Pharyngula

Posted by: TSC | November 16, 2008 12:12 PM

Sweet Jebus.

Posted by: CortxVortx | November 16, 2008 12:24 PM

Argumentum ad rebus

Posted by: Richard Harris | November 16, 2008 12:29 PM

Was that, point & laugh at the video, or point & laugh at the idiots who believe the superstitious crap? I laughed anyway. So did my daughter.

Posted by: Mytho | November 16, 2008 12:39 PM

"...talking to your ceiling..."

LOL That cracked me up!

Posted by: Sanity Jane | November 16, 2008 12:47 PM

One of the most entertaining summaries of the "benefits" of religion ever. Too bad that crude little crayon drawing in the middle makes it NSFW.

Posted by: joe | November 16, 2008 12:55 PM

The thread a while back regarding presidential e-mails seemed to neglect a little thing called the Presidential Records Act:

"But before he arrives at the White House, he will probably be forced to sign off. In addition to concerns about e-mail security, he faces the Presidential Records Act, which puts his correspondence in the official record and ultimately up for public review, and the threat of subpoenas. A decision has not been made on whether he could become the first e-mailing president, but aides said that seemed doubtful."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/us/politics/16blackberry.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by: Emples | November 16, 2008 1:10 PM

Brilliant!

Posted by: Reynold | November 16, 2008 1:18 PM

If you want something really stupid, check out this. A "top psychiatrist" has said that liberals are clinically mad.

It seems to be a case of "I know you are, but what am I"? though.

Posted by: Richard | November 16, 2008 1:42 PM

It's a somewhat funny video, yeah, but it does seem to paint with a ridiculously broad brush. There are a number of religions that:
-- aren't based on adherence to sacred texts (Wicca, most other forms of Neo-Paganism),
-- don't proselytize (most subsets of Hinduism, Shinto, most Neo-Pagan branches [and none proselytize seriously - ref. Church of the SubGenius or Discordians]),
-- don't insist on the untruth of other religions (again, all Neo-Pagans, most Hindus, Unitarian Universalists),
-- don't advocate violence (Buddhists do believe other religions are essentially worshipping illusions, but they certainly don't advocate hurting anyone [except maybe themselves] to put their point across),
-- don't insist on any literal truth to their own beliefs (most Neo-Pagans, many Buddhists, some Hindus, Unitarian Universalists, etc.).

In other words, for every point against religion humorously put forward by the video, there are religions that don't actually espouse those actions or beliefs, and there are some that don't fit *any* of the attributes ascribed to religion. Most of the points that are made by the video apply to dogmatism, a rigid belief in the validity of one's own point of view. The problem with people attaching all of those negative traits to a supernatural belief system is that it ignores the fact that any belief system is vulnerable to becoming rigid and dogmatic. Soviet communism, and especially Maoist Chinese communism certainly demonstrate that possibility. Funny, certainly, but it misses the point by a country mile.

Posted by: ggab | November 16, 2008 1:53 PM

Richard
Is your last name Buzzkill?
Were you the kid at the party who said "Maybe we shouldn't be here while Johnathon's parents are out of town."?
After your prom, in the hotel room, did you say something like "But if you remove that lovely dress, it could get wrinkled."?

Posted by: Father Nature | November 16, 2008 2:01 PM

The thought police have struck. I'm just getting a message that says "We're sorry. This video is no longer available"

Anyone have it saved somewhere else?

Posted by: LaTomate | November 16, 2008 2:12 PM

I feel that my Jedi faith is threatened.

Posted by: Zar | November 16, 2008 2:19 PM

Other side effects include sexual dysfunction and rampant misogyny.

Posted by: spgreenlaw | November 16, 2008 2:28 PM

It was pretty funny I guess, although I had a bit of the problem with the "dressing up in funny clothes" line. Some of the garments being shown have deep cultural roots aside from religious ones, and I've seen enough Americans (I would bet this goes on everywhere, but I couldn't say) in my time mock the traditional dress of foreign peoples to be sick of it. Of course, feel free to tell me if you think I'm being silly; what with Halloween costumes based on stereotypes and "exoticism" still fresh in my mind I might be overly sensitive to it right now.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 16, 2008 2:38 PM

Richard #18

Some of your points are valid. Some Hindus don't proselytize and Buddhists don't go on Jihad. But some of the other stuff you wrote is ludicrous. For instance, Church of the SubGenius is a parody, not to be confused with a real church ("Eternal Salvation or TRIPLE Your Money Back!").

Be that as it may, the two largest belief systems, Christianity and Islam, fit into the video's description of religion.

Posted by: Anders | November 16, 2008 2:44 PM

#15 Hear, hear!!

Posted by: David Wiener | November 16, 2008 3:09 PM

#23

If you think about it, secular humanists (or at least me) see religion as just the first in many irrational belief systems that need to be swept aside. There are plenty of behaviors ingrained in many societies that are not based on religion but are equally absurd. We need to apply rational thought to all human activities - its just that religion is the most absurd one out there. When its gone there will be others to tackle.

Posted by: Sastra | November 16, 2008 3:13 PM

While there are many religions which don't suffer from all the problems, they all suffer from at least some of them. As for the religions which say they're not dogmatic, and they accept other religions as 'valid paths to truth' -- see what they say about those religions which don/t think all religions are fundamentally the same.

I once responded to a Bahai who told me that, for those (like her) with an enlightened view of God, it was narrow and unspiritual to consider anyone else's beliefs to be wrong by asking if that meant that I should consider people who thought there was only one path to be WRONG? She refused to answer, acting as if I had come up with some subtle and hitherto unsuspected point which had nothing to do with the issue.

She then told the story of the blind men and the elephant -- which is supposed to show how everyone can be a little right and a little wrong. Oh? I pointed out that the real moral of the story was that everybody in it was wrong but the storyteller. In the land of blind people -- how come the damn person telling the story KNOWS it's an elephant?

She didn't like that either. You're not supposed to get that out of the story. You're supposed to smugly identify with the storyteller, and sweep all the flat-out contradictions between religions into the category marked "partly true."

Posted by: uncle frogy | November 16, 2008 3:57 PM

> Posted by: co | November 16, 2008 1:56 PM

link in #16 points to WorldNetDaily. That particular story on the site is remarkably level-headed compared to most of their idiotic, paranoid woo!

I confess that I have never read any of that page before and doubt I will ever read any more of it but if that right wing B.S. constitutes level headed then I have no idea what level headed means.

Posted by: Jeremy | November 16, 2008 4:37 PM

Richard #18

What are you suggesting? That the video should have included every specific criticism of every religion, rather than generalising? That may have made it go for a lot longer and be a lot less funny don't you think?

Do you honestly believe the video was actually trying to convert religious people away from religion? Or do you think it was just trying to be funny? And if it's the latter, is it necessary to be 100% accurate with no generalisations? Do you think many people didn't realise it was making generalisations and assumed that because a YouTube video says so, that all religions really are exactly as described?

Posted by: badger3k | November 16, 2008 4:39 PM

#38 - the key is "for them..." - the WorldNutDaily is an extremist site, and although I have not read the story linked to, it would seem that it is more level-headed than much of their other stuff. Search here and at many other Scienceblogs sites (Dispatches comes immediately to mind, but others as well) for a breakdown (and takedown) of their brand of lunacy.

Posted by: Katkinkate | November 16, 2008 5:12 PM

Posted by: Ka @ 33 "I just wonder why the Pastafarians do not protest against their sacred beliefs being lumped together with these other, clearly false religions ..."

Hey, we Pastafarians have as much right to believe silly things, dress up in silly clothes and be as false as members of any other religion! That's the point!

Posted by: Kel | November 16, 2008 5:14 PM

I just wonder why the Pastafarians do not protest against their sacred beliefs being lumped together with these other, clearly false religions ...

Posted by: funda62 | November 16, 2008 5:16 PM

#41 You missed the boys in suits at the door.

This reminds me I need to knit his noodly appendage to go on top of this year's xmas tree.

Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | November 16, 2008 5:47 PM

Richard @18: "...for every point against religion humorously put forward by the video, there are religions that don't actually espouse those actions or beliefs, and there are some that don't fit *any* of the attributes ascribed to religion."

Well, duh. That never prevented people from steaming straight towards precisely those "actions or beliefs" on the notion, however mistaken, that their religion encourages them, has it?

You've gotta understand: religion is a frame of mind that frames no mind.

Posted by: mayhempix | November 16, 2008 5:50 PM

@funda62 #48

I thought they were 7th Day Adventists. But considering the Mormons went went door to door in California campaigning for Proposition 8, maybe you're right.

Posted by: eric | November 16, 2008 6:04 PM

"Scientism has the added advantage of existing only in the fever dreams of the god-addled but otherwise empty braincases of the drive-by trolls who keep shooting blanks around these parts."

Thank you, sir, for concisely proving my point.

Posted by: Wowbagger | November 16, 2008 6:09 PM

Eric, #51, wrote:

I'm not so sure. Somehow, I think that the True Believers of Scientism won't get ticked off because they don't even know they're True Believers...

Here's a hint, Eric - when it can be supported with facts and evidence then it's not 'faith'. Faith is what you have when you believe without evidence for and in spite of evidence against.

Posted by: Ken Cope | November 16, 2008 6:14 PM

Thank you, sir, for concisely proving my point.

And in your own particular idiom, there is no possible response that would have proved anything to you other than your reality-denying point, which is why I must thank you for presenting such a plus-sized target for everybody to point and laugh at.

"Scientism." It sounds so scientesque, a believer using such a word to mock unbelievers by calling them believers. The irony always escapes them, like air from a whoopie cushion.

Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 16, 2008 6:15 PM

See, the problem with these parodies is that it really misses the meaning and depth that the FSM gives to my life, and my place in the universe.

Posted by: Kel | November 16, 2008 6:29 PM

As a believer in science, I can point to the computer, the VOIP telephone, the electricity running the computer, the lighting and air conditioning in the office, and the office itself as all proofs of concept. What do religious nutters have?

Posted by: eric | November 16, 2008 6:32 PM

"And in your own particular idiom, there is no possible response that would have proved anything to you other than your reality-denying point, which is why I must thank you for presenting such a plus-sized target for everybody to point and laugh at."

To attack what you foolishly call my 'reality-denying' point would require you to deny the reality of Peter Atkins. Talk about irony!

Posted by: Ken Cope | November 16, 2008 6:33 PM

science is the only way of knowing

Who said science is a way of knowing? To paraphrase a very smart person, science, as flawed as it is, is only a superior way to avoid fooling ourselves.

Posted by: Yeah Right | November 16, 2008 6:37 PM

eric-the-exceptionally-stupid-troll@51,

More atheist niceness. It never stops.

Posted by: eric | November 16, 2008 6:43 PM

Nick Gotts: "eric-the-exceptionally-stupid-troll@51...
For those valuing science, however, it is very easy to specify events which would leave their confidence in the scientific method shattered. Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, for example, would more than suffice."

You must be joking. Fossil rabbits in Precambrian strata wouldn't in any way suffice to 'shatter' the confidence of anyone in the scientific method -- unless he happened to be 'exceptionally stupid,' as you put it. Rather, it would only require us to rethink our current conception of evolution. That was actually funny, though -- you've just demonstrated how poorly you understand not only logic, but science itself!

Posted by: Kel | November 16, 2008 6:48 PM

Eric, all you have to do is show a better way of knowing than the scientific method.

Come on, what works better than the process of observation, testing, hypothesis, further testing, even more testing, more observation, more evidence gathering, falsification, more testing, revision of ideas, further testing...

Posted by: eric | November 16, 2008 6:50 PM

"My, what a convoluted parody of reason, bordering on the delusional."

Ah, so Peter Atkins hasn't said that every legitimate question is a scientific question, he didn't write the essay, "The Limitless Power of Science," he hasn't said that "There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence," and so on. Now that I've factually corrected you, you'll no doubt continue with the insults, 'denying reality' as only you can...

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 16, 2008 6:52 PM

"outside industry" -> "agency @73

Posted by: eric | November 16, 2008 6:55 PM

"You really are a halfwit. Such a finding could only indicate that outside interference by some enormously powerful outside industry had occurred: an agency capable of time travel, of predicting the course of evolution in complete detail, or some other similar feat. Without knowing whether and under what circumstances such an agency was still interfering, there could of course be no confidence in any scientific experiment or observation."

Absolute nonsense. No one would say that finding rabbit fossils in Precambrian geologic strata does away with the entire discipline of science. You know as well as I do that it would only require us to rethink -- scientifically -- everything we've concluded about evolution. You're flailing wildly here, and it shows.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 16, 2008 6:58 PM

"My, what a convoluted parody of reason, bordering on the delusional."

Ah, so Peter Atkins hasn't said that every legitimate question is a scientific question, he didn't write the essay, "The Limitless Power of Science," he hasn't said that "There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence," and so on. Now that I've factually corrected you, you'll no doubt continue with the insults, 'denying reality' as only you can...

Yet even with these facts, your statements remain a complete non sequitur, and are still an utterly fallacious argument.

Posted by: eric | November 16, 2008 7:05 PM

"Yet even with these facts, your statements remain a complete non sequitur, and are still an utterly fallacious argument."

Showing that there is at least one advocate of scientism (whether he calls it that or not) is not evidence that the proposition, "Scientism has the added advantage of existing only in the fever dreams of the god-addled but otherwise empty braincases of the drive-by trolls who keep shooting blanks around these parts" is false?

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 16, 2008 7:14 PM

Showing that there is at least one advocate of scientism (whether he calls it that or not) is not evidence that the proposition, "Scientism has the added advantage of existing only in the fever dreams of the god-addled but otherwise empty braincases of the drive-by trolls who keep shooting blanks around these parts" is false?

Yes. As you yourself note, he does not call it "scientism", and you have not demonstrated anything at all towards it being scientism, hence, your argument is a fallacy.

Heck, you have not even defined "scientism". You certainly have not demonstrated that your example meets that definition. Thus, Ken Cope is, so far, correct.

QED.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 16, 2008 7:14 PM

eric@78,

What I wrote was that it would "leave their confidence in the scientific method shattered", which of course it would. Clearly you have no idea how science works: fields established for 150 years simply do not have their most fundamental observational findings - such as that the history of life is not recurrent - overturned. Confidence in the scientific method could not rationally be maintained if it had led to such a basic error. Unless and until we understood the nature of the agency that had fooled us, we could not possibly have confidence that similar collapses were not awaiting us in other fields. It is not a logical necessity that reality should be such that the scientific method works. That it is, is itself simply a high-level hypothesis, which such a discovery would indicate to be false.

Posted by: eric | November 16, 2008 7:15 PM

"Eric, all you have to do is show a better way of knowing than the scientific method."

This is poorly formulated. It's not that there's a superior way of answering properly scientific questions than science, but that not all questions are scientific questions, and some of these can be answered. Philosophy, logic and mathematics provide sundry examples of such questions.

"And why do you assume that Peter Atkins speaks for all of us?"

I don't; I merely used Atkins as a counterexample to the claim that scientism has no advocates.

Posted by: Kel | November 16, 2008 7:21 PM

This is poorly formulated. It's not that there's a superior way of answering properly scientific questions than science, but that not all questions are scientific questions, and some of these can be answered. Philosophy, logic and mathematics provide sundry examples of such questions.

So what's the problem here?