I would like to introduce Skepfeeds, a new blog I have started here at WordPress, which will replace both Skepdude and Video Skepdude.

The idea behind Skepfeeds is simple. I realized that, although quite satisfying to myself, I wasn’t saying anything on Skepdude that someone else had not said better somewhere else. I mean what do I have to say on the antivaccinationists that Steven Novella hasn’t already said? Or what do I have to say on the whole Evolution vs. Creationism/ID that PZ Meyers hasn’t already said? Honestly, not much.

As such I figured that my time may be better spent in creating a feed which will collect and present in one place all of the best skeptical minded blog entries from around the web. Now, I understand that one person cannot possibly do that, so when I say “from around the web” I mean that portion of the web that I look at, blogs such as Pharyngula, Skepchick, Neurologica, Rationally Speaking, Denialism etc etc etc. I don’t really have time to put in the links here but you can Google each one and you’ll find them.

So far I have received permission by 4 blogs to re-post entries, Skepchick, Stuff God Hates, Rationally Speaking and Muslims Against Sharia. I started 2 days ago, so I hope that within a short time I will be able to get more permissions so that Skepfeeds can start to become what I really envision.

This does not mean that Skepdude will not chime in with an entry here and there, or that Skepdude will stop posting interesting videos. I will however be scaling down my writing. I don’t hold any illusions about my writing style and expertise, and given the quality of work of the bloggers that have already granted me permission to re-post their work, I do not intend to cheapen the quality of Skepfeeds by posting too much of my amateurish stuff. This is not about my ego and I hope this project actually works the way I intend it and grows quickly.

So thank you very much to all of you who have been comming here and reading my humble ramblings. I appreciate all your comments, and please do udpate your RSS feeds to point to Skepfeeds. Skepdude lives on, he just has a different job description now.

As reported at the International Herald Tribune:

Susan Atkins was a leading character in one of the most horrific chapters in California history.

On Tuesday, the former follower of Charles Manson sought to end her story on her own terms: by being allowed to go home. The state parole board denied that request.

Atkins, convicted in the slayings of the actress Sharon Tate and others in 1969, is dying of brain cancer and asked that she be granted compassionate release from prison.

Her husband, James Whitehouse, argued that she was so debilitated that she could not even sit up in bed. “She literally can’t snap her fingers,” he said. “She can put sentences together three or four times a day, but that’s the extent of it.”

As reported at the LA Times:

Now ill with brain cancer, with one leg amputated and the other paralyzed, Atkins has only months to live, doctors have said.

Ok, so let’s take a look at what we have here. I found this case very interesting and challenging. How do you properly balance our innate instinct of revenge with our other innate instinct of compassion? How should these feelings play, if at all, in the state’s decisions and actions? Those are the questions that I keep pondering without being able to find a satisfactory answer either way.

On the one hand we have a frail old woman, ravaged by cancer, one leg amputated who has very little time left to live. She’s not asking for forgiveness for what she’s done, all she’s asking is that these horrible circumstance be taken into account and she be granted a little bit of leniency. Are we as a society at a point in our development where feelings of revenge overpower feelings of compassion and leniency? It looks like the answer to that question is an emphatic yes, and that saddens me.

The state should not be in the business of revenge. That is one of the main reasons why I oppose the death penalty. Either way, the state is supposed to be an unbiased, impartial third party. The way I see it, imprisonment should be viewed not as punishment, but as removal of violent individuals from society in order to prevent them from committing other crimes. From this point of view it is hard to see how an argument about this lady “not deserving” to be let go makes any sense. Such argument is fueled by our feelings of revenge, and while it is acceptable at a personal level, it cannot be acceptable when the state is involved. Alas, the state is made up of individuals who bring in their own prejudices. There is really no way to escape that.

Pam Turner, a cousin of Sharon Tate, recalled the pregnant actress’ return to the United States, and dreaming of helping her with her baby.

Then she spoke about wanting to die after finding out that Tate and her unborn son had been stabbed to death.

“I was a child, but I was so sick with grief that I wished I too could die,” Turner said, sobbing. She described how Tate’s mother, her aunt, “howled like a wounded animal.”

And she recalled how her late aunt had been overcome with emotion when Turner became pregnant herself.

“She once put her hands on my pregnant belly and just cried,” she said. “She didn’t have to say what she was crying for. I knew. She was looking right through me and seeing Sharon and what could have been.”

The pain and grief are undeniable. But how does denying this sick, dying person parole lessen the pain in any way possible? Is it going to undo what happened? Are those feelings that this lady felt years ago going to vanish, erased from her memory? I am sure this lady will feel a little better after parole was denied, but the State itself is not supposed to have feelings. But if that was the case, then the prisoner couldn’t make the case for clemency either, now could she? I told you I had mixed feelings about this.

So on the one hand, I think that, given the circumstances mercy is warranted. I think every human being has some dignity by virtue of being human, regardless of their crimes. That is why I oppose the death penalty and that is why I think that under these circumstances, it hurts no one to grant this women parole.

On the other hand though we must worry about the precedent this would set. Does that make it acceptable for anyone on their death bed to ask for mercy? What if it is not such a clear cut case? What if instead of impending death within a few months, you have a longer period of time? Where do you draw the line?

However, besides the practical issue, I see another bigger issue. That of the whole idea of the life sentence. The point of the life sentence is that the person end their life in prison. Lifting the life sentence for a dying person, defeats the purpose of having it at all. Dying is a painful, horrible process cancer or not. If we make an exception for her, why not for a really old and frail person? If that was the case then we should do away with the life sentence altogether, and I don’t like that idea.

Confused yet? Good because i am myself. I don’t have a clear answer to this question, but if I had my shoulders to the wall, like the members of the panel did, I most likely would have voted to grant her parole. People it is better to be compassionate and forgiving than vengeful. I know I sound like a televangelist, but hey I’m not asking for you money!

I finished viewing “Here Be Dragons” by Brian Dunning and it is excellent. I have posted the video at my Video Blog. Go see it…NOW! It is a commandment!

Brian Dunning, of the fabulous podcast Skeptoid, has produced a 40 min video which is titled “Here be Dragons“. It is an introductory course on skepticism, and while I haven’t had time to watch the whole think yet, I trust Brian’s abilities unconditionally (even though he’s always reminding his readers to question everything he says, that’s just how awesome this guy is) to plug it here in my humble blog. Go see it.

And speaking of Skeptoid you must check out episode #105 When People Talk Backwards. It is deliciously awesome.

Now, generally I tend to like people that sue the church, because most of the time they have a good reason for doing so, but I can’t help but side with the church in their fight against this idiot.

A man said he was so consumed by the spirit of God that he fell and hit his head while at a Knoxville church.

Now he wants Lakewind Church to pay $2.5 million for medical bills, lost income, and pain and suffering he said he’s endured from his injuries.

The Sevier County man said he was asking God to have “a real experience” while praying at church.

He said he has fallen from the force of the spirit before but has always been caught by someone.

It looks like the “spirit of God” is to blame, not the church, so I wonder why he’s not suing God. After all did he not go voluntarily into the church seeking to experience exactly what he did? So what is he accusing the church of, doing their job too well? I mean he asked God for a “real experience” himself. What’s more real than falling on your empty nugget and being reminded of just how stupid you’d been acting? Dismissed!

The Pope is in Australia for the World Youth Day and he is supposed to apologize for:

decades of sexual abuse of children by priests.

Apologize? That’s it? This is the equivalent of catching a kid with their hands in the cookie jar and letting them go with an apology. Well, come to think of it most parents will do just that, but you get my drift. Usually a crime is followed by a suitable punishment. If wide spread sexual abuse involved any other institution but a religious one, would we expect such leniency? Of course not, they would be persecuted like you wouldn’t believe, but no, not the Church. The Church has been covering up such abuses for decades and all they have to do is say “sorry” and they’re home free. Am I the only one who is disgusted that even child sexual abuse can be overlooked by the authorities if the Church is involved? Fucking disgusting!

But of course it isn’t. Both Christianity and Islam are violent religions, if you stick to their holy books. One need only read through these books to see that. Take a look here for the violence in the Quran. Here’s a recap of some of my favorites (I am looking at a translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali other translations may vary):

1. If you believe only part of the holy book you will be “consigned to the most grievious penalty” 2:85 (Therefore according to the Quran any real muslim must believe every single word in it or perish)
   
2. Kill unbelievers wherever you catch them. 2:191
3. A great reward is promised to those who fight in the cause of Allah (presumably by killing any unbelievers they catch) 4:74
4. Unbelievers are the friends of Satan, and you must fight them. 4:76
5. Don’t be friends with unbelievers. Instead slay them. 4:89
6. Cut off the hands of thieves 5:38

I could go on and on. The Bible is not free of such violence and intolerance either. But that’s not the point of this entry. The point is that, at least as far as the two most prominent world religions are concerned, they are not peaceful in nature. Their gods are vengeful ones. They are intolerant bullies. If we are to take the holy books literally these are two bloody violent religions, there’s not doubt about it. The only way you can turn them non-violent is if you agree that not everything in the holy books is true or meant to be interpreted literally, even though I don’t really think that “go kill unbelievers” can be interpreted for anything else besided what is explicitly says.

Therefore, Dalai Lama, you are wrong. It is not “totally wrong, unfair” to say that Islam is a violent religion. It is the reality today. Christianity for the most part has been able to shed or ignore it’s violent passages. Islam has not reached that stage yet. Both holy books incite intolerance and killing, maiming and all kinds of atrocities. It is the believers who decide which parts to follow and which to ignore and as of right now, some of the biggest attrocities are being commited by muslims, fueled by their religious belief.

That is not to say that Muslims inevitably must turn violent. I don’t even think that the majority of Muslims are of the violent type. But that is their personal choice. There is nothing peaceful about the religion itself. Those people are more evolved in my eyes than the violent ones. They’re more humane, more modern. They choose to ignore the violence in their religion. They choose to throw out the nasty and keep the nice. As such they have deliberately changed the religion of Islam into something else. But the religion itself is pretty nasty, just the same as the Christian religion is pretty nasty.

I like to think of modern day Nazis. It is possible for modern day nazis to still believe in the superiority of the Arian race and such, but to be against physial violence against other races. Does that mean that Nazism is/was not violent? Or does it mean that the modern day followers that I am speaking of have transformed a violent thing into a less violent one? In what sense is a philosphy which asks its followers to kill, kill and kill some more not violent?

A philosophy is either violent or it isn’t. One that asks for blood of any oposing views is undeniably violent. Of course it is up to its followers to decide if they should follow the dictates of their philosophy or not. The people are violent or peaceful. They have a choice. The philosophy doesn’t. It is unfair to call muslims violent people. That is indeed not true. It is not unfair to call Islam, or Christianity, a violent religion. It is dishonest to try and be politically correct by calling a rabid dog docile. Don’t you think?

Oh, well the Skepdude and Skepfamily need a break, so we’re heading off to sunny Miami Beach for a full week away from work, blogging and that kind of stuff. No doubt I’ll be missing some nice news and chances to call someone an ignoramus, but hey I need my rest too.

So I’ll see you next Sunday my loyal flock (all 2 of you!). Enjoy the week!

I would like to try something new. If anyone is intersted in submitting an entry to be posted at Skepdude as a guest post you may feel free to send it to me as a word file at thoushallthink@gmail.com

If you are a reader of Skepdude you prety much know what sort of entry would be accepted. Please send along instructions of what kind of information about yourself you may want to be posted with the entry, such as nickname, website, e-mail etc. If nothing accompanies the entry it will simply be posted as “Guest Entry #”.

Thanks for your participation. This should be interesting.

Following in the footsteps of Randi’s million dollar challenge, a British professor by the name of Edzard Ernst has set up a £10,000 challenge to anyone who can prove that homeopathy works. Apparentley, the professor has run some 200 trials and not even one has shown anything resembling evidence. So we know the prize will go unclaimed until the good professor decides to stop the challenge, which he is bound to eventually. Sooner or later people need to move on to other projects.

Apparently homepoaths are not happy about this.

Homeopaths have reacted with anger to his £10,000 challenge, branding it a publicity stunt and they already had “more than enough proof”.

Yes, except that they get angry when someone asks them, and offers them money, for this “proof”. What kind of bullshit is that?

Dr Robert Mathie, of the British Homeopathic Association, said: “What is needed is more investment in homeopathy research, not facile enticements by scientists who should know better.”

Hey, why don’t they take the free 10,000 pounds and invest it in additional research? That’s no chump change I’ll tell you that much. As of today that amount is worth $19,906. That won’t fund any revolutinary research that’s granted, but it can easily take care of some overhead.

Frederiek Maddock, a homeopath from Crediton, said: “Dr Ernst does not appear to have done his research properly and is very selective in what he decides to believe.

“This is not a very professional way to do this. Whether anyone will take up his challenge is a matter for the homeopathic association.”

I will make a prediction. Even homeopaths are not stupid enough to do it, and even if they did and failed miserably (as expected) they and their followers will fall onto some sort of post-hoc argument and turn a blind eye to the results. Faith is always stronger than the evidence which contradicts it.