is that the demand is just so ridiculous, that everyone there had to have just ignored it. They might agree, but then they will turn and use their cars to go home and sit in the nice AC. Later he goes one step further and says that in your life your kids are not the most pressing issue - belief is. I was appalled. Floored. That's just straight-up cult material right there. What a galling thing to say - that you should put your faith in a lie over your children. There were plenty of children there too who got to hear this message: you are not as important to your parents as god is.

After harping on the importance of being a 100% dedicated Christian, he addresses their fears that people will call them idiots for giving up so much of their lives to God. This is an important point right here, and it ties nicely into Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager says that if you believe in god, you lose nothing. Well, this pastor is calling on people to give up 100% of their lives to Jesus. Surely, people won't give up that much time, but there's still the message that the more time and effort you give up to God, the better of a Christian you are. Later he acknowledges that this contradicts the message of grace by faith. He addresses this contradiction with a long and elaborate 'nu-uh' about how faith and works are really the same thing. This also speaks volumes of the mental gymnastics of preachers. They recognize the weak points of their religion - that Christianity is foolish - and they address those weak points by assuring their congregation that the weak points don't exist or by not actually addressing the question. People will call you an idiot? Well just say that God expects everything. Faith and works are two different things? Well faith will make you do works! That was his answer, by the way. Not any reasons, just God. Nothing every actually gets answered in this sermon, most likely because it can't.

By now, I'm getting bored. He went into the story about how Jesus raised his buddy Lazarus from the grave, selfishly pulling him out of heaven's eternal bliss to spend some time stinking like a zombie on this wretched earth. The funny part for me was the many parts of the story sounded like it had been an elaborate hoax: Jesus purposefully avoided his friend while he was ill, he wasn't bummed when he heard Laz was dead, he made a huge deal out of making sure that everyone there believed in him before the miracle, Lazarus's hands and feet were bound, Lazarus wasn't confused about where he was, there was a huge crowd watching, etc etc. If something like that happened now, I'd say it was a hoax for media attention. Since it happened so long ago, I'd say it probably never happened at all. The moral, of course, is that even though Jesus goes through all this trouble to give other people evidence of his powers, you should just believe it after hearing a story of him showing other people his powers. So. Dumb.

The most poignant part of the sermon came when he tried to address intellectual issues with the belief in God. Russell and I both braced ourselves. The Atheist Experience show has long been seeking the silver bullet argument for religion, perhaps this would be it! The answer was… God is under no obligation to clear up intellectual issues. He then goes on to say that you need to believe first, then seek to understand the bible. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. He is admitting that God doesn't make sense. That the bible has contradictions and evil that can only be understand through the rose-colored glasses of believing in God first. This was clearly the most disgusting and vile part of the message. This is the reason why even moderate religion angers me. It encourages a lapse of judgment and discourages independent investigation. The worst part is that this argument got an "Amen" from the crowd.

He ended the sermon with a story about some missionaries who got killed after the cannibals they were preaching to ignored their proselytizing efforts and stabbed them. While their lives were clearly wasted (another point against Pascal) when they could have been doing something positive for the world, the preacher just assures us that they didn't waste their lives. More salt in my intellectual wound created by this day.

After that, we got a nice benediction by Kyle calling us "broken hurting people". While he really was just restating the cult-meme that 'you are unlovable and thank goodness God tolerates you aren't you lucky?' If you think about it as him referring to the congregation's ability to reason when it comes to their own religion, then I guess he must have been right.

Atheist Wedding Proposal

2009-12-18T09:32:00.001-08:00

So, as many of you know from the Atheist Experience blog, the other night at Threadgills I proposed to Russell Glasser, in a less-than-traditional move. Here's a picture of the happy after-glow.

There were several reasons why I wanted to be the one who proposed - to spurn tradition, because for me it was a one-time chance, and mostly because I wanted to do an amazingly fun job of it. Russell and I had talked about it before-hand and we had agreed that I would be the one to do the official asking.

Russell and I are both huge nerds, and I wanted to ask him to marry me in some sort of nerdy way. I mentally tossed over many nerdy possibilities actually, ranging from a Back to the Future proposal (ring in a flux capacitor?) to writing a text-based adventure game proposal. Some I threw out right away: a World of Warcraft in-game proposal would have seemed too immaterial, and the only way I could conceive of a Quantum Leap proposal was to wait for him to say 'yes' and then ask and argue with empty space about why I haven't leaped yet. Russell not being a Lord of the Rings fan, there was no way he'd enjoy a LOTR proposal (the One Ring baked in Lembas bread?).

All of these didn't seem to be all that fitting, and anyway I didn't want to propose with a ring because I wanted to give us both a chance to choose our own rings.

After thinking about it for days I settled on Doctor Horrible and it was too perfect to give up. We are both Doctor Horrible fans, and love singing to it in the car. My favorite song is "A Man's Gotta Do" while his is "On the Rise". Of course, the song that would have worked best was the "Bad Horse Letter", so that's what I went with.

After some creative use of rhyming dictionaries, I finally came up with a good song.

Bad Horse, Bad Horse, Bad Horse, Bad Horse

She flew across the nation
To consummate the sin
She wants a life together from just now herein
It needs an affirmation
So don't you wait, chime in
A gentle nod, a grin endorse
Big 'Yes' would be nice of course

Bad Horse, Bad Horse, Bad Horse, Bad Horse

The Godless League of Godless is watching so beware
The answer you give now will be the last we swear
So Make Lynnea gleeful
Or she'll make you her mare...
You'll marry up, there's no divorce
It's hi-ho silver!
Signed,
Bad Horse

To explain the song a bit: I met Russell by being a fan of the Atheist Experience show, when I lived in California. I have since been living out in Austin for the past several months, and we just got a place together a few weeks ago. I wanted to propose at the after-show Atheist Community of Austin dinner at Threadgills, in honor of the thing that initially brought us together.

I told most everyone involved with the show that this dinner was going to be special and why, and thanks to all of them for keeping it a secret.

Unable to keep such a big secret, (and a little bit nervous about getting that 'yes') I did also mention to Russell that I'd be proposing to him at Threadgills, but I gave him no more details than that. It was hard keeping such a secret. There was a lot of 'don't look in my trunk!' lest he wonder why I kept 3 cowboy hats in there, and 'don't read that [sheet of lyrics]!', and plenty of secret text messages.

The trickiest part was getting cowboys. Three of my coworkers graciously agreed, which was perfect as they wouldn't be expected to be there or missed. Cowboy hats and fake mustaches with awesome suspenders and plaid shirts and scarves made the outfits. I think they turned out perfectly, and I want to thank them again for doing a stellar job.

When the day came, I have to admit I was nervous. Despite being in studio, I was not able to focus on the show as much as I would have liked and I was checking my phone every minute at the dinner. About 10 minutes into the dinner, I excused myself to the 'bathroom' to go actually round up the cowboys. Of course, when we returned, the waitress was taking orders, bah! I had to wait for the waitress to finish Keryn's order before going to make my announcement, which was stressful with three cowboys on my heels waiting around the corner.

Seizing my chance, I called for attention and turned to Russell. I told him "Russell, I love you very much, and there's something I want to ask you. I've written it down in a letter." and handed over a letter with the Bad Horse lyrics. Russell later told me he wondered momentarily if he was supposed to sing the lyrics himself. Right on cue, the cowboys popped out and sang the song. Russell was cracking up the whole time, and the singers did a perfect job. Afterward, everyone was clapping and laughing and I turned and thanked my coworkers, and in all the cheering I nearly forgot to get a response.

Someone else remembered, and asked Russell "Well?!? What do you say?" And then everyone turned to Russell, who impassively gestured to the letter, "Well, was there a question here?" After a momentary panic, and a collective boo from the crowd, I collected myself and said, "Russell Glasser, will you marry me?" to which he immediately responded "Yes". Later he told me that this was to help clarify what was going on for people (including his son, I'd imagine) who might have been confused about what was happening. Also, I think, just to give me a fright.

After that, we did some posing for the camera. Here's me on one knee, despite that not being how I proposed.

Here's us kissing in happiness.

We don't have any wedding plans yet, but as soon as there's significant enough progress I will let people know what's shaking.

And for those of you wondering where I've been, I'm writing a text-based adventure game. It's almost playable/winnable but nowhere near finished. As soon as it's ready I will let you all know.

New Awesome Job - Texas Campaign for the Environment

2009-10-09T08:52:00.000-07:00

Hello all, after awhile of enjoying Austin and job searching, I have finally found a rewarding and enjoyable job canvassing for Texas Campaign for the Environment, so I wanted to talk about our cause and what it's like canvassing, because I'm sure a lot of people have been at the other end of canvassers frequently. I'll just write about the campaign right now, there are so many interesting bits of psychology that I've learned about canvassing that it will just have to be its own post.

The cause is a worthy one, especially because it's an issue that goes under the radar frequently - electronics waste disposal. Being a nerd, I of course have my fair share of electronics that I enjoy. The problem is that they are not made to be recycled, and while they do have reusable bits of gold, copper, etc. they also have a significant amount of lead, mercury and other contaminants. These can be taken out carefully without polluting the surrounding areas or the workers, but it takes the proper technique and equipment, and that can be a bit costly. So what many US electronics companies and recyclers are doing is shipping their electronic waste overseas where its being dumped by scam companies in China, Thailand, Vietnam and many places in Africa. In these countries, often they have their own national laws preventing the import of electronic waste, and preventing dumping instead of recycling, but being developing countries, they are not as well enforced as they should be. When the electronic waste is dumped, locals often burn through the plastic to get at the metals, releasing PCB's and dioxin. They then scrounge for metals, dumping the mercury down the drain where it gets into groundwater and farmlands, then they throw parts in acid baths to get at the gold, dumping the acid too down the drain when it becomes unusable. Often the lead is taken and also sold as a commodity, used in paint and sometimes even sold back to the US in the form of toy paint (remember the Mattel recall a few years ago?) or children's jewelery.

So we're putting a stop to this by closing the loophole allowing the scam electronics recyclers to ship their junk overseas and keep them accountable for their junk here in the US. Texas Campaign for the Environment has an awesome track record; it pushed Dell and Apple into offering free electronics recycling programs for all their products - if you want to get rid of your computer take it to them. TCE has also gotten a free electronics recycling law passed statewide here in Texas. So now we're working with companies and politicians to draft a new federal bill. We all mobilize the community by going around letting people know about this issue, getting signatures of support, collecting donations, and collecting letters people write to put pressure on the corporation and the lawmakers to stop this practice. The letters is the meat of what I do to put the pressure on these companies - they do not want the bad press of being environmentally unconscious after they have invested so much into their image. We also lobby and work out legal details with these companies, with other enviornmentalist groups, with special interest groups, but I don't see much of that. So it looks like a promising campaign. If you want to get involved with letters, donations, or just want more info you can go to TexasEnvironment.org. I plan on sitting down this weekend to type out a long letter myself and hope to get Ben involved in drawing pictures, but we shall see how that goes. I'll write more about the details of what its like to canvass later, that's a whole long story in itself.

Religion and Politics: shouldn't intersect for either party

2009-09-25T08:38:00.000-07:00

E. J. Dionne

As you've probably already read on Kazim's Korner, E. J. Dionne gave a speech about how Democrats need to embrace religious language while giving political speeches to reclaim religosity from the right. He certainly practiced what he preached, because his talk was littered with an uncomfortable amount of appeals to books and stories of the bible, religious jokes about how awesome Jesus was, and a healthy amount of prayers in there. "We all worship the same god" was a bit of a sore point too. Every references made me flinch with discomfort and Kazim and I exchanged mutual groans over a joke that Jesus had always been a Democrat. Of course, considering that he told people to get rid of all their stuff and give the proceeds to the poor and attacked a bunch of merchants in the temple, he might better be considered an Anarchist - or a Dictator - depending on his view of where he fits into the world.

We arrived to the church a little late, and when I heard the preacher giving the introduction, I had a moment of panic. I haven't been in a church for a long time, and towards the end of my churchgoing I was a strong, but still closeted, atheist. Looking around I saw what looked like a normal church crowd and the memories of pretending to be a believer while sitting through church all came back. I had to remind myself that I was here to listen to a political speech that was incidentally tied to religion. Of course, that was completely wrong. It was religious with some politics tied in. It was just like a church sermon, and after awhile my panic was replaced with boredom as I remembered just how horribly droll Sunday services were, and it reminded me so much of those horrid morning in church that I actually had difficulty paying attention.

I had been expecting him to make a rational argument about why and how the left should use religious language. Something about how people identify strongly with their religion, expect guidance from their leaders, and are encouraged by their leaders endorsing their religious beliefs. That religion is tied to morality and that it will become more moral to be Democratic than Republican. That we could persuade moderates to endorse more social welfare if we tied it to stories of Jesus helping the poor, because that is a story and language that they can identify with. Those are all arguments that I could understand someone making, and can easily be butchered with the basic arguments that political figures represent people of all faiths and non-faiths and should not be politically endorsing a specific one to the unavoidable exclusion of all others, and as us atheists know, that the Bible is just a grab-bag of morality that can be used to justify feeding the poor or slashing open pregnant foreigners.

But he did no such thing. All he did was preach: Jesus helped the poor, we should endorse social welfare programs. The right quotes Leviticus, we should quote other parts of the bible. Jesus is a Democrat. God led the Jews to the promise land through a desert... just like we are in a desert of dumb Republican policies! This was another groan-fest to Russell and I, and of course I find the idea that God has a plan to eventually bring us to a democratic promise land can encourage a sort of feeling of lack of responsibility: after all, God will eventually lead us there, we just have to trust in Him, wait it out, and follow His directions. Despite making no good points, he kept getting nods of agreement from the audience. I certainly lost a little bit of faith in humanity that Jesus feeding the poor was a good enough argument for social welfare programs, as if helping people wasn't a good enough aspiration by itself.

The majority of the Q&A section was wasted, in my opinion on healthcare battle concerns. Everyone wanted to know how we can get something done to push healthcare through. Strangely enough, this seemed a little short-sighted to me. While healthcare is an important long-term issue to tackle as soon as possible and with gusto, it had nothing to do with this talk today. These people were not asking about healthcare because it was a long-term topic that needed to be addressed, or indeed they would have brought up climate change too, they were bringing it up because it is an immediate concern. And let me just say on that I wish that the government would get its head out of its ass and push through a fair and comprehensive, socially progressive health care reform.

There was one interesting question from a man whose sibling called him evil for being a democrat instead of a republican, her religious and political views so intertwined. He asked, in my opinion, the wrong question of a political columnist of how he could overcome that stonewalling. What he should have asked is why E.J. believes that tying politics and religion together in the way is a good thing at all when it has such results.

In truth, Russell's question was the only truly provocative, difficult and dismantling thing asked. He identified himself as Russell Glasser from the Atheist Community of Austin, and wanted to know why breaking a separation of church and state was a good thing, when that separation was designed to prevent exclusion, and didn't embracing religious language validate the right's use of it? There was an uneven burst of heavy applause, with some fervently clapping and some not budging an inch.

Dionne stalled on answering the question, first "God blessing" Russell, and then brining up an offensive article he had written awhile ago titled "God bless atheists". I had read this awhile ago, and now hearing him explain it I was initially inflamed. The crux of his argument is that atheist are important because they refute Christian arguments so well that they force Christians to be on their toes when it comes to their faith. The notion that we would exist just to serve Christianity is offensively ludicrous. I'm certain he wouldn't be caught dead claiming "Thank God for black people because they serve to show us just how pretty our white skin is, or they serve as a reminder that our white skin is delicate and we need to protect it with sunblock." Pile on top of that that his religion says we will go to hell, and he is essentially saying that God put atheists here and is sending them to hell for the express purpose of strengthening the faith of Christians. Of course, God can't strengthen their faith by perhaps appearing and speaking to everyone at once in every language, or moving the stars in the sky, or preventing violence and death and suffering. And for those Christians who don't believe in Hell, don't you think it's a little convenient that the parts of the bible that seem unsavory to you aren't really true, but the parts that you like are?

Dionne finally got to answering the question, stating that there were two important points: 1. The the person must really have faith, not just appealing to it to win votes, and seems disingenuous after his comment about a friend of his teaching him how to "speak Baptist". This seems to me like it has great witch hunt potential. 2. That the politician must be explaining how his faith is influencing his decision, not trying to say that people should be of a certain faith or whatever. But faith should not be influencing political decisions, that's exactly the problem, and Dionne seems to have not gotten the point of a church-state separation question. Religious convicitions have influenced irrational wars, abortion bans, gay inequality and much more. These arbitrary beliefs should not influence public policy. He went on to mention Jesus taking care of the poor and social welfare programs for the third time this night, making me wonder why he wouldn't care about the poor except for the fact that Jesus told him to. It was a poor response, that in a debate would have been torn to shreds by any one of the Atheist Experience / Nonprophets, although he wrapped it up in grandiose language enough to seem moving on a superficial scale and received a grand applause from the members of the audience who might have been worried at an affront to their beliefs.

I would have loved to ask him why he thinks that people are so uncaring that they won't vote for measures that will help others unless they are manipulated to think that the measure jives with their religion, but I didn't go up on the anticipation of a better caliber of questions from the audience. I was disappointed by the lack of disagreement, and I'm glad at least that he has realized that he can't get away with assuming that everyone he will talk to is a Baptist.

Gay gamers are offensive?

2009-09-08T13:39:00.000-07:00

I consider myself a rather large LGBTQIA (lesbian, gay, bi, trans, queer, intersex, asexual/ally) supporter. I find any sort of discrimination against non-heterosexuals straight-out baffling and infuriating. I have lived as an "ally" in the queer house on campus, I have gone to rallies, I have attended classes, learned queer history. I root for a Batman and Robin romance, I hate the stereotype of the gay friend, and I wish more people in films and programs just happened to be gay. I enjoy queer movies... as long as they're not boring. There's nothing more boring to me than a movie that thinks it can support itself just because they have the "edgy" gay characters any more than a film that thinks it can support itself just because it has superheroes, but that's really a rant for another day.

It is in this spirit of enjoying gayness that I created a World of Warcraft character awhile ago and dubbed him Geighdayr. (To those unsure of medieval pronunciation, that's Gay-dar.) I wanted to be an out man-lover in WoW, and I even chose a Role-Playing world different from my normal world, where I could fully embrace Geighdayr's gayness and be as in-character as possible. After one bout of playing Geighdayr, I went to log in to him again, and was greeted with this.

He had been flagged for a name change.

Looking through Blizzard's policies, this apparently was considered an offensive name. Here are the official Blizzard policies that I legally agreed to:
_____________________
Rules Related to Usernames and Guild Designations.

Each user will either select a character name or allow the Service to automatically select a character name at random. Additionally, users may form "guilds" and such guilds will be required to choose a name for the guild. When you choose a character name, create a guild, or otherwise create a label that can be seen by other players using the Game or the Service, you must abide by the following guidelines as well as the rules of common decency. If Blizzard finds such a label to be offensive or improper, it may, in its sole and absolute discretion, change the name, remove the label and corresponding chat room, and/or suspend or terminate your use of the Service. In particular, you may not use any name:

(i) Belonging to another person with the intent to impersonate that person, including without limitation a "Game Master" or any other employee or agent of Blizzard;

(ii) That incorporates vulgar language or which are otherwise offensive, defamatory, obscene, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

(iii) Subject to the rights of any other person or entity without written authorization from that person or entity;

(iv) That belongs to a popular culture figure, celebrity, or media personality;

(v) That is, contains, or is substantially similar to a trademark or service mark, whether registered or not;

(vi) Belonging to any religious figure or deity;

(vii) Taken from Blizzard's Warcraft products, including character names from the Warcraft series of novels;

(viii) Related to drugs, sex, alcohol, or criminal activity;

(ix) Comprised of partial or complete sentence (e.g., "Inyourface", "Welovebeef", etc);

(x) Comprised of gibberish (e.g., "Asdfasdf", "Jjxccm", "Hvlldrm");

(xi) Referring to pop culture icons or personas (e.g. " "Britneyspears", "Austinpowers", "Batman")

(xii) That utilizes "Leet" or "Dudespeak" (e.g., "Roflcopter", "xxnewbxx", "Roxxoryou")

(xiii) That incorporates titles. For purposes of this subsection, "titles" shall include without limitation 'rank' titles (e.g. , "CorporalTed," or "GeneralVlad"), monarchistic or fantasy titles (e.g., "KingMike", "LordSanchez"), and religious titles (e.g., "ThePope," or "Reverend Al"). You may not use a misspelling or an alternative spelling to circumvent the name restrictions listed above, nor can you have a "first" and "last" name that, when combined, violate the above name restrictions.
___________________________

from http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.html, emphasis mine.

As you can see, there's nothing against self-identifying as gay or straight. Indeed, I would wager that identifying as gay or straight is about as heinous as identifying as male or female, and Blizzard allows you to make those identifications, and indeed you have to choose male or female.
The only two thing I could possibly think that I had violated was either a name relating to sex, or an offensive name.

Was Geighdayr considered sexual? It's quite silly to assume that as soon as you identify as gay that means sex. Why isn't identifying as straight sexual? Indeed, since straight is the assumed normal, why isn't saying nothing at all sexual? Why does simply saying gay immediately lead to sex? Or indeed, isn't identifying yourself as a female or male sexual? After all, they have sex. Or what of tall or short people? It's really odd to jump from gay to sex with no other context whatsoever, and in my opinion a remnant of the idea that sex is for procreation and gay people by default must be having for-fun sex, and are therefore sexual (which is odd itself, as if gays can't be celibate.)

Perhaps geighdayr was offensive? This was a possibility, if not a disgusting one on Blizzard's part. To consider gayness in and of itself offensive or "vulgar" would be such a weird and backward step that I personally couldn't fathom it. What exactly is offensive about being gay, Blizzard? Why are you calling gayness vulgar? The argument I've heard when it has come to microsoft is that it's a protection against slandering the gay community. That's bullshit. It forces gay people into the closet, while not addressing the problem. A real solution would be a ban on using the dumb-ass "that's so gay!" curse (seriously, stop being a heteroaggot if you've ever used that one.) What's offensive is that Blizzard might be siding with the jerks who think that openness about gayness is offensive.

So after reviewing my Terms of Use, I emailed a complaint to Blizzard explaining the above in about so many words and saying that I would like to keep my name.

I just got a response back today:

Thank you for contacting us regarding the World of Warcraft account you use. Upon further review of the action taken upon this account, we have determined that our original findings were accurate and the action was in line with our current policies.

Realm: Wyrmrest Accord
Character Name: Geighdayr

Account Action: Warning
Reason for Action: Naming Policy Violation - Inappropriate

The in-game name above has been found to be in violation of the World of Warcraft Terms of Use. We ask that you take a moment to review these terms at http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.html.

You may not choose character, guild, pet or team names which, in the sole and absolute discretion of Blizzard Entertainment, are deemed to be offensive or improper.

Please keep in mind that while certain names may seem appropriate to you, another player in the game may find the same name inappropriate or offensive. In the end, we want World of Warcraft to be a fun and safe environment for all players.

We base all of our actions on the severity of the violation and we take previous violations into consideration. This action has been taken in accordance with the Terms of Use and our In-Game Policies (http://us.blizzard.com/support/article/20309).

As a reminder, only the Account Administration department can address disputes or questions about this account action. To learn more about how we are able to assist you, please visit us at http://us.blizzard.com/support/article/21505.

We hope this has resolved any concerns you may have had. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

Regards,

Ceredris
Account Administrator
Blizzard Entertainment
www.blizzard.com
_______________________

So it turns out that Blizzard did find my account name to be inappropriate. Blizzard finds gayness inappropiate and saw fit to give me a warning because of it. I am absolutely disgusted. I have heard of Microsoft doing this with self-identifying lesbian and gay Xbox users, I have heard of the name "Gaylord" banned by a filter, but this amount of involvement is just disheartening. It means that someone at the starting town had to have noticed my name, reported it to Blizzard, and an individual at Blizzard saw fit to agree.

A supposedly more progressive, more advanced company is going out of its way to ban gayness and even has the gall to say that it's reasonable. I noticed that they did not go into any details about why it's offensive, because really there are none. Blizzard has just decided to side with the bigots, has decided to cater to the fag-haters by scrubbing its world clean of anything gay. They top it off by saying that they want the gay to be a safe and fun environment for all players, but I guess they mean all players as long as you're not gay. I am super-pissed, and I'd love it if I could keep my Geighdayr name.

So if you agree that my Geighdayr should be able to eventually complete the World of Warcraft quests "Polishing Hodir's Helm", "Thrusting Hodir's Spear" and "Blowing Hot and Cold", here are the people you can hassle:

WoWGM@Blizzard.com
wowaccountadmin@blizzard.com

Don't Discriminate When it Comes to Bigots

2009-09-05T12:31:00.000-07:00

So I've been wanting to write about something that's been bugging me for a long time: ridiculing outed anti-gay preachers. I feel that ridiculing them once they've been outed sends the wrong message - it makes fun of them being gay instead of being anti-gay.

We should be making fun of every single preacher who ever makes an anti-gay comment or slur or slander. They should all be torn down as the bigots that they are. There should be an internet uproar every time some leader makes these comments. We shouldn't discriminate self-hating gay bigots from other-hating straight bigots. They are all bigots and all equally stupid.

Picking on them once they come out sends the message that before we knew they were gay it was fine for them to be slandering homosexuality. It means that it's okay to be hateful towards gay people, as long as you're not gay. Picking on them once they've been outed only sends the message that it's them being homosexual that's the problem. By focusing on them once they've been outed, we're making the homosexuality the problem. It's saying to the religious community that you will be accepted if you hate gays, but not if you are one yourself. It says that you must stay in the closet or else you will get ridicule and hate and lose respect and admiration. It forces the religious into the closet for fear of getting similar ridicule from those promoting of gay rights, in addition to all the ridicule they're getting from their peers. I bring this up now because the atmosphere is such that doubtless more preachers will be outed in the future. This will repeat itself.

I believe that when preachers get outed, we should instead send them positive messages of being gay. We should say that we support them and feel sad that they feel they've had to hide their true feelings. We should encourage them to come out, and encourage them to be accepting. Should we ridicule them for being anti-gay? Sure, but not any more than we ridicule other straight preachers for being anti-gay. We should be riding them as much as possible. It will be harder, because they are so prevalent. It is easier to target the outed gay preachers because they are fewer in number and more visible. There are plenty of organization that deserve our ire, Focus on the Family is as easy enough target, for example. Searching for "pro-family" or "homosexual agenda" will land you plenty of people to make fun of.

One clinic that badly needs a lesson in Health Psychology

2009-07-15T06:30:00.000-07:00

Well, first off, I'd better explain what health psychology is. There are two major parts: the first is how your mindset affects your health (placebo effects), the second is how to use psychology to get the patients to stick to their medical regimen or healthy behaviors. The fertility medications, I would imagine, like any other medicine can be influenced by the placebo effect. The more I believe they will work and want them to work, the more they will contribute to the actual medicinal effect of the drug. And when it comes to medical regimens and health behaviors, I had to inject myself with up to 3 separate needles a day, abstain from alcohol, caffeine and sexual activity, and drink sports water. A tall order. This clinic was severely lacking in both areas of psychological encouragement, and really emphasized to me the importance of strict standards and health reform. Let me list their faults

They did not keep my files straight.

They accused me of being 1.5 hours late to an appointment, then apologized when, after shuffling through papers, admitted it was another girl.
They lost my initial application file, asked me if I had filled it out at all.
They called me by my middle name.
Most heinously, my nurse did not make a note down when I started my medication and at what dose, waiting until my next visit a few days later to write this down.

Putting aside psychology, keeping strict track of records, files and patient information is pivotal to the welfare of the client. I could have been administered incorrect drugs or dosages, or been delayed (in fact, I was delayed). This represented a clear danger to myself and other patients, and if this were a cancer clinic instead of a fertility, it could have meant my life. This lack of a clear bookkeeping was not only dangerous for safety, but this alone completely shattered my trust in the clinicians. Why should I trust them with surgery when they can't even keep my files straight? It makes me more stressed, and decreases any trust I have in their treatments or advice. Less trust in my clinician means a decreased placebo effect and a decreased liklihood that I will respect their demands on my medical regimen.

They emphasized the negative effects.

The nocebo is the placebo's evil twin: if you believe something will affect you negatively, then you will make it true. I was told by several people that the effects of the medicines would make me very moody, emotional, and in pain. While they are obligated to tell me negative effects, there is no reason to emphasize them, and in fact downplaying them would have helped. I chose to ignore their warnings of period symptoms and indeed I did not feel a thing. I suppose in this case, not trusting them possibly helped me. Or perhaps I just would not have been susceptible to the medicines anyway.

They did not give clear directions.

Once it came to time to stick myself subcutaneously with needles, I realized that the nurse had not properly explained this even either. I was told to, "you know, swab the area, then stick it in". Luckily, I have injected rats before so I knew something about how to inject. I didn't realize right away though, that for humans you need to inject perpendicular, rats have thinner body fat then humans and need to be injected at an angle. Here are all the steps that the nurse left out: wash hands, swab the area, unwrap the needle, take off the cap, over-fill the syringe, push out the excess to remove the air bubble, always keep the needle on a sterile surface (inside of the wrapper), inject at a 90 degree angle, aspirate (pull the plunger up and see air to make sure you're not injecting into a vein), and slowly push the plunger down, leave it in for a few seconds and then pull it out. To make sure I was aware of all that, the nurse should have gone over a checklist with me, and even perhaps asked me to practice for her with saline, or maybe watched a movie.

Another thing, they told me that while taking the medication, I was not supposed to drink alcohol, caffeine or have sex, and to drink vitamin water but they were never clear about which medications that applied to. Did I start abstaining once I started the birth control? The ovulation suppressant? Or perhaps not until starting the fertility meds at the very end? And when was I supposed to drink the vitamin water? I forgot about the water, and left it out because it was never brought up again after my initial appointment. I was delayed in my surgery, and I am not sure whether to blame the vitamin water, the weakened placebo effect, incorrect dosage, or even my own body.

They did not debrief me.

The nurse just shipped a box of medications to me, without explaining the plan for my treatment regimen. When I open the box, I saw a miniature pharmacy and nearly had a heart attack. There were all sorts of drugs, and I had no idea what anything was for or when. I was overwhelmed, something that could have been avoided with clear communication and a general overview about my regimen.

The day of and before my surgery I was not debriefed on what to expect after - how much pain, what sorts of activities I would be able to do, how to best recover. I was debriefed very thoroughly by an anesthesiologist about the anesthesia who explained everything she was doing, but I had no idea about what to expect from the surgery itself. I was handed a paper with all the information on it when I left, but that was it.

They had poor timing.

I hate having my blood drawn and having gynecological exams, they make me feel faint for awhile afterwards. So of course my meeting with the nurse about my medications were scheduled to be directly after getting my blood drawn and my lower quarters prodded. Sometimes this was necessary - they needed to test so that they could advise me on dosages, but sometimes it was not. When it was not, I was unnecessarily placed in a situation where my ability to concentrate and ask questions was compromised. Not only that, but I was rarely asked if I had any questions, but was instead rushed out the door.

When it came to my surgery, even, they tried to rush me out even with me still vomiting after 2 doses of one anti-nausea medicine and another of a second medicine were not affecting me. The nurse who was in charge of dismissing me was uppity about staying late and clocked out before I even made my first dry heave, leaving me with another nurse who was already in charge of a patient. Possibly she didn't have enough time to debrief me properly after the surgery, but I still would have preferred a pre-operative debriefing. I was really going into it blind.

The did not follow the most sterile procedure.

Following atheist/xtian news, I had just read an article a few days ago about how a phlebotomist (blood-drawer) had been told that wearing jewelery of any kind violated sterile procedures because it could harbor germs that could be passed to new patients, and that she could keep the cross in her pocket. The woman of course claimed religious discrimination, but what had been an amusingly annoying xtian story a few days ago quickly became relevant to me as I noticed my anesthesiologist wearing a cross necklace. This woman with the germ-harboring neck jewelery cared more for her faith than me not getting infections. To my dismay, I looked down and noticed she was wearing several thin bracelets as well. Perhaps she just never thought about it. This was not the most reassuring thing to realize right before my surgery.

My Experience as an Egg Donor

2009-07-15T06:24:00.000-07:00

Donating my eggs was one of the more interesting things I think I've ever done. I'm writing about this to share the experience with fellow people interested in donating themselves, or for just the curious. It doesn't really have to do with atheism in any way, it's just an interesting experience.

I was lucky enough to find a fertility clinic somewhat local to Santa Barbara, it was actually very difficult to find on the internet, and I'm not going to say who they are because it's not really that important. The first interesting thing about signing up to be a donor is how incredibly and immediately superficial it was. I was asked questions about my weight, hair color, eye color, ethnicity, pictures (profile and face) grades, SAT and ACT scores, extra curricular activities, family history of various genetic diseases. What sort of nerd would I be if this didn't offhandedly remind me of Gattaca? Actually given the opportunity of some choice, these parents were choosing the most intelligent, attractive, similar genes they could, and they were paying handsomely for it. From what I understand, the price on the end of the family is about $20,000 up (Donors can expect to get compensated $3,000 upwards).

Of course, the difference between this and Gattaca was that instead of snippets of their unfeeling DNA, the choice was between my conscious self and a slew of unknown donors. I would compare it to giving your information to a company that makes a dating site page for you, except you have no control over looking for dates yourself. A more fair comparison would be to a bride or a whore auction: you are judged by them and they pick you, you just have to trust the matchmaker that they are good people, and you can refuse, but that means you will not get paid. It is not an egalitarian relationship.

After being selected, I went through a barrage of blood disease and genetic tests. Seeing as how I hate my blood being drawn - and I have small veins that are difficult to stick and blow out easily - I was elated to learn that towards the end I'd have to have to have my blood drawn about every other day. I also had to go through psychological testing. While I was waiting to start my session, I heard the psychologist appealing to the client to trust in a "God or higher power". While I would have loved to debate her and the ethics of appealing to god for clients, this woman held the power to deem me mentally incompetent, and some fertility clinics deemed religion important enough to ask me my religious background. All I was really there for was for this woman to make sure that I wasn't crazy and that I wasn't going to try and steal the baby once it had been born. This I passed with flying colors. As I have alluded to before, I do not believe that genetic similarity or biological origins should determine a relationship. I believe that love, kindness, respect and actions should determine relationships. To me, this baby was entirely theirs. I have no more affection for it that I would a stranger's baby, because indeed that is what it is. Now I realize that not everyone would share this view. In this case, I would advise you not to become an egg or sperm donor.

After a month of taking birth control to make myself a hormonal blank slate for the clinic, I started having to give myself injections. I hate needles, because they are so often paired with blood being drawn. I had always wondered how people with chronic diseases were able to constantly stick themselves with needles, and I had been certain that if I had ever gone into a similar situation, I would not have been able to cope. That first time I filled up a tiny 1ml needle with 0.10 ml of liquid, I nearly cried for fright. Then after injecting, I realized what a big wuss I was being - it was easy, and I quickly got used to it. I did relive that horror when I was instructed on how to take three different shots at different times, but even got used to that as well. My poor skin did get a bit MOTTLED??? from the pinpricks and occasional bruising.

The surgery itself was minimally invasive. I had a fantastic anesthesiologist, although there was one thing I disagreed with. She wore a cross necklace, and when it came time to inject me with the stuff to knock me out, she asked me if there were any special prayers that I wanted to say. Trying to think fast while still being stressed, I replied, "Abra cadabra!" Thinking about it, I think that a better response would have been, "Thank you scientists who discovered and tested anesthesia." I have also had my wisdom teeth taken out, and the overall experience was similar, if not even simpler. Unfortunately, I was one of the 0.1% of lucky people who woke up from the anesthesia with intense nausea. Maybe I said the wrong magical prayer. I was given pain medication for after the trip, and ended up only needing about 1/3 of the bottle.

To me, the worst part was the exams. In order to check my ovaries, first if they were viable and then that they were "progressing" once I was given hormones, I was given trans-vaginal ultrasounds. Through the disgust, I was amused at the fact that I was getting paid to have this doctor shove something inside my vagina and poke left and right to see the ultrasound. Since technically the compensation is for the time and effort, not for the biological eggs (selling body parts is illegal), this was part of what I was being paid for. I wondered at how far I was from a whore.

Sexual evolution says that for the male who can easily contribute to the creation of a baby, the optimal strategy is to impregnate as many women as possible. The best way for evolution to encourage that strategy is for men to crave sex as much as possible. Evolution also says that for the female, who has to invest at least 9 months + several years to create a baby. The best way for evolution to encourage that strategy is for women to really, really crave babies. Prostitutes (mainly) cater to men wishing to fulfill their evolutionary sexual craving - sex. I was catering to women to fulfill their evolutionary sexual craving - babies. I find it odd that one sort of craving was immoral, indecent and illegal, while another is legal, acceptable and even admirable. I am not sure if it is sexism, or latent puritanism that did not have the chance to take hold on egg donation because the technology wasn't there. I look at all the legal and biological safeguards in place for egg donation, and I can't help but feel that prostitution would benefit from similar safeguards when legalized.

But to return to sexual evolutionary cravings. In a way, I consider that I beat the system to the punch using technology, since the crux of evolution is to pass on genetics. Here I have increased my Darwinian fitness with 3 months of minimal labor, with no birthing, no child support, no money spent on the kid (and no guilt of a child languishing in an adoption center). I've had someone else take care of that all for me. I do regret not requesting to know how many babies were born from my eggs, just because now I can only estimate my Darwinian fitness (0.5 x number of genetic offspring) instead of knowing for certain. Assuming one kid, I will have a fitness of about 0.5 in 8 or 17 months. I plan on donating again, and hope to achieve a fitness of about 2.

The other interesting part of the donation process was working with the clinic itself. They were completely unprofessional. With a Biopsychology degree under my belt, I have studied health psychology and this place could benefit from someone who knows about it. But that is another story altogether.

Back again!

2009-07-15T06:23:00.000-07:00

So I'm back again, after a long hiatus. I have had several things happen at once, some unexpected, some long-planned, that I didn't want to write about until after they had happened. I plan on writing about them all in due time, and now that I finally have a bit of downtime, I figured I'd put some updates about what I have been doing and what I will be writing about. First of all, I have increased my Darwinian fitness in a less-than-traditional way: through egg donation. The whole process was quite an ordeal, and I have at least two posts to make about that. Then immediately after, I became a local ACA member; I have made the move out to Austin. That was quite a fun little road trip (albeit not blog post-worthy), but needless to say I've been running around jumping through all the government, apartment, car, shopping, and job searching hoops. It's fun, but a little tiring after awhile. I've finally got my new place all set up (except for that all-important internet) and am getting settled in. Tragically, on the drive out to Austin, my grandfather died and I had to immediately fly back out to California for the memorial. It was a bit odd meeting with my family after having just left everyone, but even more fascinating was the service itself, which was my first deeply religious memorial after becoming an atheist. Since I don't have internet yet, I'm writing these experiences all down, saving them as documents, and then going to have to put them all up at once. Of course for you dear reader, the posts will be instantaneous. Oh well.