Harry DeBoer - Again

Recently, as Harry DeBoer has a one-track mind, we were reminded by him of how backwards and nonsensical his religious views are.  Harry regularly writes into the Sarnia Observer to talk about abortion - even when he pretends that he wants to talk about something else, he almost always reminds of his antiquated and anti-woman beliefs.

To be consistent, Harry wrote a letter to the editor on October 20, 2016:

It’s ironic that Canada, once known for its democracy and Judeo-Christian ethos, has now become one of the most liberal anti-God nations on Earth. 

Canada has redefined marriage from its biblical status, and now allows same-sex unions.

As far as the culture of death is concerned, Canada is one of only three countries that permits partial abortion. All other countries have restraint in this regard. To share the partial abortion status with two of the biggest violators of human rights (China and North Korea) is nothing to be proud of.

Now our government and courts have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide. According to the Prevention Coalition of Canada, doctors of conscience who object to euthanasia will be coerced to pay a penalty of sorts should they refuse to refer patients who seek death to doctors who will carry out that instruction. 

Even in most supposedly liberal jurisdictions such as Holland or the state of Oregon, where euthanasia was legalized long before Canada made that decision, anti-euthanasia physicians are not forced to make these referrals. 

The root cause of all that ails most western nations, and not just Canada, is a refusal to obey the laws of God as they pertain to public life and governance. 

For Canadians, it’s the disregard of the preamble to our Constitution, of not recognizing “the Supremacy of God and the rule of law”. 

Not many Canadians think about the preamble, and you can be sure Canada’s mainline political parties avoid it. Even the Supreme Court of Canada calls “the Supremacy of God” a meaningless phrase, or a dead letter. 

It’s time to have a national and public discourse on the Constitution’s preamble. 

Harry DeBoer
Wyoming  

Since I've addressed many of Harry's points before, I didn't even feel like responding but, when stupid presents itself...

Like Harry’s bronze-aged myth, his letter has done little to change with the times.  That he states outdated information and misrepresents what is actually allowed should be what we recognize as “true Christian morality and values”.    

To borrow a phrase from Harry, it’s ironic that Canada, known for its relatively high level of education, still has any portion of the population that still believes in a god of any sort.  In our country, if you believe in a god, with almost no exception, you do so because your parents also believed in god – not only ‘a god’, but the very god that you, too, believe in.  Of the thousands of possible gods you could believe in (Harry and I disbelieve in almost the same number of gods – I believe in just one fewer), it’s not through revelation, evidence or proof that you’ve come to choose the particular god. 

To address Harry’s points, Canada has redefined legal marriage from being oppressive and exclusionary to one that is more inclusive.   Ironic, too, that religions claim morality and tolerance but display that in the most oppressive, immoral and intolerant ways possible (well, okay, give credit to Christians for cutting back on committing genocides and stoning people to death).

It is interesting that, given the number of lives that are lost as a result of religious interpretations, that Harry’s supposed concern is about preserving life.  As far as the culture of death is concerned, the story that Harry DeBoer wants you to believe is, like the book he believes in, almost complete fiction.  

Furthermore, the book that Harry so loves resulted in the oppression, murder and subjugation of millions of people.  Harry and others will argue "that was a different time" but we can't simply pick and choose what we apply that to when it comes to "the literal word of god" or "the inspired word of god".  The justifications for oppression were when we were ignorant, when people didn't know better and when men had the opportunity (clearly took advantage of it too!) to control.  Now that we know better, now that we can demand more and now that the world is seeing religion for the horrible ideas it brings to the table, we're saying "that was a different time" when we revered the "word of god" and, frankly, if you can't look back on history and say "we should be ashamed of ourselves", you are deserving of additional scorn and ridicule.

To argue, as if it is a bad thing, that Canada stands alone in progressive and moral policy, is another trait of many religious people.  The argument is circular and silly.  That other countries will come to accepting good science, good medicine and, simply put, good public policy is only a matter of time – and then what do you argue? 

I understand that the facts can be inconvenient to Harry's story but the United States, federally, has come to accept that the right to abortion should be permitted and preserved as well as the right for consenting adults to make their own choices on whether or not and to whom they wish to get married.  (Keep in mind that Harry has chosen an extremely limited interpretation of abortion laws to make it so we fit only with China, United States and North Korea - and he leaves out the US.  Other versions of the story that Harry is copying will include Vietnam.  Harry is also being disingenuous - he doesn't want Canada to "get in line" with most other democracies - because even if Canada made the single limit that Harry speaks about, abortion would still be legal - and it would have almost no impact on the number of abortions that are provided in Canada.)

Now to Harry:

Here’s an idea, Harry – value women as your equals, permit them the same opportunities presented to men and allow them to control their own reproductive cycle (don’t shame them and, for your non-existent god’s sake, don’t make it a financial burden for them to do so). 

And, one final great idea, Mr. DeBoer, consider the facts.   Accept what is true and not simply what you want to be true.  Give women access to birth control and other needs related to reproductive health, permit them to make their own decisions, give them opportunities in life and what is the result?  Fewer abortions.  Imagine if that was truly what you were trying to achieve.

Bullying is what you’re doing and it is not acceptable under any other pretense.  You should be ashamed of your backwards view on morality and the harm that your lies and bullying are doing to society.   

False Equivalence? Either way, almost unbelievable

As I've mentioned before, a number of us attended the Ark Encounter grand opening for a protest. There were a number of reasons for the protest - to let visitors know that it is anti-science and not for kids, to inform the general public that their tax dollars went to support it and that the story is not a "feel good" story but one of genocide and incest.

At the protest, we encountered a few "counter protesters", primarily felon Kent Hovind's son, Eric, and his "friends" at Creation Today.  (The relationship matters - Kent Hovind recently spent 10 years in jail for tax evasion - his son simply took over and kept up the anti-science agenda.)

Eric Hovind, it turns out, is dishonest, obnoxious and rude - what a perfect example of a "true" Christian.  The method of debate by Eric (his friends didn't do much - obviously far less willing to appear to be complete dicks and not prepared to debate/discuss with people who actually know that Eric and his crew are full of shit) is to never allow an argument to be followed.  Eric would constantly change the subject, ask another unrelated question or, even, imply that you beat your wife (seriously!) to completely throw you off.

Enough about that - the point of this entry is to share the brochure that he handed out to a number of us protesters.  To say I was surprised when I read it would be a complete understatement.

It was a tri-fold brochure so I'm breaking it up by page for now (the full image is below as well).

The first page is silly enough - the bigger comments are, supposedly, points that the thinkers among us are making.  The smaller print is something, I suspect, that we claim but often forget when we're (not even) making the points in larger print.

First of all, none of us claimed that Noah was stupid.  It'd take a pretty smart person to, at 500+ years old, build an ark (that would look nothing like the ark they built in Kentucky) given that even with cranes, cement and other modern building materials, Ken Ham and his crew of many dozens couldn't build one. Noah probably never existed but, even if he did, we know the global flood never happened.

The corresponding small print suggests that those who accept evolution believe our brains came about by accident. (Wow - I think Eric is a liar and actually knows that evolution has never ever been honestly taught like that.)

Eric's god does command execution and has killed a lot of people.  In this story (yes, it's a story), however, we're not suggesting that god commanded genocide, she committed it.  It was supposedly god who brought about the rain and flooded the earth (for how long? You pick - 40 days, 150 days, 253 days?).  His small print is another misrepresentation of evolution - "survival of the fittest" means not what he suggests it does.

The "Your god commands incest!" is another one we don't claim - it is just, logically, what is required to repopulate the earth.  We don't think she commanded incest, we just think that she was okay with some pretty kinky stuff.  (The other biblical incest stories are a Lot better when they leave less to the imagination - no pun intended.)  Eric then tries to use a different definition of "related" (as you'll see inside) as he refers to our common ancestry with other primates.

The final bubble is one that I can't ever seem to wrap my head around - the concept that we can't know what is right or wrong unless we believe in the Christian god or accept the bible.  There are innumerable other cultures in the world that have never seen/heard of the bible and, yet, they've come to similar understandings of mutual respect and co-operation.  That Christians can have morality and know right from wrong is proof that it doesn't require the bible - the stories in the bible demonstrate no where near the level of morality of society today.

On to page 2.  Eric simply explains why he's given us this brochure.

Page 3

On this page, Eric basically makes our point for us.  His god commits genocide.  The funny part is that Eric equates us making signs and protesting with his god killing all but 8 people on earth.  He then follows up with, and you don't think my god is loving?  Just wait, he/she's got more love coming our way - this time it's "everyone dies by fire" instead of simply drowning.  

Page 4

This page calls for another face-palm.  Let's break it down: Evolution involves incest so nah nah. Tu quoque much, Eric?  What a childish argument especially given that evolution's definition of "related" is not the definition that we use when we speak of incest.  I have a feeling that Eric might have an interest in fucking a few other species and he's hoping for us to give him the "okay".

Eric returns to the "right and wrong" argument - maybe he is sold on this being a great argument but it's paper thin and rather dumb.

Oh, then it gets even better.  "God saved people through something made of wood, and began a new family" -- this reminds me of the opening sequence in Team America World Police.  (If you haven't seen it, you reary reary need to.)  When Team America (god, in Eric's story) shows up to deal with the terrorists (evil people - and by evil, we mean people who didn't worship god enough because that's all god gives a shit about) and save Paris (humanity, in Eric's story), Team America (all loving god, remember?) nearly destroys the whole city of Paris and, at the end, almost completely oblivious to their near complete destruction of the city (humanity, remember?), congratulates itself for saving almost none of it.

For point #3, Eric wanted to address an old version of the graphic created for the "Genocide and Incest Park" that referenced "2000 years".  The graphic has since been changed (something Eric must be okay with given his blind acceptance of a book that's been changed/re-written/plagiarized for hundreds of years) and the 2000 year reference is gone.  However, give Eric credit for not taking away the opportunity for us to further laugh at him.  He states, "Actually the Story of Noah was written in the Torah, in the book of Genesis, by the hand of Moses, about 3500 years ago."  ha ha ha ha ha ha.  No honest bible scholar would even pretend that Moses existed, let alone claim that he wrote any of the bible.

The final point on this page is an outright fabrication. We know that civilizations existed 12,000 years ago and human writing has been discovered that is more than 5000 years old.  Eric either is completely willfully ignorant or is a flat-out liar.  My money is on the latter.

Page 5

Page 6

Full Page Versions:

Fewer gods, more morals

You want to get your child to do some yard work for an elderly neighbour.  There are a number of approaches you could take and I think we’ll all agree which reflects better on the child and which reflects better on you.

You tell your child to go and rake the leaves for the elderly neighbour with the offer that you’ll pay your child $20 to do it.

You tell your child to go and rake the leaves for the elderly neighbour with the warning that if they don’t, you’ll spank them (or ground them, if you wish).

You tell your child to go and rake the leaves for the elderly neighbour with the suggestion “because that would be a nice thing to do”.

In which of these scenarios do we think we’ve built the most character and instilled the best values in the child?  As a loving parent, which of those approaches would you rather be successful with your child?

Yet, when people of faith often engage in “debates” with atheists, they’ll often suggest that atheists have no moral basis or are immoral or even ask questions like “then why don’t you just rape and steal” (yes, literally that phrase or one close to it).

That atheists clearly do great things and because atheists believe in no sky-daddy punishment or reward, the only other possibility is that atheists do good for the sake of doing good.  Atheists, it must be argued, are the moral ones and, as we continue to demonstrate the case, we must retake the claim to the moral high ground.


(And because people will want to say “What about Stalin or Pol Pot?”, let me quickly address it – being an atheist and doing something because of atheism is not the same thing.  Being a Christian and doing things because you believe the Christian faith demands it of you are also different.  It is important to remember that atheism has no doctrine and is not a belief in something – it is exactly the opposite of belief.)

Ark you kidding me?

On July 7, 2016 something almost completely unbelievable happened.  The douchebags behind the anti-science factory, known for its dinosaur statue having a saddle on it, otherwise called the "Creation Museum" opened their latest absurdity - a claimed re-creation of the Noah's Ark story.  They call it "The Ark Encounter", the Tri-State Freethinkers call it, more appropriately, "The Genocide and Incest Park".

Until days before the opening of the Ark Encounter, I lived my life wrongly assuming that I didn't regularly spend time with people who actually believed that a 500 year old man spent 120 years building a massive "boat" that would fit 2 or 7 of every animal on earth.  As the opening day of the Genocide and Incest Park neared, promotional videos were shared on my wife's Facebook timeline.  Little did we know that the person sharing it, someone my wife considers to be a friend, actually believed in a literal interpretation of the story and that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.  Little did he know that I (along with my wife and a number of others from Sarnia) was actually going to Williamstown, Kentucky to protest the opening of the re-creation of, arguably, one of the most unbelievable stories in the bible.

On opening day, I was part of a group of a hundred or so people who participated in an organized protest of the "park" for a number of reasons.  I honestly believed I'd be attending a protest that would simply be making points about the unbelievable story and that we'd be explaining the myth to people who simply hadn't thought about it.  Despite me knowing people who, at the surface, believe that the biblical story of a "perfect" god creating an imperfect world and, because of her mistake, decided the best way to make things right was to kill everyone but 8 people - Noah, his unnamed wife, Noah's three children (Shem, Ham, Japheth) and their unnamed wives.

When I further think about the story, however, I want to believe that none of my friends actually believe the story.  I was pretty certain that the people we would encounter in Kentucky (the counter protesters and those trying to show us where we were mistaken) would make points and arguments about the story that involved retrofitting the story, trying to explain away inconsistencies or offering ideas that they claim come from other sources that I wasn't familiar with.

What I was pretty certain about turned out to be something I was certainly wrong about.  The creators of the Ark Encounter and their "crack" team of counter protesters (more on them and how they acted in another blog) actually believe the unbelievable.  Not only did they believe it, they were willing to put it on paper and hand it out to us to try to get us to accept "the truth".  In my next blog entry, I'll show pictures of the brochure I was given and give a few thoughts on it.  To my friends who have seen it, they questioned whether it was a Poe and suggested that it may have been made to make fun of the park and not as a serious argument for the truth of it.

I suspect I struggled with anyone "really" believing the story because, as I see it, the Noah story requires a person to accept (in no particular order):

• A 500+ year old man and his three sons could build a massive raft ("arks" are nothing like what is drawn in kids’ books or what was built by Ken Ham's group)
• That there could be enough water to flood the entire world and that it could nearly entirely disappear with no evidence it was ever here
• That two (or seven) of every species of animal on the planet could get to the middle-east -- and in less than 7 days!
• That dinosaurs and humans lived on earth at the same time
• That the earth is less than 10,000 years old
• That 8 - 4 (all related) men and 4 women - people could reproduce (incestuously) fast enough to ultimately create 7 billion people in less than 6000 years
• That a boat not big enough to even fit two of every beetle and two of every rodent could fit 2 (or 7) of EVERY species on earth
• That the boat could also fit enough food for all these animals (forgetting that some of these animals rely on the other animals for their diet, that there was no refrigeration back then and no room to store fresh water!)
• That 8 people could take care of millions of animals (never mind their waste, their requirements for fresh water and the inability of many of the animals to regulate their own body temperature)
• That a "perfect" god would create an imperfect world and would punish almost everything that they created because the objects of their creation simply didn't worship them
• Genocide is moral and acceptable in certain instances
• That upon the waters residing, the pairs of animals (warning: more incest) could each find their way back (and leave no evidence of having been anywhere but where they are found today) to far-off lands and reproduce at such rates to create the populations of today

 And I'm sure, as some have, that people would be able to, through mental gymnastics I'm clearly not capable of, rationalize certain aspects of the story to themselves, I can hardly believe that anyone does believe all this but Ken Ham got over a hundred million (yes, $100,000,000) dollars invested to build a fantastical re-creation of a literally unbelievable plagiarized myth found in the bible.  People, not only as a story, literally believe this batshit crazy idea and are bringing their kids to this monstrous absurdity to indoctrinate their children into accepting the ridiculous.  Science education at its worst - congratulations Kentucky on being the poster-state of absolute stupid.

A day in the life of a skeptic

As an advocate for skepticism and science, I find myself in some rather interesting places and even more interesting discussions.  I find that I have little time to contribute to my blog though my passion and advocacy, I'd argue, is probably stronger and more regular today.  Throughout my day, I'm often confronted with bad ideas and hear mentions of or references to "pure stupid" far more often than I'd hope from my circle of friends and acquaintances.  

I'd like to find it funny when a friend mentions something stupid and, in some ways, I'd like to simply be able to silently laugh to myself and ignore it.  As my wife can attest, that's seldom what happens and I'm more than willing to question an idea or, at times, ridicule it (ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule - though my wife is probably right, more often than not, that there could be a better way to tackle it). 

Recently when a colleague asked about an absence from work, rather than directly answering the question, I explained that I had attended a science rally.  To respond to further questions, I explained that I was advocating against anti-science propaganda and the danger that religious belief brings with it.  As they could not see the obvious connection between religion and anti-science to bad public policy, I had to point out recent laws passed to further legitimize discrimination against certain groups of people (LGBTQ community, women, etc.) and church supported misinformation regarding dying with dignity laws, birth control options (Crisis Pregnancy Centres) and, possibly more importantly, public acceptance of (near) settled science on evolution, climate change and vaccination.

The discussion, like many I have, started with much agreement - they were either surprised that people believed some of the crazy things we talked about or suggested that nobody actually believed them - age of the earth being < 10,000 years, that evolution wasn't true, that vaccines cause autism, that the story of Noah and the Ark was historically accurate and much more.  And, as with nearly all of my discussions, it touched on something that they held a firm, but not supported by evidence, belief or disbelief in.  In this case it was the idea that I supported vaccination.

I pointed out that their dismissal of people who claimed that evolution wasn't true and their almost hysterical laugh at the idea that people believe the Noah's Ark myth is the same feeling that many people have about people who claim/believe vaccines cause autism (and some of those people who accept the science of vaccination may also believe in astrology or homeopathy).  It was at that time that I explained how I blogged and that I couldn't think of a single friend who agreed with all of the propositions that I've made or the positions I've taken and it wasn't my goal to list items until I found something they disagreed with - I actually thought I was listing areas that we'd have in common so they could understand my desire and passion around fighting ignorance and anti-scientific ideas and I wasn't looking to have a disagreement or argument.

Anti-vaccine ideas are often based on ignorance of vaccines or limited scientific understanding.  The position that my colleague held, however, was that vaccines caused autism and, unlike most views on vaccination, this specific claim is almost entirely the result of a fraudulent study by Andrew Wakefield.  I felt it important to educate my co-worker about skepticism and vaccination in general so my (our) lunch later that day turned into a fairly deep discussion about the autism/vaccine controversy and eventually vaccination in general.  

It was clear (and they admitted) they'd not heard the Wakefield study was retracted, that it was found he committed academic fraud and that he lost is license to practice medicine.  They also didn't realize that there have been numerous studies that fully supports there being no link between pediatric vaccines and autism.  I further explained thiomersal (thimerosal), how vaccines work and concepts related to herd immunity.  As a result of our conversation, I think they actually accepted that the "vaccines cause autism" claim is probably false but they (almost) ended our conversation with, “well, it doesn't really matter to me, my children are grown so it's a non-issue”.

I say "almost" ended because it was at this point that I was able to explain "why it matters" that I am a skeptic and why I don't shy away from potential conflict when it comes to doing my (little) part to fight bad ideas wherever they present themselves.  

It matters because they disagreed with something I had said and they perpetuated a disproven myth about vaccines.  It matters because if they were willing to say that to me, would they agree with their children when they suggested they may not vaccinate their kids because of this fraudulent idea?  It matters because if one of their friends/family members were on the fence about vaccinations, would repeating the lie push them to be less likely to vaccinate than they, otherwise, would have been?  It matters because them holding the idea that pediatric vaccines cause autism will likely have them less inclined to getting vaccinated, themselves, for other preventable illnesses (influenza, HPV, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, etc.).  It matters because they may be less certain about other beliefs they have.  

And, most importantly, it matters because I (we) care about our fellow humans and I understand that bad ideas can have impacts that negatively affect us all.

The spreading of bad ideas has to stop somewhere - do your part in dispelling myths whenever you can because bad ideas can have bad consequences.  

When the bush is gone, what are you going to beat around?

For more than a dozen years, values that most of us feel to be true humanistic values have been openly and flagrantly under attack and when the people that should be the most defensive of those values are afraid to truly stand up for them, we're definitely heading in the wrong direction.

What I'm speaking about is the idea that is being referred to, generally, as regressive leftism.  I encourage people to look up the term and to understand about it (both arguments for and arguments against - learning benefits us all).  There's one specific point of it that this blog is going to be about - not identifying the problem with the correct terms.

When the attack on Charlie Hebdo occurred, many people found it acceptable, though, on all other occasions, they would argue that the right to free speech is absolute, to say that the cartoonists were "stupid" for "offending" Islam.  This is victim blaming and, as you'll see in other parts of this blog, I think it is abhorrent.  There is nothing that the cartoonists/publishers did to deserve death.  (Just as leaving your laptop in the back of the car does not make you responsible for its theft and putting the box from your new large screen TV at the curb does not make the criminal less responsible for the later theft of it.)

When the second major terrorist attack occurred in France (though wrongly, as it should have never been a situation of victim blaming), the conversation could very well have changed.  It hardly did.  The Islamic terrorists, though pledging allegiance to an Islamic terrorist organization, were very sparingly identified as such.

The Pulse nightclub massacre occurs and the conversation (though I completely agree that guns are a problem, more on that later) turns to gun control and assault rifles.  Reports quickly tried to distance the attacker from a "true" Islamic terrorist suggesting that he didn't know "true" Islam.

Then, only days ago, an Islamic terrorist drives a large truck through a crowded area and kills 84 (or more) innocent people.  ISIS was quick to claim the terrorist as one of their "soldiers" and it has become (as if it wasn't almost certainly going to turn out that way) absolutely clear that he was driven by religion to commit such an atrocity.

Today, I scroll through my wife's Facebook feed to see people defending religious belief -- that this attack was an aberration of faith and/or that the Islamic terrorist wasn't well educated about Islam.  One part of that argument is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy - that anyone who does anything that doesn't agree with your definition of a thing isn't a "true" one.  The second part of the argument could be completely true (and it is something that this blog has touched on a number of times) - that most followers/believers are far less educated about their faith than many atheists and critics are.

I apologize for the digression but I think it helps illustrate the point.  When Catholics were polled about acceptance of evolution, only 68% of them believe "humans evolved over time" -- despite acceptance of evolution being the actual position of the church.  Recent interviews with Christians revealed general ignorance of the bible - the vast majority of people in the pews are not familiar that the bible stories about Jesus were not written by eye witnesses.  This is a fact that educated theologians, almost without exception, completely agree with.  From a personal experience perspective, when speaking with "average" believers, I have yet to come across one that is familiar with many bible stories/references that I often bring up - a large number of Christians simply know only what is told to them from the pulpit or they are just willfully ignorant and have been sold on the idea that claiming to be a Christian or blindly defending the bible and the church is the right and moral position to take.

It isn't a defense of religion to say that its adherents who are committing atrocities aren't educated enough about that particular religion - it is a scathing indictment of the dangers that religions and faith poses.  It is completely possible that ISIS is using a misinterpretation of the Islamic texts or it may be that ISIS is using religion as justification or even that ISIS is taking advantage of Islamic adherence.  Either position you want to take on that, the finger still points to religion in general and Islam in particular.

Given that this entry is already in excess of 600 words, I won't be thorough in the discussion about what the Koran, Bible and other "holy" books actually say, it is important to not gloss over the fact that the actions and claims of religious terrorists are well supported in the books/doctrines that they adhere to.  Many Christians will probably read this and argue that this is an Islam only problem but, until the Enlightenment (and even now with their record on equal rights (on everything), abortion, birth control, science education and much more), Christians were no better (arguably worse) than Islamic terrorists of today.  The Christian bible has countless horrible ideas and stories and any Christian that denies such only further goes to illustrate the point that whenever a Christian tells me to "read the bible", I'm often correct in stating "it isn't me that hasn't read the bible".

I'll be absolutely clear - Islamic terrorism is real and belief in the unbelievable is to blame.  As Jim Jefferies says "This isn't a war on Islam, it is a war on religion".  Let's call it what it is and the sooner we start to, the better off we'll all be - hopefully it happens while there's still even a bush left for you to beat around.

And you're certain you've chosen the "One True God"?

A follower of this blog sent me the idea for this blog topic (and some great ideas - thank you!).  You may, too, have encountered this.

"I am amazed, to no end, at the ignorance of some believers - when I suggest that I am a skeptic or an atheist and they respond with: 'So you are into Scientology' (often not even stated as a question)"

He suggested that he tries to respond with "You have no idea about Scientology and other religions but you're certain you chose the 'true' one?".

I have often encountered the "Are you a Scientologist?" or "So you believe in Christian Science?" when I mention that I accept the theory of evolution.  It is clearly a sign that the person knows little about science and nothing about either Scientology or Christian Science.  (I've often remarked that 'Christians' will argue with me against Christian Science - they'll say "It's not Christian" and I'll say "It's not science".)

Scientology, for those that don't know, was created by man (as most religions seem to be - given their misogynistic views) - a man - L. Ron Hubbard.  He was a science fiction author (many would argue that Dianetics was his greatest work of fiction) who created Scientology in the middle of the 20th century.  It is not based on science, it is not based on reality - it is a money hungry cult (the difference from other religions is so subtle that there isn't one).

Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) was created by a woman (wow!), Mary Baker Eddy (and she didn't do anything to shed the "master" teachings of Christianity and other monotheistic religions) in the late 1800s.  Christian Science preaches about healing oneself without medical intervention and, as I recall, about the idea that matter only exists if you believe in it (and that matter really doesn't exist).

For someone to ask if I'm a Scientologist or if I'm a "Christian Scientist" suggests that they are not aware of the teachings and beliefs of either of those religions and one must wonder if they know much about competing religions aside from a headline in the newspaper or what their church leaders have decided to tell them about it.  I don't think it'd be a stretch to say that they probably don't.

In reality the problem is deeper than that - many people know little about their own faith and only have heard or accept the whitewashed versions told to them.  Many haven't read their bible in its entirety and many are rather ignorant about the history of their faith.  In street-level debates, I've seldom encountered a believer who is even aware of completely undisputed facts about Christianity.  During a recent conversation with a believer, they expressed utter disbelief when I stated, factually, that the gospels were not written down until decades after Jesus' supposed death and resurrection (I could only imagine their response had I mentioned that Jesus had as many as 18 foreskins!).

I think this only goes to demonstrate that believers don't accept their religion to be true because they've carefully examined a variety of faiths and picked the one they believe is most plausible.  It's likely that they hold to their current faith because they were indoctrinated into it and haven't dared question it because of the strict protestations of their supremely jealous non-existent sky-daddy.

My Dear Friend Robbie Thomas

(Update 4/16/16: Late last night, I was informed that Robbie Thomas has resorted to threats of physical harm.  As a result, all comments are going into moderation and the Sarnia Police have been notified.  If your answer to criticism of your claims is to threaten physical harm, you've already lost the argument.  However, Robbie Thomas (Robbie Poulton) is either a real physical threat to participants in this blog and http://robbiethomas.sarnia.com or this is further evidence of his lies.  If he honestly believes that he is psychic, he's delusional.  If he's delusional, he may very well act out on his threats.  If he knows the psychic game is just a sham, that makes him an even bigger scumbag but not likely to assault someone.  For the safety of all of us, we're not taking any chances.)

My identity is one of the worst kept secrets in the world.  I have been pretty public about who I am and about my beliefs. And for a good number of years, I've been extremely critical of Robbie Thomas who claims he is psychic (he isn't).  He's tried to find out who I was -- he even called people who I blogged about to see if they would identify me.  No such luck.

For the past few months, I've been, as ME, not my pseudonym, me, the real me, calling people that Robbie has abused, been writing emails to people that Robbie claims support him and even identified myself to Robbie in person.

So he's now trying to blackmail me - threatening to tell people who I am or where I live (he's wrong, which makes it even funnier) if I don't take down the blog about him (http://robbiethomas.sarnia.com - which, by the way, isn't mine to take down) and apologize. That's not going to happen, Robbie.

Robbie Thomas, the truth is not on your side.  You can continue to lie and I will continue to point out your lies.  You can continue to harass and abuse people and I will continue to expose you for what you are (not psychic and a pretty big asshole).

And, Robbie, if I'm wrong, prove me wrong.  Identify a single case that you've solved with your psychic abilities and I'll post a retraction as well as petition to have the Stop Robbie Thomas site taken down.  In other words, the blog will live forever.

The Church of Chiropractic

I've blogged before about the church, err, practice of Chiropractic before.  The "DC" after a Chiropractor's name is short for "Doesn't Count".  They aren't medical doctors, they don't practice real medicine and they are often anti-science. Chiropractic is far from what they want you to believe it is. 

Mark Crislip reviews a recent paper that has been pretty actively discussed in and outside the Church (of Chiropractic).  To quote his background section in the article:

The basic theory and practice of chiropractic, as pulled out of thin air in 1895 by DD Palmer, is complete, utter, 100% nonsense. There is no subluxation complex, there is no inane, er, I mean, innate, intelligence (I think my spell check has become conscious), no disease caused by misaligned vertebrae that is fixed by having the spine adjusted by a chiropractor.

If a patient is seeking care for neck pain and receiving diagnosis and treatment based on chiropractic, they are receiving pure, unadulterated pseudo-science.

The article, as are almost all articles over at sciencebasedmedicine.org, is definitely well worth the read.  Check out the whole article.

It's so nice to be back

Wow, so much has changed in the past couple of years yet so much has stayed the same.

First of all, I've corrected the old Stop Robbie Thomas site so that it can be viewed again (http://stoprobbiethomas.blogspot.ca) -- I'm told that the stoprobbie.com domain didn't get auto-renewed because of an expired credit card.  Oh well, the posts are back and hopefully a few of us can spend a bit of time getting new content on the site.

Secondly, I'll try to get back to regular posts on this site but there's always so much going on in my life and my horoscope suggests it is only going to get busier for the next month or so.  (If you believe in horoscopes, this blog might not be your cup of tea.)  If you have a topic that you'd like me to blog about or if there's something you think I might be interested in, skeptic@sarnia.com is the best way to get in contact with me.

For a different dose of skepticism, I encourage you to check out http://www.meetup.com/Sarnia-Port-Huron-Freethinkers.  The organizer has been quite active and pulled together a number of events already.   

Collect the million bucks or shut up & It's YOUR god, you prove it exists

I get email - often from people who agree with my desire to get people to think critically or from people who have something that they think might interest me or the 2 people who read my blog.  However, I also get email from crazy people, people who firmly disagree and others who think/claim that I'm stupid.

First of all, I don't want you to accept what I say - learn for yourself and come to your own conclusions.  I would like for you to understand what constitutes evidence and data and to understand how to evaluate it. 

"Psychics"
Since the majority of my blogs covered psychics for a while, I seem to get a lot of email from people who "want (me) to know something" or to "get the facts".

Explain to me how he was able to give the name of my uncle who had passed away and even the day he passed away. He couldn't have known any other way.
This is a common statement that I hear from people who disagree.  There are a number of things that I think need to be addressed when statements like this are made.  Asking for a copy of the "reading" (ie. video or audio) might help in ruling in/out some approaches.  (I've NEVER been given a copy of a reading by someone who firmly believes in psychics - I have asked numerous times.)

First of all, I'm skeptical to the suggestion that it is as it is stated.  I am fairly certain that the "psychic" didn't say "So, let's first talk about your uncle Jack Smith who died on August 12, 1984."  The "psychic" likely approached it as most cold reading is done - "I'm getting contact from a person, their name starts with a "J" or an "R" or a "S"".  To which the person probably responded "Maybe my uncle Jack?"  "And it seems to me that he died possibly in the summer." "Yeah, he died in August." 

Another thing to consider is that the "psychic" may have been able to get the information another way.  Since appointments are often made, the "psychic" could have searched genealogy sites, newspapers, facebook, etc. for information on the clients before they attended.

The reality is that stories are often exaggerated, details are left out and new information is added.  If your psychic could really do what you're claiming, send him to http://www.randi.org/ to collect his million bucks or shut up.

Real psychics don't charge for their services and they don't profit from it. (In response to my "collect the million bucks")
Right! Errr. Wrong.  I would suggest, then, that psychics don't exist simply because I've never met a self-claimed psychic who offers their services and doesn't charge for it.  By your statement, Robbie Thomas, Sylvia Browne, John Edwards and others are not psychic.  The evidence of their claims would also support your statement.

Pick on the people who are doing the real harm like drug companies.
I've talked about the REAL harm that psychics do - check back through my blog you lazy (or information ignoring) baffoon.  Or check out http://www.whatstheharm.net/.  If it were true that drug companies were causing real harm and offering no benefit, it does not make psychics, all of a sudden, less wrong.  It doesn't make them smaller liars or more honest.  (I do disagree with the suggestion that drug companies are "all bad" - though I'd be the last to suggest that they couldn't be better but that's not the point of this blog entry.)

"God Exists"
(If) you're so certain that god doesn't exist, present your evidence.
This is a tired claim - I'm not the one making the suggestion of existence so the burden lies on YOU (the god believer) to proof that he/she does, in fact, exist.  Until then, god almost certainly does not exist.

May god have mercy on you.
And may my invisible purple unicorn treat you fairly.  Ridiculous statement answered with the ridiculous.  It is like threatening someone who doesn't believe in hell with eternal suffering in hell.  I'm not worried about your god because I'm not concerned about smurfs, fairies, gods or anything else that doesn't exist.

Free Speech? Come on Marilyn Gladu

It has been broadly reported that Marilyn Gladu recently claimed, when referring to Trump, “the only bright light is that he has sort of restored freedom of speech to America".   The Sarnia Observer

Though I don't disagree with the suggestion that Donald Trump is saying things without thinking or saying things that many, even if they do believe such, would never say in public, let's not equate that, simply, with free speech.

Donald Trump, through his actions, has demonstrated that free speech is not absolute - he has spent considerable time and effort to take away the speech of others.  Trump's threats of lawsuits and actually following through with some are an affront to free speech not an encouragement of it.  Free speech also comes with the rights of others to express contrary views. 

Consider when a joke was made about Donald Trump's inane "birther" claims about Barack Obama.  Donald Trump was offering 5 million dollars for Obama to release his passport and college records.  To show how stupid of a request it was, Bill Maher offered $5 million to the charity of Trump's choice (Maher suggested The Hair Club for Men) if Trump could provide proof that he wasn't "the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan". 

Donald Trump, Marilyn Gladu's champion of free speech, sued Bill Maher. (Unsuccessfully, mind you.)

More recently, at Trump rallies, dissenting views are silenced by Trump - people are kicked out.  That's not free speech, that's the desire to say whatever you want without allowing others the opportunity to respond. 

For more on what a free speech advocate would be advised not to do, see The Atlantic: The Lawsuits of Donald Trump.

Marilyn Gladu, you have the right to say whatever you would like.  We have the right to point out when something you say is absurd - that's free speech.  Suing me would suggest you don't think the right of free speech is for everyone.

(Which brings me to this: At some point in the future, I'll tackle Marilyn's views on the separation of church and state, her belief that Muslim immigrants "want to kill everybody" and other public statements she has made that we should all find absolutely appalling.)

Robbie Thomas has another book coming out

Being a strong supporter (can you call it that?) of psychics, I can't begin to tell you how excited I am that Robbie Thomas, the most consistent psychic I know of (0 cases solved in more than 23 years), is coming out with another book.

For those who aren't familiar, I've talked about Robbie Thomas almost as much as Robbie Thomas has talked about himself.  This site has often taken a skeptical look at the claims that the scumbag (read some of the entries in this blog) has made.

To get a few things out of the way before we deal with the book in particular, the following are not disputed:

• Robbie Thomas has never solved a single crime using his self-proclaimed psychic abilities.
• Robbie Thomas is not psychic (nobody is).
• Robbie Thomas has claimed that kidnapped children were still alive when the evidence is clear that they had already been murdered at that point.
• Robbie Thomas has lied to numerous people that he can help find their loved ones or find those responsible for the crimes committed against their family members.
• Robbie Thomas was not involved in solving the Tori Stafford murder.
• Robbie Thomas did not solve the Logan Tucker case.  
• Robbie Thomas has suggested, to those not familiar with the case, that he was involved in the Karen Caughlin case (it has not been solved, by the way).
• Robbie did not solve the Cezar Cano case (didn't even HELP solve it!)
• Robbie claims that he was attacked by a hate group!
• Robbie Thomas was exposed by his manager.

I have reached out to Robbie but I'm still waiting for a response.

Actually, what more is there to say?

With love, SarniaSkeptic.