Stephen Vogt, professor of astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz puts the likelihood of life at this newly discovered planet at 100%.
What makes it even more interesting is Dr Ragbir Bhathal discovered a possibly artificial laser like signal coming from the same region of space as the newly discovered planet back in 2008. See here and here. Is that just a happy coincidence?
Via reddit.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Christian Violence and Islamic Violence
Readers of this blog may know that I run a bible study. It's for those interested in understanding the Bible from a secular perspective. We're mostly atheists but we do have some Christian participation.
A couple of times instead of studying the Bible I've simply brought in a religious person. So once Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong came. A lot of atheists regard Christian belief as extremely easy to debunk and I thought it would be fun to bring in someone that has thought through common objections and is able to turn it back on atheists. Make them exercise their brains a bit. We had a great time with Dave.
Last night we spoke with a practicing Muslim. I called the meeting "Grill the Muslim". Basically we were going to challenge him as much as possible. Why believe in Islam? What's this about Mohammad marrying a 9 year old girl? Are females regarded as inferior in Islam?
We moved to Islamic beliefs about violence as well. Isn't it a fact that the Qur'an is unusually violent and isn't it a fact that Islam as practiced consistently is especially violent?
There were two major points in response from our guest, which I'll summarize here:
1-Let's consider this question over two time frames. Consider the few centuries prior to 1980. People were living for centuries as Muslims. Show me major violence? Where was the violence in the world? Who started WWI? Was it Muslims? Who started WWII, which killed tens of millions? Who developed weapons of mass destruction? It was the Christians. I watch in America a show called Modern Marvels. They show off the development of bombs as if it was some sort of wonderful achievement. Is that what you see in the Muslim world? No. This is the Christian world.
One member of my bible study responded by pointing to Mohammad and how he used violence to conquer others. Our guest said fine. Let's suppose that happened. Still, we must contrast Islamic behavior over a specific time with the behavior of others at the same time. So let's focus on this time frame that we all understand better. During the few centuries prior to 1980, weren't Muslims reading the Qur'an? Didn't they understand Islam? Why weren't they violent as you claim their religion supposedly mandates that they be? Why were they far less violent than the Christian world? The claim that Islam is more violent focuses on a very narrow window of time. Is that reasonable?
2-Now let's consider after 1980 where violence from Muslims finally started to emerge. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan the United States saw this as an opportunity to deliver some blows to their rival. So they trained Osama bin Laden and other radicals. They said to them "You are supposed to wage jihad. Look at your holy book. It calls for jihad. Are you sleeping? Go. Fight the Soviets. This is your duty." At the time the concept of jihad was not understood as it is today. It was Christian/American imposition that impressed this idea upon the Muslim world.
So the Afghans did fight and did so on the promise that their schools would be rebuilt and that they would be provided with food. But when the Soviets were successfully removed the United States did not fulfill it's obligations. So what happened? These people trained in jihad by the United States turned their guns on the West. Suddenly everyone is outraged. "Look at these jihadi's. They are violent. They are wicked." What they are doing is very natural. They are angry about how they were treated. But what they are doing is also unusual from the historical perspective of Islam.
A member pointed out that Pashtuns have been violent for a long time. They are very abusive toward women and have been so for many years. Our guest agreed, but the question really is about whether Islam is outwardly aggressive and violent. It's true that Pashtuns are brutal towards their women, but that is based on their history which goes back 5,000 years, prior to the time of Mohammad. But focusing on outward violence, and the claim being made is that Islam is violent towards outsiders and aggressive, who is really more outwardly violent?
The conversation then spun off to other areas. But it's an interesting point and I don't recall a truly sufficient answer to this question from the members of my Bible study, some of whom are quite hostile to Islam. Even more hostile to it than they are to Christianity.
I have to admit I'm just not sure if our guest is right about this. But in addition to the Christian acts of violence he mentioned I'd add the Native Americans. This is tens of millions of people wiped out by terrorism. And it was done consciously from what I understand by extremely racist and violent people. The 6 million Jews were killed by Christians. The 4 million killed throughout Indo China by the United States during the Vietnam War timeframe were not killed by Muslims. Over the 300 years prior to 1980 was there comparable violence in the Islamic world to these massive atrocities?
A couple of times instead of studying the Bible I've simply brought in a religious person. So once Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong came. A lot of atheists regard Christian belief as extremely easy to debunk and I thought it would be fun to bring in someone that has thought through common objections and is able to turn it back on atheists. Make them exercise their brains a bit. We had a great time with Dave.
Last night we spoke with a practicing Muslim. I called the meeting "Grill the Muslim". Basically we were going to challenge him as much as possible. Why believe in Islam? What's this about Mohammad marrying a 9 year old girl? Are females regarded as inferior in Islam?
We moved to Islamic beliefs about violence as well. Isn't it a fact that the Qur'an is unusually violent and isn't it a fact that Islam as practiced consistently is especially violent?
There were two major points in response from our guest, which I'll summarize here:
1-Let's consider this question over two time frames. Consider the few centuries prior to 1980. People were living for centuries as Muslims. Show me major violence? Where was the violence in the world? Who started WWI? Was it Muslims? Who started WWII, which killed tens of millions? Who developed weapons of mass destruction? It was the Christians. I watch in America a show called Modern Marvels. They show off the development of bombs as if it was some sort of wonderful achievement. Is that what you see in the Muslim world? No. This is the Christian world.
One member of my bible study responded by pointing to Mohammad and how he used violence to conquer others. Our guest said fine. Let's suppose that happened. Still, we must contrast Islamic behavior over a specific time with the behavior of others at the same time. So let's focus on this time frame that we all understand better. During the few centuries prior to 1980, weren't Muslims reading the Qur'an? Didn't they understand Islam? Why weren't they violent as you claim their religion supposedly mandates that they be? Why were they far less violent than the Christian world? The claim that Islam is more violent focuses on a very narrow window of time. Is that reasonable?
2-Now let's consider after 1980 where violence from Muslims finally started to emerge. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan the United States saw this as an opportunity to deliver some blows to their rival. So they trained Osama bin Laden and other radicals. They said to them "You are supposed to wage jihad. Look at your holy book. It calls for jihad. Are you sleeping? Go. Fight the Soviets. This is your duty." At the time the concept of jihad was not understood as it is today. It was Christian/American imposition that impressed this idea upon the Muslim world.
So the Afghans did fight and did so on the promise that their schools would be rebuilt and that they would be provided with food. But when the Soviets were successfully removed the United States did not fulfill it's obligations. So what happened? These people trained in jihad by the United States turned their guns on the West. Suddenly everyone is outraged. "Look at these jihadi's. They are violent. They are wicked." What they are doing is very natural. They are angry about how they were treated. But what they are doing is also unusual from the historical perspective of Islam.
A member pointed out that Pashtuns have been violent for a long time. They are very abusive toward women and have been so for many years. Our guest agreed, but the question really is about whether Islam is outwardly aggressive and violent. It's true that Pashtuns are brutal towards their women, but that is based on their history which goes back 5,000 years, prior to the time of Mohammad. But focusing on outward violence, and the claim being made is that Islam is violent towards outsiders and aggressive, who is really more outwardly violent?
The conversation then spun off to other areas. But it's an interesting point and I don't recall a truly sufficient answer to this question from the members of my Bible study, some of whom are quite hostile to Islam. Even more hostile to it than they are to Christianity.
I have to admit I'm just not sure if our guest is right about this. But in addition to the Christian acts of violence he mentioned I'd add the Native Americans. This is tens of millions of people wiped out by terrorism. And it was done consciously from what I understand by extremely racist and violent people. The 6 million Jews were killed by Christians. The 4 million killed throughout Indo China by the United States during the Vietnam War timeframe were not killed by Muslims. Over the 300 years prior to 1980 was there comparable violence in the Islamic world to these massive atrocities?
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
60 Minutes on Ground Zero Mosque
It's a segment that's quite hostile to the anti-mosque crowd that's portrayed (rightly in my view) as conspiracy minded haters. So I enjoyed it.
Let me gripe about the media though a little even though I do like the segment. It's interesting to me to note when the media is ready to send out the attack dogs. Our government/major corporations/AIPAC want massive wars against people that happen to live in Muslim countries. See some staggering contrasts of who the victims are so far in the war on terror here. Maybe they want oil or maybe they want to support Israeli expansion and security. What they don't really want is a war against Islam. They're fine with the brutal regime in Saudi Arabia. They were fine when Suharto was slaughtering East Timorese from Indonesia. Really going to war against Islam would be counter productive.
So in other words, bashing those that are trying to make this a war against Islam is just fine with the corporate masters and powerful lobbyists. What's not fine with them is going after in a serious way people that are guilty of massive international crimes and crimes against humanity, whether it be the architects of various US invasions or enablers of torture. This is acceptable criticism from a corporate standpoint.
Still, it's a good segment. HT to John Loftus.
Let me gripe about the media though a little even though I do like the segment. It's interesting to me to note when the media is ready to send out the attack dogs. Our government/major corporations/AIPAC want massive wars against people that happen to live in Muslim countries. See some staggering contrasts of who the victims are so far in the war on terror here. Maybe they want oil or maybe they want to support Israeli expansion and security. What they don't really want is a war against Islam. They're fine with the brutal regime in Saudi Arabia. They were fine when Suharto was slaughtering East Timorese from Indonesia. Really going to war against Islam would be counter productive.
So in other words, bashing those that are trying to make this a war against Islam is just fine with the corporate masters and powerful lobbyists. What's not fine with them is going after in a serious way people that are guilty of massive international crimes and crimes against humanity, whether it be the architects of various US invasions or enablers of torture. This is acceptable criticism from a corporate standpoint.
Still, it's a good segment. HT to John Loftus.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Bob Dutko Rails Against the Liberal Media
I caught a bit of Dutko today. In the first hour he spent some time talking about how the "liberal" media basically enables Obama in his propaganda. Apparently Obama had made some sort of commercial related to his health care plan where he speaks on the phone with a person that now can get treatment. Diane Sawyer picked up the story and treated it as if it was news rather than an item created by Obama's staff. A quick scan of right wing news sources turns up Dutko's probable source, which is here. Dutko gets his talking points from foxnews, onenewsnow, newsbusters, drudge, etc.
I tend to think Dutko is right on this point partially. The media does love Obama and does carry water for him. But he's wrong to say that the media is liberal. Loving Obama and being liberal are two different things in the real world, though not to Dutko. Dutko wants to pretend that Obama represents liberalism. That way if you're to the left of that you're really off the spectrum and crazy. But if we gauge liberalism by the attitudes of people that regard themselves as liberal, or even against the views of the American people generally, we find that not only is Obama not a liberal, he's to the right of the bulk of the American people.
So take the war in Afghanistan. I recently discussed public opinion on this. 54% of the American people think we should not be involved in this conflict now. That's the American people generally, not the opinion of liberals alone. If you were to poll the opinion of liberals presumably the margin would be even higher. Obama has offered us troop surges in Afghanistan.
Dutko would have us believe that Obama Care represents some sort of triumph of liberalism. This is utter nonsense. For decades the American people generally have supported some sort of public style care, like what exists in every other industrialized nation. The numbers do vary based on the way the question is asked, but the results are pretty consistent. Take this 2003 poll. By a margin of 62 to 33% Americans preferred universal public care to the present system. Moving to more recent surveys, voters in key states by wide margins preferred a public option system to the plan that Obama was offering. Look at the support amongst liberals. Like 80%. The same was true in nationwide polls. When a single payer option appeared on the ballot in Massachusetts a whopping 73% voted in favor. These are extremely popular positions.
Let's back up just a bit and look at how John Kerry took advantage of these extremely popular positions. Here's how the NY Times reported it just prior to the election:
Not only is there no political support for single payer health care. There's no support for government intervention of any kind. The Times is totally right. All we have is positions supported by lopsided public majorities, but that's not what it takes for something to have political support. You need corporate support for political support. The public doesn't matter so much.
So how liberal was Obama with regards to health care? He started by immediately taking the extremely popular single payer option off the table. Liberals pleaded with him to at least retain a public option. While paying lip service to it Obama basically crushed it in a deceitful and absurd display. Greenwald has the details here and here. What he gave us was something worked out with major input from the large insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals. Sure, it's not the Republican plan. Republicans of course want to create a real utopia for the corporate masters. They were content to leave millions uninsured. Basically the status quo. What Obama offers does a little good, but still it is loved by the insurance companies. They can retain their 30% overhead and Americans can continue to pay twice what the rest of the world does while getting outcomes near the bottom of the spectrum of industrialized countries. This is not liberalism.
By a margin of 59 to 31% Americans believe that the UN should take the lead in solving international crises, not the US. So given that this is the attitude of Americans generally, imagine what the attitude of liberals would be. So in November of 2009 Obama's UN representative had the chance to join the world and accept the international consensus on a 2 state settlement in Palestine, or he could stand virtually alone against the world. The vote was 164-7 with the US of course among the few opposed. Is that liberalism? And try to find a reference to this extremism in the major media. This resolution is a sensible plan. A similar plan is even supported by the Israeli public generally. But not by the extreme right wing elements of the Israeli government and the extreme right wing elements of the American population. Obama goes along with them, not his liberal supporters.
Obama's positions on his authority to the order assassination of US citizens is so extreme it's even making right winger's blush. Not only is this not liberalism. This is right wing extremism. Now, perhaps Dutko is happy to give the President the authority to assassinate US citizens with no oversight. Maybe he's thinking Obama is making the good, tough decision. But is this liberalism?
There's a reason Obama and his press secretary Robert Gibbs have lately been going after liberals. Real liberals are openly hostile to Obama because Obama is not a liberal, though he did give the impression that he was.
Dutko loves to point out the hypocrisy of so called liberal media personalities in that they harshly criticized policies related to torture, war, and surveillance when Bush was implementing them, but now that Obama is implementing them they're quite silent. They're ready to abandon liberal policies just to support their favored candidate and party. This should be enough to help Dutko recognize that support for Obama and support for liberalism are not the same thing.
I tend to think Dutko is right on this point partially. The media does love Obama and does carry water for him. But he's wrong to say that the media is liberal. Loving Obama and being liberal are two different things in the real world, though not to Dutko. Dutko wants to pretend that Obama represents liberalism. That way if you're to the left of that you're really off the spectrum and crazy. But if we gauge liberalism by the attitudes of people that regard themselves as liberal, or even against the views of the American people generally, we find that not only is Obama not a liberal, he's to the right of the bulk of the American people.
So take the war in Afghanistan. I recently discussed public opinion on this. 54% of the American people think we should not be involved in this conflict now. That's the American people generally, not the opinion of liberals alone. If you were to poll the opinion of liberals presumably the margin would be even higher. Obama has offered us troop surges in Afghanistan.
Dutko would have us believe that Obama Care represents some sort of triumph of liberalism. This is utter nonsense. For decades the American people generally have supported some sort of public style care, like what exists in every other industrialized nation. The numbers do vary based on the way the question is asked, but the results are pretty consistent. Take this 2003 poll. By a margin of 62 to 33% Americans preferred universal public care to the present system. Moving to more recent surveys, voters in key states by wide margins preferred a public option system to the plan that Obama was offering. Look at the support amongst liberals. Like 80%. The same was true in nationwide polls. When a single payer option appeared on the ballot in Massachusetts a whopping 73% voted in favor. These are extremely popular positions.
Let's back up just a bit and look at how John Kerry took advantage of these extremely popular positions. Here's how the NY Times reported it just prior to the election:
But there is so little political support for government intervention in the health care market in the United States that Senator John Kerry took pains in a recent presidential debate to say that his plan for expanding access to health insurance would not create a new government program.
Not only is there no political support for single payer health care. There's no support for government intervention of any kind. The Times is totally right. All we have is positions supported by lopsided public majorities, but that's not what it takes for something to have political support. You need corporate support for political support. The public doesn't matter so much.
So how liberal was Obama with regards to health care? He started by immediately taking the extremely popular single payer option off the table. Liberals pleaded with him to at least retain a public option. While paying lip service to it Obama basically crushed it in a deceitful and absurd display. Greenwald has the details here and here. What he gave us was something worked out with major input from the large insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals. Sure, it's not the Republican plan. Republicans of course want to create a real utopia for the corporate masters. They were content to leave millions uninsured. Basically the status quo. What Obama offers does a little good, but still it is loved by the insurance companies. They can retain their 30% overhead and Americans can continue to pay twice what the rest of the world does while getting outcomes near the bottom of the spectrum of industrialized countries. This is not liberalism.
By a margin of 59 to 31% Americans believe that the UN should take the lead in solving international crises, not the US. So given that this is the attitude of Americans generally, imagine what the attitude of liberals would be. So in November of 2009 Obama's UN representative had the chance to join the world and accept the international consensus on a 2 state settlement in Palestine, or he could stand virtually alone against the world. The vote was 164-7 with the US of course among the few opposed. Is that liberalism? And try to find a reference to this extremism in the major media. This resolution is a sensible plan. A similar plan is even supported by the Israeli public generally. But not by the extreme right wing elements of the Israeli government and the extreme right wing elements of the American population. Obama goes along with them, not his liberal supporters.
Obama's positions on his authority to the order assassination of US citizens is so extreme it's even making right winger's blush. Not only is this not liberalism. This is right wing extremism. Now, perhaps Dutko is happy to give the President the authority to assassinate US citizens with no oversight. Maybe he's thinking Obama is making the good, tough decision. But is this liberalism?
There's a reason Obama and his press secretary Robert Gibbs have lately been going after liberals. Real liberals are openly hostile to Obama because Obama is not a liberal, though he did give the impression that he was.
Dutko loves to point out the hypocrisy of so called liberal media personalities in that they harshly criticized policies related to torture, war, and surveillance when Bush was implementing them, but now that Obama is implementing them they're quite silent. They're ready to abandon liberal policies just to support their favored candidate and party. This should be enough to help Dutko recognize that support for Obama and support for liberalism are not the same thing.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Foundations of Totalitarianism
The courts have now ruled that the President has the authority to order the assassination of US citizens without any due process. Just claim that doing so involves "state secrets." Over at Jihad Watch there's euphoria. Almost unanimous support amongst among the commentators.
It's tempting of course to cede all of your freedoms to your government when you are scared. The British would have been tempted when German bombs were raining down on Britain. But even war mongering Churchill recognized that retaining freedoms and rights for citizens was just too important. Here's what he said.
"The power of the Executive to cast a man in prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist." Winston Churchill in a telegram by Churchill from Cairo, Egypt to Home Secretary Herbert Morrison (1943-11-21)
It's tempting of course to cede all of your freedoms to your government when you are scared. The British would have been tempted when German bombs were raining down on Britain. But even war mongering Churchill recognized that retaining freedoms and rights for citizens was just too important. Here's what he said.
"The power of the Executive to cast a man in prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist." Winston Churchill in a telegram by Churchill from Cairo, Egypt to Home Secretary Herbert Morrison (1943-11-21)
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
My Review of Sungenis' NBFA
My recent Sungenis post got me thinking about the olden days back as a Christian debating non-Protestants. Eric Svendsen was a Reformed Protestant apologist that seemed to be a pretty decent guy. A little less abrasive than James White. I learned a lot from him. He had a discussion board and I spent a lot of time there, which was fun.
When I read Not By Faith Alone I took the time to write a review which Svendsen was good enough to post on his website. It still can be viewed here. Not badly written I must say. And I think it's apparent that I do really try to understand my opponents from their own perspective. It's very easy, and very common, to not bother reading those that disagree with you and simply read friendly sources so as to confirm your own biases. I'm proud to say I resisted that urge to some degree. Ultimately this is what lead me out of Christianity.
When I read Not By Faith Alone I took the time to write a review which Svendsen was good enough to post on his website. It still can be viewed here. Not badly written I must say. And I think it's apparent that I do really try to understand my opponents from their own perspective. It's very easy, and very common, to not bother reading those that disagree with you and simply read friendly sources so as to confirm your own biases. I'm proud to say I resisted that urge to some degree. Ultimately this is what lead me out of Christianity.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
The Geocentrism Conference
As a Protestant apologist back in the day I focused a lot of my energy on Catholicism. I read a lot of Catholic material, including books by Roman Catholic apologists. One series is by a guy named Robert Sungenis. He wrote these enormous books, on the order of 600 pages. I read every bit of Not By Scripture Alone and Not By Faith Alone. For the later I even took notes and outlined the arguments.
These books by Sungenis came with the endorsement of just about every prominent Catholic apologist. Little did they know when they offered those endorsements that Robert Sungenis in fact was a geocentrist. Well after going to print these things came to light. Whoops! That's embarrassing. I bet they wish they could get those endorsements back. He's still at it. In November he'll be involved in the First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism. Galileo was wrong. The Church was right.
You ever think about how you would go about defending heliocentrism? It's kind of interesting to consider. I was all plugged in to the debates on the discussion boards at this time. Sungenis offered something like $1000 to anybody that could disprove geocentrism. I broke out my physics textbook and sent him something related to geosynchronous satellites. I think he sent some nonsense in reply about how there is some sort of counter balancing force that holds the satellites in equilibrium at their present altitude. Seriously.
The person that in my mind really earned the $1000 was Gary Hoge, who wrote a few articles I really enjoyed that you can find here. Thanks to Dave Armstrong for helping me track this down.
Of course it's easy to make fun of Sungenis, but once again a part of me can't help but admire him in the same way I partly admire James White or a YEC. These people hold positions that they know will open them up to contempt. Rightly in my view. They could take the easy way out, but they don't. Did the Pope in his official capacity teach geocentrism? Yeah, he did. Most Catholics try and spin the problems away. Sungenis won't do that. He will embrace papal infallibility in this uncomfortable instance rather than the standard apologetic method wherein unpreferred papal utterances die the death of a thousand qualifications. I imagine Catholic apologists look down their noses at Sungenis but from my perspective they have no right to.
These books by Sungenis came with the endorsement of just about every prominent Catholic apologist. Little did they know when they offered those endorsements that Robert Sungenis in fact was a geocentrist. Well after going to print these things came to light. Whoops! That's embarrassing. I bet they wish they could get those endorsements back. He's still at it. In November he'll be involved in the First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism. Galileo was wrong. The Church was right.
You ever think about how you would go about defending heliocentrism? It's kind of interesting to consider. I was all plugged in to the debates on the discussion boards at this time. Sungenis offered something like $1000 to anybody that could disprove geocentrism. I broke out my physics textbook and sent him something related to geosynchronous satellites. I think he sent some nonsense in reply about how there is some sort of counter balancing force that holds the satellites in equilibrium at their present altitude. Seriously.
The person that in my mind really earned the $1000 was Gary Hoge, who wrote a few articles I really enjoyed that you can find here. Thanks to Dave Armstrong for helping me track this down.
Of course it's easy to make fun of Sungenis, but once again a part of me can't help but admire him in the same way I partly admire James White or a YEC. These people hold positions that they know will open them up to contempt. Rightly in my view. They could take the easy way out, but they don't. Did the Pope in his official capacity teach geocentrism? Yeah, he did. Most Catholics try and spin the problems away. Sungenis won't do that. He will embrace papal infallibility in this uncomfortable instance rather than the standard apologetic method wherein unpreferred papal utterances die the death of a thousand qualifications. I imagine Catholic apologists look down their noses at Sungenis but from my perspective they have no right to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)