Archive for the Uncategorized Category

The Four Types of Religious Beliefs and Behavior

Posted in Uncategorized on October 23, 2015 by sometimesafoggynotion

One common thing seen in critiques of religion is the claim that it is somehow wrong to criticize religion, which is heard not just from religious people but also from secular people who seem to have an idea that there is something inherently bad about criticizing religion.

Although it’s easy to point out the logical fallacies of such claims, but doesn’t see to sink in with such critics, who basically put religion as “off limits” for criticism.  I think no idea should ever be off limits from criticism and think that the type of idea that runs counter to modern secular values.

So I will attempt to re-frame the criticism of religion in a simple, straight-forward way so that it can easier to understand why it is important to be critical of religion.  To illustrate, I will divide religious beliefs and behavior into 4 different types.

TYPE I Religious Beliefs & Behavior
Type I religious beliefs and behavior refers to an inward focus of a religious individual.  So it is someone applying religious beliefs and practice to themselves and no one else.  Such religious beliefs can either be helpful or harmful to a person, depending on the circumstances, but the fact that they do not try to impose their religious beliefs on others makes this the best type.  And a lot of religions, particularly Eastern religions, full under this type.  If all religions were “TYPE I” then aside from doctrine claims, I would not complain about the religious behavior of people.

TYPE II Religious Beliefs & Behavior
Type II are religious beliefs in which the followers apply or condones applying their religious views and practice to themselves as well as other people who also follow the same religion, but that’s all. This is in-group focused religion and, as long as it is not being oppressive of other followers, I generally ignore such behavior.

TYPE III Religious Beliefs & Behavior
when any followers of a religion apply or condones applying obedience to the religion’s doctrines to self and to everyone else, even people who are not followers of the religion. This is done non-violently but will use the legal system to make religious rules into laws for everyone in a society.

TYPE IV Religious Beliefs & Behavior
Type IV is similar to Type III on when any followers of a religion apply or condones applying obedience to the religion’s doctrines to everyone else, even people who are not followers of the religion, but use violence and physical abuse to do so. This is the worst behavior by religious people in the world and is something I oppose in any form.

So to summarize the 4 types of religious belief and behavior:
Type I is inwardly focused
Type II is in-group focused
Type III is non-violently outwardly focused
Type IV is violently outwardly focused

Hammer Time

Posted in Uncategorized on October 10, 2015 by sometimesafoggynotion

October 10th (according to most sources, although some says it’s October 11th) is the anniversary of the Battle of Tours (732ce) in which Charles “The Hammer” Martel and his army decisively stopped the Moorish army, then continuing a seemingly unstoppable Islamic series of conquests, from taking over France and maybe even eventually the entire rest of Europe.

Thinking about it, at the time it may have seemed that this battle would have been better for Europe back then if Moors had won, because it was the start of the Islamic Golden Age with advances in mathematics and astronomy. But then as Europe eventually rose out of its Dark Age 600 years later, Islam sank into its own Dark Age which I think is essentially still going on.

But, either way, I think it’s worth drinking a beer to, given that drinking alcohol possibly wouldn’t allowed if the battle went the other way.

The Galloping Gish Rides Again

Posted in Uncategorized on February 12, 2015 by sometimesafoggynotion

Today is Darwin Day when I’m posting this, so much like last year, I’ll have another posting related to the scientific theory of evolution, in this case a personal story from wayback in the year 1988.

The Gish vs. Saladin Debate II  (May 10, 1988, at Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama)

While in college at Auburn University, an event showed up on the activities schedule for a evolution vs. creationism debate. I’d never seen such a debate before and the mere idea intrigued me. Although I attended a Catholic high school (despite not being Catholic or, before graduating, a follower of any of the breakaway franchises it spawned), the science classes in it were truly science-based, so we learned about evolution without any religious doctrine being crudely inserted into it. I was already firmly in the evolution camp and didn’t see any real alternative to it.  So my thought going into the debate was: what the hell was the other side even going to say? Also at the time I had no idea who either of the men were, so the names “Kenneth Saladin” and “Duane Gish” meant absolutely nothing to me.  Only when the debate started did I find out who was on each side and that Gish was a creationist.

The debate was held in a student rec center that was sometimes used for presentations and concerts (the floor was a wooden basketball court and all the seating were temporary plastic chairs). The debate itself was time limited with each side granted a certain amount of minutes to give a presentation followed by an equal amount of time for the other side. While watching it, I thought Gish was just terrible, while Saladin did a fantastic job and completely destroyed him. I thought it was a complete and total rout of Gish by Saladin (I remember that I likened it to a score of 222-0 which ws the final score of the most lopsided game in football history when Georgia Tech beat Cumberland College).

But after the debate, I ran into a couple of friends there and talked to them about it.  They thought that both sides made good points (huh?!) and scored the debate as even (what?!!). And they thought that both sides should be taught in schools in a sense of fairness (wow?!!!).  I was so surprised by their views that I had no comeback then, although now looking back it shows that I was well along on the critical thinking road already back then.

Here’s a link to the transcripts of the debate ( LINK: ) with some good notes as to the length of each side (I forgot that they each got 45 minutes at the beginning. Wow, the debate was a lot longer than I recall).  I do recall each side had a lot of slides and I thought Saladin’s were the best and mixed in a little good humor at times.

As for the infamous “Gish Gallops”, those had absolutely no effect on me and so I didn’t even notice anything like that in the debate.  Only years later did I even find out that was a style he used to “win” debates by throwing out a long list of claims so that the other side can’t counter all of them in the allotted time.

Looking back, I’m glad I was able to attend a Duane Gish debate at least once and, for me, it has been a key point in time of my life where I found out my viewpoint could not be easily swayed by talk alone. I need good evidence.

CSI: Kentucky

Posted in Uncategorized on May 9, 2014 by sometimesafoggynotion

The podcast “Irreligiosophy” did a spoof inspired by the Bill Nye / Ken Ham debate (on 2014-02-05) that’s based on Ken Ham’s ridiculous claim that the only real science is “observational” and anything else (which he labelled “historical”) is not reliable science if “you weren’t there” to see it.  So Irreligiosophy turned this flawed reasoning into a possible police show, linked below:

Direct link to the whole episode: Irreligiosophy 2.24: The Gospel of John

Name-Calling Dawkins

Posted in Uncategorized on January 21, 2014 by sometimesafoggynotion

At a book club meeting, I said that Richard Dawkins is unfairly labelled as a name-caller and that, in his books, he never calls anyone names. A lot of people there disagreed with me and claimed he frequently calls people names in his books, so I didn’t press the point (even though I still disagreed).

But it gave me an idea for something to do: use the search function in Kindle to search Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion – supposedly his book that people think is the most insulting – for any instances of actual name-calling in it.

And by “name-calling”, I specifically mean the definition of the term as the use of offensive names to insult actual people. So calling an actual person or group of people by an offensive name (ex. “John Smith is stupid” or “Those Lilliputians are so stupid”) is name-calling, but calling an idea or a quote by the exact same name is not (so saying “that’s a stupid idea” or that’s a stupid thing to say” is not name-calling because it’s merely criticizing an idea and not an individual or group).

Also I do not consider calling a fictional character by a name as “name-calling” because a fictional character cannot be offended by being called a name.  So Dawkins’ (rather accurate) description of the fictional YHWH (aka Yahweh or Jehovah or Jealous) of the Hebrew Bible (aka Old Testament) to open Chapter 2 of his book does not count as name-calling.  (And anyone who believes this character is not fictional really needs to read Dawkins’ book from cover to cover.)

Given that it’ll be easier to search for common terms used in name-calling, I selected the following common words used for name-calling as my main search:

dumb / dummy

I also added a few terms that may be considered “name-calling” by some people (although it is a bit of a stretch):

ignorant / ignorance

Starting with the word “Stupid” – the search found the following:


This has one instance of Dawkins calling an idea stupid (so it’s an idea, not a person or group of people, which mean it is not actual name-calling), and the rest is a quote from Nicholas Humphrey calling some priests of the ancient Incans as “stupid” for sacrificing young girls to their religion.  This is not Dawkins’ own quote (he even says using the word “stupid” is a bit too much), so not name-calling by him either.

Next word is “dumb” and the variant “dummy”


Ignoring the word “dumbfounded” (Kindle search is not very advanced) and the term “dumbing down”, the only uses of the word “dumb” are in reference to its other meaning of the inability to talk, not a lack of intelligence.  Now onto the variant “dummy”


His only use of the word “dummy” is not in reference to human beings, so not name-calling either.  The next word is “moron”


No name-calling here.  The next word is “idiot”


Not a single reference found at all of “idiot”.  The next word is “Asshole”


No references either.  The next word is “Dick”


Just the flawed Kindle search here, but no uses of this term.  The next word is “jerk”


No references to this either.  The next word is “ignoramus”


No references.  On to the next word: “twit” (a word more common in Britain than here in the U.S.)


Another flaw of the Kindle search engine, just finding the letters T, W, I, T together within the word “notwithstanding” but not a single instead of the word “twit” being used.  The next word is “fool”


The first use of the word “fool” is in his section on the “Ontological Argument” in which he gives a hypothetical example of the argument concluding with the hypothetical person making the argument saying “all atheists are fools”.  Some may see these as a bit of a Straw Man argument, but it does seem to just be illustrating how the argument is typically used and ends with a paraphrasing of Psalm 14:1 from the Bible which outright called atheists fools (specifically: “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”), and given that it is directed at atheists, I wouldn’t consider this name-calling.  However, he does call the hypothetical person in this section a “childish wiseacre”, although given that it is just a hypothetical person and not a real person, it may be a stretch to consider this name-calling.  Dawkins then says “The very idea that grand conclusions could follow from such logomachist trickery offends me aesthetically, so I must take care to refrain from bandying words like ‘fool’.” so even he doesn’t like the idea of using the word “fool” carelessly.

The remaining references to the word “fool” are usually just quoting someone else, so not Dawkins using the term but whoever he is quoting, so not name-calling by Dawkins either.  And the final reference is in discussing Moses getting the 10 Commandments (either the 1st 10 or the 2nd 10), and uses the term “fool around” to describe the story of the ancient Israelites making a golden calf while Moses was away.  So not name-calling either.

The next word is one of the stretch terms: “silly”


All of these are in reference to ideas being silly, so no name-calling of people with the word.  The next stretch word is “ignorant” and its variant “ignorance”


He does use this to call someone people “ignorant” but the reason I consider this a stretch term is because this can be just a description of someone lacking knowledge instead of an insult.  Looking at Dawkins’ own use of the term, this is how he uses it with the one instance of it being used in a more insulting way just one of the accurate quotes Dawkins uses of someone else.

Next is the variant “ignorance”


The only times Dawkins uses the word “ignorance” is in its definition as a “lack of knowledge” which is not an insult.

The last word I searched for is “liar”


Which unfortunately is another word that the Kindle search engine found embedded as a letter combination many, many times in the words “familiar, familiarity, unfamiliar, and peculiar“.  However, four references are found to the word “liar”.  The first is quoting name-calling done for Thomas Paine, so not a Dawkins quote.  The next two are Dawkins talking about the well-known C.S. Lewis quote saying that Jesus was either right or else insane or a liar, so not name-calling by Dawkins.  And the final reference to the word “liar” is when talking about Hitler possibly being an opportunistic liar, so this is finally an example of Dawkins using name-calling against a real person and that person is Adolf Hitler.  Given who the individual is, I think letting it slide would be okay.

So that’s it for my search.  Excepting the Hitler one, I found no real instances of Richard Dawkins doing name-calling in The God Delusion.  But if anyone find any examples of actual name-calling by Richard Dawkins in this book that I missed, please email me and I will follow-up this posting with that example.

Anti-Atheism Is Like Deja Vu All Over Again

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on April 16, 2013 by sometimesafoggynotion

Attacks against atheism are on the rise for some reason this year. So far, Nathan Lean, Peter Hitchens (Christopher’s younger and lesser brother), and (disappointingly) biologist Frans de Waal all have recent articles or books attacking atheism (or “New Atheism” because not believing in deities is so different now from the good old days. I mean there’s definitely less burning of atheists at the stake now, so I’ll give them that).

I guess the question I have is “why now?” Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” was released in 2006, Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith” in 2004 and his “Letter to a Christian Nation” in 2006, and the late Christopher Hitchens’ book “God Is Not Great” was released in 2007. So we are over half-a-decade removed from these major “New Atheism” books and the atheist books written since then (such as Greta Christina’s excellent book “Why Are You Atheists So Angry?”) are not entering the zeitgeist as publically, so why so much of a counterattack now? (I have no answers, just asking).

Of course, all of these new attacks are the same logically flawed attacks of old, with the same false claims that have been debunked again and again. (Why are the anti-atheists so strident and so militant in their attacks against atheists? BTW, before anyone takes this part seriously, I’m just making fun of the attacks here.)

Anyway, instead of pointing out the logically fallacies and other flaws in the common anti-atheist attacks, I’ll just post this link to the Rational Wiki, which has a well-written entry on the flaws in the common anti-atheist arguments and misconceptions:

This says everything about why the attacks are flawed. But it doesn’t say why they are attacking now. That I’m still wondering about.

What’s In a Name?

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on April 14, 2013 by sometimesafoggynotion

I named this blog “Sometimes a Foggy Notion” as a kind of a word play on the title of Ken Kesey’s novel “Sometimes a Great Notion” and the Velvet Underground’s song “Foggy Notion” because sometimes I just get a foggy notion to say something.

So now that that’s explained, this is a good time for listening to a “Foggy Notion” by the Velvet Underground:

( )