CBEB’s

The PZ Myers/Geoff Simmons debate is making the rounds and even the cdesign proponentsists are admitting that things didn’t go their way. Over at Uncommon Descent, commenter bfast offers advice on how to deal with it:

In my opinion we should just close our eyes and pretend that this debate never happened.

It was only a dream… it was only a dream… it was only a dream…

For most people, Denyse O’Leary’s mantra, “Buy my book!” is something of a joke. I was surprised to discover a person who not only has bought her book, but recommends others do the same. Have you ever wondered what kind of person - other than masochistic tard miners like me - actually reads Denyse O’Leary? Ladies and gentlemen, meet The Urban Mystic. The Urban Mystic is a man who knows what Denyse O’Leary is all about:

… she is very sympathetic toward mysticism…

To the Urban Mystic, no woo is bad woo.

The Urban Mystic is angry. He knows Intelligent Design is woo, so he can’t understand why the folks at UD would dare to make fun of his woo. Here’s what he has to say:

The face on Mars is not an optical illusion. The Mars Global Surveyor satellite took over 120,000 photographs and the one “debunking” the face was the only one out of the hundreds of thousands of photographs to get sent through five filters that distorted the picture beyond all recognition. When the photo is corrected for to remove the damaging effects of the filters (an attempt at restoring the original) there is striking evidence of intelligence behind the structure there.
[CBEB’s note: this was also left in the comments at the UD thread - Urban Mystic knows enough about UD to make backups of his comments]

Urban Mystic uses the word “debunking” like FtK uses the word “DARWINISM”. In the world of woo, rigorous examination of the evidence is a Bad Thing.

Take a look around Urban Mystic’s AOL journal and you’ll find all sorts of delicious woo. The Christmas miracle in which a gnat is brought back to life through the power of prayer. More “face on mars” woo. And in a surprising turn, some “waterboarding is not torture” woo.

Shame on me for subscribing to the stereotype of the contemporary mystic as one who frequents coffee shops, sipping soy lattes, while discussing saving the whales and visualizing world peace. The Urban Mystic shatters that stereotype to pieces. With all his rhetoric about materialism and the “atheist libocrat media”, I’ve come to the conclusion that Urban Mystic is the bastard lovechild of Denyse O’Leary and DaveScot.

UPDATE: Welcome readers of Uncommon Descent… all five of you! Denyse O’Leary did you a real disservice by linking to this post. Try these instead:

• Uncommon Descent: ass-raping the rotting corpse of irony
• Putting your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la la” might work, too
• Denyse O’Leary Writes. The Baby Jesus Cries.
• Denyse O’Leary’s prediction comes true… sorta
• Denyse O’Leary, like, really hates science

UPDATE II: My official response to Denyse’s horseshit: It’s official: I’m an enemy of Intelligent Design.

Anyone who has followed the Evolution/Creationism debate for two weeks will chuckle when they hear the words “engineer” and “Intelligent Design” in the same sentence. It seems like every other day someone in the anti-evolution world is promoting something - other than peer-reviewed research, of course - written by an engineer who has crunched the numbers and discovered that descent with modification just can’t happen. Veteran tard miners laugh at the word “engineer” the same way that Dr. William A. Dembski laughs at farty noises.

GilDodgen and commenter bFast have tag-teamed to provide us with one of Uncommon Descent’s most irony-meter-shattering moments. Ever.

GilDodgen:

A family friend, who is a brilliant electrical engineer, recently spent some time at our home for a holiday get-together. The topic of ID came up and he asked me how I could possibly have bought into such a silly idea.

bFast:

Gil, how much does this guy know about biology? I would suspect that any “brilliant” electrical engineer would line up with us software developers to voice his incredulity.

Millions of years from now, geologists are going to discover a layer of irony buried beneath the earth’s surface and they will designate it the G/b Boundary in honor of GilDodgen and bFast.

I often catch hell from fellow movie buffs because I’ve never seen Trainspotting. The truth is, if all goes well, I’ll go to my grave having never seen it.

I don’t own any John Prine albums. I hear he’s a brilliant songwriter, but I wouldn’t be able to name a song he’s written if my life depended on it.

My aversion to Trainspotting and John Prine is deeply rooted and closely connected.

South Texas is one of the major corridors for the trafficking of cocaine and heroin into the United States. I’ve never done heroin in my life, but I have known a disproportionate amount of junkies in my time. I used to live in Los Angeles and San Francisco, but I’ve never known as many junkies as I’ve known in South Texas.

Some of you may know where I’m going with this in regards to Trainspotting, but what the hell does it have to do with John Prine? Almost every junkie I’ve ever known has been a John Prine fan. Not “John Prine fan” as in they like all kinds of music, including John Prine, but “John Prine fan” as in everytime the subject of music comes up, John Prine is the first name that comes out of their mouths.

I’m generally annoyed by people who are overly fanatical about one particular artist. I knew a guy who was actually that way about Paul McCartney. Not The Beatles, but Paul fucking McCartney. He even referred to him as “Sir Paul McCartney”. I know another person who can’t talk about music without bringing up the alleged greatest band in the history of music, Urge Overkill. But these are merely anomalies; every single person I have ever met who has been a John Prine fanatic was also a heroin addict, and it’s created in me a Pavlovian response. I can’t think of John Prine without associating him with annoying fucking junkies. John Prine may very well be a talented singer and songwriter, but I’ll never know.

Because I’ve had the displeasure of knowing so many dope fiends, I don’t really enjoy movies about drug addiction. I liked The Man With the Golden Arm and Drugstore Cowboy, but I have no desire to see Trainspotting or Requiem for a Dream. If I want to watch junkies, all I have to do is stick my head out the window.

A few months ago, the Barna Group released a study on young people’s perceptions of Christianity. The results of the research were published in the book UnChristian. Not surprisingly, the Barna Group found that Jesus’s fan club has some serious PR problems:

The study explored twenty specific images related to Christianity, including ten favorable and ten unfavorable perceptions. Among young non-Christians, nine out of the top 12 perceptions were negative. Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%), and too involved in politics (75%) - representing large proportions of young outsiders who attach these negative labels to Christians.

The report also states:

Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is “anti-homosexual.” Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity.

Amazingly, there are Christians who interpret those numbers as “At least we’re doing something right.”

The Barna Group study got a lot of coverage in the blogosphere when it was initially released. I apologize if it seems like I’m reporting old news, but the story is still alive and well. Over at AtBC, Erasmus FCD introduced me to World on the Web, which, as far as Christian News websites go, is fairly thoughtful. Lately, writer Tony Woodlief has been doing a series on UnChristian. His most recent column addresses how Christian attitudes towards homosexuality are perceived by today’s youth. I don’t necessarily agree with some of Woodlief’s points - especially since he is using theological arguments; it’s sort of like basing one’s argument on Venus being in the House of Pisces - but his article should give his fellow Christians something to think about:

What’s more, they note from Barna’s other survey research that a considerably higher percentage of Christians believe homosexuality to be a sin than believe divorce for reasons other than adultery is a sin. When reading this I was curious how gossip and slander would fare, neither of which seems to receive the attention from pulpits that pornography and homosexuality receive. It’s no secret that many of us have created our own hierarchies of sin, with the ones we are prone to at the bottom, and the ones that hold no attraction for us at the top. The authors suggest that homosexuality’s top billing translates into hatred not just for the sin, but for the sinner.

But World on the Web’s readers are having none of that. The very first response to the article:

The authors can suggest whatever they want, but it’s only their opinion, and they have an agenda of their own. I don’t feel a duty to be true to what they want; rather I feel a duty not to rewrite the Bible to accommodate its critics.

Wow. Just fucking wow. Of course the writers have an agenda; they’re trying to bring attention to a potential crisis, but this nimrod just doesn’t get it. This is why people look at Landover Baptist Church and Objective Ministries and don’t realize they’re parodies: Christianity has become vitually synonoymous with tenaciously holding on to ridiculous beliefs in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.

I honestly don’t get it. Millions of Christians around the world have the sense to know that there are some things in the Bible that shouldn’t be taken too seriously. To think that bats are birds (Lev. 11: 13-19), placing poles in the ground will influence the color of cattle (Gen. 30: 32-41), happiness can be attained by smashing children’s heads against rocks (Pss. 137:9) and/or self-mutilation is a way to prevent sin (Matt. 5: 28-30, Mark 9:47) is to firmly place oneself into tinfoil hat territory. Not all Christians follow the Bible’s instructions on divorce and there is certainly no movement to prevent divorced people from teaching in public schools or leading Boy Scout troops, yet the Bible is consistently used as a foundation for anti-gay rhetoric.

I have family members who would be considered ultra-conservative, but because they’re not religious, they don’t buy into all the “pro-family” bullshit of the conservative Christians. I’ve heard a few conservatives try to make secular arguments against homosexuality, but they don’t hold much water.

Almost 200 years ago, the United States was divided over the issue of slavery. Some churches used the Bible to justify the abolition of the practice, while others argued that slavery was santioned by God. The Southern Baptist Convention owes its very existence to being on the pro-slavery side of the debate.

Although disavowing Christianity was an option back then, it’s a much more viable choice nowadays. A person can stand up and declare, “Hey everyone, I just converted to Buddhism/Scientology/Wicca/Pastafarianism/atheism” without the expectation of being tarred and feathered. At the organizational level, churches are being divided by the homosexuality issue, but at the rank-and-file level, there has got to be people who simply say “enough of this shit” and start sleeping in on Sunday mornings. Who wants to - even if it’s only once a week - get up early on their day off and sit for an hour while someone rants on about the evils of butt sex, Harry Potter, and evolution?

I’ve lived among Christians most of my life; in the American South, it’s pretty much impossible not to. However, it’s only been in the past decade or so that whenever I hear a phrase like, “You don’t understand, I’m a Christian…” that I prepare my ears to hear something completely and utterly ridiculous, as if being a Christian automatically trumps the notions of common sense and decency. To claim that a book written over a thousand years ago makes one’s bigotry somehow respectable and worthy of consideration is nothing short of contemptible, and many people - Christian and non-Christian alike - are finally becoming cognizant of this fact.

This is not a prediction, it’s a simple statement of fact: It might be 5 years from now, it might be 50 years from now, but the churches are going to be on the losing side of the homosexuality debate. The religionists will continue to deny evolution until the Twelfth of Never, yet life will continue to evolve. But more and more people are coming to the realization that Christianity’s anti-gay rhetoric has a tangible effect on the happiness of productive citizens of this country, and bigotry is no longer considered a virtue by most Americans.

It’s shocking to discover that the Christian Bible has been used as a justification for slavery, to oppose women’s suffrage and even to oppose lightning rods being put on buildings. Even more shocking is that it is still being used to justify discrimination and bigotry to this very day.

Awhile back, For the Kids posted this atrocious video for “Beautiful One” by CCM singer Jeremy Camp at her echo chamber blog:

Since describing the video or giving any background info on the artist would have required FtK to conjure up an original thought or two, there’s nothing there but the video. Being the nice person that I am, I watched the video so that you don’t have to. I am now more qualified to critique this abortion than Michael Behe is to speak about the human immune system. Jeremy Camp’s song, “Beautiful One” exemplifies everything that is wrong with so-called “Contemporary Christian Music”. To paraphrase Voltaire, it’s neither contemporary nor Christian, and it’s not music, it’s Muzak. I think I heard one of the background singers say the word “Jesus” once, but for all we know, Jeremy Camp could be singing about a girlfriend. At least Faith + 1 weren’t afraid to say the word “Jesus”.

FtK’s BFF and partner in slime, Salvador Cordova, recently posted some idiotic crap about how “Darwinists” can’t appreciate music. Maybe, just maybe, if God was sitting in with Jeremy Camp and throwing down some nasty guitar licks, I might be able to appreciate the song a little more, but whether or not there is a god has absolutely no bearing on the mediocrity of “Beautiful One”.

Music is nothing more than a collection of sounds. The appreciation of music stems from many factors, all of them subjective. Though it’s the same notes on paper, Beethoven’s 9th Symphony will sound wildly different when played by the London Philharmonic or a high school orchestra, but it’s still going to be Beethoven’s 9th Symphony. Should both be appreciated equally? A parent of a child in the high school orchestra might have a preference for their child’s version, for purely sentimental reasons.

There are people who genuinely appreciate The Shaggs because of their naive approach to music. I don’t count myself as a fan of The Shaggs, but I can understand where they’re coming from; I enjoy the songs of Wild Man Fischer. The majority of people find the music of both The Shaggs and Wild Man Fischer to be unlistenable… does that mean it’s not really music?

As I said earlier, the appreciation of music is based on many subjective criteria. Technical proficiency is important for jazz and classical music, but it can be a liability in a genre like punk or sub-genre such as lo-fi. There’s an old story about how Bob Wills used to be criticized by jazz musicians. Wills always hired crack instrumentalists for his band, but some musicians felt that playing popular music was slumming. When told that most serious jazz players considered his band a joke, Bob Wills responded with “yeah, nobody likes us but the people”.

To think that a belief in god is required before one can appreciate music is utterly ridiculous. Just as silly is the whole notion of “god-given talent”. If god gave people talent, there wouldn’t be any need for music schools. Talent comes from study and practice, not faith. This is part of the reason that the Contemporary Christian Music scene is infested with mediocre performers. If you’ve worked hard most of your life to be really good at what you do, you don’t want to squander it by playing inoffensive pabulum. Talent can be seen as a liability in the religious music world. After all, Christian musicians are supposed to inspire kids to pick up Bibles, not guitars. Even passion for one’s religious beliefs can work against a Christian artist. The few times I’ve listened to Christian radio, the only thing that gave it away as being Christian radio was the all-encompassing blandness of the songs. Programmers don’t want to alienate listeners over doctrinal differences, so an aggressively generic brand of Christianity is promoted. On the other hand, there are artists who sing about hellfire and The  Wrath of God and all that good stuff; Carman comes to mind. The fact that Carman is a recognizable name in the Christian Music industry is a good sign that talent is of little importance in the world of CCM.

Believe it or not, people actually listen to this and think it glorifies their god.

So… what the fuck am I doing writing about Christian music? I happen to - get this, Sal - appreciate it. Yesterday fellow AtBCer and FtK fan PTET sent me an awesome mp3 of Billy Joe Shaver’s “If You Don’t Love Jesus, Go To Hell”. This -  coupled with Sal’s magnificently stupid post about how only evolution deniers can appreciate music - got me thinking about the place gospel music has in the world of church burnin’ and ebola spreadin’.

Below the fold are eight songs dating from the late 1930s to the late 1990s - some gospel, some decidedly anti-gospel. Enjoy!
(more…)

This Chuck Norris boycott is great. I can write about Chuck Norris without having to come up with some lame Chuck Norris “Fact”. There is one Chuck Norris Fact I’d like to point out, however: his supporters have got to be some of the stupidest people on the face of the earth. I’ve often wondered what kind of person is dumb enough to fall for the Nigerian 419 Scam… now I know.

I was lucky (?) enough to happen upon the Chuck Norris Boycott story just as it was breaking at Worldnet Daily. It’s been over 24 hours since Chuck’s loyal fans have descended upon boycottchucknorris.com and judging by the comments, it seems to be less about a Chuck Norris Boycott and more about a contest to see who is the most ignorant about evolution. The great news is, it seems to be a tie, with pretty much everyone in first place. I’ve already added five quotes to the RTQG, and those came from one thread (there are only 3 posts at Boycott Chuck Norris, but they’re all rich in Tard deposits). Not that I’ve done any serious analysis, but it looks as if Boycott Chuck Norris might hold the record for the percentage of comments that qualify for Fundies Say The Darnedest Things. It’s sorta like the creationist equivalent of one of those cheesy informercials for those “Remember the 70s?” CD collections…
(more…)

I took a look at my access logs earlier and noticed it was ginormous; I discovered that Orac of Respectful Insolence has linked to one of my Densye O’Leary articles. I am deeply flattered that Orac would praise one my headlines.

I’d like to welcome everyone, and I hope you stick around. Feel free to play around with the RTQG, and if your musical tastes fall anywhere between Ernest Tubb and the Dead Kennedys, check out the Video pages.

Come for the Church Burnin’, stay for the Ebola!

Here’s a couple of videos of the Los Angeles punk band X. Both videos are guaranteed to be Chuck Norris-free. First up is “We’re Desperate”.

This is less of a music video and more of a photo montage, but there’s some great photos of the early West Coast punk scene. It’s a lot of fun seeing which faces you can recognize. For example, at 1:27, that looks like the same photo that was used for the back cover of the Let Them Eat Jellybeans comp. Is that Su Tissue from the Suburban Lawns @ 1:44? There were so many images I could have used for the frame grab, but that fake newspaper headline cracks me up.
Get the Flash Player to see this player.

Below the fold is an honest-to-goodness video for “Johnny Hit & Run Pauline”
(more…)

The premier source of news for the tinfoil hat crowd, Worldnet Daily, is reporting that Darrell Ng, who worked on Fred Thompson’s unsuccesful presidential campaign, is calling for a boycott of Chuck Norris.

Even funnier than the concept of a Chuck Norris boycott is the reason behind it:

I’m starting a boycott of Chuck Norris because he has endorsed a presidential candidate and supports ideas that are far out of the mainstream. Specifically:

• He’s endorsed a candidate who says that he does not believe in evolution.
• He’s endorsed a candidate who called for the isolation of AIDS patients – long after the Centers for Disease Control determined that the virus was not spread by casual contact. Even this year, the candidate declined to recant those views.

If this means that I’m going to have to stop watching his movies, I’m way ahead of Darrell Ng. The last time I saw Chuck Norris in a movie was in Dodgeball. The last time I watched a movie that starred Chuck Norris was probably 1985. If this means I have to stop watching Walker, Texas Ranger, I can do Mr. Ng one better. I’ve never even started watching that piece of crap show. Does this mean I’ll have to stop repeating Chuck Norris Facts? I - along with the rest of the world - stopped doing that about a year ago. Darrell Ng might as well ask me to boycott eating broken glass.

The Boycott Chuck Norris site also has comments enabled, and as one might expect from Huckabee supporters, the Tard runs high.

And for your information, the THEORY of evolution did not even really exist until 1859 - and by then we were on our fifteenth President. Ever check how many of our Presidents have referenced our “Creator” in their Inauguration speeches? Actually, I’ve never heard of a U.S. President publicly acknowledging that they DIDN’T believe in creation.

It looks like someone hasn’t read their Tard Style Manual. You only type in ALL CAPS if you want something to be true. If something is false, you put it in “scare quotes”.

Darrell Ng is doing the impossible. He’s asking wingnuts to boycott Chuck Norris because he’s a wingnut. For the rest of us, this is going to be the easiest boycott ever.