Scientologists "heal" Haiti victims by touching them

“Volunteer ministers” from the Church of Scientology are descending upon Haiti to help quake victims. That’s great! Oh, wait, how are they helping them? By using magical touching powers to reconnect nervous systems:

“We’re trained as volunteer ministers, we use a process called ‘assist’ to follow the nervous system to reconnect the main points, to bring back communication,” she said.

“When you get a sudden shock to a part of your body the energy gets stuck, so we re-establish communication within the body by touching people through their clothes, and asking people to feel the touch.”

Thank you, Scientology, for being completely worthless and insane. People are injured and dying, and you’re going around poking people. You’re doing more harm then good by making people think that they’ve actually received some sort of medical care, when you haven’t done diddly squat.

I love the skeptical quote from the doctor, which sums up things quite nicely:

Some doctors at the hospital are skeptical. One US doctor, who asked not to be named, snorted: “I didn’t know touching could heal gangrene.”

Indeed. Maybe the Scientologists could enlighten us on this wonderful healing power? It would certainly make universal health care more viable, if all we had to do was touch people.

Indiana still pushing for a constitutional ban on gay marriage

Want to know why I didn’t apply to any graduate schools in the Midwest? Here’s reason #1264:

A Republican-controlled Senate committee voted 6-4 to approve a proposal that could eventually lead to a constitutional ban on gay marriage and civil unions in Indiana. Even if the proposal clears the full GOP-led Senate, it will likely go nowhere in the Democrat-controlled House.

Democratic House Speaker Patrick Bauer of South Bend has repeatedly said that amending the state’s constitution isn’t necessary because Indiana law already prohibits same-sex marriage. The Senate has voted several times since 2005 to pass a proposed amendment banning gay marriage, but the proposals have not cleared the House.

Oh, what a great reason to argue against a constitutional ban on gay marriage! We already have a law! You know, not because it removes basic rights from a significant group of people and is morally reprehensible. Thank you, Indiana.

The kicker is that Indiana cares so much about hating on the gays that it’s repeatedly wasted its time on this stupid law since 2005. Don’t we have better things to be figuring out? Maybe, I dunno, the horrible budget that’s resulted in tons of funding being cut from education across the state? Nope, an education would probably just make people more accepting of others who are different from them – therefor we gotta focus on banning gay marriage!

You know why Indiana suffers from such a brain drain? Because educated people like myself run the fuck away and never come back.

But since some people will be stuck in Indiana in the future, if you care about marriage equality, go here to tell your Senator to vote NO on SJR-13. Or better up, look up your Indiana Senator here and give them a call.

Morality: Philosophy vs Biology

This semester I’m taking an introductory course through the Philosophy department called Biomedical ethics. After four classes, I’m convinced I’m insane for taking this class “for fun.” So far we’ve just been learning about ethics in general, and my brain is already melting. Somehow my mind manages to agree and disagree with about every topic we’re presented, no matter how contradictory they are. I admit I’m totally unfamiliar with philosophy, but right now it just seems like a whole lot of bullshit that grad students pull out of their ass while at the pub.

I’m fine on understanding sound and valid arguments – those are based on logic, which I understand – but my mind explodes when we start talking about various moral theories. I think my problem is that I view things as a scientist and a biologist, and I have a really hard time getting into the mindset of a philosopher.

For example, our professor has spent the last two classes talking about how moral subjectivism (moral statements are true and false, but their truth is determined by the attitudes and beliefs of society and culture) and emotivism (moral statements are neither true nor false) are piles of crap. I don’t know if this is the common opinion of the philosophical community, but it doesn’t sit well with me.

As an atheist, I don’t think moral codes were carved into stone or written in a book. Rather, evolutionary biology and instincts explain most of our moral behavior (I recommend Marc Hauser’s book Moral Minds). We automatically and rapidly come up with moral decisions based on instincts and emotions, and then after the fact we come up with reasoning to support our opinion. So are we really all just emotivists, but trick ourselves into thinking we’re being rational?

I also don’t understand how you can prove something to be morally right or wrong without invoking evolved behavior/emotion/instinct. Let’s say my professor is right and moral subjectivism and emotivism are totally and utterly wrong, and we’re just little logical machines. Whether you subscribe to consequentialist or deontological moral theories (or other ones, I have no idea what I’m talking about), it still doesn’t seem right to me. Let me play the annoying child for a bit:

Philosopher: Stabbing a child in the face is morally wrong.
Me: Why?
Philosopher: Because it lowers the happiness of others/causes harm to others, and that is morally wrong.
Me: Why?
Philosopher: Because that’s the moral theory we’re using.
Me: Why?
Philosopher: *fails Jen*

Alright, yes, I think stabbing a child in the face is morally wrong. And if you asked me to outline the certain moral “rules” I follow, they would generally be to reduce harm to others. But why should that be my rule? Why do we label reducing harm as good? The way this class is teaching it, it seems like right and wrong are some sort of voodoo mysterious universal constants that simply are.

But the way I see it, morality evolved. We want to reduce harm to others because we evolved in a group situation, and the only way we could survive is if we stopped killing our family and tribe members long enough for us to all cooperate. If we evolved in a more independent environment, we may have a totally different moral system. Maybe the moral rule that would have evolved would have been caring only about your own children, and killing other children would be seen as a moral act.

Of course, maybe I’m totally wrong. I’m not familiar with philosophy, and it’s quite possible that I’m over thinking it by wondering where morals even came from to begin with. But that seems like a really important point to me. If instinct decides what’s morally right and wrong, what value do all of these various theories have? They’re not merely trying to predict what humans do do, because we don’t always act morally – they’re trying to say what we should do. I have a hard time accepting that my professor 100% rejects emotivism when everything seems to start there, and then get tweaked by a cognitive theory.

Aannddd I’ve gotten to the point where I think I’m self contradictory and my brain has oozed onto the floor. I really don’t know what I’m talking about and none of this stuff makes sense to me. As this is an atheist blog, I have a good feeling that I have a fair number of philosophers (amateur or otherwise) in my readership. Maybe you all can help explain this to me, because I’m not even making sense to myself.

There’s still time to support Skepchicamp!

While I will no longer be able to speak at Skepchicamp, I still think it’s a great cause worthy of support. If you want to help fund this awesome mini conference, there are still tickets left for the big godless party in Chicago this Saturday. For $30 dollars you get booze, food, and the company of awesome people like multiple Skepchicks, Hemant from Friendly Atheist, and me! EDIT: And Hilary Mark Nelson, who is so inconceivably wonderful not only because he is bribing me with chocolate, but he’s also driving, which leaves myself and others able to imbibe alcohol. Woooo! How could you resist?

Oh, though if you’re a single lady, you definitely shouldn’t come. I don’t want any competition in the auction for a date with Hemant. Though gay guys are still encouraged to come – if I’m going to lose, the outcome might as well be hilariously awkward for Hemant.

Now if you excuse me, I’m going to go hide from a certain someone who’ll be angry that I’m scaring away all the cute females…

There's still time to support Skepchicamp!

While I will no longer be able to speak at Skepchicamp, I still think it’s a great cause worthy of support. If you want to help fund this awesome mini conference, there are still tickets left for the big godless party in Chicago this Saturday. For $30 dollars you get booze, food, and the company of awesome people like multiple Skepchicks, Hemant from Friendly Atheist, and me! EDIT: And Hilary Mark Nelson, who is so inconceivably wonderful not only because he is bribing me with chocolate, but he’s also driving, which leaves myself and others able to imbibe alcohol. Woooo! How could you resist?

Oh, though if you’re a single lady, you definitely shouldn’t come. I don’t want any competition in the auction for a date with Hemant. Though gay guys are still encouraged to come – if I’m going to lose, the outcome might as well be hilariously awkward for Hemant.

Now if you excuse me, I’m going to go hide from a certain someone who’ll be angry that I’m scaring away all the cute females…

Greta Christina to speak at Purdue on Atheism & Sexuality

You want to know a perk of being President of an atheist club? You have a lot of say over what speakers get invited to your school. We’ve already had Hemant Mehta and PZ Myers speak here, and when I saw that Greta Christina was added to the Secular Student Alliance’s speaker bureau, I knew I had to snatch her up! And I’m happy to announce that my Favorite Atheist Blogger Trifecta will be completed, and you’re invited to see Greta speak at Purdue:

Atheism & Sexuality

Friday, Feb 5th
5:30 – 7:00 PM
WTHR 172, Oval Dr.
West Lafayette, IN

One hour lecture by Greta Christina with time for Q&A, free and open to the public

The sexual morality of traditional religion tends to be based, not on solid ethical principles, but on a set of taboos about what kinds of sex God does and doesn’t want people to have. And while the sex-positive community offers a more thoughtful view of sexual morality, it still often frames sexuality as positive by seeing it as a spiritual experience. What are some atheist alternatives to these views? How can atheists view sexual ethics without a belief in God? And how can atheists view sexual transcendence without a belief in the supernatural?

Sponsored by the Society of Non-Theists and the Queer Student Union

If you’re in the West Lafayette area, you should definitely come (and RSVP on Facebook)! Though if you’re closer to Indiana University in Bloomington, Greta will be speaking there the night before – keep watching the Secular Alliance of IU’s website for more information.

I’m happy to be hosting a great reply to that Porn and Popcorn nonsense that happened last semester!

Religiosity as a mating strategy

A new study out of Arizona State University has some interesting findings on people’s self described religiosity as a mating strategy:

To probe the relationship between sex and God more explicitly, Kenrick and colleague Yexin Jessica Li presented hundreds of students at their university with dating profiles of highly attractive men or women, then probed them about their religious beliefs. A control group of 1500 students merely filled out the religion survey.

Men and women who looked at attractive members of the same sex reported stronger religious feelings than those who checked out prospective mates or just filled in the survey. They were more likely to say “I believe in God” and “We’d be better off if religion played a bigger role in people’s lives.”

“It’s an interesting and surprising phenomenon,” says Kenrick, who speculates that people ramp up their belief in a system that tends to enforce monogamy when they’re confronted with fierce sexual competition.

This correlation is interesting, but I think you have to be careful on how to interpret the results. It’s not saying that being religious makes someone a better mate or more faithful. Rather, these people think that others will view high religiosity more favorably. Religious people generally see religiosity as a “good” trait, so they may exaggerate their beliefs when in a competitive environment.

For some anecdotal evidence, I know I did this when I was trying to woo a Lutheran in high school. I was still agnostic then, but I would ramp it up to vague philosophical deist around him. I wasn’t purposefully trying to deceive him; it was subconscious. But it worked – we ended up dating for nine months.

If you had a bunch of nonbelievers competing for a mate, we may have the exact opposite effect – we’d exaggerate our skeptical thinking because we see that as a “good” trait to have. We may be extra careful about saying something superstitious or making emotional arguments. Or if I was wooing a vegetarian, I probably wouldn’t order a steak for dinner and wear a fur coat. It’s human nature to modify your behavior in order to make others happy or find a mate, and this study illustrates that religious belief is no different – a behavior subconsciously used to suit your needs in social situations, not necessarily something you believe in for its truth.

God Hates Haiti

No, this isn’t another post about Pat Robertson’s stunning ignorance. It seems that the Westboro Baptist Church were inspired by his line of thinking and have launched a new website: God Hates Haiti (NOTE: Visiting their site probably gives them money, so visit at your own guilty conscience). You’re greeted with an image of a smiling Westboro protester amidst the rubble in Haiti, and a list of links about why Haiti received God’s wrath.…

Yeah, I really have nothing to say other that fuck you, Westboro Baptist Church. You hatred is so fucking predictable that I’m having a hard time being shocked by it anymore – and that’s pretty scary.

How not to promote female atheists

Hey guys, remember that giant list I made of awesome female atheists? And how I talked about the importance of promoting this minority within the atheist community? Yeah, this is not the way to do it:

Dude: @jennifurret Is there going to be a bikini beauty contest in Skepchicamp?
Me: This is the kind of sexist BS I’m talking about. Not funny RT @Dude: Is there going to be a bikini beauty contest in Skepchicamp?
Dude: @jennifurret How’s that sexist? Nothing wrong with a bikini contest. As a matter of fact, it would be a great way to promote Skepchicamp.
Me: @Dude Because it’s a conference focusing on skepticism, intelligence, and empowering women, yet you reduced us to our boobs
Dude: @jennifurret Are you implying a bikini contest is all about boobs, no intelligence?
Me: Uh, yes? RT @Dude: Are you implying a bikini contest is all amount boobs, no intelligence?
Dude: @jennifurret Why? I don’t think boobs and intelligence is mutually exclusive, ie we can get only one but not both.
Me: @Dude I think you should stop while you’re ahead
Dude: @jennifurret To compete with Christianity, we need to package boobs and intelligence together as a killer product.
Me: Keep digging that hole RT @Dude: To compete with Christianity, we need to package boobs and intelligence together as a killer product.
Dude: @jennifurret You are so evil!
Me: I am merely repeating the things you are saying. You produce the consequences RT @Dude: You are so evil!

Okay, I’ll admit I’m kind of on a short fuse about this topic at the moment. Usually the first tweet (which came out of the blue) would illicit nothing more than an eye roll, but last night I watched the PZ vs the Preacher blogtv fundraiser. I was getting pissed how whenever Ashley or ZOMGitsCriss were on screen, the chat room devolved into “Show us your tits!” and creepy sexual comments. I hate how on one hand you have men talking about how we need more outspoken female atheists, and then on the other hand you have completely socially inept sexist creepers making us want to go back into hiding. Yes, it’s the internet, and people will say things they usually wouldn’t dare say in real life – but those thoughts are still there, and that’s distasteful enough.

Good looks and intelligence are not mutually exclusive, but good looks shouldn’t matter when judging based on intelligence. Is it a coincidence that when I think of the female bloggers and YouTubers I follow, a high percentage range from moderately attractive to smoking hot? I’d love to think that someone who would be judged as “unattractive” who was also smarter and wittier would be just as successful, but that seems like the exception rather than the rule. Males don’t have to stand up to that sort of scrutiny.

Boobs should not be the marketing scheme for atheism, nor should we have to put up with subtle sexism in a movement promoting skepticism. I don’t want to ban sexual discussion or humor – hell, I’d be the last person to suggest that. However, there is a difference between me talking about my sexuality and someone yelling “Show me your titties!!!”; between posing for a sexy Skepchick calendar and having someone suggest you should have a bikini contest during a conference; between us all trading juvenile boob jokes after I initiate it and someone making an irrelevant comment about my chest whenever I post a photo.

Think of it in terms of consent.

When I’m initiating a conversation or a joke, I’m giving you permission to join in. Bringing it up out of the blue, often in a crass way, is jarring because sexuality is so private. Some women will open up more than others – but just because I open up frequently doesn’t mean it’s a free for all. Off topic boob comments, marriage proposals, and sexy costume suggestions (I wish I wasn’t making this up, folks) get old after a while, even for an avowed pervert like myself.

I don’t think that most of the time there is ill will. I do think that most guys are oblivious at how such comments can make women feel like they’re being reduced to their breasts. Especially in a community that cherishes intelligence, logic, reasoning, and wit, being judged on looks is just plain annoying.

So do me a favor guys: Think before you speak. And if your fellow man forgets this simple rule, please remind him.

A superbowl ad that manages to combine all of my favorite things!

I’ll admit I’m one of those people who tunes into the Superbowl just to see the hilarious commercials. That’s why I’m saddened to find out that my commercial viewing will be sullied by this nonsense:

Focus on the Family will air a 30-second “life- and family-affirming” television spot, featuring University of Florida star quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, during the coverage. …

Tebow and his mother will share one of their many positive personal stories, Schneeberger said, but he wouldn’t reveal which one. One contender is Pam Tebow’s decision to carry her son to term despite a life-threatening pregnancy in the Philippines, where she and her husband, Bob, were serving as Christian missionaries.

Focus on the Family + Tim Tebow + Anti-abortion emotional stories = Jen vomiting all over her new HD TV

But this is the part that really gets me:

“Every cent for this ad was paid for by generous donors who specifically gave for this project because they are excited about this opportunity for Focus to show who we are and what we do,” Schneeberger said.

This is supposed to be a good thing that about $2.5 million was raised for a stupid commercial? If you people really cared about families and life, why don’t you give that money to a better fund? How about food shelters, child clinics, or education? How about supporting all of those unwanted children you’re forcing women to bring into the world? No, instead you need to go on national television guilting women about a difficult but sometimes necessary life choice because Jesus told you to. Yep, you’re really such a moral, ethical group of people.