For centuries, religion was insulated from criticism in Britain. First its opponents were burned, then jailed, then shunned. But once there was a free marketplace of ideas, once people could finally hear both the religious arguments and the rationalist criticisms of them, the religious lost the British people. Their case was too weak, their opposition to divorce and abortion and gay people too cruel, their evidence for their claims non-existent. Once they had to rely on persuasion rather than intimidation, the story of British Christianity came to an end….

Now that only six percent of British people regularly attend a religious service, it’s only natural that we should dismantle the massive amounts of tax money and state power that are automatically given to the religious to wield over the rest of us. It’s a necessary process of building a secular state, where all citizens are free to make up their own minds….

After the race riots in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley in 2001, the official investigations found that faith schools were a major cause….

On average, [faith schools] get higher grades. But look again. A number of studies, including by the conservative think thank Civitas, have blown a hole in this claim. They have proven that faith schools systematically screen out children who will be harder to teach: children from poor families, and less bright children. Once you look at how much a school improves the pupils it actually admits, the only real measure of a school’s success, it turns out faith schools do less well than other schools—which isn’t surprising given they waste so much time teaching them crazy nonsense like Virgin births and Noah’s Ark.

Multiple valences and multiple bonds perform two vital functions in nature. First of all, they store energy. Many micro-organisms use this energy storage capability, and the most common cases use the two most abundant multiple valence elements: sulfur and iron. Thus some bacteria oxidize sulfur, others reduce it. Iron oxidizing bacteria were probably responsible for creating most of the world’s iron deposits.

As Alan Cromer noted in Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature Of Science (1993):

From the work of the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, we know that human beings have a fundamentally egocentric conception of the world. Growing up in modern society means learning to accept the existence of an external world separate from oneself. It is hard. Most of humankind, for most of its history, never learned to distinguish the internal world of thoughts and feelings with the external world of objects and events. … Cutting this connection, which is necessary before science can develop, goes against the grain of human nature.

Babies start out with a fundamentally magic view of the world: they cry, things happen. So it’s intuitively obvious that the universe should respond to our wishes….

The problem with the Middle East today is not Islam. The Koran has passages that urge forgiveness and mercy just as forcefully as the Bible. It also has passages that justify vengeance and cruelty as much as the Old Testament. There is a vigorous debate in some circles over whether Islam is really a “religion of peace.” Islam can be a religion of peace, but it arose in a region whose cultures are not cultures of peace. Islam took root in societies driven by a manic obsession with personal status, hypersensitivity to personal and group insults, inability to accept defeat, and paranoia – often bordering on clinical – regarding male sexual potency and female sexual infidelity. And despite its virtues, Islam failed to transform those societies. Instead, the surrounding cultures co-opted and contaminated Islam, selectively emphasized the doctrines that reinforced their cultural prejudices while neutering those that posed any radical challenge to the values of the society, and finally transformed Islam over large parts of its realm into a vehicle for justifying petty revenge and sexual paranoia.

Whenever I’m disposed to think unkindly about Islam, I remember two Muslims in particular. One, a Kuwaiti, narrowly avoided death at the hands of the Iraqis during the occupation of Kuwait. When he was threatened with execution, he asked for five minutes to pray first. The other, the imam of Kladanj in Bosnia, was a gentle, scholarly man who was delighted to show us his mosque and share memories of his pilgrimage to Mecca with a couple of respectful non-Muslims. If either of these people were Christians, they’d be held up as shining examples of what Christianity can do. Islam can produce people of peace.

Christianity can be a religion of peace, too, but in the Jim Crow South it was perverted into a vehicle for expressing resentment over defeat and exacting petty vengeance on blacks. “We took on an opponent three times our size, to protect something that didn’t deserve to be protected, and we lost, so we’ll take it out on Blacks.” In fact, the Christianity of the Ku Klux Klan (and extremists like Westboro Baptist Church) is a near perfect analogy for the radical Islam of jihadists….

The holy book of the religion can become the object of worship, so that radical Islamists can become rabid over insults to the Koran, yet simultaneously ignore its teachings (Sura 17.104 says “And We said to the Israelites after him: Dwell in the land ….,” a verse blithely ignored by the anti-Israel crowd), or radical Christians can display the same fury over any questioning of the authority of the Bible, yet display the grossest ignorance of what the Bible actually says.

For all the harm it has sometimes caused, it seems clear that the Western world’s bias in favor of black and white, right and wrong, was indispensable to the development of science. A culture that views things in terms of black and white can learn to see shades of gray; it is not at all clear that a culture that sees only shades of gray can learn to see black and white. A culture committed to right and wrong answers will eventually see that over-zealous application of that concept sometimes fails to agree with reality; it yields wrong results. But in a culture where differences are routinely explained away as a matter of individual perspective or thoughts influencing reality, how could anyone deduce the existence of invariable laws?….

Paranormalists actually assert that magical phenomena have a basis in reality, and that there is a mechanism for magical processes. The best known varieties include:

• Clairvoyance: foreseeing the future
• Telekinesis: exerting forces with the mind
• Telepathy: communication with other minds without physical means
• Extrasensory Perception (ESP): sensing actions without actual physical communication

There’s nothing inherently irrational about testing these ideas; the problem is that the tests routinely fail. Rather than accept the implications of the tests (the phenomena didn’t show up, or after enough failures, that they don’t exist), paranormalists resort to evasions: the phenomena are real but not susceptible to conventional experiments, excessive controls to guard against fraud dampen the phenomena, skepticism dampens the phenomena (only people who believe in them can test for them), rare spectacular hits mean something but long runs of random results don’t, and so on.

More than any other city, Las Vegas is built on the laws of probability and thronged with people trying to beat them. If paranormal phenomena exist, the casinos would spot it.

It’s significant that the list of paranormal phenomena above includes most of the supernatural special effects of more conventional religion: prophecy (clairvoyance), miracles (telekinesis), and visions (telepathy and ESP). the only thing lacking is a moral code. All the miraculous fringe benefits of a religion with none of the muss and fuss of not stealing, not committing adultery, and so on.

That’s actually not quite right, as there’s a big overlap between the above (New Age) beliefs and the acceptance of the idea of karma/reincarnation, which implies the Golden Rule just as surely as anything in scripture does. With karma and reincarnation, if you steal or commit adultery in this life, you’ll be on the receiving end of the same behaviors in a future life. That’s plenty of “muss and fuss,” where the expected punishment exactly fits the crime.

[T]here’s precious little atheism that doesn’t resort to some kind of consolatory religion, minus God. If there is absolutely no afterlife, then a second after you die, it won’t matter to you whether you lived in luxury or grinding poverty, freedom or a concentration camp. When the last person who knew you dies and the last record of your existence disappears, it won’t matter at all what your life was like. Most atheists, pressed on this point, will say that it “still matters,” as if there’s some kind of Cosmic Consciousness out there that keeps score even if you’re not there to remember it. If there’s no judgment or arbiter of values, then every value statement is, at bottom, merely an opinion. Ultimately, Elvis on black velvet is as valid a work of art as anything by Picasso or Rembrandt. It is perfectly possible to live a long and full life exploiting others and die happy. Few atheists have the courage to face this issue squarely; most fall back on the ethics of Voltaire or Bertrand Russell (in other words, arguments from authority), the common consensus of society, the greatest good for the greatest number, and so on. But really, why should I care about the greatest good for others if I can increase my own good at the expense of others? In fact the most coldly rational strategy is to encourage everyone else to act ethically while I ally myself with like-minded people to exploit them.

Indeed, a lot of the good behaviors we see from atheists today are, I think, the product of them being raised with religious values, and then thinking themselves out of those cults, but still retaining “what their mothers raised them to be.” (I’m speaking for myself there, too, as someone who grew up with a mother who was a missionary in early-’60s Europe; who later spent a decade believing that the Cosmic Consciousness of God and guru were aware of his every thought and action; and who, by now, has no pangs of conscience whatsoever when downloading copyrighted digital content, which I wouldn’t have considered doing even if it had been available, growing up.)

So, you wanna play “Who’s responsible for Hitler?” Fine, let’s play….

One famous medieval diatribe against the Jews has an elaborate plan for making their lives miserable:

1. First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians.
2. Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
3. Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.
4. Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.
5. Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews….
6. Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess.
7. Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen. 3:19). For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants….

That was written by Martin Luther; it’s a thoroughly evil little pamphlet from 1543 titled On the Jews and Their Lies. This is the guy that Halley’s Bible Handbook calls “Next to Jesus and Paul, the Greatest Man of all the ages”….

The irony is that Luther, early in his career, condemned abuses of the Jews. He seems to have hoped that they would respond to his kinder, gentler Christianity. But when they didn’t, he turned on them.

This is not to defend the Catholic Church, which has its own long list of anti-Semitic sins, but to demolish entirely the pretense that Things Would Have Been Different if Real Christians had been in charge….

Luther was an absolutely classic authoritarian, someone who felt justified in opposing any authority that impeded him but who could simultaneously demand that everyone else submit to authority. There’s more than a passing similarity to Hitler, who lashed out at the intellectuals who spurned him by instituting a cult of authority. If Darwin bears some moral culpability for the Holocaust, where does that leave Luther and the people who have treated him as a hero?….

Hitler never used evolution in a rigorous biological sense [in Mein Kampf]. By far most of the usages use evolution as synonymous with “development” or “historical forces.” Not a single usage is remotely scientific and not a single one uses evolution to argue that Germany should adopt some policy or take some course of action. Hitler’s usages are almost those of a vitalist—he seems to think evolution is driven from within by “spirit of sacrifice in favour of the common weal” or “the vital urge and struggle to live.” In fact, since the word “Entwicklung” occurs far more than twelve times and is mostly translated as “development,” one has to wonder if Hitler was even aware of Darwin’s ideas at all….

Luther … did launch the Protestant Reformation, although so many other people broke with Rome at that time that it seems inevitable that someone would get away with it. And almost single handedly, he standardized German with his translation of the Bible. But he was a deeply flawed, contradictory and conflicted person. And under the veneer of spirituality, once you start reading his works, was a very vile, spiteful, and hate-filled person. Most historians draw a pretty straight line from Luther’s anti-Semitism to Hitler’s.

The doctrine of Transubstantiation is obviously a ridiculous one, and that ridiculousness is apparent to anyone who stops to question it, be they a child or an adult. The fact that I felt the need to suppress these doubts and questions (to even ponder them would have been sinful) and the fact that millions of adults continue to profess belief in a doctrine that even a small child with the most basic of critical thinking skills can easily debunk is a depressing reminder of the effectiveness of childhood Catholic indoctrination….

[M]illions of adults, all across the world, believe that, as the Pope puts it, the Eucharist is “Jesus who makes himself food.” That is both laughable and incredibly sad. Transubstantiation is a perfect example of the nonsensical nature of religious belief, and the fact that so many individuals unquestioningly accept such a ludicrous and laughable notion illustrates the insidious power of religious indoctrination.

Further, the fact that non-Catholics are expected to avoid questioning or pointing out the absurdity of this doctrine, out of fear of offending Catholics, is a clear example of the automatic and unquestioned respect that our society grants to religious beliefs. Think about it like this: if your neighbor told you they believe that, each night, their pet dog turns into a unicorn, runs around doing magical deeds, and then transforms back into a dog before sunrise, you would almost certainly think them delusional and/or crazy, and you probably wouldn’t be afraid to tell them so. However, because our society offers religion so much undeserved and automatic respect, pointing out the sheer absurdity of the doctrine of Transubstantiation is considered by many to be a disrespectful act, while few would think it disrespectful to point out the ridiculousness of the less absurd (yes, less absurd) belief in dog-to-unicorn transformation, for example.

When a coronal mass ejection reaches Earth, it interacts with our planet’s magnetic field, potentially creating a geomagnetic storm. Solar particles stream down the field lines toward Earth’s poles. Those particles collide with atoms of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, which then glow like miniature neon signs.

Aurorae normally are visible only at high latitudes. However, during a geomagnetic storm aurorae can light up the sky at lower latitudes.

In 2004, the National Center for Science Education was represented by [Eugenie] Scott on Penn and Teller’s Showtime television show Bullshit!, on the episode titled “Creationism,” on which Dr. Scott offered philosophical views about the creationist and intelligent design movements. She noted “it would be unfair to tell students that there is a serious dispute going on among scientists whether evolution took place” because there is no such debate between scientists. She further noted that “a lot of the time the creationists … they’ll search through scientific journals and try to pull out something they think demonstrates evolution doesn’t work and there is a kind of interesting rationale behind it. Their theology is such that if one thing is wrong with the Bible you have to throw it all out so that’s why Genesis has to be interpreted literally. They look at science the same way. If one little piece of the evolutionary puzzle doesn’t fit the whole thing has to go.” Scott then explained, “that’s not the way science is done.”

Scott serves on the National Advisory Council of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and on the National Advisory Council of Americans for Religious Liberty. In 1999 Scott was awarded the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award for “for tirelessly defending the separation of church and state by ensuring that religious neutrality is maintained in the science curriculum of America’s public schools,” and in 2006 was one of the three judges chosen to make the awards.

[Hans Berger, the inventor of EEG] was a big believer in psychic phenomena: namely telepathy. He believed that there was an underlying physical basis for mental phenomena, and that these mental processes—being physical in nature—could be transmitted between people. Thus, in order to show that psychic phenomena exist, Berger sought to show the nature of the underlying physical processes of thoughts and emotions.

See, if you’re hoping that the existence of telepathy, say, would imply that the mind cannot be reduced to the physical brain, you’re quite mistaken. The real ability to communicate with the dead would indeed imply that separability; but telepathy itself, and psychic phenomena in general, even if they existed, could just as well be purely physical phenomena.

The greatest hope for the idea of consciousness being separable from the physical brain is actually testimony like that of (gak) Ken Wilber, of being fully conscious while flatlining on an EEG, after years of deep meditation. (It would not surprise me at all if the Wilber-admiring Sam Harris got his “not at all sure that consciousness can be reduced to brain function” hope from exactly that phenomena.) But even there, the brain could still be producing EM waves, just at frequencies much higher than anybody has bothered to measure. (Valerie Hunt did studies of the aura utilizing a similar idea.) Or the witnessing, self-aware consciousness of each one of us could be the product of chemicals in the brain, thus not showing up on an EEG.

[Berger] initially studied blood flow and used it as an index to measure “P-energy” (psychic energy) associated with mentation and feelings. Of course, this being prior to the advent of neuroimaging, there was no way to actually measure cerebral blood flow from a person. So Berger made a leap. The brain receives so much blood from the heart (about 20% of the cardiac output), that the brain pulses with each heartbeat (you can check out a video of the human brain pulsing here). Parents with newborns might even be able to notice this phenomenon if they lightly touch the soft spot at the top of their baby’s head.

Ooh, Brahmarandhra alert!

So the only reason Berger saw the EEG signal in the first place was because he was working with the same patients he was trying to record brain pulsations from. And the only reason he was interested in these brain pulsations was to try and tie cerebral activity (blood flow) to mental states to show that thoughts have a physical basis. And the main reason he cared about that was to provide a theoretical framework through which psychic phenomena could operate!