It’s not enough for the government to want to tap our phone lines to hear our conversations. Now they are working on a way to try to read our minds (disguised as good intentions to help soldiers, stroke victims, etc.) :

Guess what? Military funds mind-reading science

LOS ANGELES - Here’s a mind-bending idea: The U.S. military is paying scientists to study ways to read people’s thoughts. The hope is that the research could someday lead to a gadget capable of translating the thoughts of soldiers who suffered brain injuries in combat or even stroke patients in hospitals.

But the research also raises concerns that such mind-reading technology could be used to interrogate the enemy.

Or whoever they deem as a “potential threat” to use this on, I am sure.

Armed with a $4 million grant from the Army, scientists are studying brain signals to try to decipher what a person is thinking and to whom the person wants to direct the message.

A waste of our tax dollars? Or valuable research for the future?

The scientists use brain wave-reading technology known as electroencephalography, or EEG, which measures the brain’s electrical activity through electrodes placed on the scalp.

It works like this: Volunteers wear an electrode cap and are asked to think of a word chosen by the researchers, who then analyze the brain activity.

In the future, scientists hope to develop thought-recognition software that would allow a computer to speak or type out a person’s thought.

“To have a person think in a free manner and then figure out what that is, we’re years away from that,” said lead researcher Michael D’Zmura, who heads UC Irvine’s cognitive sciences department.

I think it’s gonna be a long, long time and is a big waste of time and money.

says Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Church and State.

I don’t see what good it will do for the American people to again hear the candidates spout pious platitudes about their favorite Bible verses or how devout they are.

“Candidates should appeal to the voters based on their qualifications for office and their stands on the issues, not their religious beliefs,” Lynn said.

I agree with Lynn that we have heard enough about the religious views of Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama and let’s get on to the real issues. Looking back at the ” Rick Warren Bible drill” I say now that that is over, let’s get on with debating and discussing the things without the distraction of personal religious convictions. We’re a country of diverse people, not an evangelical congregation.

“This event continues the campaign spiral into religious matters. Americans want to hear the candidates’ views on important issues such as constitutional rights, public education, the Iraq War and the economy.”

The Sunday after the forum was held, Warren told his congregation:

“I could not vote for an atheist because an atheist says, ‘I don’t need God,’ ” Warren said. “They’re saying, ‘I’m totally self-sufficient by [myself].’ And nobody is self-sufficient to be president by themselves. It’s too big a job.”

So, no matter how intelligent, level-headed, fair, and moral an atheist is, he is saying that an atheist cannot do as good of a job because an atheist does not have an imaginary “co-pilot”. And no one disputed that.

And Warren left out the fact that President can’t do his job with just the help of his/her imaginary friend. The President has advisors, committees, military generals, and other experts who help him do his job. No sky daddy comes in and sits in at meetings and offers any advice. God is only involved when a president wants to use it as justification to invade a country, etc. If he says that God told him to do it, then the people cannot argue with that, right?

After Obama-McCain forum, Rick Warren sermon focuses on character

I stumbled across this recently - turns out that Ben Stein actually won some kind of award for that mindless movie dreck called ‘Expelled’. Actually, he’s won two.

In this day and age of everyone getting a gold star, a trophy, or even a ‘certificate of achievement’ (available for a few bucks at any WalMart, OfficeMax or OfficeDepot), this hardly qualifies as more than a yawn.

For those of you unfamiliar with this particular nonsense, Stein attempted to prove that evolution was a ‘dogma’ in academic circles, blamed ‘Darwinism’ for the Holocaust, and other risibly specious claims.

While Francis Galton can inherit some of the blame (Darwin’s cousin) by trying to apply the measures Darwin codified on a social level, his attempts to ‘purify’ the ‘races’ were dubious on ethical and moral grounds.

I note that my favorite primary source, answers.com, actually bypasses a singularly ugly chapter in eugenics history when bracing the subject.

I’m talking about America here, people. Specifically, I’m talking about American evangelists.

(Snip)

The National Purity Evangelist for the WCTU served as a lecturer for the National Purity Association, and a lecturer of the Correspondence School of Gospel and Scientific Eugenics. Her 1906 marriage manual, The Way of God in Marriage, exemplified an effort to weave scientific and biblical authority together into a virtually seamless argument. For this author, whose name was Mary E. Teats, children in the womb could be permanently injured not only by alcohol, but also by sexual intercourse during gestation and even by the mother’s thought processes while carrying her child. Echoing the starkly elitist rhetoric of activists in the eugenical sterilization movement, she proclaimed:

The great and rapidly increasing army of idiots, insane, imbeciles, blind, deaf-mutes, epileptics, paralytics, the murderers, thieves, drunkards and moral perverts are very poor material with which to “subdue the world,” and usher in the glad day when “all shall know the Lord, whom to know aright is life everlasting.” There are hundreds and thousands of men and women today to whom in the interests of future generations, some rigid law should say, “Write this one childless.” Men and women whose habits of life are such as to curse their offspring, should be prohibited from marrying.

In a later section, she connected such unfortunates with Malachi’s prophetic rebuke of postexilic Israel’s offering of blind, lame, and sick animals as sacrifices. She scoffed at the notion that “the lame, halt, deaf, blind, mutes, imbeciles, idiots, drunkards and moral perverts” could be properly called “God-given children,” or considered a proper offering and gift to God.

How very…pleasant.

(Snip)One particularly virulent practitioner of a public rhetoric devaluating such persons was John Harvey Kellogg. Kellogg was a colorful character, wearing several hats including medical doctor, educator, theologian, health reformer and inventor of the cornflake. An excommunicated Seventh-Day Adventist, Kellogg used his magazine Good Health to reach a wide audience, and the guest list of his Battle Creek Sanitarium reads like a Who’s Who of American elites of the early twentieth century. Kellogg was convinced that poor dietary and moral habits were leading America down the path of “race degeneration.” His solution was eugenics, not merely as a set of policies, but as a quasi-religious ideology.

Well, there goes another brand I’ll have to boycott in the interests of social conscience.

To be fair, the author of the document in question is not only a Christian, but outlines religious detractors to the concept. But also to be accurate, it’s a far cry from the idiocy Charles Colson tries to propagate when we hear about the ‘erosion of Judeo-Christian values’ (christlation: “Those folks that AREN’T LIKE US ARE FUCKING EVERYTHING UP!”).

But, since the religious are big on beginning sources:

However, you are chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, people who belong to God. You were chosen to tell about the excellent qualities of God, who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. - 1 Peter 2:9

AND:

Exodus 19:5,6 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then
ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people, for all the earth is
mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.

Yeah, we know who got the ball rolling.

‘Nuff said.

. . . because “someone did that 2,000 years ago ”

GOP Rep. To Environmentalists: Jesus Already Saved The Planet

We like to keep track of the, er, intriguing sayings of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, the Christian Right champion from Minnesota. But this latest is really out there — Bachmann says we don’t need pesky environmentalists like Nancy Pelosi around, because Jesus already saved the planet!

“[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she’s just trying to save the planet,” Bachmann told the right-wing news site OneNewsNow. “We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet — we didn’t need Nancy Pelosi to do that.”

Wow.

Other recent Bachmannisms include the claim that there isn’t actually any wildlife in the areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge where she wants more drilling, and the allegation that Democrats want high gas prices so as to force people to move into “inner cities” and “the urban core.”

Michele Bachmann Accuses Pelosi of “Global Warming Fanaticism”

If you are a flat-earther, you believe this NASA photo is a fake.

Do they really think the Earth is flat?

In the 21st Century, the term “flat-earther” is used to describe someone who is spectacularly - and seemingly wilfully - ignorant. But there is a group of people who claim they believe the planet really is flat. Are they really out there or is it all an elaborate prank?

My grandfather was one of these people who believed the first flights into space were fake, and the mission to the moon was all fake. He said it was all created by Hollywood to fool the American people, but he could not provide possible reasons for going to such extremes to fool the public. There are still many people who would agree with my grandfather, that we are all being fooled. But I don’t think my grandfather thought the Earth was flat, yet there are some who still in 2008 who believe the Earth is flat.

On 24 December 1968, the crew of the Apollo 8 mission took a photo now known as Earthrise. To many, this beautiful blue sphere viewed from the moon’s orbit is a perfect visual summary of why it is right to strive to go into space.

Not to everybody though. There are people who say they think this image is fake - part of a worldwide conspiracy by space agencies, governments and scientists.

Welcome to the world of the flat-earther.

We may question if flat-earthers really do exist in these modern times of space travel and exploration, wondering how anyone can possibly still believe such things despite evidence to the contrary, but as BBC News reports:

Flat earth theory is still around. On the internet and in small meeting rooms in Britain and the US, flat earth believers get together to challenge the “conspiracy” that the Earth is round.

“People are definitely prejudiced against flat-earthers,” says John Davis, a flat earth theorist based in Tennessee, reacting to the new Microsoft commercial.

“Many use the term ‘flat-earther’ as a term of abuse, and with connotations that imply blind faith, ignorance or even anti-intellectualism.”

How many flat-earthers are still around?

Mr McIntyre estimates “there are thousands”, but “without a platform for communication, a head-count is almost impossible”, he says. Mr Davis says he is currently creating an “online information repository” to help to bring together local Flat Earth communities into a “global community”.

“If you will forgive my use of the term ‘global’”, he says.

And what about the vast quantify of evidence that proves the Earth is round, the photographs, the many men and women who have gone up in the space capsules and shuttles?

“The space agencies of the world are involved in an international conspiracy to dupe the public for vast profit,” says Mr McIntyre.

John Davis also says “these photos are fake”.

And what about the fact that no one has ever fallen off the edge of our supposedly disc-shaped world?

Mr McIntyre laughs. “This is perhaps one of the most commonly asked questions,” he says. “A cursory examination of a flat earth map fairly well explains the reason - the North Pole is central, and Antarctica comprises the entire circumference of the Earth. Circumnavigation is a case of travelling in a very broad circle across the surface of the Earth.”

Debating these flat-earthers seems like it would be even more exasperating than arguing with religious fundies. They make up answers for every question, and they reject the proven science and believe what they choose without scientific evidence.

Many outspoken atheists, like Richard Dawkins, are accused of being evangelical and militant in the way they crusade against irrational and dangerous spiritual beliefs. In the New Statesmen, Carl Packman says of Dawkins:

“Richard Dawkins is at it again - trying to wean the non-converted away from religion this time in his examination of The Genius of Charles Darwin, on Channel 4.

*snip*

Dawkins, in choosing a form of firebrand fundamentalist atheism over the discipline science, is no longer the champion of reason but rather a kind of evangelical against religion.

*snip*

One obvious problem for Dawkins is that he battles to hold two rather inharmonious positions; at once he is the scientist - disciplined in observation and objectivity. But also he is the emotionally charged evangelical atheist.”

In my opinion, Dawkins and others, in order to be a champion of reason, must speak out fervently against religious and spiritual superstitions that threaten science education and scientific research.

“Since the release of his bestseller, Dawkins has been unable to separate the two positions. Gone are the days of the professor dissecting halibut in front of an audience of pre-teens divided into those who are averting their squeamish gazes and those who can’t for the life of them turn away. Now, even in his scientific capacity, Dawkins is belligerent.”

When religious figures speak out against non-believers and talk about how we all need a god in our lives, they are considered to be “passionate” and only wanting what they feel is the best for humankind, but when an atheist does the same thing, only “preaching” against religious superstition and oppression that threatens science, reason and freethinking they are accused of being “belligerent.” The religious folks just want us to be quiet, subdued and to not bring up things that might lead members of their flock to shed their delusional god beliefs.

Packman goes on to say:

It’s quite clear that what the New Atheists are doing is lumping all the religious together in one bundle, just like the religious fundamentalists would do to atheists.

*snip*

In the fight against religious fundamentalism, atheists need to embrace the moderate religious community; they may well find they have more in common than they’d care to admit.

The “New Atheists” are lumping all the religious together in one bundle because all religious beliefs, whether one is a moderate god believer, or a radical god believer, no matter what their interpretation or individual church doctrine, they all still believe in the same god and Bible. If they choose to lump all atheists together, then that is fine with me because we all are the same in that we believe there is no evidence for the existence of god and while we are individuals in the way we choose to express or not express our atheism, we atheists are united in disbelief.

While atheists and the moderately religious may have everyday things in common, when it comes to superstitious sky daddy beliefs, we absolutely do not. While we may be able to “tolerate” each other, no matter how moderate the Christian, according to their beliefs we are to be pitied for not obtaining the imaginary heavenly rewards upon our deaths. And no matter how much they may “tolerate” us, we are judged in life according to their own set of religious standards and religious morals.

As for “embracing the moderate religious community”, I think Packman and others don’t realize just how dangerous the moderate religious are. The problems, as Dawkins see it is that “religious moderates make the world safe for fundamentalists, by promoting faith as a virtue and by enforcing an overly pious respect for religion.”

About being accused of being an “atheist fundamentalist” according to Wikipedia, “Dawkins rejects this label, saying that fundamentalism implies a belief system that is impervious to change, while his atheism is based on the scientific method of reasoning. He says that if new scientific evidence were found that disproved evolution, then he would willingly give up his belief in evolution and natural selection, whilst a genuine fundamentalist would remain firm in his/her belief no matter how much opposing evidence came to light.”

Yes, it’s been four years already. The games are being hosted in China for 2008.

And time for some more negative news about religion - especially one that claims to be ‘peaceful’:

(Snip) URUMQI, China — Police shut down the bustling International Bazaar in the capital of China’s restive Muslim region of Xinjiang on Friday amid threats from an Islamic group that attackers might target buses, trains and planes during the Olympics.
A sign at the entrance of the bazaar in Urumqi did not explain why the area, surrounded by mosques with minarets, was off limits as the country prepared to kick off the Summer Games thousands of miles (kilometers) away in Beijing.

“Choose your side,” says the videotape’s speaker, grasping a rifle and dressed in a black turban and camouflage with his face masked. “Do not stay on the same bus, on the same train, on the same plane, in the same buildings or any place the Chinese are,” he warns Muslims, according to a translation by the SITE Intelligence Group, a U.S. operation that monitors militant organizations.
The Turkistan Islamic Party is believed to be based across the border in Pakistan, where security experts say core members have received training from al-Qaeda.

Last month, the militant group issued videotaped threats and claimed responsibility for a series of bus bombings in China in recent months. The latest video features graphics similar to ones used earlier: a burning Olympics logo and an explosion imposed over an apparent Olympic venue.
The new video claims the communist government’s alleged mistreatment of Muslims justifies holy war. It accuses China of forcing Muslims into atheism by capturing and killing Islamic teachers and destroying Islamic schools, according to the SITE. It also says China’s birth control program has forced abortions on Muslim women.

I confess some ambivalence here: on one hand, I decry the use of violence inflicted on innocent passers-by (note the underlined sentence above). On the other hand, the Chinese government is notorious for human rights violations. I may have a bad attitude about Falun Gong, but I don’t think they deserve the treatment they’ve received at the hands of the CCP. Likewise, I don’t think any governmental policies should be inflicted at gunpoint, regardless of ideology. But then, I’m a product of middle-class America, where the thought police aren’t quite as prevalent.

For those of you too young to remember, the picture that graces this post is from that pivotal moment in 1972 known as the Munich Massacre, perpetrated by the group Black September, a group composed of Muslims.

The things that people will do in the names of their superstitions is staggering.

Likewise, it’s not much of a government when it stills dissent. The Uigurians claim they receive a great deal of harassment as well as political problems from the CCP.

It is to shake the head, and wonder where humanity will end up. When ideology of any sort ends up in blows and blood.

Anyone else have thoughts on this matter?

Till the next post then.

I thought I posted this already, but I couldn’t find it.

Tasteless? Perhaps. But it still cracked me up…

Online Videos by Veoh.com