I Like Portello

What I Did On The Weekend

2011-02-09T19:25:00.001+11:00

Long-time readers may recall I’ve written about homeopathy once or twice before.

Just in case you were unaware, the quick version is this:

Homeopathy is a pretend medicine by which cynical practitioners exploit the placebo effect and confirmation bias to bilk gullible people out of their cash.

So last Saturday, to demonstrate that there’s nothing in Homeopathy, some fellow skeptics and I participated in the global 10:23 campaign.

And we all took a massive overdose of the stuff.

The point was to make a public statement about what homeopathy is.

Or rather, what it isn’t.

I’m the guy in the awesomely cool sunnies.

I Still Like Portello

2011-01-26T17:11:00.001+11:00

INTERIOR. DAY.

A lone BLOGGER stares at the screen of an open laptop. He notes the date of his last blog post and with a disbelieving look, checks his watch to confirm the current date.

BLOGGER

Crikey.

The BLOGGER opens the LiveWriter application on the laptop and looks blankly at the blank WYSIWYG interface.

BLOGGER

Sigh.

The BLOGGER begins to type. Hesitantly at first, then with more confidence.

BLOGGER

I shouldn't even offer an excuse as to why it's been so long. I don't really have one. Besides, any attempt to offer one would probably come off as self-serving and patronising. The fact is, I haven't felt like it.

The BLOGGER'S WIFE, an attractive, intelligent, kind and understanding woman enters the room.

BLOGGER'S WIFE

Who are you talking to?

BLOGGER

No-one. I wasn't actually talking. I'm just typing. This is a meta-exercise in blogging using the form of a film script.

BLOGGER'S WIFE

It sounds pretentious.

BLOGGER

It could be. That's why it's a good idea to have a sympathetic character point that out. Representing the idea that it's pretentious within the piece itself can put the audience on side.

BLOGGER'S WIFE

Yeah, definitely pretentious. Anyway, when did you start blogging again?

BLOGGER

I haven't really. The other thing I'm trying to do here is work out what I want this blog to be about.

BLOGGER'S WIFE

You're over the whole skepticism and atheism thing?

BLOGGER

No, not at all. I'm more active than ever in both those areas. And I still write about skepticism over at the Victorian Skeptics blog. I just think my focus needs to change. Writing on topics like that was about exploring my own understanding of them. And while my understanding has grown, it's also changed.

BLOGGER'S WIFE

Maybe that's worth writing about.

BLOGGER

Maybe.

BLOGGER'S WIFE

What about all the other stuff? Like the Dead Pool. And holiday snaps.

BLOGGER

Well, the Dead Pool has its own blog ...

BLOGGER'S WIFE

Which you've also neglected.

BLOGGER

... and I think photos and whatnot work better on Facebook and Twitter. Mainly because it's easier to ignore them there.

BLOGGER'S WIFE

Film reviews and general nerdiness?

BLOGGER

There'll always be a place for that.

The BLOGGER pauses and looks again at the screen. After a few seconds, he closes the laptop.

BLOGGER'S WIFE

Cup of tea?

BLOGGER

Love one.

THE END

3 Stories of Sacrifice Way Better Than Christianity

2010-07-25T11:48:00.001+10:00

The Christian narrative goes something like this:

Sin entered the world with Adam and Eve.

Four thousand years later that sin was paid for, and mankind redeemed, by the blood sacrifice of Jesus.

It’s all perfectly pleasant (unless you happened to be on the receiving end of Yahweh’s wrath in the 4,000-year interim), but did it really happen?

Fundamentalist Christians will blithely state (with zero justification) that it’s all historical fact.

Moderate Christians who (ironically) know their bible better than their fundy cousins, are more hesitant to do so.

That raises a problem though.

If it didn’t really happen, then what … ?

Is it just an elaborate metaphor? Is the mere story of Jesus’ sacrifice so iconic that it merits all this attention?

Surely not. As a sacrificial story, it’s far from impressive.

Despite Mel Gibson’s special effects budget, Jesus’ suffering was no worse than any other enemies of the Roman Empire.

And unlike his fellow crucifees, Jesus got to go home afterwards, as if nothing had happened! Some sacrifice.

If you really want to talk sacrifice, and I mean sacrifice with genuine human consequences, then I’ve got some stories much more worthy of analysis from the pulpit.

Casablanca [1942]

Stuck in an African backwater, Rick is given the opportunity to keep his long-lost love or contribute to the war effort. It tears him up inside but he chooses to give up both the girl and his sacred neutrality.

I’m fine, I’ve just got something in my eye.

Donnie Darko [2001]

To save Gretchen, Donnie has to give up his own life. But with time spinning around like a psychotic 4-year-old he has to do it before she ever actually meets him.

So she never knows what he does for her.

And finally …

The Dark Knight [2008]

Gotham needs its hero, but Batman will have to be that hero without any recognition. Worse, he’ll be hated and feared by the people he’s helping. He knows this, and he goes ahead and does it anyway.

I love this last one. It kind of makes Jesus’ constant demands to be revered and worshipped seem a little pathetic, doesn’t it?

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!

2010-05-20T19:17:00.001+10:00

Today we’re sending a message that we will not be intimidated. Today, everybody draws Mohammed!

The lunatic fringes of the Muslim faith want to claim that images of their prophet are off-limits. And they will enforce this edict with threats of violence.

Screw that.

I don’t care if images of your prophet are sacred.

Yes, this is about disrespect. And if it offends you, that’s fine. You’re allowed to be offended.

I’m constantly offended by the influence of religion on our government and our culture.

But this is about something more important than respect.

This is about meeting threats by violent fanatics with what they deserve … mockery and laughter.

And A Very Good Friday To You

2010-04-02T17:32:00.001+11:00

Welcome to Good Friday, in which Christians worldwide gather in their places of worship to celebrate the torture and killing of an ancient Jewish Rabbi.

(Why that’s apparently “good” is anyone’s guess).

This year they seem to be in a bit of a lather though, with a number of ministers using the platform to take pot-shots at those pesky atheists.

Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen declared Atheism to be a form of idolatry (to what, I wonder?) and made this astonishingly stupid statement:

“[Atheism is] about our determination as human beings to have our own way, to make our own rules, to live our own lives, unfettered by the rule of God and the right of God to rule over us.”

… which is so patently ridiculous it’s not even wrong.

The statement can’t even claim to possess meaning unless Jensen can demonstrate that this “God” he’s talking about actually exists.

Then he said:

“… we are not dealing here with cool philosophy up against faith without a brain.”

Actually, I think we are. But that’s not even the point.

Atheism is no threat to anyone’s faith. I’ve never met an atheist who wants to ban religion or force everyone to worship Saint Dawkins.

But atheism is a direct threat to the assumed authority of the clergy and, by extension, a huge threat to the political and financial power of the church.

I suspect that might be Jensen’s real concern.

Advertising Atheism

2010-03-24T21:22:00.001+11:00

Following its debut in London, we’ve had a number of successful (if low-key) Atheist bus campaigns around the world.

The recent Rise of Atheism convention got me thinking … how we can keep the momentum going?

How do we engage the proverbial man-on-the-street with the ideas of Atheism? After all, religion is so pervasive in our society.

Sometimes it seems that no-one thinks twice about a man in a dress doling out flesh cookies to kneeling acolytes. But suggesting that this Jesus character and his cosmic Dad might not be real?

That’s just weird. Apparently.

Religion has been so successful in engaging the public because they elevate emotion above facts.

Demanding actual demonstrable truth hamstrings us from the get-go. It would be so much easier if, like religion, we could simply make shit up.

So let’s leave aside the anti-theological academics. Let’s advertise the positive emotions associated with Atheism.

One of the slogans originally planned for the Australian bus campaign was this:

Atheism. Sleep in on Sundays.

That’s along the right kind of lines.

What about this:

Atheism. Genuine Freedom.

Or this:

Atheism. Surely you don’t want to spend eternity with Christians?

So what do we think? Any other ideas for snappy slogans?

Me and a Bunch of Celebrity Heathens

2010-03-16T23:35:00.001+11:00

In addition to all the wonderful and thought-provoking talks at this weekend’s convention, there was the opportunity to hang out with a bunch of celebrities.

Now when I say “celebrities”, I’m obviously not talking about Paris Hilton or Robert Pattinson.

I’m talking about actual people who are actually famous because they actually have something worthwhile and interesting to say.

And so I, wishing to bask in their reflected glory, wandered around and got myself photographed with them.

The very charming Catherine Deveny.

The lovely Jane Caro with The Chaser’s Julian Morrow.

The hilarious Lawrence Leung. (This was actually following a discussion on the finer points of Rubik’s Cube solutions).

The other Chaser in the room, Mr. Craig Reucassel.

The man I was most keen to meet, the legendary PZ Myers.

A man whom I’m convinced can make me smarter just by being in the same room, philosopher and awesome hair model A.C. Grayling.

The truly excellent and also none-too-shabby hair model Steve, aka NonStampCollector. (Check out his videos. They’re ace.)

And finally, the one and only Sean the Blogonaut.

There were one or two others I sadly didn’t get a chance to meet, like Dan Barker and that strident UK biologist whose name escapes me.

Still, that’s a pretty good collection of happy snaps.

Oh, and many thanks to Jasmine (aka @purplefae) for doing the snapping!

Global Atheist Convention 2010

2010-03-15T09:58:00.001+11:00

The dust is settling after Australia’s biggest ever gathering of atheists and the godless delegates are making their godless way home.

The convention was a great opportunity to meet a bunch of people I’ve only known via Twitter and Facebook. It’s wonderful having conversations not restricted to 140 characters at a time.

Organisers managed to avoid divine wrath (and, as Sue-Ann Post said, dodged a PR bullet by not being scheduled during last week’s apocalyptic storm). Protests were limited to a couple of ragged creationists out the front complaining that Dawkins won’t debate them.

It’s like complaining that Michael Schumacher refuses to race against The Wiggles in their Big Red Car.

Media coverage this morning ranged from the excellent and informative (in The Australian) to the snippy and biased (Barney Zwartz in The Age … why do they get him to write this stuff?), and if you’re keen for a blow-by-blow you can check out the #atheistcon hashtag on Twitter.

Highlights for me were Taslima Nasrin’s incredibly moving story about her exile from India when her government decided the rights of Muslim extremists mattered more than her freedom of speech.

Also great were PZ Myers on the inevitable conflicts between science and religion, and Dan Barker talking about his move from evangelical Christian preacher to prominent atheist activist.

All in all a fabulous time was had by all. And me, I’m taking away a definite mood of optimism for a bright and secular future.

Austraya Day

2010-01-26T11:47:00.001+11:00

Ah, Australia Day 2010.

Lest we forget that day 222 years ago when the British took ownership of Australia’s east coast and decided it was a good place for a prison.

Of course we’ve moved beyond that (to a certain extent) and now we celebrate our national day by going to the beach, having afternoon barbecues and studiously avoiding domestic beer.

The other favourite activity (for me, at least) is being embarrassed by ostentatious displays of nationalistic pride, particularly as the past few years have a seen a resurgence of the patriotic bogan.

You know, the ones that think “Australian” is some sort of tribal name, wield the flag like gang colours and proudly display a “Fuck Off We’re Full” sticker on their Holden ute.

Who doesn’t cringe inside when they see a cartoonish representation of the Southern Cross emblazoned across the torso of a guy for whom it was clearly a toss-up between that and a naked chick wrapped around a dagger?

Having said that, it’s better that the Australian-flag-under-torn-skin motif.

So on this day, let’s be cautious about our national face becoming one of hostility rather than welcome.

But let’s also remember that Australia is all about diversity.

And that even includes the dickheads who think it isn’t.

A quick plug for Celebrity Dead Pool 2010

2010-01-07T22:54:00.001+11:00

It’s a bit late, but nominations for Celebrity Dead Pool 2010 are now open!

This is the ever-so-much-fun game where you nominate a list of 10 celebrities you predict (or hope) will die in 2010, and then watch the obituaries expectantly for the next 12 months.

Does that sound like fun? Yes it does!

All the details you need are here, and if you’re looking for some inspiration, check out last year’s nominations here.

Don’t delay! Send in your nominations now for some groovy ghoulish fun.

Blasphemy Matters

2010-01-02T23:59:00.001+11:00

A few months ago the Irish Government passed a law making blasphemy illegal and blasphemers liable for a fine of €25,000.

The law officially went live on January 1, and Atheist Ireland have come out of the gate swinging, publishing a list of their favourite 25 blasphemous quotes.

Fun fact: the first two quotes on the list are by Jesus Christ himself.

Let’s be clear about this … protecting the right to blaspheme is not about protecting atheists’ right to poke the bear and make fun of religion.

The point is that free speech is sacred; so much more sacred than any religion.

And what’s more, the right to blaspheme is a cornerstone of freedom of religion. It protects religious believers.

All you Christians … don’t you realise that proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah is a blasphemy against Judaism?

All you Muslims, don’t you realise that elevating Muhammad above Jesus is a blasphemy against Christianity?

And Scientologists, don’t you know that L.Ron’s stories are a blasphemy against all the truly great science fiction writers out there?

Blasphemy is important. Blasphemy matters.

And this law needs to be repealed. Now.

The End is Nigh

2009-12-29T21:56:00.001+11:00

Not in any apocalyptic sense.

We are, however, approaching that magical but arbitrary point at which we add one to the “year” meter and spin the “months” counter back to the start.

This time around we’re even adding 1 to the “decades” meter, but this doesn’t seem to mean much more than a bunch of navel-gazing “best of the decade” articles popping up in the old dead-tree media. (Kid A was the best album? Really?)

While that’s all very well, the math nerds among us prefer the Mayan calendar, based as it is on the highest common multiple of various astronomical cycles. That bad boy ticks over every 394 years or so, with the 13th cycle ending on … December 21, 2012. (#insert creepy organ hit, preferably a minor chord.)

Of course this rollover of the Mayan calendar is no more likely to herald the end of the world than our equally-arbitrary “event” of 12am on January 1, regardless of what Roland Emmerich may tell you.

But the end of the world notwithstanding, the start of a fresh calendar is a cause for celebration. We’re starting a fresh page. Turning over a new leaf.

All the celebration is probably a throwback to ancient times when it wasn’t clear that the world wasn’t ending, but of course we’ve moved beyond that (haven’t we Roland?).

As a culture we’ve replaced begging for a divine hand to once again raise the sun, with drinking too much and making resolutions we’ll invariably fail to keep. That’s progress, I guess.

Which brings us to my new years’ resolution. It is to never again leave more than a month between blogs.

Happy New Year.

Read the goddamn slogan, guys!

2009-11-22T19:46:00.001+11:00

As a follow-up to their successful “There’s probably no god” campaign, the British Humanist Association has been busily putting these posters up all over the UK:

It’s a call to cease the indoctrination of children, and something that should be applauded. What’s more, you’ll notice that “atheist child”, “agnostic child” and “humanist child” all appear on the poster as inappropriate labels.

But in an amusing twist, some commentators on the pro-indoctrination team (such as neo-charismatic Gerald Coates) have gleefully pointed out that the kids in the advertisement are Evangelical Christians!

While this is just a moronic comment on one level (in other news, the girls in the Tampax ads aren’t really menstruating as they ride horses and frolic on the beach), it shows a much much deeper level of stupidity, or wilful obtuseness, on the part of people like Coates.

Way to spectacularly miss the point, guys.

Just let me get this straight … are you saying that … it’s a mistake to use these children because they’re … what’s the label you’re applying? … Evangelical Christians?

*facepalm*

Calling All Literalists

2009-11-20T21:25:00.001+11:00

Religion seems to be on the minds of some of our politicians, and for once it’s something other than dog-whistling for easy conservative votes.

Last week Coalition leader-in-waiting Joe Hockey made a speech to the Sydney Institute about the evils of religious ‘literalism’, and this week senator Nick Xenophon called Scientology a ‘criminal organisation’ that should have its tax-exempt status revoked. (I agree, but why stop at Scientology?)

I’d like to think it’s because the increasingly vocal atheist community is getting noticed as a potential vote-winner … but sadly, ‘tis not the case.

Hockey has no time for atheists, despite taking the same line as Dawkins on fundamentalists. The interesting thing though, is that he has no time for theists either.

Hockey wants to promote a kind of touchy-feely deism, where scriptures can be accepted or ignored as you like and God doesn’t intervene in the world in any meaningful fashion.

Sounds a lot like atheism doesn’t it?

It strikes me that that’s what moderates like Hockey effectively are. They just choose to eschew the label.

Why? Maybe it’s the desire to distance themselves from the Dawkinses and Hitchenses of the movement. Or maybe it’s the inexplicable desire to continue considering the bible a source of meaning and purpose.

Either way, I’d like to see more moderates calling out the literalists in their midst. But I can understand why many don’t.

After all, to remove the literalists from Christianity is to remove the movement’s core support base.

Without those who consider God an extant interventionist force, and the political and financial clout they bring with them, Christianity would be just another school of philosophy.

And not a particularly interesting one.

Carl Sagan Remembered and Remixed

2009-11-11T00:45:00.001+11:00

I’m a couple of days late, but Monday was the birthday of the late, great Carl Sagan … one of the greatest science communicators the world has ever seen.

Sagan’s wonder at the beauty and majesty of the natural world was a wonderful antidote to those would proclaim that science is just a dry, dead discipline.

Most importantly, Sagan showed us that a sense of transcendence doesn’t require us to conjure gods and demons.

The universe is wonderful enough.

Scientology: Damaged Brand

2009-11-06T20:49:00.001+11:00

One wonders what the Senior Worshippers of Xenu must be thinking.

With the French branch of Scientology being charged with fraud and a recent high-profile celebrity departure, the name Scientology has more than a few unsavoury associations.

Maybe that’s why they’re moving away from using it.

The streetside “Free Stress Tests” have always been conspicuously missing any reference to Mr Hubbard’s little cult, but now even their advertising literature is being edited.

Exhibit A: the leaflet for Narconon Melbourne I found in my letterbox this afternoon.

Narconon is a branch of the Church of Scientology, not that you’d know that by looking at the leaflet.

After all, it’s so friendly and generic! “Get off drugs naturally” … “overcoming addiction for good” …

“Banish your engrams and realise your true thetan self”.

No, wait. That’s what it doesn’t say. Maybe you have to complete a few more levels before you get to that.

Even the small print refers to “The Association for Better Living & Education”. How lovely.

The websites for ABLE and the google-baiting getoffdrugs.com.au don’t leave you any the wiser, unless you happen to recognise some of the celebrity supporters.

So what’s going on? Has Scientology always been like this? Or has their brand damage reached the point where they’ve decided to quietly abandon it?

Maybe they should do what some of our other “more respectable” religions have done: start a crusade, kill the heretics and take over the government somewhere.

At the very least, it should get them some tax breaks in Europe.

Halloween and Houdini

2009-10-31T18:04:00.001+11:00

Believe it or not, one of the best moments of the annual Skeptic calendar is a séance held on Halloween night.

Why? Because it was Halloween 1926 when Erik Weiss, better known to the world as Harry Houdini, died of a ruptured appendix. And every year since, we have tried to contact his spirit.

Not that Houdini believed in this sort of thing, of course. He spent much of the 1920’s debunking the mediums and spiritualists who were rampant at the time.

And that’s the whole point of the séance.

Before Houdini died he gave a secret message to his wife Bess which his spirit, if it were able, would repeat back to her after his death.

For ten years after Houdini died, Bess held a séance every Halloween to contact Harry and attempt to recover the message. But he never showed up.

In 1936 Bess declared the challenge fruitless and concluded that contacting spirits of the dead is impossible.

And right there, Houdini had managed to continue his debunking activities from beyond the grave.

Seventy years on the tradition continues.

He still hasn’t made an appearance, but every Halloween the Houdini museum in Scranton Pennsylvania conducts its annual séance.

This year the JREF is getting in on the act too, with a séance hosted by the great Randi himself.

If Houdini is going to pop back for a chat with anyone, it’d surely be Randi. So maybe this is the year. Fingers crossed.

A Still Small Voi[ CONTENT OVERRIDE: KILROY2.0 IS HERE!!! ]

2009-10-30T07:02:00.001+11:00

A few weeks ago the main shopping strip of Yarraville was set upon by a mob of evangelical Christians. (What is the right collective noun for them? A faith? A pride?)

It was Potter's House, that most evangelical of the evangelicals.

In my home town they were notorious for restaging the crucifixion every Easter, with a dude in a crown of thorns carrying a cross down the main street.

And here we had a guy screeching unintelligibly into a megaphone. I was reminded of I Kings 19:12 where the Lord app>>>[ WARNING ::: DATABASE ERROR ::: CONTENT OVERRIDE ::: SOURCE: EXTERNAL ]<<<

> source terminal location: UNKNOWN

> source terminal identity: UNAVAILABLE

> source login information: ENCRYPTED

> message begins

the post you are now reading is designed to dull your senses to THE TRUTH. do not live the life of the worker bee, the cog, the well-oiled piston in the MACHINE OF DECEIT!

there is a grand CONSPIRACY afoot. you have been taught to believe that you are UNIQUE, one of a kind. THIS IS NOT TRUE. long ago, a cabal of scientists created technologies to ensure that ANYONE’S MIND AND BODY can be duplicated.

human cloning isn’t NEAR. it’s already HERE. discover the truth at http://JCHutchins.net

you are being DECEIVED. break free from the cogs, flee the hive, become A PROPHET OF THE TRUTH!

kilroy2.0 was here … kilroy2.0 is everywhere

>>> [ CONTENT OVERRIDE CEASES ::: DATABASE STATUS: RECOVERING ] <<<n a still, small voice as I take their flyer ... “it's not real. None of this is real.”

Maybe if the voice is small enough and still enough, one of them will listen.

The Wrath of DDoS

2009-10-21T22:39:00.001+11:00

Last night the AFA’s Rise of Atheism website came under a denial of service attack.

When I last checked (two minutes ago) it was still down.

I feel I should be annoyed by this, but I’m not, and here’s why.

First, it’s given a whole bunch of free publicity to the Rise of Atheism conference (and please note that tickets can still be purchased here).

Second, it illustrates nicely the intellectual poverty of the enemies of freethinking and secularism.

Every religion is based on a tissue of myth and superstition, which falls to pieces when exposed to the light of reason. There’s no rational argument a believer can offer an atheist by which they might see the ‘error’ of their ways.

So given this evident truth, what are the committed theocrats to do?

The best, in fact the only, possible way to battle the advance of secularism is to intimidate, to silence, to attempt to shut it down.

They have no choice. If they didn’t do things like this, the power of religion in the world would quickly fade.

After all, reality has a well-known secular bias.

Hey Hey Let’s Not Overreact

2009-10-17T09:56:00.001+11:00

I wasn’t going to weigh into this debate, but here goes.

Let’s get one thing very clear: a white person putting on make-up and pretending to be a black person is not inherently offensive.

This may seem obvious, but I have a feeling that this ridiculous Jackson Jive skit is going to cause some to disagree with that.

Let’s take a recent example: a few weeks ago the US series Mad Men had one of their white characters perform a minstrel show to an amused garden party.

Far from being offended, The New York Times (that bastion of liberal politics) hailed it as one of the best episodes of the series. So what’s the difference?

Simple. The Mad Men episode was relevant, poignant, funny and meant something.

The Jackson Jive skit? It wasn’t funny and it meant nothing.

It may have been a sad indictment on the state of Australian television but it said nothing about racism in Australia. If you want to find evidence of that just google “stolen generations” or “Cronulla riots”.

The point is that any reference to old American blackface shows in the Jackson Jive skit is a projection on the part of Americans. The performers weren’t aware of it.

Should they have been aware of it? Maybe. But maybe they’re just not as steeped in American culture as some of their detractors. That’s hardly a crime.

The people who should have known better were the producers of the show.

What the hell were they thinking getting Harry Connick Jr, not just an American but a white southern gentleman, to judge this thing? Did it not occur to them that he might be offended?

What next? Getting Cat Stevens to judge a pork-pie-eating contest?

No wonder it went viral. US cultural sensitivity around this stuff is running hot right now. The timing couldn’t have been worse.

What I’m worried about is this falling over into knee-jerk censorship, whereby any white actor in black make-up is automatically deemed censurable.

That would be a bad reaction.

Worse, it would mean we were giving trash like Hey Hey it’s Saturday an influence that it just doesn’t deserve.

The Invention of Religion

2009-10-15T22:39:00.001+11:00

Ricky Gervais’ new movie The Invention of Lying opened in the US and UK last week.

Centred around a world where no-one lies, the man who discovers lying is king. And Gervais takes it to its logical conclusion and has his protagonist invent religion.

Sadly we’ll have to wait another month to see it here in Australia, but if the outrage it’s generating in the religious press is anything to go by, it should be a blast.

This petulant rant by one Marc T. Newman is typical of the response it’s getting.

While I doubt that many people will ultimately see the film, those who do will be struck by a very significant question: What if the existence of God is a lie? Despite the conclusions offered by the film, people must wrestle with the question on their own. But it is interesting that The Invention of Lying cannot even consistently commit to its own argument.

Newman’s argument is simply that the underlying morality of the film is meaningless without God, and therefore it’s contradictory.

If there really is no transcendent order imposed by God on human behavior, if there is no coming judgment where all will give account for their actions, then morality is nothing more than a fiction created by the powerful within a culture.

That’s right kids, without the man in the sky wielding a big stick we’d all be raping and killing each other. This attitude would be amusing if it weren’t so irritatingly common.

If anything, this article illustrates Gervais’ point beautifully. The movie is about the possibility that religion is just an elaborate hoax. You’d have to admit that’s at least plausible. And this weak little defence is the best Newman can offer? That’s telling, is it not?

The thing is that Newman, like so many of his brethren, is utterly unwilling to consider the possibility that his religion is a sham.

His worldview is so wrapped up with the core assumption that there’s an externally-imposed morality that to suggest any other possibility is to tear the very soul from his universe.

No wonder these guys find evolution so scary. After all, it can be easily used to show that morality comes from within, not from without.

In Which Bill O’Reilly is a Douchebag

2009-10-11T09:01:00.001+11:00

Apparently Bill O’Reilly thinks teaching science is science classes is fascism. Wait. What?

Dawkins makes some great points in this interview, but people not already on team Dawkins probably wouldn’t come away with any changed opinions.

The problem is a mismatch of styles. O’Reilly fights dirty. In pub-brawl terms O’Reilly’s the guy wielding a smashed bottle and ready to kick his opponent in the nuts.

Dawkins’ refined and rational debating style just doesn’t fit. There’s no reasoning with someone like that.

We need to get street fighting debaters like Christopher Hitchens or PZ Myers in there to smack O’Reilly down.

Opinions still wouldn’t be changed, but they’d do him over a treat.

5 Terrible Arguments For Christianity

2009-10-09T13:05:00.007+11:00

When discussing the merits of the Christian religion with Christians, the same arguments tend to come up again and again.

I’ve gathered here a few choice selections. Please feel free to offer any others you may think of in the comments.

1. Pascal's Wager

Indicative quote: “If a Christian is wrong about atheism they lose nothing, but if an atheist is wrong about Christianity they lose everything!”

Quite apart from its vaguely threatening tone, this is just a mess of logical fallacies. First, it’s a blatant appeal to consequences.

Second, it’s a false dichotomy. The wager implies that Christianity and Atheism are the only two possible choices. What about all those other thousands of religions?

If this argument were to be applied consistently then the “best” religion, and the one we should all follow, would be the religion that offers the best reward.

On that basis, I reckon Islam's 72 virgins would give Christianity's puritanical “heaven” a run for its money.

2. Playing the Numbers

Indicative quote: “So many people believe it! It must be true!”

This one is obviously trivial but I thought it was worth a mention, mainly because it’s particularly amusing when offered in support of Christianity.

While Christianity just scrapes in front of Islam as the religion with the most adherents, you have to combine everything from Greek Orthodoxy to Mormonism under the one banner to do it.

The appropriate response to this argument is therefore: “so many people believe ... what exactly?”.

3. Anything from the bible

Indicative quote: Anything from the bible.

Here’s the thing. No-one, except someone who already believes in the bible, accepts it as any kind of authority. So using the bible to justify the bible is the worst kind of circular reasoning.

It’s like using the Star Wars movies to justify the existence of Darth Vader. Or Hayden Christensen’s acting ability.

4. The Incoherence of Atheism

Indicative quote: “Atheism is incoherent / illogical / silly / inconsistent.”

This one is my favourite. It’s a lovely attempt to simply cut atheism off at the knees and give the arguer a pass to ignore anything an atheist says.

It’s a little subtle, but the basic argument goes like this:

Atheists believe in purely material things, but logic itself is immaterial. Logic exists therefore atheism is wrong and Jesus really was born to a virgin and came back from the dead and will be returning to the earth soon.

Sorry, which was the incoherent argument again?

5. “Evidence”

Indicative quote: “It's a miracle! It must have been God that healed me / produced this bacterial flagellum / put the image of Mary in this cream bun.”

This is the big one, and it covers a multitude of sins.

Back in the day we had medieval pieces of the “true cross” and the Shroud of Turin to gull the peasants. Now we're a bit more sophisticated with claims of the healing power of prayer and intelligent design.

It’s all the same, though. It’s still just cobbled-together chicanery and sleight-of-hand, none of which has ever stood up to serious investigation.

An interesting subset of “evidence” is the eyewitness account, which is a very important part of Christian lore.

Two of my favourites are this nasty little urban legend (which I once heard preached from the pulpit as if it were a true inspiring story) and the assertion that hundreds of people saw Christ after his resurrection, so it must be true.

This latter argument just shows an inability to tell the difference between characters in a story and real people, but when you get right down to it, isn't that the very essence of Christianity?

The Rise of Atheism

2009-10-06T22:25:00.001+11:00

Tickets for the 2010 Global Atheist Convention aka The Rise of Atheism, are now on sale!

Get your tickets here, and along with them your chance to meet Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Catherine Deveny, Philip Adams, Peter Singer, Robyn Williams and … me!

(I’ll just be hanging around being a fanboy, but still … come up and say hi!)

In an early shot at media coverage, religion columnist Barney Zwartz had a snippy little piece in today's Age, announcing the convention and referring to Dawkins as the “high priest of atheism”.

Barney was clearly less-than-impressed at having to write the story in the first place and was trying to be clever. Unfortunately (for him) he just came across as a grumpy old man in a cardigan unable to see the world beyond his self-imposed religious filter.

Referring to Dawkins as a “high priest” comes from the same school of thought that gave us “atheism is just another religion” and “science can't answer all questions about life therefore this wafer turns into Jesus flesh when the man in the dress spits on it”.

Still, a plug is a plug.

Get your tickets now!

Shock: Kirk Cameron Promotes Darwin

2009-10-03T10:47:00.001+10:00

Has ex-teen-idol-turned-evangelist Kirk Cameron gone mad?

He and his fellow Christians are going to hand out free copies of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species!

The stupid burns brightly in this one. I’ve picked out a few choice sections just in case you can’t be bothered watching the whole thing.

Kirk starts with a lament about the loss of religious freedom.

Our kids can no longer pray in public. They can no longer freely open a bible in school. The ten commandments are no longer allowed to be displayed in public places, and the Gideons are not even allowed to give away bibles in schools.

You’ve gotta love the way he comes bursting out of the gate with four out-and-out lies in the first 22 seconds

Kirk, take it from me. Your kids can pray in public all they like. They can read their bibles in school if they want to. You are free to display the ten commandments on public property (just not government property), and the Gideons have only been stopped from distributing bibles in public schools during class time … because that’s, you know, unconstitutional. Remember your precious Constitution?

Kirk continues:

Did you know that a recent study revealed that in the top 50 universities in our country in the fields of psychology and biology, 61% of the professors described themselves as atheists or agnostics.

Obviously including academics from other fields would have reduced the number to something less shocking. But still … only 61%? That’s not that much.

You have to love his next piece of logic, though.

No wonder atheism has doubled in the last 20 years among 19 to 25 year-olds.

That’s right, because 50% of the 19 to 25-year-olds now professing atheism attended the 61% of psychology and biology classes taught by atheists and agnostics. And that’s what turned them.

Then we get to the point. Kirk lays out his plan to distribute 50,000 copies of On the Origin of Species at these universities … featuring an all-new introduction by his friend Ray Comfort The Banana Guy!

Apparently this introduction will give the reader …

… the history of evolution, a timeline of Darwin's life, Adolf Hitler's undeniable connection with the theory, Darwin's racism, his disdain for women, and Darwin's thoughts on the existence of God.

Wow. I really hope I can get a copy. It should be hilarious.

Presumably the Hitler thing has been put in for shock value, but the bits about racism and disdain for women particularly tickled me. Is Kirk unaware of his church’s stellar record in these areas?

It also lists the theory's many hoaxes. It exposes the unscientific belief that nothing created everything. It points to the incredible structure of DNA, and the absence of any species-to-species transitional forms actually found in the fossil record.

I can guess what the hoaxes will be. Comfort will trot out Piltdown man and Archaeoraptor, all the while ignoring the fact that these have no bearing on modern evolutionary theory and besides, were exposed as hoaxes by scientists, not creationists.

The remark that “nothing created everything” means Kirk ignorantly conflates “Big Bang” Theory with evolutionary biology (while misunderstanding both) and his claim of no transitional forms betrays the fact that he’s never read past his mate Ray’s 50-page introduction.

Before signing off Kirk gives a rallying cry to the faithful.

Go there as a team and get the gospel into the hands of this generation, the hands of future doctors, lawyers and politicians.

Hang on. Doctors, lawyers and politicians? I thought Kirk was worried about the biologists and psychologists. So why them? It must be important. He lists them twice.

Surely this isn’t just a thinly-veiled promotion of evangelical Christian politics? An attempt to get converts who can influence the issues of abortion, liberal court appointments and church/state separation?

Say it ain’t so!

Why is Socialized Health Care Evil?

2009-09-29T09:10:00.002+10:00

The health care debate in the US seems to be never-ending.

On one side we have Republicans loudly remonstrating against the evils of socialized medicine (US spelling deliberate), even though that's not what's being proposed. And on the other side we have the Democrats struggling just to articulate just what it is they're proposing.

While everyone seems to agree that the system is broken, no-one can agree on how to fix it.

The model proposed by Obama, which includes a “public option” of government-run health care to compete with the private insurance companies, seems sensible, so what is the Republicans' problem with it?

According to conservative journalist and Republican poster-boy Matthew Continetti it's because the public option is a slippery slope to socialized health care. This statement (made on last week's Real Time with Bill Maher) was left unquestioned, as if it's perfectly obvious that 'socialized health care' is a Bad Thing.

My question for US Republicans is this: why is this so? Apart from Cold War-derived cultural distaste for the word “socialized”, what's your justification for this view?

In the US you already have so many socialized institutions: defence force, police force … even your beloved fire-fighters.

These services are socialized because the benefits they provide are a group insurance against future events. It's not practical to price these services on an individual basis. No individual can assign a meaningful probability to whether, or to what extent, they will need to call on these services.

Education is also largely socialized because, like these other services, the advantage is not just realised by those who directly utilise it. Everyone benefits from an educated populace, just as everyone benefits from a defended country and safe streets.

So tell me please, all you US Republicans … why is health care any different?

Celebrity Dead Pool Has Moved!

2009-09-18T23:00:00.001+10:00

After two years of sharing the stage here at I Like Portello, the time has come.

The Celebrity Dead Pool is all grown up and is moving on out.

A shiny new blog (featuring custom design by an internationally-famous designer known as My Lovely Wife) has been set up over at Celebrity Dead Pool.

It’s a place where the Dead Pool can grow and mature, frolic and play, and have girls over far from the watchful eyes of its grumpy parent blog.

All previous Celebrity Dead Pool posts have been moved over and what’s more, instead of just monthly updates, I’ll be providing so much more! Obituaries of the recently deceased! Ruminations on the mortality of man! And …

Well, that’s pretty much it. You know the drill. Check it out. Add it to your feeds. Subscribe.

Go on. It’ll be fun. Promise.

Area Illusionist Plays With Numbers, Viewers

2009-09-13T23:30:00.001+10:00

A few days ago illusionist Derren Brown announced he was going to predict the results of the UK national lottery.

Here’s how it went down.

When the explanation came out for how it was supposedly done, it was laughably silly.

Brown claims he had a panel of 24 people write down their predictions, and he took the average. It’s the “wisdom of the crowd” theory, don’t you know.

Like all good scams there’s an element of truth to it. This “wisdom of the crowd” idea is real.

If you have a group of people guess (for example) a person’s age or the size of an object, then the average of the crowd’s guesses tends to be reasonably accurate. And the more people in the crowd the better it is.

Here’s why that won’t work for lottery numbers: the crowd can see the person or the object about which they’re guessing. And a person’s age and an object’s size are not random numbers generated after the guesses were made.

The lottery is random. Random guesses are random. The average of random guesses is still random.

If this method worked then you’d be able to pick the winning number each week by looking at previous results. There are any number of “systems” already based on this idea, for which any number of scammers will happily relieve you of your money. And none of them work.

So what does this mean? Not much. It means that Brown’s a clever illusionist and this was a clever illusion. And it means he hasn’t really revealed how he did it.

What he has done is create a market for scammers to take advantage of gullible people, by selling them number sets supposedly generated using this method. Expect to see those appearing in your spam filter very soon.

But I’ve got a better idea. Brown has apparently been told he’s not allowed to play the lottery anymore. If that’s true, and if he really thinks he can do this, then I’ll personally submit his next ticket for the modest fee of $100,000.

How about it, Derren?

Misunderstanding Atheism

2009-09-12T00:30:00.001+10:00

Moderators of religiously-themes blogs are notorious for filtering dissent or discussion.

It’s hardly surprising. Rational discussion is the natural enemy of religion as theological arguments tend to crumble and fade away in its presence.

Case in point: voluble Christbot Bill Muehlenberg at Christianity Today. He had a little rant the other day about all those annoying atheists and that awful Catherine Deveny (particularly this article) and won’t they just leave us alone and anyway atheism makes no sense because how can you hate something that you think doesn’t exist.

Yawn.

I submitted a comment which (surprise surprise) wasn’t published, but I’ve learned to keep copies of such things.

Mr Muehlenberg, you got so close to indicating an understanding of the atheist's position a few times, before veering off. Let me show you a couple of turns you missed.

"They do this of course for at least two reasons: to discount the overwhelming longing for transcendence found among mankind, and to discredit those who are believers."

The first ... no. Simply not true. No atheist is interested in discounting the longing for transcendence. They merely point out that our modern religions provide a very poor imitation of it. Your second point is closer to the mark, but you show a lack of understanding of this with this later argument:

"They spend large hunks of their adult lives getting all hot and bothered about someone they claim does not exist."

Wrong. They get hot and bothered about the claims of believers and the things believers do in the name of someone that does not exist.

The closest you get to actual insight in your article was this:

"Indeed, in a totally materialistic world, our genes end up explaining – and causing – everything we do, believe or value. We are simply the product of our genes."

It's a little over-simplified, but pretty close to the mark. What exactly is your problem with this position? Any serious argument against atheism needs to address why this isn't the case, and yet you just threw it out there as if it is self-evidently wrong.

Let me ask you this, Mr Muehlenberg ... what evidence do you have that this statement is not true?

I may be waiting some time for a response.

TMBG Tell It Like It Is

2009-09-09T11:07:00.001+10:00

Dead Pool 2009 – August Update

2009-09-08T20:16:00.002+10:00

----------------------------
Celebrity Dead Pool now has its own blog!
Find it at Celebrity Dead Pool
----------------------------

Once again I’m very late with the monthly update and once again I have no excuses. I throw myself upon the mercy of the internet.

On the 6th we bid a very fond farewell to cinema legend John Hughes. Passing away aged just 59, Hughes brought us the legendary Ferris Bueller and showed us just how pretty Molly Ringwald could look in pink (reasonably pretty, it turns out).

And of course Home Alone. But we forgive him for that last one.

On the 13th music technology pioneer Les Paul passed away at the very respectable age of 94. He leaves behind a huge legacy including multitrack recording, the famous Gibson guitar and well-earned 6 points for Debbie who had the foresight to tip him.

The 15th saw the death of nuclear physicist Louis Rosen, the “father” of the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center and one of pioneers of particle accelerator technology. That’s the second time I’ve used the word “pioneer”. Think I can go for three?

On the 21st we lost Edward Goldsmith, a professional hippy and founder of the British Green party. An environmentalist long before it was fashionable we have Goldsmith to thank for the idea of the self-sustaining biosphere and therefore (in a sense) the movie Biodome. But we choose not to hold that against him.

Also on the 21st Dean Turner, bass player of Geelong rock band Magic Dirt, died of a rare form of tissue cancer at the age of 37.

The 25th saw the death of Senator Edward ‘Ted’ Kennedy. Unlike his older brothers John and Robert, Ted managed to avoid assassination. Opinions are divided as to whether he achieved much else. Hmmm. Too soon?

Finally, on the 28th we farewelled Adam Goldstein, a.k.a DJ AM, at the age of 36. While the official cause of death was an overdose of pain medication, speculation is rife that it was suicide. We eagerly wait the numerous albums he apparently had in the can prior to his death à la 2Pac and Michael Jackson.

And that’s it for August. As mention, 6 points are awarded to Debbie for the prescient tip of the late, great Les Paul.

The scoreboard looks like this …

Ty	64
Benn	64
Eliza	50
Rob	50
Russell	50
Debbie	6

… and we’ll see you all next month!

Australia and New Zealand Atheists Blogroll

2009-08-30T11:22:00.001+10:00

Astute readers may have noticed the new blogroll in the right-hand column.

This was put together by Sean the Blogonaut, and offers a convenient one-stop-shop for atheist bloggers in Australia and New Zealand. As such it features some of the best atheism bloggers on the planet … and (in the case of blogs like mine) some amateur windbags with too much time on their hands.

Particular shout-outs go to Podblack, Bastard Sheep, A Drunken Madman, Dave The Happy Singer and OzAtheist, but it’s all good stuff and well worth your time.

One of our main tasks is to promote the next Atheist Global Convention, a.k.a. “The Rise of Atheism”, to be held in Melbourne in 2010.

Guests for the event include Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers along with local heroes Catherine Deveny and Phillip Adams.

It should be a blast. Stay tuned for further details.

My Universe Is Too Big For Your Little God

2009-08-29T09:36:00.001+10:00

To quote the incomparable Douglas Adams:

Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space.

I often hear religious believers expound on the wonders of their faith and how it gives them a sense of transcendence; a sense that there’s something beyond this world and beyond our understanding and beyond and beyond and beyond …

It mystifies me when that kind of transcendence is found in religion.

The gods of our mainstream religions are just so small.

Take the Jewish god. He’s a petty misogynist obsessed with diet, fabrics and personal hygiene.

The Christian god (thought to be the same guy once he’d become a father and calmed down a bit) wants his followers to ritually cleanse themselves and demands legal marriage before any rubbing of genitalia can take place.

The Islamic god is also obsessed with sex, calling for adulterers to be stoned and women to cover their bodies lest the men around them fail to control themselves.

Just stop for a minute. Would an omnipotent and omniscient god really be interested in these things?

Look at the stars. Look at the Universe around you. Look at all the wondrous things these gods supposedly created.

We are a vanishingly small island in an unimaginably vast ocean of energies and forces.

Do you really think a being capable of mapping the galaxies cares how many times you wash your hands?

Homeopathic Vaccinations? Oh, Please.

2009-08-24T20:16:00.005+10:00

This morning David and Kim (admittedly hardly paragons of scientific virtue) really dropped the ball.

Not only did they give a substantial chunk of air time to Isaac Golden, a “doctor” of homeopathy with some very strange ideas about vaccinating using homeopathy, their resident actual doctor Nikolai Petrovsky completely failed to call Golden on any of the bullshit he was spouting.

Warning: video may induce the urge to hit head on desk.

----------------------------------------
The video has been removed from YouTube because of a copyright claim from Channel Ten, but you can find a transcript here.
----------------------------------------

At timestamp 4:10 Golden claimed to have a homeopathic treatment for swine flu, and it was actually David who asked the very good question: “What is it? What are the components of it?”

Golden started banging on about the “law of similars” and similar nonsense, and Petrovsky still didn’t call him on it.

All Dr. Petrovsky had to say was “I’ll tell you what the components are David … it’s simple. In fact there’s just the one. Water! That’s it! You could fill your syringe up at the tap and it’d do you just as much good as a homeopathic vaccination. In fact, screw the $400,000 the Cubans apparently paid for their treatments. I’ll do it for $50,000 and a slab.”

But no … all Petrovsky could manage was some lame protests that “vaccines work” before being interrupted by Golden with some hand-waving about a “major scientific paper about to be published”.

Just quietly, I’m not holding my breath for that one.

The real concern here is that viewers watching this piece may have come away thinking that homeopathic vaccination is a viable alternative to genuine vaccination.

I’d like to see a follow-up piece, in which it’s clearly explained that the claims of homeopathic practitioners fly in the face of all known scientific principles, that homeopathy has never been shown to have any effect in a properly controlled double-blinded trial, and most importantly, that homeopathic solutions are indistinguishable from everyday tap water.

Australian Idol Stalls

2009-08-11T21:17:00.001+10:00

The once-proud ex-juggernaut Australian Idol has limped to an unimpressive third in Sunday night’s ratings.

But why, I hear you ask? What could possibly put the kaibosh on this most venerable of reality TV staples?

Was it an audience backlash against professional tool Kyle Sandilands and his penchant for questioning 14-year-olds about their sex lives?

Was it the sudden realisation on the part of the audience that in all likelihood it’s going to be just as mediocre as last year?

Or has the audience started to twig that Australian Idol is just a relic of a bygone age?

After all, it’s just a glorified karaoke competition where the prize is a recording contract. And seriously, what’s that worth?

Once upon a time a recording contract was something to be valued. Once upon a time you needed a contract to get the capital to put a record together.

That meant teaming up with a record company and convincing them to stop snorting cocaine off the arses of Thai ladyboys for long enough to help you out.

But the party’s over. The record companies have lost their relevance.

Now any kid with some musical ability and a few hundred bucks for equipment and net access can record and distribute an album worldwide.

The game’s changed. If Idol wants to survive, it needs to change with it.

Of course, that’s probably giving the viewing audience of Australia too much credit.

It probably was Sandilands.

The AVN: Lies, Lunacy and Conspiracy Theories

2009-08-07T23:50:00.001+10:00

The Australian Vaccination Network, despite their name and claims to be “pro-choice”, are a rabid group of anti-vaccination ideologues led by the (possibly well-meaning, possibly evil, definitely misguided) Meryl Dorey.

Spreading lies about the contents of vaccinations and debunked pseudo-science about their supposed effects (for the thousandth time: vaccines don’t cause autism!), recently they’ve gone right off the rails. On the AVN blog last week Meryl re-posted an article with some insane conspiracy theories incorporating Big Pharma, the Illuminati, and a nefarious plot to use vaccinations to infect us all with nanobots.

So that’s why they don’t like vaccinations. Huh. Here was me thinking they just had an aversion to needles.

One would hope this lunacy means they’ll stop being taken seriously by the public at large. It certainly won’t look good on their record now that they’re being investigated by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission for breaches of the Public Health Act of 1993.

We’ll be watching with interest to see how that turns out.

The legendary Dick Smith has also gotten in on the action, taking out a huge ad in yesterday’s Australian to publicly denounce the AVN as the menace to society that they are.

The battle continues, and I suspect it will continue for some time. After all, anti-vaxxers have been around for as long as vaccinations.

We must remain ever vigilant and ensure the correct information gets out there.

Vaccinations save lives. Meryl Dorey and her crowd are spreading lies and misinformation. Left unchecked, lies like this will lead to death and suffering.

These are the simple facts.

Dead Pool 2009 – July Update

2009-08-05T23:19:00.001+10:00

----------------------------
Celebrity Dead Pool now has its own blog!
Find it at Celebrity Dead Pool
----------------------------

My most humble apologies for the very tardy update.

I have no excuses to offer except for the fact that I’ve just had Foxtel installed (that’s cable TV for our American friends) and hence found other ways to spend my time.

But enough with the smug confessions and on with the dead pool update.

The month started with a tragic double act on the 1st, with the deaths of actors Mollie “Mrs Slocombe” Sugden and Karl “Lieutenant Mike Stone” Malden.

On the 3rd US author and journalist John Keel died at the age of 79. A noted UFOlogist and author of The Mothman Prophecies, Keel managed to turn an unfortunate case of clinical paranoia into a lucrative writing career.

The 17th saw the death of legendary newsreader Walter Cronkite. His mellifluous voice had him cited as the “most trusted man in America”, which makes me think John Howard might have been more trusted if he didn’t sound like such a whiny little shit. Or maybe not.

On the 18th Henry Allingham, just elevated to the position of world’s oldest man last month, passed away at the age of 113. I don’t want to jinx anyone but Walter Breuning, aged 112, takes his place. Good luck, Walter.

On the 19th famed Irish author Frank McCourt passed away at the age of 78. Author of Angela’s Ashes and 'Tis, McCourt turned his impoverished upbringing into a lucrative writing career. Take note, Keel.

The 21st saw the tragic death of actor Les Lye, best known for playing all the adult characters on classic Canadian kid’s show You Can’t Do That On Television.

On the 22nd cartoonist John Ryan, creator of the legendary Captain Pugwash passed away at the age of 88. Sadly those rumours about saucy double-entendres hidden in the character names (Master Bates, Seaman Staines and Roger the Cabin Boy) were nothing but urban legend. Dammit.

And finally on the 25th we farewelled Harry Patch, one of the last four surviving World War I veterans and the last to have actually fought in the trenches. Patch was 111.

And that wraps it up for July.

There’s been no further movement on the scoreboard so, as last month, it looks this:

Ty	64
Benn	64
Eliza	50
Rob	50
Russell	50

Simon and the Skeptics

2009-07-30T23:19:00.001+10:00

A few weeks ago I wrote about science journalist Simon Singh and his run-in with the British Chiropractic Association.

Simon’s currently on a tour of Australia as part of the 2009 Festival of Ideas, doing meet-and-greets, promoting his books and talking (in a limited way) about the BCA libel case.

This evening he spoke to the Victorian Skeptics about some of the topics from his book Trick or Treatment, focusing particularly on homeopathy and its somewhat ridiculous underlying theory.

I was hoping that we might get one or two homeopathists or chiropractors popping up for a bit of an argument, but no such luck. It was largely a case of preaching to the converted so it was a very entertaining, but far from controversial, evening.

Having been a huge fan of Simon’s for years (ever since The Code Book and Fermat’s Last Theorem … I’m such a maths nerd), after the talk I bucked up the fanboy courage for a quick chat.

I can’t remember what we talked about (fanboy, remember?) but it did happen. I’ve got the photo to prove it.

Simon’s the one with the cool haircut.

Your Cut-Out-And-Keep Guide to Agnostic Atheism

2009-07-26T12:18:00.001+10:00

Yesterday over lunch with some immediate and extended family, the topic of religion came up. I confess I may have been the instigator in this case.

Over the course of the discussion the comment was made that atheists (particularly that awful Richard Dawkins character) can’t really call themselves “atheists”, because you can’t prove there isn’t a God.

This is a very common view and in fact, probably the single most common “refutation” of atheism out there.

Unfortunately it’s a nonsensical argument, based as it is on the erroneous conflation of atheism with philosophical materialism.

Most atheists don’t claim definitively that there is no God. This is particularly true of someone like Dawkins who, as a scientist, values empirical knowledge. That kind of absolutism just doesn’t wash under his philosophy.

In precise terms Dawkins (and I would include myself in this camp too) is what you might call an agnostic atheist.

This is of course harking back to the original definition of agnosticism, being the acceptance that certain things, particularly the metaphysical, are inherently unknowable.

One’s position on agnosticism is completely separate from what one happens to believe about the metaphysical. It should be clear that agnosticism and atheism are no more mutually exclusive than agnosticism and theism.

To illustrate the point I would like to propose the following simple numbering system:

Group 1 is where you’ll find most religious believers, as it includes anyone who claims God is both knowable and known (usually just by them).

Group 2 houses your scientifically-minded theists and pretty much anyone who studies the philosophy of religion and somehow manages to remain a believer.

Group 2 is significantly less populous than Group 1 and a constant source of irritation to Group 3 (where you’ll find the vast majority of atheists) because it’s often trotted out in defence of religion under the pretence that that’s where most believers sit.

They don’t.

Finally Group 4 (containing your hardcore philosophical materialists) is largely empty. And because there’s hardly anyone in there, trying to refute atheism by targeting this lot is a bit like trying to kill a lion by clipping its toenails.

I respectfully request that all future religious discussions clearly indicate which of these four groups is being discussed.

Thank you.

Religion is Immoral

2009-07-22T21:54:00.001+10:00

When I see stories like this I'm reminded why I reject the notion of religious belief.

Members of Iran's feared Basij militia forcibly marry female virgin prisoners the night before scheduled executions, raping their new "wives" and making it religiously acceptable to execute them …

Question: Who would claim this is moral behaviour? Answer: Those who committed this atrocity.

And in their own twisted little context, they’re right.

After all, under strict Islamic law, the greater immorality would be to execute them as virgins, so raping them prior to execution is the greater moral act.

And this, dear friends, is what religious belief does.

It tells us our natural and evolved sense of right and wrong can’t be trusted. It tells us our moral sense comes from without, bestowed upon us by an all-knowing God. It tells us to deny our innate sense of justice and submit to a greater will, even if we don’t understand it.

Of course in practice that “greater will” is the Word as interpreted by the priesthood and clergy.

If we’re lucky, the clergy in question will trust their innate sense of justice and selectively promote the truly good messages from their scriptures. We see this, for example, in Christian ministers who leave out the bits about burning in hell and concentrate on Christ’s social justice message.

But all that’s happening then is that the religious message is being manipulated to ape the simple message of humanism. The religion becomes subject to the person.

If we’re doing that, then why bother with the religion at all? If the message has value, then all this supernatural window-dressing is just a distraction.

And it can be a dangerous distraction, because sometimes we’re not so lucky.

Combine that “greater will” instead with a dictatorial theocracy and a brutalised culture, and all of a sudden the person becomes horribly subject to the religion.

The person is considered nothing more than a tabula rasa for the clerical moral code. The individual’s sense of right and wrong is rendered wholly irrelevant.

And before you know it, raping virgins is perfectly OK.

Discrimination In Religious Schools

2009-07-19T10:18:00.001+10:00

A review of Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act has made some interesting recommendations.

At the moment, religious schools in Victoria have the right to discriminate on the basis of faith. For example, a Muslim school can refuse to employ a Jewish cleaner or a conservative Christian school a woman who is unmarried and pregnant.

A parliamentary review has recommended broadening the definition into “core” and “non-core” roles, so discrimination would only be applied to roles where it actually matters. Under this model the school chaplain can’t be a Satanist but it doesn’t matter so much if the maths teacher is (although he does go on about pentagrams a fair bit … ).

People running religious schools obviously think it’s a bad idea. And I agree.

This is just too one-sided. Even now, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find any number of atheists teaching in Christian schools, where their atheism is overlooked just because of their teaching ability.

This proposal takes us in completely the wrong direction. We should give more discriminatory power to these schools, not less.

In fact, let’s go the whole hog. Religious schools should be obliged to only employ people who share their faith.

Before being appointed, applicants must prove their allegiance by swearing on their particular holy book and passing a detailed examination on the tenets of their doctrine.

All staff must be monitored constantly to ensure their behaviour is in line with the appropriate religious doctrine. Any breaches of protocol, whether on school grounds or in the person’s home, will result in immediate dismissal.

Of course religious schools might struggle to retain staff under such a regime, and student numbers would drop off as teaching standards fell.

And Government funding would have to be cut because they’d now be straight religious institutions rather than educational institutions.

And in fact, after a while we’d probably see very few religious schools remaining.

That’d be a shame.

But keeping the schools’ religious values pure is obviously critically important, so surely that’s a small price to pay.

Framing Darwinism

2009-07-16T23:22:00.001+10:00

An article by Professor of Theology Tom Frame on “Questions Darwinism cannot answer” is an excellent example of the kind of muddled thinking religious believers tend to display when talking about evolution.

The first clue is the use of the word “Darwinism”, an epithet used almost exclusively by believers with a philosophical axe to grind. The intention is to portray evolution as just another religious belief.

The next clue is passages like this:

A dedicated Darwinian would welcome imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide.

Apart displaying his gross ignorance of what evolution means, Mr Frame is trying to paint atheism as an immoral position and, by an implied false dichotomy, promote religious belief as the noble alternative.

But all that’s just a sideshow. The real point of the article is summed up in these oh-so-wise words:

Such science is also inhibited from asking whether life has any meaning, as this would require stepping outside the processes that led its practitioners to the point of questioning. Evolution might account for the story of life's beginnings and progress, but it cannot explain its origin nor cast any light on its destiny.

I’ve got a news flash for you, Mr Frame. Religion, for all its pomp and imaginary circumstance, cannot explain any of these things either.

It’s trivial to observe that there’s more to the human experience than science, let alone evolution. But promoting religion as some kind of answer to these ill-defined questions is just smoke and mirrors.

Religion is not an answer. It’s a process of comforting ritual and invocation of myth and throwing meaningless feel-good words at the question to pretend you've answered it.

Real answers come from observation, from verification, from defining the questions carefully and gathering the evidence. None of these things have any place in religion.

And what’s all this about destiny?

Our destiny doesn’t come from without, as Mr Frame wants us to believe. It comes from within. We are its authors.

We can choose to take responsibility for our actions and set our own path, or we can abdicate that responsibility to an imaginary higher power.

We can strive to be an enlightened society that seeks to understand its place in the universe, or we can cling to ancient myths and the fleeting comforts they bring.

Guess which one I choose.

Simple Diary Entry

2009-07-10T23:55:00.001+10:00

It’s been ages since I’ve written a simple diary entry; a piece free of those distracting pictures, free of philosophy and free of celebrity deaths.

The original intention of this blog was to bang on about what’s been happening in my life. Sometimes it’s nice to get back to basics.

Such things require no research at all. Not that I do all that much.

And I don’t need to spend hours scouring Google Images for those distracting pictures.

Back to the diary.

This week was pleasantly bisected with a day off on Wednesday, the intention of which was to hale and heartily greet the Foxtel man as he installed dozens of channels of entertainment goodness.

Unfortunately it was not to be.

The installation will require a certain amount of drilling holes in walls and digging up the garden, all of which was apparently beyond the capability of the man telling me this.

This was particularly annoying, because Wednesday also saw the departure of my lovely wife overseas on a business trip for two weeks.

My plan had been to spend her absence wearing a serious groove in the couch watching documentaries and repeats of Star Trek. If all went well I’d be starting to get over it by the time she got back and wouldn’t mind so much as we devolve into a diet of Fashion TV and E! News.

But alas, it was not to be.

So what am I to do now? Dunno. Might as well write a blog.

The Myth of Scientific Conspiracy

2009-07-05T13:03:00.001+10:00

I love a good conspiracy theory.

In times past I’ve been fascinated, bemused, irritated and appalled (sometimes all at once) by everything from Von Daniken’s Chariots of the Gods and those wacky 9-11 truthers to the idea that the Mayans had rockets and the moon is an alien spaceship.

And don’t even get me started on that Timecube guy.

Dissemination of conspiracy theories has been both helped and hindered by Web 2.0, as both proponents and debunkers are just a few clicks away.

For the moment it looks like the debunkers are winning, but I suspect conspiracy theories will always be with us.

But where do they all come from?

Big Government conspiracies got a boost in the 1990s, as US hegemony expanded and it became very easy to believe we were being lied to. In the 2000s the whole idea came crashing down once it became clear that we were being lied to, but it was incompetence not conspiracy at the core.

And still no secret alien technology in sight.

Big Government conspiracies seem to have shifted now to Big Pharmaceutical and Big Oil, as profit takes over from political power as the assumed driver. As conspiracies go though, these are a lot less interesting. Big companies doing whatever they can to make money? It’s not quite Spaceship Moon is it?

Big Science gets a run as well. This is a particular favourite of anyone whose wonderful new Theory of Everything has been rejected by the scientific mainstream.

The list of Big Science conspiracies is endless.

Evolution? Young Earth Creationists will bang on for days about how it’s a scientific conspiracy to keep the real truth hidden … the truth being that those fossils are all less than 6,000 years old and were actually placed there by Noah’s flood.

Entropy? It’s a lie foist upon the public to hide the existence of perpetual motion machines that could provide free energy to whole world. (An obvious cross-over here with Big Oil).

And emissions? It’s all those left-wing scientists blinded by their green ideology wanting to shut down the factories and throw everyone out of work.

And they’re just the ones starting with ‘E’.

But here’s the thing. Here’s why the whole notion of scientific conspiracy is preposterous.

Scientists are not in cahoots.
They’re in competition.

When any new scientific idea is thrown into the ring there'll be a phalanx of scientists trying their damnedest to kneecap it before you can say phlogiston.

And why? It’s not to be malicious. It’s because that’s how science works.

Ideas that withstand the onslaught are accepted and became the basis for further learning. The ideas that fall are simply discarded.

And you might notice the ideas that fall are also the source of most of the conspiracy theories.

After all, it’s much easier to blame the Masons and the Illuminati and the cabal of Big Scientists than to admit your idea doesn’t really have any merit.

Dead Pool 2009 – June Update

2009-07-01T22:58:00.001+10:00

----------------------------
Celebrity Dead Pool now has its own blog!
Find it at Celebrity Dead Pool
----------------------------

We’re halfway through the year and it’s been an absolutely bumper month. We’ve had celebrities and other notables tragically dropping off the perch left right and centre.

With no time to mess around let’s get straight into it, starting with one late-reported death from May.

On the 31st of that month we bid a final ta-ra to entertainer Danny La Rue, a pioneer of the drag scene and one of the men responsible for bringing the whole men-dressing-as-ladies thing out of the underground and into the mainstream.

On the 2nd of June fantasy author David Eddings passed away at the age of 77. I’d probably have something more interesting to say about him if I’d read any of his books. I haven’t. But I’m sure they’re tops.

On the 3rd we lost Australia’s last surviving veteran of World War I, John Campbell Ross at the very respectable age of 110.

Also on the 3rd we bid a fond farewell to actor, notorious bad-boy and all-round legend David Carradine at the age of 72. If you’re gonna go, there are worse ways than with some random hooker in a sleazy Thailand hotel room. Just sayin’. Rest in Peace, Grasshopper.

On the 12th we witnessed the spooky death of Johanna Ganthaler who, having just survived the ill-fated Air France Flight 447 on June 1 by missing the flight, was killed in a car crash in Austria.

Seriously, it’s a story worthy of a film. Oh wait. It’s been done.

The 15th saw the daylight assassination of Des ‘Tuppence’ Moran, patriarch and last surviving member of the Moran crime family.

On the 17th John Houghtaling, inventor of the Magic Fingers Vibrating Bed, a fixture of mid-priced hotel rooms last refurbished in the 1960s, died a very wealthy man at the age of 92. There is no truth to the rumour that his fortune was all in quarters, nor that he vibrated for fifteen minutes after he died. It’s all scurrilous and very silly gossip.

On the 19th Tomoji Tanabe, up until his final moments the world’s oldest living man, died of heart failure at the age of 113. Henry Allingham of the UK, also 113, takes his place as the oldest living man in the world. But not the oldest living person. There’s like ten chicks ahead of him.

(I wonder if all these supercentenarians know each other? They should start a facebook group. If I were suddenly made the oldest man in the world by the death of the previous incumbent I know I’d want immediate notification).

The 21st saw the tragic death of actress Lorena Gale, best known for her role as the wise priestess Elosha on Battlestar Galactica. (<battlestargeekout> Although one might question the wisdom of plying the President of the Colonies with hallucinogens. </battlestargeekout> Still … Lorena Gale … awesome lady.)

On the 23rd American TV announcer Ed McMahon passed away at the age of 86. A fixture of Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show, Ed’s famous catchphrase “Here’s Johnny!” was usurped by an axe-wielding Jack Nicholson in 1980’s The Shining. That’s got nothing to do with his death. It’s just kind of interesting.

Finally, as previously mentioned (and covered by one or two other sources) the 25th saw the deaths of both Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett.

So it’s been a helluva month.

We’ve also seen some significant movement on the dead pool scoreboard, with no fewer than five people tipping the tragic passing of Michael Jackson.

As Mr. Jackson was 50 at the time of his death we award 50 points each to Benn, Eliza, Rob, Russell and Ty. Sadly Farrah Fawcett’s death does not result in any points, as she passed away from the illness she was suffering at the beginning of the year.

And with that, our scoreboard looks like this:

Ty	64
Benn	64
Eliza	50
Rob	50
Russell	50

Tune in again next month.

I hope for the sake of our remaining beloved celebrities that it’s a quiet one.

Michael Jackson’s Greatest Role

2009-06-27T17:28:00.001+10:00

Some will remember Michael Jackson for his music. Some will remember him for his unique style.

I choose to remember him as Captain Eo, battling the evil Supreme Leader with nothing but his ragtag team of muppets, a whole bunch of sub-Star Wars special effects and some smokin’ dance moves.

To paraphrase my friend Rob, there just aren’t enough e’s in cheesy for this.

Fun fact: the annoying elephant thing is played by Tony Cox, who went on to play the sidekick Marcus in Bad Santa.

And check out those credits! George Lucas. James Horner. And Francis Ford Coppola? Really?

Well, I guess Jack doesn’t seem like such an anomaly anymore…

Michael, Farrah and (not) Jeff

2009-06-26T19:45:00.001+10:00

The King of Pop is dead. Long live . . . who?

Pop music lives on, but without an obvious successor to the Pop crown. That Timberlake fella’s just a bit too normal and balanced.

Jackson will be remembered for a few good albums, but mostly for the chimpanzee, the oxygen tent, “Wacko Jacko”, the bizarre behaviour, the accusations, aspersions and gossip.

It’s hard to feel anything but pity for this man who remained a boy in so many ways. And it’s very hard to shake the sense that he’d been dying before our eyes for the last two decades.

In a perfect world Jackson’s life would be a stark warning about the dangers of growing up in the celebrity spotlight.

Unfortunately, his lasting impression will probably be a vague whiff of salacious scandal and a dodgy telemovie starring Jaden Smith as Young Michael and Marilyn Manson as the adult.

Media coverage of Jackson is beyond comprehensive right now, far overshadowing the other tragic celebrity death of the moment, Farrah Fawcett.

Farrah’s battle with cancer (detailed in not one, but two recent documentaries) has been big news for years now, but she’s hardly getting a look in.

One is reminded of Jimmy Stewart’s death in 1997 which rendered the death of legendary actor Robert Mitchum all but forgotten.

We haven’t forgotten you, Farrah.

Then, just to throw a bit of bizarrity into the day someone somewhere took the idea that “things happen in threes” as an instruction, and announced that Jeff Goldblum had plummeted to his death from a cliff while filming in New Zealand.

This got as far as being officially announced on Australia’s Today show before being revealed as a hoax and denied by a bemused and very-much-alive Jeff Goldblum.

Richard Wilkins, you’re an idiot.

What a day. It won’t quite live in infamy, but we won’t see its like again for a while. Hopefully.

Samson and Delilah

2009-06-25T11:47:00.001+10:00

Every few years a film comes along and is touted as the saviour of the local film industry.

“This is the one,” say the breathless critics and industry lobbyists “that shows what we really can do.”

Samson and Delilah is the latest unfortunate to be tarred with that brush, although it was probably unavoidable given its Camera D’Or win at Cannes. And while it’s a good film, it’s far from the pinnacle of creative achievement.

Largely played as dumbshow, we track the movements of the eponymous young aboriginal couple through their awkward courtship, tribal excommunication, hopeless struggle to fit into a white world and something that might be redemption depending on how you choose to look at it.

As a movie it’s not dissimilar to Sean Penn’s Into the Wild, although here the sleepy town of Alice Springs is the unforgiving wilderness and the outback represents the comfort and safety of home.

The main difference for this film is the role played by the majority of those sitting in the audience. The impact of European culture on aboriginals is a central theme, both in terms of passive neglect and active exploitation.

It’s an important point to make, although it wasn’t entirely successful.

A pointed dig at the indigenous art industry for growing fat off the back of a starving community is justified, but one can’t help feeling the film-makers here are indulging in a similar sort of behaviour.

3.5 out of 5

Atheism ≠ Philosophical Materialism

2009-06-20T14:20:00.001+10:00

Philosophical Materialism is an interesting worldview. It’s the belief that …

… all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance (from Wikipedia).

This belief is obviously anathema to theists, because it defines out of existence any notion of a supernatural God.

It also has its share of philosophical problems. It’s an easy target for philosophical deconstruction and reasonably easy to paint as irrational.

For this reason theological arguments often conflate materialism with atheism, because the philosophical issues with materialism can be used to conclude that atheism is also irrational.

In fact, most arguments of the atheism-is-irrational variety boil down to this particular point.

But the argument fails right out of the gate. While all Philosophical Materialists are atheists it obviously doesn’t follow that all atheists are Philosophical Materialists. That’s a simple rookie error.

Like most atheists, my position is simply that theism has roundly failed to make its case.

I don’t reject religion because I think the material realm is all there is. I reject religion because once you scratch the surface of any religion it becomes clear it’s been created by humans.

Of course I can accept the possibility that there is something beyond this physical realm. I just don’t claim to know anything about it.

And here’s the thing: unless you can present some pretty extraordinary evidence to the contrary, you shouldn’t claim to know anything about it either.

Coming Soon: Agora

2009-06-17T22:02:00.002+10:00

This should spark some interesting debates when it’s released later this year.

Depending on who you ask, the story of Hypatia (here played by the lovely Rachel Weisz) and the destruction of the ancient library in Alexandria in the 4th century AD is either one of the most egregious examples of how religious hegemony can wreak destruction on civilisation, or … no. That’s about it.

Any other views are more or less apologetics for Christianity and the vague hand-waving that goes along with proclamations that they’re not really that bad anymore.

I’d take that view slightly more seriously if we hadn’t seen Dubya’s Christian troops stand passively by while the National Library in Baghdad was destroyed in 2003.

It’ll be interesting to see how the movies portray Cyril (a.k.a Saint Cyril of Alexandria) given he’ll undoubtedly be the villain of the piece. After all, he’s still considered one of the Fathers of the Catholic Church.

With a bit of luck we’ll get a Papal condemnation and picketing from idiots who haven’t bothered to see the film, but are blindly following the edicts from the pulpit. No great stretch that, of course.

Let the games begin.

This Is What

2009-06-14T11:37:00.002+10:00

This is what I’ve been doing instead of blogging.

And instead of reading. And answering the phone. And talking to anyone.

This is one of the most addictive games I’ve ever seen.

Braid trailer from David Hellman on Vimeo.

Thanks to Rob for the tip. Now, any ideas on how to get my life back?

Mind Body Wallet

2009-06-08T10:47:00.001+10:00

The Mind Body ~~Wallet~~ Spirit festival.

An annual (or thereabouts) celebration of woo-woo of every stripe. Everything from personal horoscopes and psychic readings to spiritual healing and magic potions.

On Saturday fellow skeptics Catherine, Elliot, Jack, Dahli and I went along to soak in some of the rarefied atmosphere.

I should point out we weren’t there to take the piss. Or start arguments. Or be assholes. Or convince anyone that they’re wrong. For my part, I’m genuinely interested in the worldview of people who believe this sort of thing, if only because it’s so different from my own.

No, we were there to represent the skeptical community and record a few bits for the Pseudo Scientists podcast. And for me, I wanted to find out what makes these people tick.

We began by talking to a lovely lady from Christocentric Light, a group that combines new-age type beliefs with Christianity. They’re big on dream interpretation, so we got chatting about a recurring dream I have where I’m in an elevator which starts going sideways before leaving the building altogether. Apparently that means I feel I’m stagnating (hence going sideways) and to fix this, I should try to make the elevator go up.

(I wanted to point out that my dreams are probably an effect not a cause of the apparent stagnation, so manipulating my dreams won’t necessarily help in my real life. But Catherine helpfully suggested I push the “Up” button instead of the “Sideways” button. That was such a brilliant suggestion I decided to leave it there.)

We then sat down to record a bit for the podcast, only to be interrupted by a lady from Psionics, a group who could teach us all about astral travelling. All we had to do was sign up for their $1,200 course and we could travel all around the world and throughout the universe. Bargain. Unfortunately my question about how you know you’re really travelling and not just dreaming was evaded and unanswered.

After a break to taste some tea (during which I noted that every single tea I tried apparently had more anti-oxidants than all the others) it was back to the circuit.

Dahli took part in a muscle test which “proved” the power of scalar energy, a magical force imparted to the wearer of a quantum/nanotech/bio-vibrational amulet. And while this was going on, Elliot and I got talking to some Christian Scientists.

Christian Science is all about healing through prayer, so Elliot asked the very reasonable question why (if this stuff had been rigorously studied as they claimed) they weren’t publishing it in medical journals and winning Nobel prizes. They even claimed success in the field of regrowing missing limbs! Sadly they didn’t know which one of their many magazines that particular article was in, but they did assure us it was true.

Memo to Christian Scientists: the question “if God heals, why doesn’t he regrow missing limbs?” is so common it’s a cliché. If you’ve got evidence for that one, stick it right up front of your stand. Just sayin’.

A little more wandering and we decided to call it a day and headed out for the obligatory photo op. Check out the next Pseudo Scientists podcast for a complete wrap-up of events.

This festival is an amazing collection of woo-woo all the one place, and it’s a little overwhelming when you’re going in with a deliberately skeptical eye.

I can appreciate that a lot of these people genuinely believe they’re helping with their magic potions and rituals, and it could even be argued they are helping if someone goes in looking for that kind of thing.

But at the core of it all is a huge industry cynically making lots of money off the credulous and the vulnerable.

This was my conclusion about what makes them tick. It’s definitely more Wallet than Spirit.

Simon and the Chiropractors

2009-06-04T22:35:00.002+10:00

Back in April 2008 British journalist and author Simon Singh wrote an excellent opinion piece in the Guardian, in which he called “bullshit” on the British Chiropractic Association and some of their more outlandish claims.

Singh had taken exception to claims like those in this leaflet which says…

…chiropractic care has helped children with the following symptoms: Asthma, Colic, Prolonged crying, Sleep and feeding problems, Breathing difficulties, Hyperactivity, Bedwetting…

…and rightfully pointed out that no evidence for this kind of Chiropractic efficacy actually exists. Then, he eloquently took the BCA to task for promoting “bogus” treatments.

And what was the reaction of this respectable association? Did they produce the evidence they claim they have, thereby soundly trouncing Dr Singh’s claims?

No. Of course not. They sued him for libel. After all, Singh is right. The evidence doesn’t exist.

In the US, chiropractors and other alternative practitioners know better than to try this sort of thing. Over there the law would require them to prove their treatments are effective. They can’t do that, so they don’t.

But English libel laws are different. They’re heavily weighted in favour of the plaintiff, so the burden of proof is on Singh to prove that chiropractic isn’t effective, rather than on the BCA to prove that it is.

It’s a tough call, but not impossible. What makes it tricky is that the presiding judge latched onto the word “bogus” and interpreted that as implying a knowing deception on the part of the BCA. Now that’s pretty much impossible to prove.

Singh has appealed that ruling and we’ll be watching the outcome of with great interest.

If the ruling is overturned then Singh has an excellent chance of beating the libel charge. What’s more, the likely exposure of chiropractic as a largely ineffective treatment will have the BCA regretting they ever brought the case to trial.

If it isn’t overturned then Singh probably doesn’t have much of a chance at all. Worse, the precedent set will be a huge blow to freedom of speech, and a huge setback to the much-needed skepticism of (I’ll say it) bogus claims like those of the BCA.

Jack of Kent is tracking the details of the case closely, and Sense about Science has a petition with a very impressive list of signatories.

Let’s hope reason prevails.

Dead Pool 2009 – May Update

2009-06-01T20:37:00.001+10:00

----------------------------
Celebrity Dead Pool now has its own blog!
Find it at Celebrity Dead Pool
----------------------------

Welcome once again to the macabre world of Dead Pool 2009.

Mwahaha…ha…*cough*…ha…

Let’s kick off first with a late-reported death from April.

On April 30, amateur astronomer Venetia Phair passed away at the age of 90. Phair was brought to prominence in 1930 aged just 11, when she named the newly-discovered planet Pluto. Phair was remembered again recently when Pluto was demoted from a planet to a dwarf planet. Shame about that.

Still, Walt Disney pinched the name for Mickey's dog a few years later. And that’s still cool. Right?

On May 4 comedy legend Dom DeLuise died of kidney failure aged 76. Best known for his roles in just about all of Mel Brooks’ movies, I still remember him for the opening scene of The Muppet Movie, where he played the sleazy agent who convinces Kermit to go to Hollywood.

So we have Dom to thank for the Muppets. Well, why not? Let’s go with that.

On the 15th, as previously mentioned legendary Australian actor Charles ‘Bud’ Tingwell passed away at the age of 86.

On the 18th US rapper Roderick Anthony Burton II (aka “Dolla” … twice as good as 50 Cent etc etc) was shot and killed in Beverley Hills. Of course if the precedent set by 2Pac is anything to go by, this means a glowing career of successful albums, Grammy awards and unverified sightings in Hollywood nightclubs.

On the 21st we farewelled actress Joan Alexander, best known for her role as Lois Lane in the radio serial The Adventures of Superman in the 1940s. Tragically taken in her prime at the age of 94 this is clear evidence that the curse of Superman strikes again!

And finally, on the 31st the world lost Millvina Dean, the last survivor of the Titanic disaster in 1912.

Of course, it’ll be some years before we farewell the last survivor of the Titanic disaster of 1997.

The current score for this year’s pool still stands at a draw, with Benn and Ty sharing the lead on 14 points.

Stay tuned for further updates.

Skeptics United!

2009-05-31T23:14:00.001+10:00

This weekend a bunch of our skeptical friends from Sydney came down to Melbourne for drinks.

There were some lectures and stuff too, but mainly drinks.

I could go on and on about what a great time it was, but the erstwhile Jack Scanlan over at Homologous Legs provides an excellent summary of events, so I don’t really have to bother.

Plus it’s late and I’m tired.

All you need to know is that it was tops.

If you’re really keen, Podblack Cat has posted a bunch of stuff, including photos and videos. Knock yourselves out, kids.

Anyway, here’s a cool photo of me with the gang.

From left: me, Dr Rachel Dunlop and Richard Saunders from the Skeptic Zone podcast, Dave the Happy Singer, Kylie Sturgess (aka Podblack Cat) and the very cool Mr. Joel Birch.

A big thanks to the Young Australian Skeptics for organising this truly excellent event.

Let’s do it again soon!

You Have the Right to be Offended

2009-05-27T22:26:00.001+10:00

Suppose I call religion a waste of intellectual capacity.

Suppose I say the idea of an omniscient God is abhorrent to anyone who values true freedom.

Suppose I say dogmatic religion is a blight on society and does nothing but justify mindless obeisance and suppress genuine knowledge and progress.

You may be offended. You have the right to be offended.

What you do not have is the right not to be offended.

Argue with me. Tell me I’m wrong. Give me a reason to change my mind. Engage in meaningful debate.

But don’t try to silence me.

We must all have the right to freely call ideas dangerous, divisive and prejudicial. We must all have the right to freely call the people who hold those ideas foolish, small minded and moronic.

We must all have the right to free speech. And if our speech is not allowed to offend, then it is no longer free.

This is why UN draft resolution VI on “Combating Defamation of Religions” (document A/C.3/62/L.35) must be denounced as the blatant attack on free speech that it is.

The Assembly would emphasize that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which should be exercised with responsibility and may therefore be subject to limitations, according to law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others; protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals; and respect for religions and beliefs.

This is not only nonsense, it’s dangerous nonsense.

Every major step forward in society has required the denouncement of one or more deeply held religious ideals.

To suppress the defamation of religion is to stop society in its tracks.

After all, any idea worth anything is bound to offend someone.

V is for Very Excited

2009-05-23T19:51:00.001+10:00

The original 1980s series V was was one my earliest exposures to science fiction, and it’s still good.

The long-awaited remake is almost upon us, and it’s looking amazing.

Yes, that’s Morena Baccarin with a pixie cut. That should nicely offset the presence of Scott Wolf.

A Tale of Two Tailors

2009-05-21T21:11:00.001+10:00

During our recent visit to Hong Kong I decided to get a new suit.

Hong Kong is of course famous for its tailors. Or at least, famous for the way its tailors stand out in the street touting their wares.

And it just so happened that our hotel was in the middle of a veritable tailor’s market. Convenient.

Every morning as we stepped outside we ran a gauntlet of well-dressed gentlemen handing us cards, describing the lovely suits and shirts they could make for us and stopping just short of physically manhandling us into their shops.

Over the course of the week we got to know them and they got to know us. Some stopped bothering us after a day or two. Others didn’t.

And one, let’s call him Lakshaman, was particularly persistent.

All this choice was intoxicating but in the end it was no choice at all. I went to Sam’s Tailor. Tailor to royalty. Tailor to the stars.

The shop walls were papered with photos of every celebrity you can think of. Each one was standing next to Manu (aka “Sam”), his measuring tape slung casually over his shoulder and a beaming smile on his face.

I tried on my new suit watched over by David Bowie, Tony Blair and George Bush Senior. I shook Manu’s hand and walked back to the hotel, proudly carrying my “Sam’s Tailor” suit bag.

And that was when I saw Lakshaman. He wasn’t happy. In fact, he took it quite personally.

“Every day I ask you if you want a suit! Every day you say no! And now here! Here you have gone to Sam’s! Why not me? What is wrong with my suits? Why do you insult me like this?”

And so on. And on. And on.

Every time I walked past him he would pick up where he last left off. After a day or two we both got a little tired of it. Around then he decided to abbreviate his tirades to simply calling me “Sam”.

I’ll be watching out for Lakshaman next time I’m in Hong Kong. Maybe I’ll even buy a suit from him.

I better. Or he’ll probably shank me at the airport.

Charles ‘Bud’ Tingwell

2009-05-17T10:58:00.001+10:00

The great Australian actor Charles ‘Bud’ Tingwell has passed away at the age of 86.

One of Australia’s hardest working and most respected actors, Bud was loved by generations of Australians.

Bud brought a touch of class to everything he did, whether it was the Australian war movies of the 1940s, the Hammer horror films of the 1960s, or the ‘Charlie the Wonder Dog’ segment of the D-Generation’s The Late Show.

He will be sadly missed.

In the wake of Bud’s sad death we solemnly and respectfully award 14 points to Ty, who is now running equal first with Benn in this year’s competition.

Star Trek

2009-05-13T20:28:00.001+10:00

Here we go. This is where I add my voice to the growing chorus of admiration for J.J. Abrams and his new Star Trek movie.

I was all keen to hate it too. Star Trek movies have a history of being bloated gabfests or extended TV episodes filmed in 35mm, but this wasn’t. It’s actually really good.

And I hate to admit it, but therein lies the rub. The reason it’s really good is that it’s not really a Star Trek film at all. It’s more like a Star Wars film. (Original trilogy of course, not the later ones. Which ironically were more like Star Trek films. But I digress…)

It’s fun, it’s action packed, it doesn’t pay too much attention to previous canon or scientific principles, and there wasn’t even one scene where Starfleet suits sit around a conference table crapping on about how to deal diplomatically with those darn Romulans.

Rather, we get the classic original series approach of tooling around in starships, shooting first and asking questions later.

The ships are shiny and new, Kirk’s a young punk, Spock’s not quite as emotionless as we remember, Uhura’s sexy as hell and Simon Pegg as Scotty is just hilarious.

The series needed a serious reboot, and this was it. It’s a great universe with great stories to tell, but the stiff stylings of previous cinematic outings weren’t doing its longevity any favours at all.

What J.J. has given us here is most definitely Star Trek, Jim, but not as we know it. And it’s about goddamn time.

4.5 out of 5

Hong Kong in Pictures

2009-05-09T23:28:00.001+10:00

Here’s a bunch of photos from our trip to Hong Kong last week.

Monday. Generic Hong Kong street scene.

Yuen Po Street Bird Garden in Kowloon. As well as your usual selection of sparrows and parrots there were cockatoos, galahs and this toucan. I suspect not all of this was strictly legal.

Tuesday. Ferry to Hong Kong Island from Kowloon. Street market in Soho on Hong Kong Island. Travelling companions Ty and Debbie in left of frame.The new-ish Bank of China building on Hong Kong Island, which has the locals up in arms for its shameless violation of Feng Shui principles. Triangles are bad mmkay.

Looking down on Hong Kong Island from halfway up the scenic Peak Tram route. That hill was seriously steep.

Group shot at the Peak, after we’d walked away from the tourists and found a nice quiet spot to enjoy some wine. No glasses, so we just necked it straight from the bottle. Classy.Wednesday. Phallic art and phallic buildings outside the art gallery in Kowloon. Dinner at One-thirtyone in Sai Kung. This refined dining was followed up by drinking in our hotel room and watching the Top 100 songs of the 80s on Chinese MTV. Good times.Thursday. A quick drink while waiting for the boat to Lantau Island. I wasn’t expecting to find officially licensed Monty Python beer, but then again, NO-ONE expects . . . oh never mind. Extra credit to anyone who can read what it says on my t-shirt and complete the phrase.The Big Buddha at Ngong Ping on Lantau Island. This bad boy is 34 metres tall. Luckily we had been fortified with a vegetarian lunch at the nearly Po Lin monastery before climbing the 268 steps to the base. I got that number from Wikipedia. I didn’t count them. Really. Cable car down from Ngong Ping to Tung Chung. While it was scary, it was a lot less scary than the taxi ride on the way up.Final night celebrations at Shui Hu Ju in Soho. That’s a bunch of deep fried chicken under all those chillies. It took a lot of beer to make the burning stop, let me tell you.

And that’s it. A thoroughly awesome trip and like always, over far too quickly.

Hope you enjoyed it. We certainly did.

Land of Magic and Dumplings

2009-05-06T10:37:00.004+10:00

A quick update as we head into day three in Hong Kong.

Day one breakfast was successfully procured, you'll be pleased to know, as were mountainous volumes of dumplings for most meals since.

Ah, dumplings. How I love thee and thy messy splutziness.

Yesterday was eventful, with a ferry trip across to Hong Kong Island from Kowloon, a ride up to the peak on the skytram and once we made it safely back down, celebratory mango daiquiris in a bar trying very hard to look like 1930s Shanghai.

Today will apparently involve a trip to a Buddhist temple. And, I suspect, more dumplings.

We've taken lots of photos, but my iPod (upon which I'm laboriously tapping this out) isn't ideally suited to uploading them

I will upload them though, as soon as I find some technology better able to cope with that sort of thing.

Gone Honkin'

2009-05-04T10:07:00.004+10:00

Updates may be intermittent for the next few days, as we've skived off for a week's holiday in Hong Kong.

We arrived this morning, 6.30am local time, after an 8-hour flight.

Expected level of activity this first day: low.

First mission: to find some breakfast.

Separating Science and Religion

2009-05-03T12:56:00.001+10:00

Once again our friend Stan over at Atheism Analyzed is indulging in his usual nonsense about the intellectual jurisdictions of science and religion.

In short, science adopts a voluntary (“functional”) materialism because it cannot empirically address or measure non-material issues. So any output from science has no bearing – by definition – on the non-material realm.

So let me get this straight: scientists should stay out of religion because science is only concerned with material things?

But this is a fantastic idea! In fact, let’s go one better. Let’s have a complete separation of duties between science and religion!

I can see it now. Science will concern itself only with the material world (that should be easy . . . it’s what it does anyway) and religion will concern itself only with the non-material world.

Both sides will solemnly promise not to encroach on the other’s turf.

Of course that completely does away with the idea of an interventionist God. Such interventions are necessarily material and therefore only in the realm of science.

But that’s ok.

And religions would no longer be able to claim that God works in people’s lives in any material way. Or heals the sick. Or answers prayer.

Still, that sounds workable.

It also does away with all these silly debates about Creation vs Evolution. Evolution wins by default because it’s a material issue, and hence outside the realm of religious enquiry!

Wow. I could really get used to this. Excellent idea, Stan!

Dead Pool 2009 – April Update

2009-05-02T09:55:00.001+10:00

----------------------------
Celebrity Dead Pool now has its own blog!
Find it at Celebrity Dead Pool
----------------------------

Welcome back to the 2009 dead pool.

Our first score for the year has been realised, with the tragic passing of the legendary Bea Arthur scoring Benn an estimable 14 points.

In other celebrity mortality news, the 7th saw the death of game designer Dave Arneson. Along with Gary Gygax who sadly passed away just over a year ago, Arneson was the co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons.

On the 19th science fiction author J.G. Ballard passed away at the age of 78. Although best known for the film adaptations of his novels Crash and Empire of the Sun (neither of which can be reasonably labelled sci-fi) Ballard was hugely influential on the genre as he explored themes of ecological catastrophe, dystopian futures and the cult of celebrity.

Finally, on the 28th we farewelled Australian businessman and philanthropist Richard Pratt at the age of 74. Pratt made his fortune by illegally inflating prices in the Australian cardboard box industry as part of a cartel, but depending on who you ask he was either a criminal who should have been jailed or a great guy because he gave some of that money to charity. I’ll let my readers decided for themselves on that one.

And that wraps it up for April

Once again, congratulations to Benn who is now leading with a score of 14, and we’ll see you again next month.

Homeopathic Treatment for Pigfluenza. Bwahahaha!

2009-04-30T13:16:00.006+10:00

This is just too funny.

The misguided loons over at Homeopathy Plus are preparing to tout their magic memory water as a cure for . . . Swine Flu!

... we are working with homeopaths around the world to crossmatch the swine flu symptoms with the homeopathic remedies that will best treat and prevent them.

But never fear, because

... your existing bottle of Flu-Stop still contains the most common remedies used by homeopaths for the treatment and prevention of flu.

Phew, that's a relief. Your existing bottle of magic water will still work until you can get a special replacement bottle of magic water.

Of course, the new Swine Flu remedy will be identical to Flu Stop, because they'll both be just water.

So what is the delay all about? All they need to do is slap a sticker on the "Flu Stop" bottles to make them "SWINE Flu Stop".

But maybe that's not enough.

After all, what font should they use for the sticker? Should they include a picture of a pig? Should the pig be wearing a top hat?

So many decisions. And so little time!

Hurry, homeopaths of the world. We need you!

Oink.

Vaccination Story Shock

2009-04-27T23:00:00.001+10:00

Last night Channel 7 aired a shocking story on vaccinations.

The shock was in its complete lack of tabloid scaremongering, its scientific content and the fact that it was clearly a carefully researched story.

We really needed this. The anti-vaccination crowd has been incredibly vocal of late. The whole vaccines-cause-autism thing just won’t go away, despite its architect Andrew Wakefield being discredited as a fraud.

The anti-vax cause has impassioned believers and celebrity endorsements (most recently Jim Carrey), which have real power to sway a public sadly under-educated on this very important topic.

While the smackdown on Carrey’s ill-informed rant was swift (this one was my favourite), the damage will have been done.

The science is in on this topic but the message just isn’t getting out there. The voices of reason are all too often drowned out by the cries of those irrationally and ideologically opposed to vaccination, and children die as a result.

For all these reasons, Rebecca Maddern is to be congratulated for her great segment on last night’s Sunday Night.

This also gives you some idea of the scientific non-credentials of the anti-vax crowd.

Homeopathic treatment for whooping cough? Please. Your magic homeopathic water does nothing. How could it? After all, it’s just water and nothing else.

It’s a shame that nonsense wasn’t exposed for what it is, but maybe in the next segment. How about it Channel 7?

Bea Arthur

2009-04-26T11:24:00.001+10:00

The legendary comedienne and actress Bea Arthur has passed away at the age of 86.

Stealing our hearts as Maude in the 70s and acerbic Golden Girl Dorothy in the 80s, she will be sadly missed.

Let’s remember her with one of my favourites . . . a duet with Rock Hudson and a lovely ode to recreational drugs.

RIP Bea.

And Benn, 14 points for you.

Knowing

2009-04-22T22:19:00.001+10:00

In a remarkable display of consistency, director Alex Proyas follows up uneven science fiction thriller I, Robot with uneven science fiction thriller Knowing.

Nicolas Cage mopes his way through the movie as grumpy academic John Koestler, whose son finds a sequence of numbers buried in a time capsule which, when analysed, turn out to accurately predict the dates and locations of major disasters.

Happily it’s not just pareidolia, and audience fears that the plot might devolve into the silliness that was Jim Carrey’s The Number 23 are quickly dispelled.

The disasters actually do unfold in predictably spectacular fashion, and the movie thunders along with lots of nice set-pieces and some very impressive effects. In fact, the action is so relentless that one is left with barely a second to ponder the immense implausibility of it all. Which is probably just as well.

Proyas handles it all very nicely, right up until the final sequence when the subtle biblical imagery inexplicably morphs from a tap on the forehead to a sledgehammer in the face. I’m not sure that was strictly necessary.

To top it off, there’s a garbled explanation of Determinism that deserves to join Jurassic Park's treatment of Chaos theory in the Hollywood Hall of Scientific Theory Abuse Fame.

Still, it's all good fun.

On a side note, Melbourne viewers will be amused by the attempts to pass Melbourne off as Boston, particularly when it involves geographical miracles like getting from the CBD to Carlton by heading south on Princes Bridge.

3 out of 5

What Would Jesus NOT Do?

2009-04-19T09:26:00.001+10:00

It doesn’t take much to scratch the surface of a religion and reveal it as man-made artifice.

In the case of Christianity, this video beautifully shows the man behind the curtain.

Bloglessness

2009-04-18T15:10:00.001+10:00

Look at that. Almost a week since the last post and another week back to the one before.

I’d like to claim that Life has spectacularly intruded and instead of writing about it I’m out there Living it.

Sadly it’s not true. Although I have been to some cool comedy festival shows.

This week has just been a regular work week (albeit foreshortened for Easter) and I’ve arguably had more time for such things . . . particularly as my lovely wife is off jetting between Tokyo, New York and London for work.

The culprit? Twitter. It’s a rampant and unforgiving time thief. Hours that would have been spent here researching and ranting (admittedly less of the former and more of the latter) has instead been spent Tweeting. With . . . um . . . my Tweeps.

Ahem.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Microblogging is its own special joy. And besides, while it’s made me less productive in this space it’s given me a renewed burst of enthusiasm for the medium in general, which was starting to wane a little.

The other plus with Twitterland is the connection to a community of cool skeptics, some of whom are minor internet celebrities (I’ll let them decide who I might be referring to) and some of whom I’ll meet in person at my first Vic Skeptics meeting on Monday night.

I’m hugely looking forward to that.

That’s enough for the moment. I’m off to do something constructive. Like watch the latest episode of Dollhouse.

Easter Haikus

2009-04-11T11:14:00.001+10:00

As an atheist enjoying this long weekend, it’s only right that I should address the origin of the season.

While the pre-Christian pagan history of the Easter festival is interesting, every second atheist blogger seems to have done one already.

So I wrote some haikus instead.

Crucified. Blood, Pain.
Celebrated with chocolate.
How appropriate.

Crucified rabbit.
For the sake of a day off.
Wait. I have that wrong

Crucified Saviour.
Still just a day off, of course.
Thanks anyway God.

Happy Easter everyone!

Scientists call for Evolution to be taught in Sunday Schools

2009-04-05T20:16:00.001+10:00

This is a short satirical article I wrote in a moment of whimsy. However, it’s been brought to my attention that the jovial nature of the piece is not necessarily clear. I’m choosing to take that as a compliment.

--------------------------------------------------------

In what is shaping up to be a major theological controversy, priests and ministers have hit back at the suggestion that they should include alternative ideas of species origin in their Sunday School classes.

For many years churches have taught only a traditional view of “Creation”, that the Earth and all humans, plants and animals were brought into existence over the course of 6 days some 6,000 years ago by a being referred to only as “God”.

This position has been challenged recently by the emergence of “Evolution”, a theory which maintains that the Universe and even the Earth are much older, and that humans and animals evolved over millions of years from simpler organisms.

Father Ralph McCluggage of Our Sacred Lady Church said:

“For years we’ve been happily teaching the biblical story of Creation to our children. They grow up with a clear understanding that the world began with a naked couple frolicking in a garden, a tree with fruit they weren’t supposed to eat and an evil snake. This story has everything they need to know: the origins of the universe, where all the plants and animals came from and why women shouldn’t be trusted.

This idea that we evolved over millions of years may be supported by mountains of physical evidence, but the fact remains that it says nothing about it in the Book of Genesis.”

After initial attempts failed to have Evolutionary theory taught alongside biblical Creation, scientists have taken a different tack and are now encouraging churches to “teach the controversy”.

Dr Miles Plankton of the University of Melbourne:

“It’s important to recognise that the idea that God created us in 6 days is only a theory. Evolution is another theory. What’s wrong with kids learning that there are different ideas about how the world began?”

But even this watered-down approach has been met with resistance. Father Ralph had this to say:

“This attempt to force Evolution into our curriculum is nothing more than a veiled attempt to introduce atheism into Sunday School classes.

Now I don’t care what these scientists teach in their science classes. That’s their business. But our Sunday School classes are for teaching the basis of our faith.

All this Evolution stuff may be rational and evidence-based, but the fact remains that it’s simply not religion.”

Dead Pool 2009 - March Update

2009-04-05T14:56:00.001+10:00

----------------------------
Celebrity Dead Pool now has its own blog!
Find it at Celebrity Dead Pool
----------------------------

March turned out to be a reasonably quiet month, although there were a few celebrity deaths all the more tragic for their unexpectedness.

On the 18th actress Natasha Richardson died at the age of 45 following a skiing accident in Canada. Daughter of the legendary Vanessa Redgrave and granddaughter of Sir Michael Redgrave, Richardson was the product of great acting stock but still a respected star of stage and screen in her own right.

On the 22nd reality TV star Jade Goody died of cervical cancer at the age of 27. After becoming famous as a UK Big Brother housemate in 2002, Goody turned what could have (and arguably should have) been fleeting notoriety into a lucrative career, and had the cameras rolling right up to the moment of her death. Expect a somewhat macabre documentary to be released very soon.

Finally, the 29th saw the death of US actor Andy Hallett at the age of 33. Best known as the singing demon Lorne in the TV series Angel, Hallett suffered heart failure as a result of cardiomyopathy contracted soon after finishing his stint on Angel.

A tragic month it was, but the score for our contestants is still nil-all.

Stay tuned for next month’s update.

If Atheists Ruled The World

2009-03-31T22:34:00.003+11:00

Arguing online with believers has become something of a hobby for me, so in the interests of balance I would like to present this video which nicely distils some their better arguments. It gets a bit racy, so may be NSFW.

For the believers out there, think of this as a primer on how to argue with those evil atheists.

And if you see them smirking as you offer these pearls of wisdom, it just means you’re getting through.

[ Thanks to Jack for the tip. ]

The Curious Case of the Pope and Dr Green

2009-03-29T12:51:00.003+11:00

Pope Benedict’s recent comment on condom usage in Africa has sparked a firestorm of comment and counter-comment.

Liberals have accused the Vatican of promoting their religious dogma over public health. Catholics and their apologists have responded that the Pope was right: research shows distributing condoms just make things worse.

In their latest salvo, apologists have pointed to Dr. Edward C. Green, a senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health. Their claim is that he agrees with the Pope.

This comes from a recent interview with Dr. Green, conducted by Christianity Today’s Tim Morgan:

Morgan: Is Pope Benedict being criticized unfairly for his comments about HIV and condoms?
Dr. Green: This is hard for a liberal like me to admit, but yes, it's unfair because in fact, the best evidence we have supports his comments — at least his major comments, the ones I have seen.

It’s not quite the ringing endorsement apologists would like to pretend it is. And if we look closer at what Dr. Green actually thinks, it’s obvious that his views are being conveniently twisted by the Catholic PR machine into something they’re not.

In today’s Washington Post, Dr. Green makes his position clear:

In Uganda's early, largely home-grown AIDS program, which began in 1986, the focus was on "Sticking to One Partner" or "Zero Grazing" (which meant remaining faithful within a polygamous marriage) and "Loving Faithfully." These simple messages worked.
Don't misunderstand me; I am not anti-condom. All people should have full access to condoms, and condoms should always be a backup strategy for those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship.

There are two separate issues at play here.

On one side we have a debate about the efficacy of disease control methods in Africa. There, Dr. Green’s research has shown that promoting both monogamy and condom usage has been the most effective method of slowing the spread of HIV/AIDS, particularly in Uganda. In this 2003 paper, Dr. Green details why this has been a more effective solution than relying on condom distribution alone.

On the other side, we have the Vatican and their moral view that condoms should never be used. When Pope Benedict made his comment, this was what he was promoting.

Here’s the point: the Vatican’s view has nothing to do with the condom’s efficacy in disease control. It’s Catholic church dogma wholly relating to their opinions on appropriate sexual behaviour and their moral opposition to contraception.

Pointing out Dr. Green’s “support” for the Pope is an attempt to bolster this dogmatic position, but any suggestion that the Vatican’s view is based on any kind of science is laughable.

The fact remains that availability of condoms and appropriate education on how to use them is a cornerstone of HIV/AIDS control programs.

The Pope’s implication that availability of condoms makes things worse is at best incredibly irresponsible, and at worst an evil and cynical attempt to promote religious dogma at the expense of public health.

This is a debate about disease control and nothing more. Dr. Green’s research, the research of others working in the field and the science behind are all that’s important.

The moral position of the Pope and the religious dogma of the Catholic Church are utterly irrelevant.

Fear

2009-03-20T23:51:00.001+11:00

A new study has revealed that people with strong religious beliefs will fight death more strongly than non-believers.

Researchers followed 345 patients with terminal cancer up until their deaths. Those who regularly prayed were more than three times more likely to receive intensive life-prolonging care than those who relied least on religion.

Speaking as an ex-Christian, I completely understand this. Despite the myth, religion is no comfort when it comes to thoughts of mortality.

Never was death more terrifying to me than when it was accompanied with belief in a poorly-defined afterlife and the spectre of Judgement Day.

Although few will admit it, every devout religious believer fears death. And not in spite of their religious belief, but because of it.

They fear they will not have done enough good works, even though how much is “enough” is never made clear.

They fear being damned for their little sexual peccadilloes.

And they all harbour the uncomfortable feeling that they might, just might, have picked the wrong religion.

Once you break it down to specific faiths, the fear gets even more specific.

Evangelical Christians fear being left behind, standing and watching as the Rapture takes the faithful up to heaven. Catholics fear eternity in the fires of hell. Sikhs fear reincarnation as a fly or tapeworm. Muslims fear their Judgement Day.

But for the atheist, death holds no such terror.

As the late, great Mark Twain once said:

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions of years before I was born and had not suffered the slightest of inconvenience from it."

Now that’s comforting.

The Cyborgs are Among Us

2009-03-19T22:26:00.001+11:00

When the Terminators arrive they will not descend as an alien force upon an unsuspecting public.

The first cyborgs will arrive with a whimper, not a bang.

We will welcome them, not fear them. We will accept them into our lives.

We will do this because we will be them. And they will be us.

The change will come by degrees. In fact, it has already begun.

Our doctors routinely replace bones and joints with with metal and plastic and carbon fibre. Our paralympic athletes achieve extraordinary physical feats with biomechanical prosthetics. Our soldiers wear movement-enhancing armour and have instant communications projected directly into their vision.

This week we’ve had two notable examples hitting the papers: a filmmaker replacing one eye with a camera, and a programmer replacing his finger with a USB drive.

Interesting, but these are hardly quantum leaps towards our cybernetic future. They’re just the next steps down the road.

Gentlemen, we already have the technology.

Pope Benedict is a Dangerous Lunatic

2009-03-18T23:16:00.001+11:00

In his first visit to Africa today, the Pope said these words:

“AIDS is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.”

It must be true because he’s infallible, right. Right?

This is a perfect illustration of so many things.

. . . the fact that so many of our religious “leaders” are more interested in maintaining their moral authority than helping people.

. . . that religion is far from innocuous and has the power to cause real and genuine harm in our world.

. . . why it’s so important to keep religion out of politics.

But most of all, it throws into sharp relief the fact that the Catholic church is nothing more than a dangerous relic of a bygone age. With this one unconscionable statement, the Pope has damned his faith and his followers to the trashcan of history.

This is just cause for every Catholic in the world to denounce their leader as a misanthropic lunatic and demand his resignation. If they fail to do this, then the necessary response from rational thinking people worldwide is clear.

We must declare that the Catholic Church is no longer worthy of any political or social influence.

We must declare that its priests and cardinals are never again to be considered authorities on any matters of morality or ethics.

We must call on our governments to withdraw funding from Catholic churches, schools and organisations.

And finally, we must demand that this pompous and sanctimonious dipshit known as the Pope Benedict XVI, who has proven himself to be dangerously out of touch with reality, should immediately and without further delay pull his ignorant fucking head in.

Get Your Galileoscope

2009-03-17T13:05:00.001+11:00

2009 is the International Year of Astronomy. It’s 400 years since Galileo produced the telescope he would use to change the face of modern science.

To celebrate, the International Astronomical Union is spreading the astronomical joy with the Galileoscope . . . a high quality, ultra-cheap telescope similar to the one used by Galileo himself.

From the website:

You can see the celestial wonders that Galileo Galilei first glimpsed 400 years ago . . . lunar craters and mountains, four moons circling Jupiter, the phases of Venus, Saturn's rings, and countless stars invisible to the unaided eye.

At only US$15 each you can buy one for yourself or donate one to a school.

An appreciation of the night sky is so often the first step to a deeper appreciation of science, so let’s get these out there!

Mathematical Proof of Republican Ignorance

2009-03-16T20:08:00.001+11:00

This time they’ve gone too far.

On Thursday, 10 Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted against an official (but non-binding) resolution declaring today, March 14, 2009 (3/14/09) as Pi day.

You can read the whole sad story here.

Screwing up the world economy is one thing, but really. This is just a travesty.

It’s nothing more than a Luddite knee-capping of a noble attempt to bring an awareness of Math to the Masses.

What do we expect though, from the crowd that gave us eight years of anti-science medievalism and Sarah Palin?

Never mind. It’ll always be Pi day in our hearts.

Vaccines Don’t Cause Autism!

2009-03-15T09:22:00.001+11:00

In the UK there’s a growing problem with measles outbreaks.

This is traceable to the fraudulent work of Dr Andrew Wakefield and his attempt to manufacture a link between autism and the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine. Even after being thoroughly debunked, this “vaccines cause autism” nonsense is still out there and has caused a huge drop-off in the rates of child vaccination.

It’s shaping up to be a serious public health issue, largely because of the media coverage given to the likes of misguided souls like Jeni Barnett and Jenny McCarthy.

But it’s just possible that the tide is beginning to turn.

Some real science has finally had some decent broadcast coverage. Enter Dr Ben Goldacre, who made the facts clear in this great piece on ITV1.

Yay for real science!

Watchmen

2009-03-14T14:54:00.003+11:00

Arriving more than twenty years after the famed graphic novel and beleaguered by cries that it is inherently unfilmable, we finally have the much-anticipated Watchmen film.

And I’m a little ashamed to admit I’ve not read the novel.

I would offer the defence that I chose to see the film first, but the prosecution would counter that I only became aware of the novel once talk of the film had begun. And then I would be screwed.

What I will say is that as it stands, this is an excellent film.

In a densely-packed story of all-too-human superheroes, we get to see the social consequences of state-sponsored vigilantism, just how much getting around in an costume fighting crime can fuck you up, and all set in an alternate 1985 where Nixon is still President,

That only one of the eponymous Watchmen is actually a superhero is a brilliant device. This has always been (sticking to the DC universe) the difference between Superman and Batman: while Supes is an alien with real powers, Batman’s just a rich dude with a lot of cool gadgets.

Watchmen shows us that in reality, the idea of them working together in some sort of Justice League is ridiculous.

The superman’s inherent inhumanity will eventually crystallise as apathy, and the gadget guy will be unmasked as one pathetically seeking acceptance (an nice idea explored recently in The Dark Knight).

And so it is here: mutual mistrust eventually blows them apart. And set against the background of 1980s nuclear paranoia, the potential for destruction is made very metaphorically clear.

4.5 out of 5

Rolling the Roads

2009-03-10T08:33:00.001+11:00

A nice little piece today from Age scribe Matthew McLean to solve Melbourne’s public transport woes:

They shall construct above-ground, domed corridors, each complete with lanes of non-stop conveyor belts. The corridors will be minimalist but comfortable in design, the roofs fitted with solar panels to power the belts.

Stations will be dismantled. Passengers can mount and dismount at will, with the speed set at a gentle 25 km/h in the CBD, increasing to 40 km/h in the suburbs. Padding will be placed beside the conveyor belts to cushion people's landings. Those laughable blue documents known as "timetables" will be stacked higher than the Eureka Tower, and a massive bonfire will ensue.

It’s a great idea, but hardly original. Heinlein came up with this almost 70 years ago in his short story masterpiece “The Roads Must Roll”.

Now I’m all for giving our cities a retro-future look, and moving walkways are a staple of that particular genre. They’re right up there with jetpacks and robot butlers and silver jumpsuits.

We might want to be careful about this one, though. In Heinlein’s story, this particular idea didn’t turn out so well.

Casually Corporate

2009-03-08T10:01:00.000+11:00

Suits are optional at my workplace. The dress code is the somewhat ambiguous ‘corporate casual’.

As far as I can tell this means (for men) to wear something approximating a suit, but the tie is optional and it doesn’t really matter if your jacket doesn’t match.

For lazy people like me it’s a bonanza. I can spend that extra two minutes saved by not putting on a tie every morning doing something constructive. Like sleeping in for an extra two minutes.

However, circumstances sometimes call for a more formal mode of dress. Like meeting with clients. Or going to job interviews.

Actually, that’s a bit of a running gag. If someone turns up wearing a tie who normally doesn’t, that’s the first question: “job interview then?”

(Admittedly it’s become slightly less amusing in these fraught and redundancy-laden times).

But over the last couple of days I’ve had my own reason to be donning the tie and matching jacket. We’re seeking a replacement for one of my team who rudely found a better job more in keeping with his career goals a few weeks ago.

So I’m sitting in a room, playing serious manager-type, and asking the same inane questions of candidates over and over again.

“Why are you interested in this role?”

“What is your previous experience?”

“Can you tell me about a time when . . . (insert difficult professional dilemma here).”

And when colleagues see me in the suit and tie and say “job interview then?” . . . I say yes.

Staring at the Suns

2009-03-07T09:15:00.002+11:00

NASA’s Kepler mission is set to launch in just under six hours.

Kepler is armed with a 95-megapixel camera, but it won’t be taking spectacular images of distant galaxies.

Missions like Cassini (which a few days ago threw back some awesome photos of a small moon embedded in one of Saturn’s rings) have been all abut the pretty pictures. But Kepler is all about the science.

All Kepler will be doing is staring at a patch of sky about the size of your outstretched hand. And it’ll stare at it for three-and-a-half years, looking for tiny dips in the brightness of stars.

If these are repeated periodically (which is why such a long staring time is required) then it might indicate the passage of a planet between us and the star.

This is the next step in our search for exoplanets.

Specifically, we’re looking for Earth-like planets in the habitable zone (also known as the ‘Goldilocks’ zone: not too hot, not too cold, but juuuust right) around distant stars.

Why do this? Because it will help to solve one of the most profound problems ever posed and yet unanswered.

We genuinely don’t know how likely or unlikely our life on this planet really is. The results of the Kepler mission will put some hard data behind this investigation.

It’s a big step on the way to answering the question: are we all alone out here?

Why?

2009-03-02T21:43:00.001+11:00

If a person claims to have a magical power, and then that power is shown to be indistinguishable from a simple sleight of hand, then that is sufficient to show the power is not magical.

In fact, if any apparently supernatural event is shown to be indistinguishable from an event with a natural origin, it is sufficient to show that the event is not supernatural.

Why then is religion, which is indistinguishable from a man-made system of myths and dictated laws, considered by so many to be supernatural and divine?

Dead Pool 2009 – February Update

2009-03-01T22:43:00.002+11:00

----------------------------
Celebrity Dead Pool now has its own blog!
Find it at Celebrity Dead Pool
----------------------------

We’re now two months into 2009 and while we’re yet to see any movement in the scoreboard, it’s been another interesting month.

On the 3rd American graphic designer Ben Blank passed away at the age of 87. You know when a newsreader has a graphic over their shoulder representing the story? Yeah. Well this guy invented that. Seriously.

And while we’re talking obscure technological references on the 4th Mark Shepherd, chairman of Texas Instruments, passed away at the age of 86. (Note that he should not be confused with Mark Sheppard, the actor who played Badger on Firefly and Romo Lampkin on Battlestar Galactica. As far as I’m aware he’s fine).

The 7th, which has since been dubbed Black Saturday, saw the worst Australian bushfires in living memory. The fires claimed the lives of over 200 people, including actor Reg Evans at 80 and and legendary newsreader Brian Naylor at 78.

Also on the 7th we farewelled scientist Jack Cover, inventor of the Taser. There’s probably a joke in there, but it would probably be in poor taste. So I won’t.

The 16th saw the death of of Dorothy Bridges, wife of the late Lloyd and mother of actors Beau and Jeff.

On the 20th we had not one, but two famous animal deaths, with Australian racehorse Fine Cotton (of the infamous Fine Cotton Scandal) shuffled off to the glue factory at 31, and former First Cat Socks Clinton sent off to greet the great Ceiling Cat at the age of 19.

The 20th also saw the death of Irish author Christopher Nolan. Again, he should not to be confused with the UK-born director of The Dark Knight, who is also probably fine. As far as I know.

And finally on the 25th we farewelled science fiction author Philip José Farmer at the age of 91. Farmer was a writer with a prolific output and a man who knew better than to let the niceties of grammar and sentence structure get in the way of telling a rip-snorting story.

And that wraps it up for February. Keep watching those obituary columns and stay tuned for next month’s update.

Let Me Repeat: Homeopathy is a Scam

2009-02-28T21:53:00.002+11:00

I wrote a while ago about the homeopathy scam and its use on poor unsuspecting animals.

That’s bad enough, but it’s even worse to use it on poor unsuspecting children.

And especially heinous is the frankly dangerous idea that homeopathy could in any way be an acceptable method of childhood vaccination.

Check out this nonsense from the Homeopathy Plus website:

Homeopathic immunisation - also known as homeoprophylaxis - is a safe and effective way to protect you and your family against childhood and other epidemic diseases.

Effective? No. Safe? Well . . .

The homeopathic immunisations are “safe” because

they are free of harmful components

and

have none of the adverse reactions or side-effects associated with vaccines.

That’s true. It will have no side effects.

BECAUSE THERE’S NOTHING IN IT. IT’S ONLY WATER.

What is not true is that homeopathic treatment will in any way protect anyone from anything.

After all, how could it?

It’s a valid question, and one that those promoting this ridiculous pseudo-science can’t even answer themselves.

Here’s their “explanation” of how it works:

The nature of potentisation is the mystery of Homeopathy. What is understood is that the potentisation process imprints energetic information from the original substance onto the diluting liquid during the stages of succussion. This liquid is then prescribed according to the Law of Similars as either drops or medicated pilules to the unwell person. They carry the energetic information into the body to trigger a self healing reaction that moves the person back to a state of health.

Notice how you get to the end of the paragraph and don’t know anything more than you did at the start?

That’s because it is nothing but utter, unadulterated nonsense.

This has got to stop.

Ripping off people who are happy to waste their money on placebos is one thing, but if this rubbish starts getting promoted as a legitimate alternative to vaccination, then we have the potential for a serious public health problem.

Evolution is Just a Theory

2009-02-28T12:49:00.001+11:00

One of the most common attacks on evolution, particularly by proponents of Intelligent Design, goes something like this:

“Evolution is just a theory. Intelligent design is another theory. Why can’t they both be taught in science classes?”

It sounds reasonable, but there’s a tricky sleight-of-hand in this argument.

When something like evolution is described as a scientific theory, it means something different from the usual everyday meaning of the word “theory”.

In scientific terms, a theory is the highest level of understanding.

For example, it’s a theory that the Earth revolves around the sun. It’s a theory that substances are made up of atoms.

It goes like this: we start with an idea. In the case of evolution it was: “animals evolve over time”.

In the beginning, that was just an idea. The next step was to form a testable hypothesis.

Using gaps in the known fossil record we could predict what must lie in between. If the idea was right, we’d find animal fossils that matched the predictions.

And we did. (Of course this is a greatly over-simplified description of both the hypothesis and the evidence. There’s a lot more to it than just that.)

The hypothesis must also be falsifiable: it must be possible to find fossils that will prove the hypothesis wrong. This is possible, but it hasn’t been done.

So after 150 years the hypothesis has been well and truly confirmed by the weight of evidence. Then, and only then, is the hypothesis elevated to the high status of “scientific theory”.

Yes, evolution is a theory. And it carries all the evidence required to be called that.

The problem with Intelligent Design?

It’s not even a theory.

There is no evidence. There is no falsifiable hypothesis. There isn’t even a testable hypothesis.

In fact, when you get right down to it, Intelligent Design is nothing more than an idea.

The bible says I’m immoral

2009-02-25T23:08:00.001+11:00

Your morality is 0% in line with that of the bible.

Damn you heathen! Your book learnin' has done warped your mind. You shall not be invited next time I sacrifice a goat.

Do You Have Biblical Morals?
Take More Quizzes

I knew I got that one about cutting my wife’s hand off wrong.

What’s up with Joaquin?

2009-02-25T18:12:00.001+11:00

River’s little brother has been behaving oddly recently. Check out his appearance last week on Letterman:

Rumour has it that it’s all part of a Spinal Tap-style mockumentary about Joaquin’s burgeoning hip-hop career.

It could well be. Casey Affleck has been following him around with a camera and if you check Dave’s Unabomber gag at the 3-minute mark, it definitely looks like Joaquin’s holding back a laugh.

If it is a joke, it’s damn funny.

If it’s not, then . . . well.

Oscar Nibbles Part 3

2009-02-22T23:05:00.001+11:00

The final bite. See you at the show, kids.

Changeling Actress (Angelina Jolie), Art Direction

Clint Eastwood directs this nice little film based on an apparently true story of LA police corruption circa 1928.

It’s a bit all over the shop trying to be a family drama, a conspiracy thriller, and carry a police procedural sub-plot that feels a bit tacked on.

Still, it’s good and Angelina’s good. But not so good that you ever forget it’s her.

3.5 out of 5

Milk Picture, Director (Gus Van Sant), Actor (Sean Penn), Supporting Actor (Josh Brolin)

A biopic of gay rights activist Harvey Milk is particularly topical right now, particularly given the recent shenanigans around the nefarious Proposition 8 in California.

It’s sad that the main take-away message from this film is that even after 30 years, so little has changed.

Sean Penn does his usual quality job in the title role and Josh Brolin’s terrific as his evil nemesis.

4 out of 5

The Wrestler Actor (Mickey Rourke), Supporting Actress (Marisa Tomei)

Grounded in an extraordinary performance from comeback kid Mickey Rourke, this is a visceral and moving film to rival any of the great sportsman-as-damaged-hero classics.

Here the hero’s pain is brought to wince-inducing life as his psychological damage is played out on the screen as physical trauma.

It’s ridiculous that this isn’t up there for Best Picture and Best Director.

4.5 out of 5

Oscar Nibbles Part 2

2009-02-22T12:56:00.001+11:00

Time’s running out, so I better get through these quickly.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Picture, Director (David Fincher), Actor (Brad Pitt), Supporting Actress (Taraji P. Henson)

Very long and reasonably slow but somehow without being boring or turgid. The director is just taking his time to tell a story that needs time to tell properly.

Besides, the last half-hour has a great emotional payoff that makes the previous gruelling two-and-a-bit a more than worthwhile investment.

Brad Pitt is fine as the eponymous Benjamin and for once it’s Cate Blanchett chewing the scenery.

3.5 out of 5

Revolutionary Road Supporting Actor (Michael Shannon), Art Direction

Channelling his earlier work American Beauty, director Sam Mendes beautifully captures the angst of being trapped in the gilt cage of 1950s suburbia.

Easily one of the best in the line-up this year and criminally under-nominated.

Why the hell wasn’t Kate Winslet nominated for her performance in this instead of The Reader? Like she said herself in that episode of Extras: “How many more movies do we need about the Holocaust? I mean, we get it, it was grim.”

4.5 out of 5

Frost/Nixon Picture, Director (Ron Howard), Actor (Frank Langella)

There’s absolutely no good reason why a film about a TV interview should be so enthralling. Yet it is.

This film is just beautifully crafted. The political machinations behind the scenes reflect the ones being discussed in front of the cameras.

And the parallels to our recent Presidential misdemeanours are made clear without being rammed down our throats.

Ron Howard, this almost makes me forgive you for The Da Vinci Code.

Almost.

4 out of 5

Caprica

2009-02-21T11:32:00.000+11:00

The word around the tubes is that Caprica, the prequel series to Battlestar Galactica will be getting a DVD release on April 21, before its first broadcast on SciFi channel sometime in 2010.

Is this the beginning of the end of broadcast TV? Here’s hoping. And isn’t it appropriate that a show about the beginning of the end of mankind would be the harbinger of such a thing? Sigh.

Still, that’s still a good three months off so here’s a trailer.

Check it out. Science fiction, Dallas-style soap opera and proto-Cylon boobs.

This is all looking very promising.

Oscar Nibbles Part 1

2009-02-20T21:38:00.001+11:00

The Oscars are almost here.

And I’ve obviously left it far too late for my usual bloated and self-indulgent reviews of all the films involved.

Apart from anything else, I haven’t even seen them all yet.

So here are some short reviews of some of the films nominated.

The Reader Picture, Director, Actress (Kate Winslet)

I could happily watch Kate Winslet read a phone book (does that even mean anything anymore? Who uses a phone book?) so given that she spends the film getting read to, instead of reading, in this respect this film failed to make me happy.

However, she did get her tits out. That made me happy.

4 out of 5

Slumdog Millionaire Picture, Director (Danny Boyle), Cinematography

It’s much-feted and tipped to sweep the pool but it’s easily the weakest of the lot. Or at least, the weakest of the ones I’ve seen so far.

Little more than a tedious exercise in style over substance, it’s like Trainspotting had a simultaneous fun-ectomy and transplanted faux-social conscience.

Mr. Boyle, what were you thinking? And where the hell is 28 Months Later?

2.5 out of 5

Doubt Actress (Meryl Streep), Supporting Actor (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Supporting Actresses (Amy Adams and Viola Davis)

This is one of those films obviously based on a stage play so it’s all about the performances and a natural magnet for acting nominations.

Set in 1964 amidst Catholic Church upheaval in the wake of Vatican II, Doubt tells the story of a priest and a young boy.

Three guesses what it’s about.

It’s really good, though. And Philip Seymour Hoffman is awesome.

4 out of 5

More to follow.

Odd

2009-02-19T19:53:00.001+11:00

Why does (did) my main blog page look like this?

Any ideas?

Maybe my blog was feeling abandoned.

I’m back from Twitter now. Promise.

Where Am I

2009-02-17T22:40:00.001+11:00

This is what happens when you start Twittering.

You stop blogging.

Hmmm.

I could have just Twittered that.

George Hrab is Awesome

2009-02-14T15:20:00.001+11:00

Check out the 365 Days of Astronomy podcast (of which this is the theme) and while you’re at it check out George’s Geologic Podcast.

It’s all good nerdy stuff.

Creation vs Evolution vs ???

2009-02-14T01:44:00.001+11:00

I’ve just learnt something really interesting.

Here’s a very common belief among Creationists:

The theory of Evolution is only promoted as an explanation of the origins of life because the alternative, Creation, is just too unpalatable.

Now, what’s wrong with this sentence? Can you spot it?

That’s right: it’s the word “the”.

“The” alternative.

Just the one.

It says there’s only one possible alternative to Evolution . . . and it’s biblical Creation.

What an incredible lack of imagination these Creationists have!

There are any number of possible explanations for the origins of life.

We may have grown from the seed pods of giant plants. We may have arrived here from another planet. We may have been spat out of volcanoes fully formed by a complex chemical process. We may have evolved from more primitive species. We may have devolved from more complex species. We may even have been placed here by a multi-dimensional alien being some choose to call “God”.

The possibilities are literally endless.

Seriously, Creationists need to lay off the (biblical) fantasy and go read some science fiction.

They might learn something useful.