Homeopathic Vodka - Get yours today!

I know I've spent a lot of time picking on Homeopathy and claiming that it is silly until I discovered this:
www.homeopathicvodka.com. This could very well be the product that saves Homeopathy from ridicule.

Unlike Homeopaths distorting what Homeopathy really is, the makers of Homeopathic Vodka have made this product accessible and stayed true to the teachings of the founder of Homeopathy - Samuel Hahnemann.  Even better than telling you exactly what is in their product, they make it so you can make it at home - safely and effectively.

Sorry for the short blog entry - I feel like without www.homeopathicvodka.com in my system, I'm going to die - so I'm off to get another bottle.

Global Atheist Convention Tribute to Christopher Hitchens

Like god, Psychics Work in Mysterious Ways

Remember that murder that Robbie Thomas likes to claim he helped solve?  The one that he still uses to suggest he has psychic powers?  The one that he had helped, in no way, in solving?  Yes, I know, that only narrows it down to EVERY SINGLE CASE that Robbie claims to have been involved in.

No, remember the one that Robbie claimed, to the family, that the girl was still alive almost a week after, we now know, she was murdered?  (I'll admit that might not exclude very many but it does exclude some - given that it was a female!)  For those that guessed Tori Stafford, you're right.

Robbie Thomas claims to have been involved in solving the murder case and, if that's the case, Robbie Thomas is a fucking cell phone.  They didn't find Tori's body because of a psychic.  Nope, they found it because they used REAL police work and REAL evidence.

Here's the story - it doesn't say "Robbie Thomas is a liar" -  it doesn't have to, because we already knew that.  Robbie Thomas, in his claimed 20 years of "psychic criminal profiling" has never solved a crime using his claimed psychic abilities.  His claims that he has are lies.  In other words, he makes Weather Forecasters look like they've got perfect records!

A special note to my good friend Robbie Thomas:
Good work Robbie Thomas - you are a scumbag.  In the reality-based world that most of us live, we like to think that the people who actually do something should get the credit for it.  The police solved the crime, the real witnesses solved the crime, the community solved the crime.  You did not contribute, beneficially, to this case.  So, fuck off, you low-life piece of shit.  With love, Sarnia Skeptic.

That Makes Sense

I think the Million Dollar Prize from the JREF is a wonderful tool to use when confronting believers of the occult. I'm not sure they see it the same way because they often react by moving the goal posts.

When it is suggested that they get tested under scientific scrutiny it is argued, by believers, that skepticism can affect performance. However, more commonly, I get the response 'psychics can't use their powers for personal benefit' (to explain why you never see the headline 'psychic wins lottery' (Jay Leno)).

Assuming that were the case, we must follow those implications to wherever they may lead.

Before we do, however, let us consider faith in the Abrahamic god and psychics. The Bible is fairly specific about the idea of people talking to the dead, conjuring up spirits and the like. Does that not trouble you (if you accept the Bible to be some form of truth)?

If you have arrived at atheism as a result of your skepticism, you probably don't believe in ghosts, psychics or fairies.

But, enough with my digression.

The idea that a psychic can not use their powers for their own benefit suggests that whatever endowed them with these "great" powers is actually capable of determining how these powers are used. If you believe that it is a god that granted them these powers, you must, then, question yourself why that same god didn't make it so all humans could only do good?

That single statement ("can't use it for personal gain/benefit") destroys any argument you might have for why evil exists.

One must also ask that why would such a being give these "special gifts" to such slime balls and scumbags? Shouldn't that sky-fairy really have given them the ability to win the lottery so they would stop abusing all the people they currently victimize (and re-victimize)?

It makes perfect sense.

---

Now, if you want to read some horrible bullshit from an Animal Communicator (if you’re too worried about being called out by humans as being fake, you can always claim to read the minds of animals) as to why psychics don’t win the lottery, here it is: http://www.circlesoflight.com/scott/lottery.html

Or to see the mental gymnastics that some go through, check out: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100715155718AAumQ3w

Naturally Stupid - Arguments against the appeal to nature (often called the naturallistic fallacy)

When it comes to fallacies, one of the most commonly abused is the appeal to nature.  The fallacy is often used to claim that something is "good" or "safe" simply because it is "natural" - you'll see it repeated, almost ad nauseam, in product and business advertisements.

Someone simply making the appeal to nature may not be wrong about a product being "good" or "better" but the idea that something is "good" because it is natural is wrong.

I was, very recently, offered a can of Jamba Juice energy drink with the claim that it is "all natural".  I asked him what it contained that made it "all natural" and he told me that it included green tea and other natural ingredients with "no chemicals added".

Ignoring that it is comprised of nothing BUT chemicals (everything is), the suggestion that he was attempting to make is that simply because it isn't "naturally occurring" it can be assumed to have risks while "natural" is safe/good for you.  "Natural" stuff (like anthrax, carbon monoxide, lightning, poop and even the stuff you think is healthful) is not risk free - the toxin is in the dose.  Too much water can kill you.  Too much vitamin D will kill you (ask Gary Null - that nut-job "health guru"). 

So the next time someone suggests that something is all-natural, simply ask "natural? Just like anthrax, asbestos, lead, mercury, faeces, influenza, measles and ebola?".  So any product that contains "all natural" ingredients might include any of those items and still be true to their claim.  Mmmmmmmm... appetizing.

The Crime Robbie Thomas Didn't Solve

Firstly, the subject of this post could apply to every single case ever solved - Robbie Thomas has never solved a crime using his self-professed "psychic" powers.  In the interest of conserving words, any reference to "psychic" means "fake psychic" but since all psychics are fake, putting the word "fake" in front of "psychic" is not necessary.

For those that don't know, Robbie Thomas is a local (to Sarnia) individual who claims to have psychic powers.  Aside from not having something that he claims he does, Robbie Thomas lies frequently about his life and what he has done.  This article references one of the MANY cases that Robbie Thomas claims to have assisted the police in solving.  Sadly, reality couldn't be much different from Robbie's claims.

The case that I'm referring to in this post is that of Tori Stafford.  The trial for of the person accused of her murder has entered jury selection so it seems like a good time to remind people of the horrible injustice that Robbie Thomas did to this, already victimized, family.  To this day, Robbie Thomas (Poulton) of Sarnia posts a (supposed) copy of an email he received from Tori Stafford's aunt (on his RobbieThomas.net site):

My family became acquainted with Robbie Thomas as we desperately searched for my niece Victoria (Tori) Stafford. Robbie contacted my mother on line, offering his services. Never having been in this type of situation before we were willing to take any offer of assistance to help us locate Tori. Many things that Robbie told have proven accurate though it is his being (rather than his gift) for which I will be eternally grateful. Although our situation ended with our greatest fears, I find peace in knowing we did everything we could have done to bring Victoria back to our family.

Robbie was an integral part of these efforts. Thanks to his gentle encouragement, we found ourselves providing police with information that we had not previously imagined to be of importance. We were given comfort, strength and support through Robbie’s involvement in our greatest time of need. As a result I will always be thankful that we were blessed with his benevolence. I wholeheartedly believe in his abilities, and I encourage others to accept his willingness to help.

With much love, respect and appreciation, I say thank you Robbie.
Rebecca Stafford (Nichols)

Rebecca does not say that Robbie solved the crime (Robbie didn't) but that "many things that Robbie told have proven accurate".  The reality is that Robbie probably made a few educated guesses and, with some retrofitting, they were "proven accurate".  What the inclusion of the word "many" suggests, however, is that there were also things that were incorrect/inaccurate.  One of those things, and something I'd have a hard time glossing over, is that Robbie Thomas claimed that Tori Stafford was still alive and would be returned home safely.  Even worse, he made these claims about a week after, we now know, she was brutally murdered and her body was discarded.

Robbie Thomas has lied about his involvement in a number of cases - some of the "references" that Robbie even uses on his site are from people who have since retracted their statements or have come forward to say that Robbie Thomas made up the statements himself.  (Read more about that on www.stoprobbie.com)

Absent from the case against the co-accused in Tori Stafford's murder was the suggestion or claim that the police used information from any psychic to solve the crime.  I suspect that we will see the same with this up-coming trial.

Robbie Thomas did not solve the crime.  Robbie Thomas did not provide accurate information that could have helped solve the crime.  Robbie Thomas is not psychic.  So what is Robbie Thomas, then? A lying scumbag - Tori Stafford is not (and was not) alive and she will not be returning home.

Upcoming Meeting - Feb 29 - Don't Miss Out

Will you believe just about anything as long as they use science-sounding words like quantum and metaphysics?  Are you interested in not working for something but simply thinking about it to achieve it?  Is your aura in need of a tune-up or alignment?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, you're not going to want to miss out on our upcoming meet-up - for Dowsers.  Yes, on Wednesday, February 29 (as if it simply being on the only February 29th in recent memory wasn't enough to tell you this isn't simply a coincidence), we will be meeting up to discuss dowsing.  And just to make sure that you understand we're not kidding, the leader of the group is a respected business person in Sarnia - the one and only Nick Boersema from Deep Clean Sarnia!

If you don't yet have a dowsing rod, we'll show you how to make one at the first meeting (please bring your own coat hanger) or, if your dowsing rod simply needs a tune-up, we will recharge your flux capacitor the day before you attend (at no charge), but only if you attend the following day!

Take a look at Michael Shermer demonstrate his dowsing rod and you'll become a believer!



Yes - dowsing is stupid just like Reiki, Homeopathy, Faith Healing, Acupuncture, Energy Healing, Therapeutic Touch and pretty much all "alternative medicine".

Really? That's the best you could come up with?

Sorry for such a short entry - I'm traveling today so this has to be quick - blogging from a smartphone is a challenge. 

The local newspaper, The Sarnia Observer, has published, in the Friday, January 27th edition of it's editorial, an entry (really a sales pitch for the guy's book) from an believer who argued that Hitch (Christopher Hitchens) had it wrong and science doesn't support his claims (Atheist’s faith a leap too far for science).

The complete argument that the contributor is making is that the earth and the universe is fine-tuned and that if any of the physical constants were off just slightly, we would not be here.  The only plausible reason for this author making such a horrible argument would be that he was in an area that did not permit him to have internet access (or science books) - maybe because he lives in a remote area or is incarcerated?  One simple google query for "fine tuning argument" would bring up the Wikipedia reference that has the "counter argument" and it states:

Victor Stenger argues that "... The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God of the gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon".

The argument from imperfection suggests that if the universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not. In fact, most of the universe is highly hostile to life.

Additionally Stenger argues, "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology indicates that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.

And just below it is a reference to Douglas Adams' famous "puddle thinking"...

... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Really, Tom Harpur? Is that the best you could come up with? I was able to demolish your argument while driving and blogging from a smartphone.  Sadly you'll never see this blog - if you can't get to Wikipedia or Google, you probably can't get here. 

Religion Deserves Ridicule Not Respect

Jay Leno is a comedian and being a comedian means poking fun and pointing out absurdities.  During his opening monologue on a recent show, he referenced a "sacred" building in the Sikh religion when suggesting that Mitt Romney vacationed in a golden palace.



As a result of the joke, someone from the Sikh faith filed a lawsuit against him because of his statements, "claiming Leno is responsible for encouraging hatred and ridicule of his religion".

Dr. Randeep Dhillon, the person suing Jay Leno, is right, however.  Just simply showing the building to people and educating them about it is going to draw ridicule - in the same way that we ridicule the Catholic church for the Pope's (as Sarah Silverman says) "house that is a city".  Wondering where their next meal is going to come from and being taught that an invisible sky fairy father is always there for them while their cult leaders amass such massive fortunes at their expense is, well, ridiculous.  Shovel on the ridicule.

Where Dr. Randeep Dhillon is wrong, however, is in his suggestion that what Jay Leno did was wrong - religion IS absurd and it IS deserving of ridicule.  Thank you Jay Leno.

It is "freedom of speech" not "freedom from being offended" - for the same reason that you are entitled to say crazy shit like "the earth is less than 10,000 years old" or "evolution isn't true", I'm entitled to say "you're batshit crazy" (though I'd be the only one making a statement of fact).

Stephen Fry put it succinctly: ”It’s now very common to hear people say, “I’m rather offended by that”, as if that gives them certain rights. It’s no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. “I’m offended by that.” Well, so fucking what?”

And for a reminder of Sarah Silverman's plan to feed the world:

The Pope on Gay Marriage

Recently the guy with the funny hat piped up about his views on gay marriage - he feels that "Gay marriage (is) a threat to humanity's future".

This from the same person who is against condoms and heads an organization exposed for its consistent and thorough cover-up of child sexual abuse (which included sodomy).  I will admit that there is a substantial difference between "gay marriage" and what the clergy were doing but it doesn't favour the Catholic Church.  Gay marriage is between consenting adults and the "gay sex" committed by the clergy was forced on young children (rape, we call it).

Back to what marriage is/should be all about - the Pope needs to be reminded of his "great book"...