Study shows that exposure to religion renders children unable to differentiate between fact and fiction.

Courtesy of Waking Times: 

A study conducted by researchers led by Kathleen H. Corriveau of Boston University examined how religious exposure affects a child’s ability to distinguish between fact and fiction. They found that religious exposure at an early age has a surprising effect: it makes children less able to differentiate between reality and fantasy. 

The researchers presented three different types of stories – religious, fantastical and realistic – to a group of 5 and 6-year olds. Religious children were divided into three groups: children exposed to the Christian religion either as churchgoers who attended public school, non-churchgoers who attended parochial school, or churchgoers who attended parochial school. The fourth group of children included non-churchgoing children who attended public school and had no exposure to religion in either church or school. The goal of the research was to find out if religious exposure would affect the child’s ability to identify if the lead character in each of the stories was real or make-believe. 

The study found that children who attended church services and/or were enrolled in a parochial school had a much harder time differentiating between fact and fiction when compared to children of non-religious background. The study, published in the journal Cognitive Science, states: 

“The results suggest that exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children’s differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories.”

I am still often puzzled that there are people who do not simply recognize this by casual observation.

There is a reason why scam artists often target deeply religious people, they are the most gullible.

And that is the same reason that politicians invoke god, religion, and the Bible in their speeches.

They know that religious people are predisposed to accept things without the benefit of evidence.

Let's face it, without religious indoctrination there would be NO president Trump.

It requires the dulling of critical thinking skills to convince people to vote for idiots, assholes, and criminals.

And religion serves that purpose quite nicely.

So I stand by my contention that introducing religion to children is in fact a form of child abuse. But will add that in the long run it is also an abuse of our basic human right to use our intellects to protect ourselves as adults.

Ken Ham has no idea what Atheists think.

The atheist religion -& that’s what is a RELIGION - is intolerant of Christianity as they worship nature & shake their fist at God

— Ken Ham (@aigkenham) March 19, 2016

For the zillionth time Atheism is NOT a religion.

We have no rituals, no holy books, and really no consensus on anything except for the fact that there is not enough evidence to convince us to accept the existence of any the gods worshiped by our fellow humans. 

As for shaking our fist at God, we do that exactly as often as we chase Leprechauns, shoo unicorns off of our lawns, and get into fistfights with Bigfoot.

And by the way, it's not easy being so enlightened sometimes.

In response to question about Syrian refugees Ben Carson brags about the size of his frontal lobes.

Courtesy of Raw Story: 

"We should use our expertise and resources to help get them resettled — over there — and to support them over there,” he said. “But to bring them here under these circumstances is a suspension of intellect.” 

“You know that the human brain has these big frontal lobes, as opposed to other animals, because we can engage in rational thought processing.” 

The former neurosurgeon noted that his advanced brain gave him the ability to “extract information from the past [and] present, process it, and project it into a plan.” 

“Animals, on the other hand, have big brain stems and rudimentary things because they react,” Carson explained. “We don’t have to just react, we can think.”

You know I actually agree with Carson that human beings DO possess the ability to use rational thought processes.

However knowing that Carson realizes that as well, makes it all the more difficult to understand why he believes that humans cannot have morality without God, that Noah's flood was real and Evolution was inspired by Satan, and that the pyramids were built to store grain instead of the bodies of he pharaohs?

Does this mean that Ben Carson's frontal lobes are not that big? (Not that size is everything of course.)

Or perhaps it means that he simply refuses to utilize them if by doing so it endangers his faith in certain mythologies or conspiracy theories.

When it comes to listening to Ben Carson lecture people about using their developed brains for reasoning, I cannot help but to fall back on that old "Physician heal thyself" chestnut.

Star Trek actor, John de Lancie, discusses being openly secular.

I really enjoyed this because it so closely reflects my own experience as a very young child dealing with my own doubts about religion and my realization that I was going to see forever the world differently than many of my peers.

Part of my goal on this blog is to dispel the notion that Atheists, Agnostics, and those living a secular lifestyle are amoral psychopaths who hate the gods and want to engage in drunken orgies everyday. 

(Okay well maybe there is a hint of truth to that last part.)

Hopefully by presenting evidence of reasonable, critically thinking individuals, who are living a life free of superstition and a religiously constructed prison of fear and shame, that I am helping to do that.

United Church of Canada minister, who no longer believes in God or the Bible, is fighting attempts to oust her. You can do that?

Courtesy of HuffPo: 

In an interview at her West Hill church, Rev. Gretta Vosper said congregants support her view that how you live is more important than what you believe in. 

"I don't believe in...the god called God," Vosper said. "Using the word gets in the way of sharing what I want to share." 

Vosper, 57, who was ordained in 1993 and joined her east-end church in 1997, said the idea of an interventionist, supernatural being on which so much church doctrine is based belongs to an outdated world view. 

What's important, she says, is that her views hearken to Christianity's beginnings, before the focus shifted from how one lived to doctrinal belief in God, Jesus and the Bible. 

"Is the Bible really the word of God? Was Jesus a person?" she said. 

"It's mythology. We build a faith tradition upon it which shifted to find belief more important than how we lived."

Oh I like her!

A church that rejects the idea of God, and ignores the Bible entirely, in favor of teaching people to utilize their critical thinking skills, love themselves as they are, and celebrate the differences in others.

I think that might actually be a church I would be willing to attend.

Jehovah's Witness leader rails against higher education as it might cause "spiritual disaster."

This comes to us courtesy of The Friendly Atheist: 

Jehovah’s Witnesses Governing Body member Tony Morris is the host of the January video on the new JW online television network and what he says is a terrifying tirade against higher education.

Here are a few excerpts from this tirade:  

… all too often, our young people have met with spiritual disaster, especially after leaving home and living on a university campus. So parents and children, you need to have a goal and you need to have a plan. If you’re missing either one, Satan will provide it for you. Young people, ask yourself: Why am I considering additional education? Is it because I’m pursuing a specific skill or trade to support my service to Jehovah? Or have I been pressured by the system into believing that higher education will somehow make me a more respected person or lead me to a better life?

So to be clear, education is a tool of Satan that Jehovah's Witnesses do not need. Since all that they need is available through faith.

Want more:

If we are in continued association with those who do not believe the same, it can erode our thinking and convictions… It is one thing to work on a job with others, and quite another matter to immerse oneself in an institution of “learning.”

In other words the only way this faith can possibly survive is if these people ONLY  interact with like minded folks and avoid anyone of a different faith of philosophy.

Here's a bit more: 

I have long said: the better the university, the greater the danger. The most intelligent and eloquent professors will be trying to reshape the thinking of your child, and their influence can be tremendous. One mom, I recall, asked me to try and help her son who was attending a prestigious-name university in Rhode Island. After visiting him, I later had to inform her that her son now believed in evolution. She refused to believe it until he finally told her himself. How sad.

Oh my God! They taught that poor child the dreaded evolution!

I have to admit that it is not often that a religious leader so clearly states that they their religious faith simply cannot stand up to scrutiny or that their only hope of holding onto congregants is to keep them as undereducated as possible.

But that is exactly what this guy just said in NO uncertain terms.

And let's face it he may be a Jehovah's Witness but his concerns are shared by the majority of religious leaders in this country, and beyond.

Atheist billboards causing a stir among believers in California.

Courtesy of CBS Los Angeles:

 A billboard near Riverside aimed at raising awareness of the local nonbeliever population is turning heads and raising eyebrows. 

The billboard off the 215 Freeway just south of the 10 Freeway junction in Colton reads: “Don’t believe in a God? You are not alone.” 

CBS2/KCAL9’s Adrianna Weingold spoke to a number of people who found the sign offensive. 

“I’d have them take it down, because God’s real,” Colton resident Benjamin Hall said.

Well that's one argument I guess. Resident Cyndi Bulger doesn’t want it in Colton either:

“Everybody’s an individual, so you shouldn’t be told how you should think or what you should believe.”

Well that's interesting since that is what religions have been doing since the dawn of time.

Remember people do not go door to door to tell people to be Atheists. Nor do they suggest that they will suffer eternally for not doing so.

Of course the goal of the advertising is not so much to change minds, as it is to let those who are already critical thinkers know that they are not alone.

Made possible with over $6,500 in funding from the Washington, D.C.-based United Coalition of Reason, the 18-by-48-foot billboard will be up for the month, according to Inland Empire Coalition of Reason coordinator Jan Goings. 

The campaign, part of a nationwide program that began in 2009, has grown to more than 60 similar campaigns in nearly 40 states, each sponsored by a local coalition of nontheistic groups, Goings said. 

“We want people to know that nontheistic folks like us are a regular part of communities all over the area,” Goings said. “Nontheists are your friends and neighbors, your coworkers and family members. Our nontheistic community focuses on service, and we care deeply about bringing justice and help to others: being good without a god.”

I am not usually one for in your face advertising. But considering that Atheists are currently among the most mistrusted demographic in America, I can certainly understand the desire to reach out and comfort those living in fear of discovery.

The real cancer in this country is fairly easy to detect.

The idea that seemingly rational people can say, or accept, this kind of thing absolutely boggles my freaking mind.

This is how I have viewed church since I was seven years old.

Bill Maher's final New Rule from last night's show. "Be more cynical."

“And finally, a resolution I have been asking America to make for a long time,” Bill Maher said. “Be more cynical. Be less easily fooled. Case in point, all the people that are fans of these guys, heroes to all the rural heartland traditional values gun nuts out there. Except here is what we recently found out these guys really look like before they got their TV show, preppy a$$holes at the golf club wearing Tommy Bahama. That’s right. It is all an act, fat cats pretending to be just folks. And you fell for it. Take a hint Tea Partiers. This is what the Republican Party is always doing to you”.

I loved this!

I think that is probably a message that I try to send out as often as possible as well. Stop buying into the bullshit, and start thinking independently. 

Of course if people did that there would be no Tea Party, no religion, and no Sarah Palin.

So really, no downside.

P.S. By the way, for those who watched the show last night, what is your guess as to what pharmaceuticals Mary Matalin was high on?

I mean I have seen people tripping on TV before, but Matalin was clearly orbiting the sun she was so blitzed out of her mind.

At one point I thought she was going to crawl under the desk and start blowing Steve Schmidt, who apparently she has been crushing on, or her husband, or Bill Maher, or any unsuspecting stage hand who happened to get too close.

It was freaky.

(H/T to Mediaite.)

New study claims that religion will disappear by 2041. Finally, something to live for!

Courtesy of Guardian Express:

 Author and noted biopsychologist Nigel Barber has completed a new study that shows Atheism is most prevalent in developed countries, and, according to his projections, religion will completely disappear by 2041. His findings are discussed in his new book “Why Atheism Will Replace Religion.” A new study that clarifies his earlier research will be published in August. His findings focus on studying trends within countries around the world and the fact that “Atheists are heavily concentrated in economically developed countries”

"- In my new study of 137 countries (1), I also found that atheism increases for countries with a well-developed welfare state (as indexed by high taxation rates). Moreover, countries with a more equal distribution of income had more atheists. My study improved on earlier research by taking account of whether a country is mostly Moslem (where atheism is criminalized) or formerly Communist (where religion was suppressed) and accounted for three-quarters of country differences in atheism." \

His main thesis stems from the phenomenon of religion declining as personal wealth increases. He cites the reason as people having less of a need for supernatural beliefs when the tangible, natural world is providing for their needs. He says the majority of the world will come to view religion as completely irrelevant by 2041.

Sounds too good to be true right? Yeah I thought so too, and I am not alone apparently:

Political Scientist Eric Kaufmann holds the opposite view, citing the fact that Atheists have fewer children than religious people. He thinks this could indicate the religious mindset will proliferate due to religious folks simply breeding more than Atheists. But what is the significance of the prolific breeding of religious people? 

Biotechnologist Thomas Rees poses this question in his essay “Will the Religious Inherit the Earth?” In this piece, he discusses Kaufmann’s research and comes to the conclusion that the breeding aspect could tip the odds in favor of the religious purely due to fertility and childbearing rates among them. 

Dammit! I knew I should not get too excited.

But wait, Barber is not so easily persuaded that his research is incorrect:

Barber, however, dismisses the breeding-related evidence, saying “…Yet, noisy as they can be, such groups are tiny minorities of the global population and they will become even more marginalized as global prosperity increases and standards of living improve.” 

He also says that as women become more integrated into the workforce, they will have fewer children, even if they are members of a religious fundamentalist group: “Moreover, as religious fundamentalists become economically integrated, young women go to work and produce smaller families, as is currently happening for Utah’s Mormons,” he says.

Okay now THAT'S the kind of article I enjoy! One with plenty of information for both sides to mull over and the opportunity provided for further discussion, argument, and ultimate disagreement.

So what do you think?

Personally I do not hold out much hope for a world without religion in a mere 28 years, but the study DOES give me hope that I will see the pendulum swing to the point that the majority of the world will be populated by atheists, and that religious fundamentalists will be driven from power and forced to hide in the self same closets that they once drove the homosexual community into by the millions.

All I know for sure is that I am going to attempt and prolong my life as long as possible in the hopes that someday I can author a blog called "The Immoral Majority" and have it be factually correct.

I can hardly wait.

Oh, well now I get it.

Yep, the LAST thing you want to do as human beings is utilize the one thing that separates you from every other creature on the planet and allows you to remain the dominate species.

"The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates, via Plato.

Atheist Richard Dawkins named as the world's "top thinker."

Courtesy of The Guardian:  

When Prospect magazine listed Britain's leading public intellectuals in 2004 and invited readers' votes, it was Richard Dawkins who emerged as No 1. Nine years on, the biologist, author and campaigner has bettered that by topping its "world thinkers" rankings, beating four Nobel prize winners (and another contender regarded as certain to receive one soon) in a poll based on 65 names chosen by a largely US- and UK-based expert panel. 

Joining him in the top 10 are the psychologists Steven Pinker (3) and Daniel Kahneman (10), the economists Paul Krugman (5) and Amartya Sen (7) and the philosopher Slavoj Žižek (6), who all, like him, figured in the magazine's first list of world-class thinkers in 2005. 

To qualify for this year's world thinkers rankings, it was not enough to have written a seminal book, inspired an intellectual movement or won a Nobel prize several years ago (hence the absence from the 65-strong long list of ageing titans such as Noam Chomsky or Edward O Wilson); the selectors' remit ruthlessly insisted on "influence over the past 12 months" and "significance to the year's biggest questions". 

As for Dawkins, the continuation of wars of religion and terrorist atrocities informed by it means his atheist crusade remains relevant to the year's biggest questions, despite the end of the Bible-bashing, war-mongering Bush era in which he first raised his banner – this week his 670,000 Twitter followers could find him (between musings about socks) rejoicing in France's legalisation of gay marriage, ridiculing a journalist's Muslim beliefs, and retweeting a story that the older Boston bomber "was angry that the world pictured Islam as a violent religion". On Monday, no doubt manfully resisting efforts to deify or idolise him, the world No 1 will attend the premiere in Toronto of a documentary about his roadshow (with Lawrence Krauss) promoting science and reason.

I personally have a great admiration for Richard Dawkins, and his courage in the face of incredibly vicious attacks and attempts to marginalize him or shut him up.

I think that what Dawkins, and of course Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennet, and the late great Christopher Hitchens as well, have done is to place themselves firmly on the front line, fully accepting the volley of anger and hatred directed toward them, in order to clear a path for those who will come behind them.

In many ways I think they can be given some credit for the increase in atheism among the younger generation, and perhaps their work will someday be seen as instrumental in ushering in the end of  organized religion's grip of terror on this country, and on many developing countries around the world.

That would be a legacy well worth celebrating.

Here is what Professor Dawkins identifies as the "Problem with Religion" in his own words.

I think the world that he envisions is infinitely more beautiful than the one we enjoy today.

Finally thought of the day.

Ann Druyan talking about love, faith, and the death of her husband, Carl Sagan:

"When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me-it still sometimes happens-and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. 

Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous-not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance. . . . That pure chance could be so generous and so kind. . . . That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time. . . . That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and it’s much more meaningful. . . . 

The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don't think I'll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful."

(Source.)

Final thought of the day.

It is truly frightening how often the latter is true.

Don't you think?

New studies of the brain indicate that Republicans and Democrats use different parts of it to make political decisions. Guess which one uses their "threat response system!"

Courtesy of Mother Jones:  

The past two weeks have seen not one but two studies published in scientific journals on the biological underpinnings of political ideology. And these studies go straight at the role of genes and the brain in shaping our views, and even our votes. 

First, in the American Journal of Political Science, a team of researchers including Peter Hatemi of Penn State University and Rose McDermott of Brown University studied the relationship between our deep-seated tendencies to experience fear—tendencies that vary from person to person, partly for reasons that seem rooted in our genes—and our political beliefs. What they found is that people who have more fearful disposition also tend to be more politically conservative, and less tolerant of immigrants and people of races different from their own. As McDermott carefully emphasizes, that does not mean that every conservative has a high fear disposition. "It's not that conservative people are more fearful, it's that fearful people are more conservative," as she puts it. 

I interviewed the paper's lead author, Peter Hatemi, about his research for my 2012 book The Republican Brain. Hatemi is both a political scientist and also a microbiologist, and as he stressed to me, "nothing is all genes, or all environment." These forces combine to make us who we are, in incredibly intricate ways. 

And if Hatemi's and McDermott's research blows your mind, get this: Darren Schreiber, a political neuroscientist at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, first performed brain scans on 82 people participating in a risky gambling task, one in which holding out for more money increases your possible rewards, but also your possible losses. Later, cross-referencing the findings with the participants' publicly available political party registration information, Schreiber noticed something astonishing: Republicans, when they took the same gambling risk, were activating a different part of the brain than Democrats. 

Republicans were using the right amygdala, the center of the brain's threat response system. Democrats, in contrast, were using the insula, involved in internal monitoring of one's feelings. Amazingly, Schreiber and his colleagues write that this test predicted 82.9 percent of the study subjects' political party choices—considerably better, they note, than a simple model that predicts your political party affiliation based on the affiliation of your parents.

Okay I have read various versions of these studies the past several days and they are both fascinating and frustrating to me.

According to the data there does not seem to be a whole lot that one can do to change a person's political point of view. Which in some ways explains why introducing new facts to people with a conservative perspective seems to be a waste of perfectly good data. They simply refuse to accept its existence or challenge the methods by which is was gathered.

It also seems to explain why conservatives are so incredibly concerned about gun ownership and national security. They apparently base their world view on the fear center of their brains, which is constantly on alert for danger, while where as the more liberal among us are using the insula, whihc has been described by neurosurgeons as the following:

According to neuroscientists who study it, the insula is a long-neglected brain region that has emerged as crucial to understanding what it feels like to be human. 

They say it is the wellspring of social emotions, things like lust and disgust, pride and humiliation, guilt and atonement. It helps give rise to moral intuition, empathy and the capacity to respond emotionally to music.

Well that certainly explains quite a lot doesn't it?

Essentially, according to the new research, Republicans make their political decisions based on fear, and Democrats tend to make them based on empathy and moral intuition.

Sounds reasonable to me.

George Carlin knew it all along.

Just in case you wonder why the Republicans are trying so hard to vilify teachers, dumb down our schools, and insert religion into all facets of our lives.

Believers do as they are told, thinkers question everything.

Stephen Colbert addresses the attempt by the Texas GOP to remove critical thinking from their education system.

This is a story that got buried last week under an avalanche of breaking news items, but I think it is definitely something that we need to take another look at.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Colbert mines this for comedic effect, but make no mistake this is a VERY serious issue. Personally I think that THIS is a real look into the minds of the people who responsible for making political policy within the GOP, and NOT just in Texas.

These people would absolutely LOVE to find a way to do away with any critical thinking whatsoever, and turn the country into a nation of barely literate sycophants, brought up to trust in those in positions of power, and who vote the way their parents, and clergy tell them they must.

And don't think that the critical thinking portion was the only part that was an attack on education. This courtesy of NJ.com:   

The 22-page platform also includes other gems: abstinence-only sex ed, faith-based drug rehab, “alternate theories” to evolution and climate change in science classes — it’s a “greatest hits” list of head-in-the-sand education classics. 

For what it’s worth, Chris Elam, the Texas GOP’s communications director, said including the words “critical thinking” was a mistake — but since the party membership already voted, it’s too late to change.

Do we REALLY believe they want to change it? If they are not forced to that is? Yeah, me neither.