Archive for ‘chiropratic’

January 1, 2017

7 bad science and health ideas that should die with 2016 – Vox

Source: 7 bad science and health ideas that should die with 2016 – Vox

January 1, 2017

Fake treatments for real diseases: A review of allergy and asthma advertisements by naturopaths, chiropractors, homeopaths and acupuncturists – Science-Based Medicine

A majority of Canadian chiropractic, naturopathic, homeopathic and acupuncture clinics claim that they can diagnose or treat allergies, sensitivities and asthma.

Source: Fake treatments for real diseases: A review of allergy and asthma advertisements by naturopaths, chiropractors, homeopaths and acupuncturists – Science-Based Medicine

December 17, 2016

An Artistic Discovery Makes a Curator’s Heart Pound – The New York Times

September 24, 2015

The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking | Brain Pickings

Necessary cognitive fortification against propaganda, pseudoscience, and general falsehood.

Source: The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking | Brain Pickings

June 29, 2013

I don’t give no respect

…But you must respect the beliefs of others, even if you disagree with them.

A common  statement proffered by religionistas and their apologists, often after you have revealed to  them how utterly ridiculous their beliefs are, or in order to avoid having to contend with logic and reason. It’s hogwash of course.

I will acknowledge the existence of their beliefs but I need not respect them, or treat their ideas respectfully.  The fact is that many of them believe in imprisoning, torturing,  even murdering people who have beliefs contrary to their own. Many of them believe that women have lesser rights and  can and should  be enslaved, raped,  and even killed at the whims of their male masters. Many of them believe them many of my friends  should lose their rights because of their race or their sexual orientation.  They want me to respect those beliefs. They want me to respect them,  supposedly adult humans who  still talk to their imaginary friends in the sky and believe in magic clothing.  They want me to respect their “faith”. Fuck that. I’ll acknowledge those beliefs, I may ignore those beliefs, but I’ll never “respect” their. That doesn’t mean that I won’t love  some of them or enjoy their company, but don’t tell me I have to be respectful when it comes to these beliefs.

 

 

June 3, 2012

You Atheists are so Narrow-Minded….

I am always  amused by this comment  when it is thrown at me by some fundie with whom I am disputing.  Yes, we are a narrow group, we atheists, who refuse to believe in fairy tales, magical invisible friends, virgin births, resurrections, bigfoot and the like. How dare we be so closed, so rational in our thinking. We need to open up and embrace the delusions. SOB

Re-blogged from Uncompromising Rhetoric

May 13, 2012

10 Commandments of Logical Fallacies

The 10 Commandments of Logical Fallacies:

ladyatheist:

  1. Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument. (Ad hominem)
  2. Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make them easier to attack. (Straw man fallacy)
  3. Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole. (Hasty generalization)
  4. Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. (Begging the question)
  5. Thou shall not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause. (Post Hoc/False cause)
  6. Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities. (False dichotomy)
  7. Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, claim must be true or false. (Ad ignorantum)
  8. Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. (Burden of proof reversal)
  9. Thou shall not assume “this” follows “that” when it has no logical connection. (Non sequitur)
  10. Thou shall not claim that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true. (Bandwagon fallacy)

Source: ladyatheist

April 15, 2012

The Myth of New Atheism

What is this New Atheism?  New atheism is a type of Atheism — if we can even call it that — that is criticized for being outspoken.  Furthermore, it is shunned upon by so called old Atheists for scientifically testing religion and for its anti-theistic undertone.  However, new Atheism is a concoction of haughty-minded Atheists who pride themselves in near total silence and read the philosophy of Baron d’Holbach, David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain and Karl Marx; just to name a few.

Didn’t these men write publications?  Weren’t they as outspoken as possible when considering that some of them were at risk of persecution, censorship, or even execution?  Please, do tell, were they able to rely on science?  Definitely not in the manner in which we are able to rely on it.  The major scientific findings that undermine what was previously regarded as religious truths came after most of these men.  For instance, even after the publication of The Origin of Species, the evidence for Evolution wasn’t nearly as strong as it is today.  Therefore, the only real difference between some of today’s Atheists and Atheists in the past is a reliance on science.  However, one can argue that there’s no difference there either:

Science is the true theology.

Portrait of Thomas Paine by Matthew Pratt, 178...

Portrait of Thomas Paine by Matthew Pratt, 1785–1795 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Thomas Paine, quoted in Emerson, The Mind on Fire pg 153

There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those imposters and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert to the purpose of superstition and falsehood.

Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.

David Hume

How about anti-theism as defined by Oxford: opposition to the  belief in the existence of a God or as some interpret it, opposition to religion?

The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.

Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.

Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.

Mark Twain

All religious notions are uniformly founded on authority; all the religions the world forbid examination, and are not disposed that men should reason upon them.

Baron d’Holbach

Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.

David Hume, A Treatise Of Human Nature

Note: none of these quotes specifically mention a particular religion; thus, demonstrating anti-religious views.

A reliance on science existed prior to new Atheism.  Anti-theism also existed prior to new Atheism; let us ignore the fact that most old Atheists conveniently disregard the alternative definition of anti-theism:  disbelief in gods.  Thus, that implies that some old Atheists rely on science to some degree.  Moreover, some of them also subscribe to anti-theism.

I ask again, what exactly is the difference?  Let us forget the negative connotations of the label.  Let us forget the air of condescension implied by individuals who call fellow Atheists ‘new’ Atheists.  Thankfully, I live in a country that grants freedom of speech; therefore, I am outspoken.  However, let us not forget the many around the world who hide in anonymity.  Let us not forget them who are at risk of penalty and death.  They harbor many of our sentiments; some are fortunate enough to express their ideas, albeit anonymously.  All Atheists share a disbelief in gods.  Some choose to reserve their views either because of imagined pride or the risk of penalty and death.  The former has no reason to criticize the approach of another Atheist.  The latter has no choice but to hide in darkness.  Ultimately, there is no new Atheism.  Whoever thinks there’s a such term is severely misinformed, especially when considering that the ideas they subscribe to came about via the writings of authors who held similar views to today’s ‘new’ Atheists.

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Freedom From Religion Foundation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

March 26, 2012

Your Children are in Danger. Watch for these Warning Signs.

March 13, 2012

The God Of Personal Necessity

Supporting  one delusion requires supporting many others. If  any delusion is out of place, the whole delusional house of cards comes tumbling down. SOB

The God of Personal Necessity

This is probably the second most popular religious fallacy and, like the God of the Gaps fallacy is accepted by very many otherwise intelligent people.  Like the God of the Gaps fallacy it too is so ludicrous when spelled out that it’s astonishing that it’s even attempted, yet it crops up time and again in discussion with believers of all creeds.

It takes several forms but essentially the argument is always, there must be a god otherwise the consequences would be [something undesirable, unpleasant or otherwise unacceptable].
Some examples are:
  • There must  be a god otherwise there would be no morality;
  • There must be a god otherwise there would be no purpose to my life;
  • There must be a god otherwise I would have nowhere to go when I die;
  • There must be a god otherwise I would not be so special that the universe was created for me;
  • There must be a god otherwise the explanation for everything would be too hard for me to understand;
  • There must be a god otherwise I would be just another animal and I’m too important for that;
  • There must be a god otherwise my invisible friend would not be real;
  • There must be a god otherwise I would just be talking to myself when I pray;
  • There must be a god otherwise my belief in it would be wrong.  (This is often referred to as ‘faith’ – I believe it, therefore it must be true.)

 

Of course, there is always the unspoken subtext that this god is the locally popular god, or at the very least, the god I was told to believe in when I was a child.  There is never any question that it might be a different one, even one no one has heard of.
And nor is there ever any consideration that things may indeed not be as the believer would like them to be.  The idea that the universe may not be compliant and cosy is never considered
There is, of course, absolutely nothing at all in this argument unless it can be shown that somehow, personal necessity creates gods; that somehow gods are obliged to exist if and when believers require them to and these gods have exactly the right characteristics required by personal necessity.
The surprising thing is that this delusion often persists into adulthood and so allows believers to be duped by charlatans who earn a living partly by reassuring them that their god is indeed everything they need it to be.  It’s probably the nice warm glow of self-affirmation which makes this such a persistent and attractive fallacy for both religious exploiters and their victims alike.
Of course, it’s also one of the hardest fallacies to explain to a believer because so much of their persona is invested in this delusion.  That their god fills their personal requirements so perfectly and completely is often the reason they subscribe to the ‘faith’ in the first place.  To consider for one moment that their god might not conform to their requirements is to attack their entire reason to be deluded in the first place.