Meh. So videos

4 weeks since my previous blog post. I've got nothing in particular to say. So here's some new videos from this past month worth a watch.

QualiaSoup finally has a new video out on the burden of proof. Superb as usual.

TheraminTrees also has 2 video parts on the topic of death. Beautifully made.

Creationist Crap (in Singapore)

The church is doling out lies (as usual). And this one is about anti-scientific misinformation. The following image is taken from outside St Andrew's Cathedral in... Singapore. Yes, American creationist crap on display at an Anglican church in Singapore.

I'll ignore the large chunk of text that constitute the bottom half of the poster. If you want to believe the words of a compilation of books written by unknown authors, probably altered by innumerable scribes through the ages, about stories transmitted orally for centuries by a Bronze Age tribe of desert nomads who have no scientific knowledge whatsoever, that's your thing. I don't think that is prudent to say the least. But if you want to call it your holy text, whatever.

I take issue with the top half, just three line stating:

The Theory of Evolution is false!
Even science has discovered that.
Human beings are not descended from apes.

False. Lie. Trivially true.

Firstly,

The Theory of Evolution is false!

Wrong. That's one of the stupidest thing anyone can state about biology.

The Theory of Evolution is one of strongest scientific theories around. Some would even argue that it's the strongest theory we have. Every piece of evidence gathered thus far are in agreement with the theory. In addition, the Fact of Evolution is not in dispute at all; Biologists may be working on the details in the theory but no sane scientist would challenge the Fact itself.

So, if you believe that the theory of evolution is false, go get educated. Seriously.

Check out:
Evolution 101
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

And if you prefer videos, check out my playlists:
The Collapse of ID (Kenneth Miller lecture)
Evidence for Evolution
Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism (Content-heavy Youtube series)
Intelligent Design on Trial (Nova Documentary)
The Genius of Charles Darwin (BBC Documentary)


Next,

Even science has discovered that.

Wrong. Again. The theory of evolution is accepted amongst scientists in general. But more importantly, accepted by biologists.

By the way, a few fringe biologists and non-biological scientists dissenting does not demonstrate the rejection of the theory. I hope this doesn't require explanation.

Regarding the scientific consensus, the Wikipedia has a rather comprehensive article on the issue. Check that out. The National Center for Science Education (USA) has some information on the scientific consensus as well.


Finally,

Human beings are not descended from apes.

Only trivially true. Because, while we didn't descend from modern apes, we ARE apes.

If "apes" in that statement is taken to mean "modern great apes", then yes, we cannot have evolved from modern animals. That makes no sense. The theory of evolution does NOT make such a obviously false claim.

However, we DID evolve from a common ancestor that we share with Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas and  etc. It makes sense to call the common ancestor an ape since it would have the characteristics of one. In that sense, we ARE descended from apes.

This video should shed some light on how this is the case.

To end off, I want to say that it is arguably fine and dandy for creationists to hold their religious beliefs about the origins of humanity. Freedom of religious belief is granted in Singapore. However, if you cross the boundary and make factual claims about reality, then be assured that there will be people  to call you out on your lies.

Additionally, making something a matter of faith does not render it immune to rational criticism. If a religion were to claim that 2+2=5 on the basis of their religious faith, they would be factually completely WRONG. Similarly, it would be just as wrong to claim that evolution is false.

Science is evidently NOT on the side of creationist religious claims. Evolution is a FACT and the THEORY have overwhelming support from the scientific community. To state the contrary is to LIE (by the way, doesn't that contravene the 9th commandment?).

The Reason Rally

The Reason Rally was held on 24th March 2012 and promoted as the largest gathering of non-believers in the USA to date. Here's a video by TheThinkingAtheist with footage from the event.

And if you wish to be amused by AronRa debating Christian/Creationists on the street at the event, check out the following 32 minute video!

Just a Youtube update

2 new videos! DarkMatter2525 has a new video, "How God Favors Evil".

TrustingDoubt uploadedthe final video for her series "God's Emotions".

Excavating the Empty Tomb

Here's a Youtube channel I subscribed to recently: TruthSurge. His series, Excavating the Empty Tomb (beyond a reasonable doubt), explores New Testament criticism.

The first 9 parts of the series, consisting of 10 videos, presents the case by Dennis MacDonald. He proposes that the Gospel of Mark, the earliest gospel, is actually a piece of fiction that draws upon the Homeric Epics. This case however is not the mainstream view of biblical scholars.

The latter parts of the series, currently consisting 5 videos, moves onto mainstream biblical criticisms. So if you're interested in what biblical scholars think about the reliability of the New Testament, you might want to check this out.

The following embedded video is Part 11A which presents some evidence that suggest that the author of what is called the Gospel of Matthew was fabricating history, not recording it.

Pulling Jesus out of FHM

In an act of deference to religious hypersensitivity, FHM Singapore is pulling its latest issue off the shelves because of two articles that were described as "highly objectionable and deplorable" by the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS).

TODAYonline reports in the article "FHM pulled off selves, editor apologises":

SINGAPORE - The National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) has sharply criticised two articles published in the latest edition of FHM Singapore, describing them as "highly objectionable and deplorable". The criticism prompted an immediate apology from the senior editor of the men's magazine and the removal of the publication from newsstands islandwide.

In a statement yesterday, the council, which represents more than 150 churches across denominations, said the articles "make fun of the Lord Jesus Christ". The statement, signed by NCCS president Bishop Dr Robert Solomon and its three vice-presidents, added: "These articles appear during the holy season of Lent when Christians remember the sufferings and sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and they cause serious offence and hurt the sensitivities of the Christian community."

The NCCS also urged the authorities to "look into the matter and ensure the material in question is removed", adding that "such offensive articles threaten the religious harmony that we work so hard to build and maintain".

Noting that it has become "fashionable" to depict religions in the media in ways that are offensive to religious communities, the council urged that "society must be on guard against such trends". FHM Singapore is a title produced by MediaCorp Publishing. The articles in question were entitled "Which of These Celebs Might Secretly be Jesus?" and "Jesus 2.0: What can we expect?".

When contacted, FHM Singapore senior editor David Fuhrmann-Lim said: "We would like to apologise for any offence caused ... We are always sensitive to people's religions and beliefs, and while the article was written with a tongue-in-cheek humour, we do realise now it was not done in the best taste or judgment. We will certainly be more mindful of such sensitive issues in the future."

"Furthermore, we will immediately remove all copies on sale in the newsstands; this process should be completed in the next two days," he added.

When contacted, a spokesperson for the industry regulator Media Development Authority said: "We are investigating this complaint for a possible breach of our content guidelines for publications."

Let's see what do we have here. We have religious hypersensitivity being used to justify censorship. We have religious folk who don't differentiate between humor and malice. We have a business kowtowing to religious bullies. We have the same meaningless "FOR religious harmony!" rhetoric being employed. We have the authorities being invoked to possibly penalize the expression of unpopular speech.

On a side note, why are these good Christian folks reading FHM? Oh wait. My bad. All their sins are forgiven so what would a little lusting hurt anyways. Duh.

Back to the topic; There's really not much left to talk about. This nonsense is small compared to the bigger nonsense that is our social-legal environment here. Religions are accorded undue respect and influence on our freedom of speech here in Singapore. There is no reason why such humor should be censored because some religious folks are "offended" that not everyone has nice things to say about their sacred stuff.

Imagine if the Prophet Muhammad was depicted instead. Given the climate in Singapore, I'll be surprised if no one was prosecuted under the Sedition Act. Yet, it should be allowed just as FHM shouldn't be censored. But then again, the authorities would simply give in to religious pressure because those religious folks might riot over such inane offense.

Singapore. Where we wuss out to religious hypersensitivity.

Atheist AND Agnostic

Apparently, Ricard Dawkins admitting that he is agnostic is news. Holy crap, who knew? [/sarcasm]

The Daily Mail Online has this breathtakingly stupid article titled: "'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic"

Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.

The country's foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

This is NOT news. Not especially when the same book, The God Delusion, that propelled Prof. Dawkins to becoming the "world's most nototrious atheist" also has him describing himself as a 6.9 atheist on his own scale. So if anybody was stunned then it's obvious none of them knew what Prof. Dawkins actually said about himself.


So let's go over the distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism that I've gone over before.

Theism and Atheism: Theists believe the claim that there is/are god(s) and an atheist rejects the claim. A gnostic has knowledge of god(s) and an agnostic has no such knowledge.

These 2 definitions permit for 4 permutations: gnostic theist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist and agnostic atheist.

Check out Wikipedia articles on Atheism and Agnosticism

Weak & Strong Atheism & Agnosticism: The atheist and agnostic can be distinguished further between weak and strong versions.

A weak atheist only rejects the theistic claim of the existence of god(s) while a strong atheist not only rejects but also makes a positive claim of the non-existence of god(s).

A strong agnostic holds the view that the knowledge about the existence of non-existence of god(s) is unobtainable. A weak agnostic holds the view that such knowledge have not been acquired but still possible to acquire.


These sub categories allow for what is the position of most atheists: weak agnostic weak atheist (the agnostic atheist). In general, atheists who ask for scientifically valid evidence for the existence of god(s) holds that position. Science do not have absolute knowledge; a position based on scientific evidence do not permit the strong position for either atheism or agnosticism.

This is also what Prof. Dawkins has indicated is his position. He does not absolutely know there are no gods (weak agnosticism) and he believes the evidence does not support the claim that there are god(s) (weak atheism).

Referring to the scale used in the God Delusion, Prof. Dawkins melts the two scales together. This gives a skewed scale where only the two extreme ends (1 and 7) are the strong positions for theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism. The middle (4) is the agnostic who knows shit about probabilities. And everywhere in between is the weak positions. Prof Dawkins indicates that he's a 6.9 which means he's an agnostic atheist with such confidence that he borders on holding the strong position.

What's so damn new about that?