Well, yesterday was doomsday. May 21, 2011 was said, by a very, very small, but rich group of idiots, to be the day that their creator was to call them to heaven and begin the 5 month process of disposing of the rest of us.
Of course, it didn’t happen. I prediction that I was happy to make, loudly and often.
So, now what? At this point no news organizations have hunted down the “false prophet” yet. But I can tell you what he’s going to say.
He’ll say that he got the math wrong again. He will either make another prediction and shove it off again, like he did in 1994, or he’ll make up some other hogwash.
When your belief system doesn’t work on facts, only faith, it’s easy to explain away the foolish predictions.
The religious have been making failed predictions for millennia, then explaining them away with whatever pops into their heads. No burden of proof necessary when claims don’t require evidence to back them up.
Christian dogma states, and every card carrying Christian believes, that this whole rapture nonsense is going to happen. It’s only marginally more ridiculous to put a date on it.
I’ve heard, ad nauseum, that “Only God knows when the rapture will come…”
Another baseless, evidence-immune statement. Who says this? The bible? Why do you believe this book? Because it says it’s true? Because your parents told you to? Because the rest of society does? Because something good happened to you once? I choose to live my life realistically. I choose to have evidence based beliefs. For pete’s sake, it’s the 21st century….people really need to catch up.
This photo is from the archives of the UK National Media Museum. The photographer’s name was William Hope. He took a LOT of picture’s like this starting in about 1905. Photography was still in its infancy at this time. Though it had been around since a century earlier, photography only came into popular use in the late 19th century with the replacement of glass plates by film media. Hope’s photography was seen by many as proof that ghosts existed. In fact, many of those who claimed supernatural abilities used photography as a way to prove their validity. Since most didn’t understand the technology (and many still don’t), it was easy to convince people that there was supernatural activity being recorded, when in fact it was extended or double exposure at work.
Hope and his group of mediums, called the Crew Circle, were exposed as frauds by Harry Price, an investigator sent on behalf of the Society for Psychical Research, who uncovered that Hope had been using double exposure to achieve his images.
Though he’d been exposed, Hope went on to make his photographs, supported by those who still believed that his work was genuine.
I receive a small amount of email and comments on this website which accuse me of being close minded. Usually the person says “I have all sorts of ghost photos which prove that ghosts exist, but you’d just say that they were fake.”
You’re right. I likely would.
But, you underestimate my, and most other skeptics’, reasoning.
I do not dismiss each ghost photo out of hand. I rely on the scientific method. If the photo cannot survive the rigors of the scientific method, then I will state that there is not enough evidence for me to believe in it’s validity as proof of the existence of ghosts.
Here’s an example
Taken at Tantellon castle, this photo is deemed to be the BEST GHOST PHOTO
The Telegraph UK said this:
“An eerie image of a figure in period costume at a Scottish castle has spooked experts conducting the biggest ever investigation into photographic evidence for ghosts. The picture, taken in May 2008, appears to show a man or woman in a ruff peering out of a barred window at Tantallon Castle. No mannequins or costumed guides are employed at the castle, and three photographic experts have confirmed that no digital trickery was used on the photo. Tantallon Castle, a ruined fortress dating back to the 14th century, stands on a remote rocky headland near North Berwick on the Scottish east coast”
I contend that this is not a ghost photo, but an example of paradolia. I think that it’s the sun on the upper rim of a window.
But, that’s my opinion, I’m certain that i could reproduce the photo if I could get there.
Let’s look at the scientific method, as a refresher:
Define the question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Let’s see how we would do this with this image:
THE ALLEGED FROG:
1) Define the question
Does this image depict a frog?
2) Gather information and resources (observe)
The image depicts what appears to be a quadripedal animal, it is green in color and has hind legs that appear to be specialized to jumping. It has three toes on each foot, it has large eyes which are slitted horizontally, it has a large mouth. It has a white belly. Though it is not compared against anything, it appears to be rather small in stature due to the angle and closeness of the camera. It does not appear to have external ears.
3) Form hypothesis
This image does depict a frog.
4) Perform experiment and collect data
We would, simply by examining the image, come up with the various features that this animal exhibits. We would list them. We would take measurements of parts of the animal’s anatomy in comparison with other parts.
5) Analyze data
We would compare this data to data we have of known, scientifically verified frogs.
6) Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis.
We would, through above mentioned comparison, come to the conclusion that this image does indeed depict a frog.
7) Publish results
8) Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
THE ALLEGED GHOST
1) Define the question
Does this photo depict an actual ghost?
2) Gather information and resources (observe)
We need to examine the photo and determine what we see. In this case, we see an image which appears to be a face in the upper window of a castle. The photograph appears to have been taken from the ground, or at least a lower level than that of the anomoly.
3) Form hypothesis
This photograph depicts a ghost.
4) Perform experiment and collect data
Do we have enough information to determine if the photo depicts a ghost? What can we determine from the photo? What kind of experiments are we able to run? Can we measure this image against real scientifically verified images of ghosts? Does the ghost seem to exhibit the same characteristics of scientifically verified images ghosts? There are no scientifically verified images of ghosts. Since there are no scientifically verified images of ghosts and therefore no known characteristics of ghosts, we have no experiment we can run. The scientific method will not work with this hypothesis, and therefore the image cannot be determined to be depicting a ghost.
5) Analyze data
No data was collected
6) Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
No data was collected
7) Publish results
Due to the nature of the image, and the lack of data, no results could be obtained, and therefore not results are published.
8) Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
THE ALLEGED SUNLIGHT ON THE TOP OF THE WINDOW
1) Define the question
Does this image depict sunlight reflected off the top of the window?
2) Gather information and resources (observe)
Is the time of day consistent with the light suggested? Is there an interior window which could allow such light in? Do other windows in the photograph exhibit evidence of sunlight reflection? Is it possible that sunlight reflection could cause such an image? Do images taken from the vantage-point at the exact time of day of the original image display the same light pattern? The ghosts face is the same color as the color of the bricks used in the castle.
3) Form hypothesis
The image is that of light reflected off of patterned bricks, which resemble a human face under the right lighting conditions and from the right angle.
4) Perform experiment and collect data
We could go to the castle, and take photographs from the same vantage point as the original image every hour. We could examine the castle and determine if there is a potential for sunlight to be reflected from the surface mentioned.
5) Analyze data
We would compare the new images to the original image.
6) Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis.
If it was determined that the image could be reproduced by natural phenomenon, then we would conclude that the image was not supernatural in nature.
We use the scientific method to determine if something is true based on evidence. We can do this quite easily with natural phenomenon. Ghosts fall outside of natural phenomenon, and therefore cannot be measured. There is no reason to believe that any ghost photo depicts a ghost, since we have no idea what a ghost is…
Here’s a video about closed-mindedness that explains that concept rather thoroughly:
It was time for the parents to sit their son down and tell him the truth about Santa.
Young Kenny was wide eyes as they sat him down in the couch, each sitting to either side and prepared him for the bad news.
“Kenny,” his mother began, “It’s time you knew the truth about Santa Claus.” She glanced at his father, who they’d decided earlier by a drawing of straws would deliver the shocking news.
“Kenny,” his father said, in a serious tone, ” Santa Claus is not real. Those presents that have come from him over the years have been from your mother and I.”
Kenny couldn’t believe this. How could it be true? Santa Claus had been a reality in Kenny’s life as far back as he could remember. Santa came with his reindeer, every Christmas. He landed on the roof. He laid his finger aside his nose to magically transport himself, and his large bag of toys, down the chimney. He left specially crafted gifts under the tree for Kenny. He ate the cookies that Kenny and his mother had made, drank the milk and left a note on the plate, thanking them. He repeated this billions of times that night, visiting every child in the world. It was probably very difficult, but Santa had magic.
No, Kenny decided, this couldn’t be true. There must be an Anti-Santa. The Anti-Santa had used his magic to change his parents’ minds. He knew that if people didn’t believe in Santa, that he’d lose all of his magic.
Kenny had it all figured out.
In this situation, Kenny is moving the goalpost. He’d believed in Santa because he’d been told by his authority figures, his parents and other well-meaning adults, that Santa was real. When Kenny had approached them with inconsistencies in the story:
Q: How does Santa get through the chimney? It’s too small for me to fit in, and Santa’s supposed to be fat.
A: He lays his finger aside his nose and is magically transported into the house.
Q: How does Santa get to all those houses in one day?
A: Magic.
Q: How does Santa know whether I’ve been good or bad?
A: Magic.
So Kenny has been primed to believe that there are special rules where Santa is concerned. Every time that Kenny attempts to apply his new found rational, critical thinking skills to the Santa story, he’s given a new lie. Kenny is now primed to believe in magic. He’s a smart one, though, and sees through the obvious subterfuge on the part of his poor, deluded parents. They’re not to be trusted anymore, because they’ve been tainted by the Anti-Santa’s magic. His requirements for belief in Santa were originally that his parents said it was true. He found holes in is parent’s stories, and they patched those holes by moving the goalposts using the explanation of “magic”.
When they came clean, Kenny had already bought the idea that Santa existed, and that there was magic. Why not postulate the existence of an evil Anti-Santa, who would work to thwart the magic of the real Santa? Kenny no longer has any limitations on his belief system, because his attempts at critical thinking were laid to waste by the “magic” explanation. Now any kind of illogical events can occur, they’re just explained by magic.
Can you see any correlations here?
Children are given religion at a very early age. Any questions that their rational, critical thinking brains come up with when approached with inconsistencies and lapses in logic are pre-thwarted by stories.
Q: How could Jesus rise from the dead when Grampa can’t?
A: Jesus is magic.
Q: Why does God let babies, puppies and kittens die?
A: Because God knows everything, and he has a big plan.
Q: If God loves us so much, why does he punish people by burning them in hell?
A: Because…uh…he works in mysterious ways.
Q: If the world is only 6000 years old, then where did the fossils come from?
A: The devil planted them to test people’s faith or Science is wrong or the dinosaurs died in the flood.
Q: Why do my prayers go unanswered?
A: Because God knows everything, has a big plan and works in mysterious ways. Or perhaps your faith isn’t strong enough…
So Christian children have been primed to believe that there are special rules where God is concerned. Every time that they attempt to apply their new found rational, critical thinking skills to the God story, they’re given a new lie. They’re now primed to believe in magic. They’re smart, though, and see through the obvious subterfuge on the part of the poor, deluded atheists. Atheists are not to be trusted anymore, because they’ve been tainted by Satan’s magic. Their requirements for belief in God were originally that their parents and churches said it was true. They found holes in their parents and churches’ stories, and the parents and churches patched those holes by moving the goalposts using the explanation of “magic”.
The difference is…no one ever comes clean and says that it’s all a fairy tale. It lasts through adulthood, carried on the shoulders of magical thinking and special exceptions.
These are just my thoughts at the moment…Let me know what you think…
The Daily Mail couldn't help but anthropomorphise this face..
What a beautiful example of pareidolia!
I got this from ABC News (then later from the UK Daily Mail), and it was apparently taken by a photographer. Click the pic for info.
Now, a lot of people think that this is the Virgin Mary, or Mother Nature.
But what it actually is, is an incredible coincidence, which maps onto our brain’s example of a face…sort of. It looks like a woman, because the “eyes” and the “lips” look as though they’ve been enhanced with makeup. The nose isn’t exactly placed in a very good approximation of a face though. But since the “eye” and the “mouth” are placed in good approximation of a face, then our idea of “face” makes us believe that this looks like a face.
The human brain is such a strange and wonderful thing.
I have always thought that people who are obsessed with gays to the extent of starting political action groups against GLBT people, were dealing with their own sexuality issues.
But it came to me today that these people are likely bisexual.
Here’s my thoughts:
1. Anti-gay people believe that being homosexual is a choice.
Otherwise why would they attack gay people. That’d be like like attacking those who were left-handed (which they used to do, but they’ve gotten over it now). There would be no reason to attack left-handed people, because it’s pretty much scientifically verifiable that they didn’t just make a choice to be left-handed. It’s just the way they are…make some scissors for them and go about your day. So I think I can safely state that anti-gay people believe that being gay is a choice.
2. Anti-gay people believe that being heterosexual is a choice.
Well, it stands to reason doesn’t it? If they think that gay people, at some point in their lives, were faced with the choice to live a sinful and disgusting lifestyle of homosexuality, then it would stand to reason that they think that gay people were also presented with the choice of being pure and clean and heterosexual. It is safe, then, to state that anti-gay people believe that gay people were given the choice of being heterosexual.
3. Anti-gay people must feel that all people are presented this choice.
If they believe that gay people were presented this choice and chose poorly (sin, perversion, damnation, etc.), then they must believe that everyone is presented with this choice and that most people choose correctly (purity, sanctity, heavenly bliss, etc.). They think that gay people are bucking the trend, or want to be rebellious, or hate god or are tempted by Satan…or whatever. So it’s safe to state that anti-gay people feel that the choice is presented to everyone as to whether they choose to be gay or straight.
4. Anti-gay people must feel that they themselves were presented this choice.
Well, again, it stands to reason. The anti-gay person is a subset of EVERYONE (see #3).
5. People who are confident in their sexuality state that they were never presented with this choice.
I’m currently searching for numbers in this, but I think that if you asked anyone if they were presented with this choice in their lives, a vast majority of people, I’d say reaching into the 90th percentile, would say that they were never presented with this choice. That when puberty struck them, and they started to be turned on by other people, they were just programed to be attracted to those to whom they were attracted. Straight boys started digging on girls, straight girls started digging on boys, gay boys started digging on boys and gay girls started digging on girls.
6. People who are ambivalent (i.e., bisexual) in their sexuality state that they were presented with a choice.
Those who are open and accepting of their sexuality would accept that they were going to remain in that open state. They would accept that they had some level of sexual attraction to both sexes and they would then date members of both genders. However, in a society in which:
a. Sexuality is seen as a binary (boys like girls, girls like boys),
b. Self-identification of sexuality develops at an early age (12-16ish),
c. People of this age are pretty easily influenced by societal pressures to conform to the sexuality binary.
It doesn’t seem very strange at all that some bisexual people would reject the idea that their attraction to both males and females was acceptable, since it falls outside the socially accepted norm of binary sexuality. The young person would then feel that they had to make a choice in one direction or the other. Those who are being influenced by religion, parental authoritarianism, peer pressure, etc., would feel that they had to make a choice in the direction of the societal binary, aka heterosexuality.
7. People tend to generalize from their experience to society.
If someone believes that they had a choice in the matter, they would believe that everyone else had a choice in the matter as well. Bisexual people I have spoken to tend to think that everyone is bisexual, but in denial about it. So it stands to reason that anti-gay people believe that this is true as well. If their experience is that they had a choice about their sexuality, they’d then believe that EVERYONE had a choice about their sexuality. Thus leading them to believe that being gay is a choice.
8. The bisexual, anti-gay person feels that homosexuality is immoral, and wishes to prevent homosexuality, and therefore becomes vocally anti-gay.
They believe this because they’re still being influenced by the same forces that made them choose to align themselves with the sexual binary to begin with (religion, parental authoritarianism, peer pressure, etc.). Since they made the choice themselves, they then believe that everyone makes the choice (#3 & #7), then they believe that they can influence teenagers and others who are at the point of being presented with the choice to be gay or straight.
9. They believe that any societal message that makes being gay seem normal or natural might lead those who are being faced with the choice to choose incorrectly.
This is the reason that anti-gay people want to ban books, ban gay marriage, and ban positive gay portrayals. It’s also the reason that they promote the negative stereotypes of gay life in their literature. For instance, showing over-the-top portrayals of gay pride parades as representative of the daily gay lifestyle, and comparing gay people to pedophiles.
10. The bisexual, anti-gay person, is then able to convince others that being gay is a choice.
He or she is able to do this because:
a. People who are part of the societal binary sexuality (Heterosexuals) are unlikely to have ever given the origins of their sexuality much thought; it just is.
b. The bisexual, anti-gay person does not explain that they, themselves are, in fact, bisexual, because they don’t consider themselves to be bisexual because they chose to live the heterosexual part of their duality.
c. Heterosexual people who have never given any thought to the origins of their sexuality are also influenced by bisexual anti-gay people, as well as the same religions, parental authoritarianism, peer pressure, etc. They then are easily lead to vote against gay people, because they are not aware of the motivations of the bisexual anti-gay person, and they do little to investigate his or her claims.
Other evidence:
The fact that a great many public figures, who declare themselves to be anti-gay are caught in compromising gay situations:
Mark Foley
Ted Haggard
Larry Craig
Bob Allen
Glenn Murphy Jr.
Jeff Gannon
Jim West
Troy King
Etc.
I also suspect that Pastor Fred Phelps is also an anti-gay bisexual.
PLEASE NOTE: Bisexual people might feel that they’re being made the villains in this piece. This is not my intent. The inability to accept ones own sexuality is the villain.
Some guy went off at Ft. Hood, an army base in Texas. The suspect’s name is Nidal Malik Hasan. He’s a psychologist and had reached the rank of Major.
The news stories are reporting that he may have been reacting to the idea of being deployed to Afghanistan.
Okay, so we have all this information, but when we go to the news sites regarding the shootings, we see people reacting to it. Many are crying, some are holding one another, there’s a lot of people in uniform expressing emotions. I do not in any way seek to diminish the depth of the pain we see portrayed…
But we don’t see any of the actual damage that was done.
I’m not advocating that there be up close shots of bullet ridden bodies. But I think that we sanitize these things too much. What of the bodies? What of the blood? Why do we see nothing of the actual tragedy?
It is no wonder, in a society where guns are viewed as toys; where representations of gunshot wounds on TV amount to small red dots, where we leave our dead in hospital beds and then next see them in caskets in funeral homes…
We have a denial problem when it comes to death.
Death is a natural part of life. It happens to EVERY ONE OF US. Why do we go to such lengths to hide it?
Murder, accidents, and the like are also a part of our everyday existence. Why do we sanitize them and bleach out all the red?
If we, as a society of individuals, were allowed to see the actual damages of violence, perhaps it might be a measurable deterrent to those who would do violence.
Maybe if we didn’t hide the reality of death from everyone, then everyone wouldn’t be so callous to it.
Those who would preserve the status quo might say that showing the actuality of violence would make us immune to its effects. That we’d become numb to violence if we were to see a realistic portrayal of it’s aftermaths.
I argue that that is just the state we exist in now. We hear of mass murders, and when imagining those things envision bodies with no visible wounds lying peacefully on the floor, eyes closed and at peace; a gentle breeze drifting through the open window. Police shaking their heads in dismay as the bodies are covered in bleached, white linen and wheeled away on stretchers.
This isn’t a deterrent. This is a TV SHOW.
People have wounds! Death doesn’t always come instantly. People cry and are in pain and bleed and then die with their eyes open as too much of their precious blood leaks out onto the floor. There is blood, sometimes lots of it. The life that once animated the person is gone now – forever. There are smells, and sounds, and horrifying stillness. There are disfigurements, broken parts and rigor mortis.
The culture of denial enables us to feel as though violence and death doesn’t touch us. It does nothing to prepare us for those moments when it DOES touch us.
How can we feel a tragedy, if all we’re presented with is a tableau of clean, white, linen…
Sure it’s more comfortable to pretend it doesn’t exist, but that certainly doesn’t help us to attune ourselves to the reality of existence.
Do you have a supernatural, paranormal, and/or unexplained experience? Do you have evidence that you think proves the existence of ghosts, gods, bigfoot, or any other supernatural beings?
Send me an email @ skepticalderman(at)gmail.com and include any evidence you might have. You must give permission for the evidence to be posted on the site if it belongs to you.
