Donald Trump hates sick people. Six people resign from Presidential Advisory Council saying Trump simply does not care.

Courtesy of The Hill:

Six members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS have angrily resigned, saying that President Trump doesn’t care about HIV. 

Scott Schoettes, Lucy Bradley-Springer, Gina Brown, Ulysses Burley III, Michelle Ogle and Grissel Granados publicly announced their resignations in a joint letter published in Newsweek titled, “Trump doesn’t care about HIV. We’re outta here.” 

The group said that the administration “has no strategy” to address HIV/AIDS, doesn’t consult experts when working on policy and “pushes legislation that will harm people living with HIV and halt or reverse important gains made in the fight against this disease.” 

“As advocates for people living with HIV, we have dedicated our lives to combating this disease and no longer feel we can do so effectively within the confines of an advisory body to a president who simply does not care,” they wrote.

Why would Trump care?

After all this research does not directly benefit him.

Now if this were the Presidential Advisory Council for research into tiny handitis, or racoon eye-itis, or can'tkeepitup-itis, Trump might be willing to support it 100%.

Let's face it this guy did not get elected to help the American people.

He got elected to help himself to the American people's wealth and resources.

Creationist Ken Ham laments the millions "wasted" researching the origins of life. Yeah, it's all in the book right?

Think of the millions & millions of dollars wasted by scientists attempting to research false belief of molecules to man evolution-sad waste

— Ken Ham (@aigkenham) November 16, 2016

Imagine the benefit to humans if scientists had the right worldview for their research--that God created a perfect world now marred by sin

— Ken Ham (@aigkenham) November 16, 2016

Yes let's just imagine how much spare time scientists would have on their hands if they just accepted the fact that "God did it."

The millions of dollars wasted on researching the lie of Evolution could be used to benefit the human population in so many ways--sad

— Ken Ham (@aigkenham) November 16, 2016

Does he mean like discovering how diseases evolve over time in order to invent better treatments to prevent them?

Because if true I have some bad news for him.

Millions of dollars are wasted on researching evolution--an anti-God false religion--what a shocking waste of money

— Ken Ham (@aigkenham) November 16, 2016

You know you would think that a guy who built a park celebrating a Biblical bedtime story would have a firmer grasp of the word "religion."

Science ain't religion.

It is probably not fair to target Ken Ham after all this guy is a special kind of stupid, but for anybody who listens to his bullshit if might be helpful for them to learn that studying evolution has provided invaluable insights into how our bodies developed the means to overcome dietary restrictions and to fight diseases, and also how many diseases evolved to overcome those developing defenses.

In fact the study of evolution and biology has provided so much data that now we are seriously discussing the possibility of immortality.

Which I would assume is yet another reason that Ken Ham hates science.

After all without impending death it is kind of hard to scare small children into fearing Hell, now isn't it?

Most comprehensive study in over 20 years finds that the number of guns has gone up yet the percentage of gun owners has gone down.

Courtesy of the Guardian:  

Americans own an estimated 265m guns, more than one gun for every American adult, according to the most definitive portrait of US gun ownership in two decades. But the new survey estimates that 133m of these guns are concentrated in the hands of just 3% of American adults – a group of super-owners who have amassed an average of 17 guns each. 

The unpublished Harvard/Northeastern survey result summary, obtained exclusively by the Guardian and the Trace, estimates that America’s gun stock has increased by 70m guns since 1994. At the same time, the percentage of Americans who own guns decreased slightly from 25% to 22%.

The survey also found that more women are buying guns while the percentage of male gun buyers was decreasing slightly.  The women were more likely to own a gun for self defense, and not to feed their ego, and typically only owned one firearm.

However this desire for protection is fed by fear and misinformation:

“The desire to own a gun for protection – there’s a disconnect between that and the decreasing rates of lethal violence in this country. It isn’t a response to actuarial reality,” said Matthew Miller, a Northeastern University and Harvard School of Public Health professor and one of the authors of the study. 

The data suggests that American gun ownership is driven by an “increasing fearfulness”, said Dr Deborah Azrael, a Harvard School of Public Health firearms researcher and the lead author of the study. 

“If we hope to reduce firearm suicide, if we hope to reduce the other potential dangers of guns, my gut is, we have to speak to that fear,” she said.

Gee I wonder who is feeding into that fear?

Wayne LaPierre, NRA Vice President and fear monger.

 Yeah, I actually already knew.

The study also found that the number of guns stolen annually was 400,000.

So the next time some ammosexual jerkwad gets in your face and says that "If guns are criminalized only criminals will have guns" tell him that "The criminals only get those guns from careless legal gun owners like you, asshole!"

Because that is actually the facts.

And most of those stolen guns probably come from these folks:  

While there are an estimated 55 million American gun owners, most own an average of just three firearms, and nearly half own just one or two, according to the survey results. 

Then there are America’s gun super-owners – an estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns.

That's right the majority of the guns are in the hands of a small group of sexually inadequate cowards who are hiding under their beds for fear the government is coming to take their metal penis extenders away.

The full report will not be released until the fall of 2017, as the paper is currently being peer reviewed. (That is something that factual scientific documents are subjected to which is in direct opposition to the half baked conspiracy theories and made up "facts" that the Right Wing media is constantly pulling out of their ass.)

However the Duke University researcher who did the 1994 study called this " “a very high-quality survey”.

As you can imagine the NRA has refused to comment on this survey, and other pro-gun organizations have expressed some skepticism at its findings.

Facts, they can be so uncooperative sometimes.

P.S. For those of you experiencing a little deja vu after reading this that might be because it has a lot in common with a CBS News poll released in July of this year. 

Once again California leads the way. This time on researching gun violence.

Courtesy of The Week:

Despite the fact that the United States has a very, very high rate of gun deaths compared to other developed countries, we actually know very little about the public-health threat posed by firearms. That's because Congress, working closely with the NRA, passed legislation in the 1990s barring the Centers for Disease control from spending money on any research that could be seen as pro-gun-control, and the CDC has interpreted this ban in a broad manner — the NRA's maneuvering has effectively choked off decades of would-be new research on an area of huge public importance. 

This has been a very big deal: There is a ton of stuff we don't know about the public-health impact of guns that we would know were it not for Congress and the NRA. But now, there's some welcome news out of California that will chip away at this knowledge deficit: The University of California, Davis, is launching the first-ever state-funded center on the study of gun violence. 

The center, notes a UC Davis press release, "will build on unique resources already in place at UC Davis for conducting transformative violence-prevention research and draw on the power of other UC campuses and beyond to provide the scientific evidence that informs the development of effective prevention policies and programs." It will be run by Dr. Garen Wintemute, an emergency physician and gun-violence expert who has spent $1 million of his own money on this sort of research, and who heads UC Davis' Violence Prevention and Research Program, or VPRP. California will be footing the bill — it has set aside $5 million to launch the center.

As with so many things, LGBT rights, moving towards renewable resources, innovative technologies, a lot of progressive policies and products seem to spring from California.

And here they are again starting a research project that will do what the government really should have been doing all along, and that is studying gun violence and its impact on the country and its citizens.

You would think that this would be the kind of research that the NRA and 2nd Amendment folks would rally around in order to get access to the best information available.

However I think we all know that will not happen because they already know that the findings will not support their bullshit about the importance of having more guns in the hands of more Americans.

New book claims that homework is a total waste of time. Aha! I knew it!

Courtesy of The Local: 

“I found out that teachers have been giving homework since at least 1480,” Himmelrath, an educational journalist, told The Local. 

“And there has also been research into its effects on children for the last 130 years. And in all this research I found no results which showed that it had a positive effect on them.” 

On the contrary, if his research showed any overall result, it was that children would go into school the next day unmotivated and reluctant to learn after spending the evening doing homework. 

“In the Swiss canton of Schwyz teachers didn’t give out homework at all between 1993 and 1999. Then, due to pressure from conservative parents it was then reintroduced. 

“But a comparison with a neighbouring canton showed that there was no difference between the grades in the two cantons during this period. 

"The only difference was that in Schwyz the children were much more motivated in class,” Himmelrath related.

I have been making this claim for years.

As a parent, both biological and step, I have engaged in numerous homework battles with the kids.

I have restricted privileges, set aside special time for the work, and of course sat down with them to help with a subject that I was often under qualified to teach.

It's fairly easy in the elementary grades, but once you get to high school the subjects can be pretty challenging, especially if the student claims to have no idea what the teacher is asking on the homework assignment.

And today kids sometimes have up to four hours of homework a night, and THAT is supposed to be accomplished along with any extracurricular school activities or sports they may be involved with.

It is impossible for many kids, even with very involved parents at home.

And yes that often results in kids not liking school as well as souring them on the idea of furthering their education after high school.

So I have no idea if this book is going to change any minds in the education field here in America or elsewhere, but in my opinion it certainly should.

New research sticks a pin in the conceal carry fantasy embraced by so many Ammosexuals.

Courtesy of the New York Times:

The more that sensational gun violence afflicts the nation, the more that the myth of the vigilant citizen packing a legally permitted concealed weapon, fully prepared to stop the next mass shooter in his tracks, is promoted. 

This foolhardy notion of quick-draw resistance, however, is dramatically contradicted by a research project showing that, since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense. Tellingly, the vast majority of these concealed-carry, licensed shooters killed themselves or others rather than taking down a perpetrator. 

The death toll includes 29 mass killings of three or more people by concealed carry shooters who took 139 lives; 17 police officers shot to death, and — in the ultimate contradiction of concealed carry as a personal safety factor — 223 suicides. Compared with the 579 non-self-defense, concealed-carry shootings, there were only 21 cases in which self-defense was determined to be a factor. 

Clearly, concealed carry does not transform ordinary citizens into superheroes. Rather, it compounds the risks to innocent lives, particularly as state legislatures, bowing to the gun lobby, invite more citizens to venture out naïvely with firearms in more and more public places, including restaurants, churches and schools. 

Of course this conceal carry mythology is also supported by the entertainment industry which features celebrities like Tom Cruise,  Keanu Reeves, and Jason Stratham producing and firing their weapons with lightning speed and unerring accuracy.

In reality even supposedly well trained law enforcement professionals often cannot unholster their weapons fast enough to protect themselves or to fire it accurately once in their hands.

You can see a little of what I am talking about by watching this video of martial artist Dan Insanto attacking actual police officers in training against knife attacks.

Another problem with the conceal carry folks is the false sense of invulnerability that they often assume while armed. In truth they are still incredibly vulnerable to attack, perhaps in some cases even more so, with the added bonus of being able to fire bullets into the air and endangering all of those in their immediate vicinity.

No, as virtually ALL research demonstrates the best way to protect ourselves against being shot, is to restrict access to guns and to limit the number of firearms in our communities.

I know that goes against virtually everything we are taught about our shoot first ask questions later  American mythology, but that does not make it any less of a fact.

Andy Parker, father of slain Virginia reporter Alison Parker, appeals to President Obama to fight for gun control legislation.

Courtesy of the BBC:  

The father of Alison Parker, one of two journalists killed live on air, has appealed to US President Barack Obama to push through tougher gun laws. 

"You need to do this... I will help you do this and the press is with you on this because they just lost one of their own," Andy Parker told the BBC. 

"Mr President, you need to do this. Please do it. Please do it for us and for other people so they're not going to lose their Alisons and their Adams," he said in an emotional message.

I agree.

The President needs to continue this fight. As does the next President, and if need be, the one after.

This is not going away. If anything it is only getting worse.

One new study thinks they know why:

And what makes the United States such a fertile incubator for mass shooters? A comprehensive analysis of the perpetrators, their motives and the national contexts for their actions suggests that several factors have conspired to create in the United States a potent medium for fostering large-scale murder.

Those factors include a chronic and widespread gap between Americans' expectations for themselves and their actual achievement, Americans' adulation of fame, and the extent of gun ownership in the United States. 

Set those features against a circumstance the United States shares with many other countries — a backdrop of poorly managed mental illness — and you have a uniquely volatile brew, the new study says. 

......


Perhaps no single factor sets the United States apart as sharply as does gun ownership, wrote Lankford. Of 178 countries included in Lankford's analysis, the United States ranked first in per-capita gun ownership. A 2007 survey found 270 million firearms in US civilian households — an ownership rate of 88.8 firearms per 100 people. Yemen followed, with 54.8 firearms per 100 people. 

The other piece of significant data the study found is that as many as 65% of Americans believe that their right to own a gun is to protect themselves from tyranny.

In other words if they lose their guns they will lose their freedom.

And that belief is aggressively reinforced by the NRA and their political sockpuppets.

New report finds that states with higher gun ownership also have more police killed on duty. Gee, ya think?

Courtesy of The Guardian: 

Researchers found that states such as Montana, Arkansas, Alabama and Idaho, which have the highest rates of state-registered private gun ownership, also have the highest rates of homicide of law enforcement officers. States including Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey experience some of the lowest rates of both police officers killed and gun ownership. 

“States should consider methods for reducing firearm ownership as a way to reduce occupational deaths of law enforcement officers,” was the blunt advice from the research paper published online on Thursday by the American Journal of Public Health.

Researchers studied the 782 homicides of police officers between 1996 and 2010 and gun ownership rates state by state using information from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

“If we’re interested in protecting police officers, we need to look at what’s killing them, and it’s guns. We know that 92% of police officers killed in the line of duty are killed by guns, three-quarters of which are handguns,” said David Swedler, lead researcher and an assistant professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health.

The report also found that it was not a higher crime rate that seemed to contribute to the increased number of officer fatalities, but really gun ownership alone, which is why a place like New York with a pretty active criminal element had fewer officer deaths than did a state like Montana. 

Personally I think this is the kind of obvious conclusion that should have been reached long ago, and I would further suggest that it also relates to the number of people killed by police.

American gun culture means that every officer responding to a call has to have it in the back of their minds that they might face an armed assailant. And it is that fear which results in overreactions and unnecessary police shootings.

The idea that more guns means fewer shootings is tantamount to saying that more dogs running loose means less dog shit on the sidewalk.

If we want to really make a change, to really become a "pro-life" nation, we need to severely limit access to hand guns and military style weaponry.

41% of Americans are definitely, or probably, sure that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

Courtesy of YouGov: 

YouGov's latest research shows that 41% of Americans think that dinosaurs and humans either 'definitely' (14%) or 'probably' (27%) once lived on the planet at the same time. 43% think that this is either 'definitely' (25%) or 'probably' (18%) not true while 16% aren't sure. In reality the earliest ancestors of humans have only been on the planet for 6 million years, while the last dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. 

There is a religious split on this question. While most Americans who describe themselves as 'born again' (56%) believe that humans and dinosaurs once shared the planet, most Americans who do not describe themselves as born again (51%) think that they did not. Only 22% of born again Americans think that dinosaurs and humans did not coexist.

Anybody surprised that religion plays a huge part in the American people's ignorance? 

Leave it to Fundamentalists to think that the Flintstones is a documentary.

New study says that Atheists terrify believers because "they threaten the comforting narratives that make the thought of death bearable."

Courtesy of Pacific Standard:  

Even as an increasing number of Americans declare their disbelief in God, the nation as a whole continues to hold a dim view of atheists, in large part due to non-believers' perceived lack of morality. However dubious its premise, the assertion "There is no good without God" reflects a widely held mindset. 

But it turns out that's not the whole story. Newly published research finds another dynamic driving antagonism toward atheists: They threaten the comforting narratives that gives meaning to so many people's lives, and make the thought of death bearable. 

Humans instinctively search for ways of "mitigating the potential terror arising from the uniquely human awareness of death," writes a research team led by psychologist Corey Cook of the University of Washington-Tacoma. Atheists "pose a fundamental threat" to the belief systems that perform this vital function. 

Writing in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, the researchers report "hostility toward, and mistrust of, atheists is particularly pronounced when existential concerns are involved." Even more tellingly, they also find that "among believers, the mere contemplation of atheism can arouse intimations of mortality."

In other words the very idea that there are those who are living their lives fully aware of their own mortality, and requiring no comforting stories of an afterlife in order to function, anger and frighten those who require those comforts in order to get through each day.

I have actually seen this myself.

I have, at various times in my life, introduced myself to religious people as either an agnostic, an Atheist, or a Taoist.

If I say I am a Taoist they are usually put at ease and express interest in learning more about my "faith."

If I claim the label of "agnostic" they become parental and imagine that I have merely lost my way and suggest that if I read the "good book," or attend services, I will return to faith.

However if I mention that I am an Atheist, even in a non-threatening offhand manner, they immediately demonstrate suspicion and will often finish the conversation quickly and walk away, or aggressively challenge my "ignorance."

To be honest that last one has not happened in more than a decade. I am an excellent debater and can leave my opponents bloodied and mentally exhausted.

That of course is why I feel it so important to always identify myself as an Atheist.

Not only is it completely disconcerting to the faithful, but to do anything else would demonstrate a lack of courage on my part.

In my opinion the Atheist is the most courageous human on the planet.  A man or woman who walks through life fully aware that the sands of time are running out on their existence, yet rising each morning to greet day, not with despair for how little time remains, but with hope in their hearts for all they might accomplish before the end, is someone to be admired.

How can one argue that the Atheist soldier is not far more courageous than his Christian counterpart who believes that God watches over him, and that his death will merely usher in the beginning of a better existence?

Or that the non-believing firefighter who runs into the burning building, and knows if he is trapped will never see his loved ones again, is far braver than the man who believes his family will some day join him in heaven?

For every heroic person who has impressed us through the years, imagine how much more heroic they must have been to take such risks knowing that they were risking, and possibly losing, the only life they will ever know.

That is why I proudly stand up and claim the mantle of Atheist.

And if by doing so it makes the faithful fear for their mortality, that is no fault of mine, but rather a flaw in their own character.

New study of 95,000 children finds, once again, no link between measles vaccinations and autism.

Former Playboy model Jenny McCarthy making another salient point about autism and measles vaccinations.

Courtesy of Vocativ:  

In a study of 95,000 children, researchers were unable to find any association between the measles, mumps rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. The researchers also examined whether each child had a family history of autism; even for children within this high-risk category, they found no association between MMR and autism. 

Not that we needed this study to prove it—there has never been a single high-quality scientific paper to suggest a connection between vaccines and autism. Yet, over the past 15 years, numerous studies have examined vaccines and their ingredients, and consistently found them safe and effective. 

But just in case you were unable to hear the past decade of solid science over Jenny McCarthy’s shrieks, we’ll recap. Back in 2004 the Institute of Medicine examined a large body of epidemiological evidence and confirmed that the MMR vaccine did not cause autism. In 2011, the same group reviewed another eight major vaccines and found, once again, that vaccines don’t cause autism. Two years later, the CDC tracked 256 children with autism and investigated whether they had received the MMR vaccine—no connection. And we stopped even counting pro-thimerosal papers after nine studies from several countries proved that the mercury-containing chemical was entirely safe.

Okay can we FINALLY put this "controversy" to rest?

Children are dying due to misinformation about this topic, and it is vital that the truth gets out there.

Happy 7th Birthday Trig Paxson Van Palin!

Most recent picture I could find courtesy of Bristol's Enjoygram account.

Seriously is there ANY seven year old on the planet whose birth, and the pregnancy leading up to his birth, has attracted as much scrutiny as Trig's?

I seriously doubt it.

And there are some who argue that after all this time, in the words of Hillary Clinton, "What difference at this point does it make?"

And that is actually a good question.

Personally I think that we here at IM have done a pretty admirable job of proving, beyond what I think is a reasonable doubt, that Sarah did not give birth to Trig on April 18th, 2008.

Some of that proof can be found here, here, and here.

I have just one more lead that I am chasing right now, and it is a humdinger. But to be honest it will still proof insufficient to convince those who simply refuse to entertain the possibility that ANYBODY, Sarah Palin included, would ever attempt to pull off such an audacious hoax.

And once again there are those who wonder does anybody really even care anymore?

So I put it to you my friends, do you think it is still worth the effort?

And if I do manage to gather a few last pieces to the puzzled which proves that she faked the pregnancy, what then?

Feel free to speak your mind. After all this is the place for it.

Just being exposed to Buddhism makes you a better person.

The return of Bathroom Buddha

Courtesy of PsyPost:  

Researchers from Belgium and Taiwan have found that being exposed to Buddhist concepts can lead to increased prosocial behavioral intentions and undermine prejudice towards others. 

Buddhism contains a variety of teachings and practices – such as meditation – intended to help individuals develop a more open-minded and compassionate personality. Unlike the three dominant monotheistic religions, it does not draw a sharp line between believers and unbelievers. 

In three separate experiments of 355 individuals, the researchers found that being exposed to words related to Buddhism could “automatically activate prosociality and tolerance, in particular among people with socio-cognitive open-mindedness.” 

The study adds to a growing body of research about priming, a phenomenon in which merely being exposed to certain words or concepts changes the way people think or behave. It was published in the April issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

The article goes on to suggest that Westerners simply exposed to words associated with Buddhism like "Dharma" or "Nirvana" resulted in a less negative attitude towards others.

Then there's this:

Westerners with a Christian background also scored higher on measures of prosociality after being exposed to Buddhist concepts. Surprisingly, participants did not score higher on measures of prosociality after being exposed to Christian concepts.

I can't say I find this particularly surprising. 

I was exposed to Buddhist concepts as a young boy, and they had a dramatic impact on how I saw the world. Ultimately I think it had a hand in making me a better person.

It kind of makes one wonder how different the world might be if Buddhism and Taoism were the two most prominent religions.

Ever wonder why two years after the Sandy Hook shootings, and after President Obama ordered them to study gun violence, the CDC still refuses to do so? Here's a hint. The Republicans don't want them to.

Courtesy of The Washington Post:

The CDC had not touched firearm research since 1996 — when the NRA accused the agency of promoting gun control and Congress threatened to strip the agency’s funding. The CDC’s self-imposed ban dried up a powerful funding source and had a chilling effect felt far beyond the agency: Almost no one wanted to pay for gun violence studies, researchers say. Young academics were warned that joining the field was a good way to kill their careers. And the odd gun study that got published went through linguistic gymnastics to hide any connection to firearms. 

The long stalemate continued until shortly after the December 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., when Obama announced several gun-control proposals, including reversing the CDC research ban. His higher-profile proposals – tightening firearm background checks, reinstating the assault weapons ban – were viewed as impossible to pass into law. Congress wouldn’t bite. But ending the CDC research ban? Done by executive order, it appeared to have the best shot, along with broad support from a scientific community upset that gun violence as a public health problem was being ignored. 

......
 
But today the CDC still avoids gun-violence research, demonstrating what many see as the depth of its fear about returning to one of the country’s most divisive debates. The agency recently was asked by The Washington Post why it was still sitting on the sidelines of firearms studies. It declined to make an official available for an interview but responded with a statement noting it had commissioned an agenda of possible research goals but still lacked the dedicated funding to pursue it. 

“It is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide,” CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard wrote, “but our resources are very limited.”

And WHY are their resources limited? 

Well because the Republican led Congress continues to block funding even though the President requested 10 million for the research and Democrats have introduced  bills supporting the funding.

So here's a question, if guns really do keep us safe in America, as is often claimed by gun enthusiasts, then why is the NRA and their Republican flunkies working so hard to keep that data out of the hands of our citizens?

And why have they been doing so for almost twenty years?

Researcher carefully combs through 126 texts from around the time of Jesus, finds no mention of him. Well that's awkward.

Courtesy of the Inquisitr:  

Jesus never existed. That is the conclusion of a researcher who says he has combed 126 texts written during or shortly after the time Jesus is supposed to have lived — and found no mention of Jesus whatsoever. 

The claim that Jesus, the messianic figure at the center of the world’s largest religion, Christianity, was simply a fictional character is not a new one. Advocates of the “Mythical Jesus” theory have been around for years, arguing that the story of Jesus bears a close resemblance to numerous other mythological stories of ancient gods who were born of virgin mothers and performed miracles. 

In a new article entitled “The Fable of the Christ,” Michael Paulkovich summarizes his findings, or lack of findings, which lead him to believe that Jesus never actually existed, but is instead a fictional character, made up to give followers of the religion founded in his name a central icon worthy of their worship. 

Just last month I posted another article that also called into question the evidence for the existence of Jesus. This newer article takes that doubt and runs with it.

Here is how the author, Michael Paulkovich, sums up his findings: 

When I consider those 126 writers, all of whom should have heard of Jesus but did not, and Paul and Marcion and Athenagoras and Matthew with a tetralogy of opposing Christs, the silence from Qumran and Nazareth and Bethlehem, conflicting Bible stories, and so many other mysteries and omissions, I must conclude this "Jesus Christ" is a mythical character. "Jesus of Nazareth" was nothing more than urban (or desert) legend, likely an agglomeration of several evangelic and deluded rabbis who might have existed.

If all this evidence and non-evidence including 126 silent writers cannot convince, I'll wager we will uncover much more. Yet this is but a tiny tip of the mythical Jesus iceberg: nothing adds up for the fable of the Christ. In the Conclusion of No Meek Messiah I summarize the madcap cult of Jesus worship that has plagued the world for centuries. It should be clear to even the most devout and inculcated reader that it is all up for Christianity, and in fact has been so for centuries. Its roots and foundation and rituals are borrowed from ancient cults: there is nothing magical or "God-inspired" about them. The "virgin birth prophecy" as well as the immaculate conception claims are fakeries, the former due to an erroneous translation of the Tanakh, the latter a nineteenth century Catholic apologetic contrivance, a desperate retrofitting. 

Jesus was no perfect man, no meek or wise messiah: in fact his philosophies were and are largely immoral, often violent, as well as shallow and irrational. There have been many proposed sons of god, and this Jesus person is no more valid or profound than his priestly precursors. In fact, his contemporary Apollonius was unquestionably the superior logician and philosopher. 

Christianity was a very minor and inconsequential cult founded late in the first century and then—while still quite minor—forced upon all the people of the Empire, and all rival kingdoms in the fourth century and beyond, as enforceable law with papal sanction. Christianity has caused more terror and torture and murder than any similar phenomenon. With its tyrannical preachments and directives for sightless and mindless obedience, the Bible is a violent and utterly useless volume, full of lies and immoral edicts and invented histories, no matter which of the many "versions" you may choose to read—including Thomas Jefferson's radical if gallant abridgment. 

The time to stop teaching the tall tales and nonsense to children, frightening them with eternal torture administered by God's minions, has long ago passed. Parents who do so are likely deluded, and most surely are guilty of child abuse of the worst sort ... 

Wow! And here I thought I was sometimes a little too direct in my denouncement of religion.  This guy takes it to a whole new level. 

The problem with seeming to attack the foundation of Christianity is that Christians believe it is an attack on them personally, an attack on the very essence that makes them who they perceive themselves to be.

As Atheists we can discuss all of this, and examine new evidence, in a clinical manner with very little emotional attachment to the findings. However to a Christian it feels like their very character is under attack.

That makes these posts a little tricky as I am not somebody who wants to hurt people, but rather simply wants them to examine what they believe and why in the hopes that at the very least they will no longer blindly echo the fables, myths, and lies told to them as innocent, trusting children.

I think this conversation is vitally important for the future of our country, and the future of mankind in general. After all "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." Which interestingly enough is a passage found in the Bible.

So hopefully this post will be read in the spirit in which it is presented.

Despite what the Republicans say, bigger government actually increases happiness and life satisfaction. Is that Ronald Reagan I hear spinning in his grave?

Courtesy of Tamu Times:  

Pundits who throw around the words “big government” usually point out the negatives of having too much government involvement in the economy, but a Texas A&M University researcher co-wrote a study that found government intervention – when done correctly – leads to more happiness and satisfaction in the lives of citizens. 

In their study “Assessing the Impact of the Size and Scope of Government on Human Well-Being,” professors of political science Alexander Pacek at Texas A&M, Patrick Flavin of Baylor University and Benjamin Radcliff, University of Notre Dame, studied 21 developed nations – free market, capitalist democracies including the U.S. – from 1981-2007, examining data from nearly 50,000 respondents collected by the World Values Survey. 

The researchers report that citizens of these countries find life more satisfying as the degree of government intervention in the economy increases. And the findings don’t change based on income, meaning that high- and low-income citizens find more “leftist” socioeconomic policies equally conducive to a more satisfying life. 

“We frame an argument that for all the blessings of free market capitalism and democracy, there are negative side effects such as market downturns, inequality and poverty, and these can create insecurities in citizens,” explains Pacek, an expert in how political determinants affect life satisfaction and happiness. “Our argument suggests that government intervention, done correctly, can improve life satisfaction by smoothing out these kinds of negative effects and consequences.”

Oh man is this going to make those on the Right lose their shit. 

However if you think about it, this is clearly accurate. And that is why today there are few Americans, despite their political affiliations, who would seriously suggest doing away with Medicare, Social Security, the FDA, the FAA, or any number of government agencies and programs that keep us safe or provide services that almost all of us will need eventually.

And that does not even include the military, possibly the biggest waste of tax dollars, which has now become as much a part of the image of America as the bald eagle and apple pie.

Seth Rogen's opening statement concerning Alzheimer's research in front of the Senate. Becomes first person in history to utter phrase "knocked up" in front of a congressional hearing.

I am kind of a big fan of Seth Rogen's and have laughed long and hard at many of his movies.

However I was struck by how seriously he takes this topic.

As do I as I myself am a prime candidate for Alzheimer's and worry about it with some regularity.

I had my IQ tested when I was a young man and the number was rather embarrassingly high, however my ability to utilize it to do classwork or problem solve is greatly undermined by my terrible memory.  Even as a young man I often dropped names, forgot dates, and had trouble remembering the sequence of events.  Of course that has only grown worse with the passage of time.

So someday I may well benefit from the research done today concerning Alzheimer's disease and  applaud Seth Rogen's commitment to the cause.

With a new Right Wing outrage in the wind can opportunist Sarah Palin be far behind?

As all of you may remember from yesterday the outrage du jour is that the FCC was proposing the idea of having researchers conduct a study on newsrooms which totally flipped out all of the people who don't actually do any news but don't want anybody to know that.

Well the study has now been shelved, but not before Palin took to Facebook to stamp her red, white, and blue shod feet about it.

This from the Lunatic from Lake Lucille's Facebook page:

What? Lamestream calls for empathy, even outrage, for a First Amendment violation that's on par with all the abuse we've brought to your attention as Obama stomps on our Constitution. You've IGNORED us, you've marginalized us, you've left us for "destroyed." But when Obama's boot is on YOUR neck you finally wake the h*ll up and cry foul? Good Lord.

You know what? I think the barely coherent syntax, disorganized bursts of capitalization, and flecks of venomous spittle indicate that Palin herself may have actually written this.

Clearly even the possibility of being exposed as a propaganda arm of the radical right has folks like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin in a state of panic. 

Interestingly enough this FCC study idea has not seemed to bother most news outlets, you know the ones that practice actual journalism, but it has caused such a freakout among the conservative side of the aisle that it almost makes you think they may have something to hide.

Gee, I wonder what that could be.

Research in Canada shows that schools with a Gay-Straight Alliance dramatically cut down on the suicide rate.

Courtesy of The Star:  

In schools with GSAs (Gay-Straight Alliances) for at least three years, instances of homophobic discrimination and suicidal thoughts among lesbian, gay and bisexual students were cut by more than half. And heterosexual boys were half as likely to attempt suicide than straight boys in schools without gay-straight alliances. 

When schools had anti-homophobic policies for at least three years, instances of suicidal thoughts and suicidal attempts by gay and bisexual boys were more than 70 per cent lower compared to gay and bisexual boys in schools without them. For lesbian and bisexual girls instances were two-thirds lower.

Gee who would have thought that providing a respectful atmosphere where young people are free to express themselves without  fear of ridicule or aggression, would lower the number of teens who want to end their lives?

Canadian scientists protest government censorship.

Courtesy of the Guardian:  

The Canadian government in recent years has banned government scientists from talking about a growing list of research topics including: snowflakes, the ozone layer, salmon, and previously published work about a 13,000-year-old flood. 

Now it seems the scientists are talking back. 

Researchers in 16 Canadian cities have called protests on Monday against science policies introduced under the government of Stephen Harper, which include rules barring government researchers from talking about their own work with journalists and, in some cases, even fellow researchers. 

"There a lot of concern in Canada right now about government scientists not being allowed to speak about their research to the public because of the new communications policies being put into place," said Katie Gibbs, director of a new group, Evidence for Democracy, which is organising the protests. 

The rallies, on university campuses and central locations in Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver as well as other cities, will be the second set of protests in a year by government scientists against the Harper government's science policies. 

Like last year, protesters have been asked to wear white lab coats on Monday. 

The clashes with the government have been building for some time, as basic science budgets are cut back to divert more funds towards industry-focussed research.

Apparently these protests have been happening since last year. Last year America!

So here is my question.

With Republicans attacking climate science at every turn, a concerted effort to teach Creationism in some of our public schools, and the general dumbing down of the science curriculum happening throughout our education system, where are OUR scientist protests?

I mean certainly in America we have been dealing with scientific censorship and the vilification of scientists FAR longer than Canada so where are the unified voices from OUR great scientific minds yelling "Enough is enough?"

If that happened it would get huge coverage by the media and really go along way toward bringing attention to some of the most destructive policies being implemented today. It would also help to fight the prejudice against science which is being actively promoted by some religious leaders and conservatives.

Personally I am disappointed that we are being shamed by Canada. Not only do they have Universal Health Care, and limits on corporate spending toward elections in place, but now they also have more courageous scientists.