MiloCast

Hello to all my readers out there. I am writing a rare weekend post to find out more about you. How many of you are out there? Do you read my articles because you agree or disagree? What do you think of this site?

Several people have posted comments to the articles, but it looks like there are hundreds more who have not. It has now been about six weeks since I started the site, and I’m curious to see what I have accomplished thus far.

So feel free to send me e-mail, to Shawn@Milochik.com, or leave a comment on a post.

Thanks,
Shawn

The Magicians’ Alliance of Eastern States is holding their annual convention in Trevose, PA next week. Some of the greatest (if not best-known) names in magic will be in attendance. I learned about this recently, or I would have posted sooner. However, I do plan on being there, and I’ll try to get some photos and audio interviews for MiloCast.com and my podcast. Hope to see you there!

Absence of evidence, as they say, is not evidence of absence. Just because you can’t prove something doesn’t mean it’s not a fact. This is true, and makes perfect sense. You can’t prove you had eggs for breakfast one Tuesday six years ago, even if you did. But like all reasonable ideas, this has been abused by religious apologists seeking to justify their irrational beliefs.

They say that just because there is no evidence for their god does not mean he/she/it doesn’t exist. That is true. However, it does not justify a belief in this god either. In this sense, gods are like the Loch Ness Monster, big foot, and fair and balanced reporting of the news. All could exist, but there is no proof for any — no matter how hard people look, and how much time they spend videotaping that loch.

If you believe something just because you don’t see enough reason not to (but no reason to), ask yourself if you just believe it because you hope it’s true. If so, you have more exploring to do.

When confronted with evidence which conflicts with their beliefs, the religious person will attack the evidence, or change their explanation for why they believe what they believe.

When confronted with evidence which conflicts with their beliefs, a thinking person modifies their beliefs to better reflect reality.

I experienced quite a treat last weekend. At Denny Haney’s magic shop, I got to see performances by Tommy Wonder and Fred Kaps on DVD. I knew both names of course, and even have Tommy Wonder’s books. But nothing had prepared me for what I saw. Pure entertainment, absolutely thrilling magic, and I was completely captivated. Usually, as a magician, I watch a magician perform and I’m aware that I’m watching a magician perform. But with these legends, I was just entertained.

Sadly, neither Wonder nor Kaps is still with us, but I hope that the work they each left behind inspires other magicians to be great entertainers. There are some magicians today whose work is just as entertaining, but there are a great many more whose minds are more on the magic than the entertainment. May we all aspire to be like Kaps and Wonder — not an imitation, but performers in the truest sense.

As always, the subject of profanity is in the news. This time, the city council of New York City is trying to ban the word “bitch.” They have already apparently successfully banned the use of “the N word.” My verdict? They’re being foolish. Banning words is idiotic. Words which were considered naughty a generation ago are nothing now. Those which we use now are still only words. A series of sounds we make with our mouths, or a series of letters we write. They are meaningless without the agreed-upon value we give them.

If we lived in a slightly different world, calling someone a “banana” could be the ultimate insult, inciting racial rioting and murder, and we would go to the grocery store and buy a ripe yellow nigger to put in our Cheerios tomorrow at breakfast. Think about it — the words themselves are nothing. When you ban a word, you do nothing to educate the moron using it offensively — you just change his vocabulary, if that.

How exactly do they enforce this ridiculous law? I picture a full-grown man running into the police station like a four-year-old running to mommy. “Policeman, policeman — that man said ‘bitch’ — I heard him.” Can you imagine saying a word — a freaking word — and the person next to you saying “Ooooh — I’m telling!”

If you don’t like people using certain words, first consider that you’re probably being over-sensitive. I mean, unless a judge in traffic court or your boss or your spouse is attacking you with words you dislike. Ordinary people you don’t care about and who have no power over your life have no ability to hurt you with words unless you choose to accept some validity in their statements. If it’s someone you care about, or someone who has authority over you, then take appropriate action.

Remember, even in America, the land of the free, you don’t have the right not to be offended. If something offends you, banning it is not the answer. Educating the offender is. If someone is watching television with the volume up high while you’re trying to sleep in the next room, do you ban TV? No, you ask them to turn it down because it’s disturbing your rest. Remember — you probably offend people on a regular basis — it’s nearly guaranteed if you drive a car. Do you want to be banned from driving for all the people you pissed off in the last week? I guess all that can be said about this self-righteous bullshit is: “Just grow up, people.”

I just watched a movie which I expected to be interesting and informative. It was, but not in the ways I expected. I had seen just the first part, which was distributed separately, and contained a lot of useful and interesting ideas about the origins of Christianity, and showed the many parallels between the myths of Jesus and the myths of very similar gods worshiped thousands of years before the time of Jesus. I plan to do further research on the things explained in part one, because they coincide with things I have heard elsewhere from various sources, but I want to independently verify them because of the garbage they are bundled with in the full movie.

The full, two-hour movie contains enough conspiracy theories to keep any fan of such things occupied for a long time. Interested in the idea that the US government engineered the events of September 11th, 2001? Do you think Kennedy was killed as part of a conspiracy, and not by a lone gunman? Do you believe that the government not only knew about the Pearl Harbor bombing in advance, but let it happen so the public would support the US entering World War II? If so, you’re in for a treat. Not only do you get all that and more, but a juicier plot line that explains or implies that all those events are part of the same master plan, with the end result being having one world government controlled by the bank that controls the currency, and all humans being implanted with an RFID chip. Oh, and the same group (going back a couple of generations) intentionally caused the stock market crash of 1929 as one of the first steps in this master plan. I think the only one they didn’t manage to tie in was the moon landing.

The movie is well done, and frightening. Had I not spent a lot of time over the last couple of years hearing about the same or similar topics, and learning why they don’t stand up, I would probably be living in fear right now. It reminds me once again of how convincing a one-sided story can be, and reinforces the fact that we should never take the information we get from one source (a parent, a church, a government, etc.) and accept it as true by default. Also remember that just because someone is saying something on your TV or computer screen does not mean that it is true — even if they’re wearing a suit.

There are two main things about conspiracy theories I’d like to point out. First, it is so unlikely as to be nearly impossible that any conspiracies such as the ones mentioned above could have been pulled off without people involved talking too much. Anything from a guilty conscience to a deathbed confession which provided solid evidence would sink the whole thing. Secondly, most conspiracy theorists claim to have information which everyone else is ignorant of — except for those trying to cover it up, of course. Their claims are never quite backed up by what they’re able to demonstrate, and they always claim that the conspirators are withholding the crucial pieces. What’s wrong with that story? Somehow they’re so bad at keeping their secrets that you know all about the plot — nearly every detail. But somehow they’re so good (or lucky) that they managed to prevent the leak of any evidence or information which would actually prove it. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.

This would be a good time to mention “Occam’s Razor.” This is a principle which most people think means “the simplest solution is probably the right one.” It does not. By that logic, the simplest explanation for a person claiming to be abducted by a UFO, probed, and returned would be that they were abducted by a UFO. What Occam’s razor actually says is that you must first make the smallest number of assumptions as possible. Then, the simplest solution is probably true. For example, in our UFO story, saying it is true makes the assumption that extraterrestrial life exists, it is more technologically advanced than we are, it has traveled to our planet, it decided to take a human for some reason, and also decided to return the human when they were done. Since none of those things are proven, and the probability that the entire combination is true is near zero, we will probably decide that the “abductee” is either lying or insane.

When I began writing this article, I wasn’t going to name the movie, to avoid giving it publicity. However, I decided that doing so would be much too close to censorship for my tastes. I definitely don’t want to decide for you what information you are entitled to for use in making up your own mind. Go ahead and watch it, question it, and pick something from it to research on your own. If you come to your own conclusion based upon the preponderance of the evidence, then not only will you be more likely to be correct, but the satisfaction and experience gained will benefit you for the rest of your life.

Enjoy the mp3 of my article “The Fact of Evolution.”

Arguing with a theist is like playing catch with someone who can’t throw straight. No matter how direct you are, even if you walk over and place the ball directly into their hand, it still comes back at an angle.

Some of my recent posts have inspired responses from people I know who are religious. Even friends and close family members who aren’t particularly religious, but are far from atheists, have expressed mild disagreement with what I have written about religion. However, each time I ask for a response to a specific question or clarification of their vague disagreement, I can not get a clear, concise answer.

For those who disagree strongly, and are deeply religious, their replies get more wordy with each round of e-mail. In spite of this fact, they never respond to my direct questions, instead preferring to rephrase my question and give the answer they want to give. For those who politely, mildly disagree, they conspicuously ignore some of my questions in their responses, and answer all the others. One of my brothers, after I asked him to read one of my earlier articles, had this to say:

“I do agree with you about all of it except the religious part. I am not religious myself, but I don’t agree with you.”

I wrote back and asked him what he meant by that, but his next e-mail made no mention. I wrote back again asking specifically about that comment and nothing else, and received no reply at all.

What is it about the topic of religion which inspires so much dodging among both the faithful and the non-faithful? So many times, after asking a difficult question of a theist, they begin by saying “Let me ask you a question.” The question invariably has nothing to do with what I have asked them, and they will not be diverted back to it. Backed into a corner, or being honest, the only real answer they can give is “you just have to have faith.” Well no, you don’t have to have faith. Faith is what allows suicide bombers to kill children with no hesitation. Faith is what allows families to disown gay children. Faith is what has caused Christians to murder doctors in order to prevent abortions. Faith is what caused the events of September 11th, 2001. Faith is what split India and Pakistan into two separate countries.

So no, you don’t have to have faith. And if you choose to have faith, that’s your own free will, and I wouldn’t stop you by force even if I could. But if your faith causes you to do things which harm others, I will attack that faith with passion and persistence.

If you have a belief, ask yourself how you came to believe it. If you can only answer that it was taught to you by others, and not earned through rational thinking on your own, then question that belief. If you can not justify that belief with evidence, if you can not demonstrate it to be true, and if you can find evidence which strongly suggests it is not true, then it’s time to think about that belief some more — not stop thinking about it.

After my fun bible shopping experience last week, I decided to sit down and read a bit of it. I think the last time I read the bible on a regular basis was when I was still a pre-teen. It’s amazing what is written in this book, and it’s simply shocking that anyone actually believes this stuff is literal. That is, of course, unless they’ve never read it. I suspect that is the case with most people who claim to believe it is the literal or inspired word of God.

Here was my first epiphany after reading the beginning of Genesis: “original sin” was impossible. I’m sure you know the story — go and read it. Here’s a brief recap: God created the world, animals, etc., then humans. He told them to eat the fruit of any tree except for the tree of knowledge. He specifically stated that if Adam ate that fruit he would die that day. The King James version states that God said Adam would die the day he ate it, and in the New International Version God says Adam would die “when” he ate it, which sounds rather immediate.

In any case, the bible states that the tree of knowledge conferred the knowledge of good and evil, or right and wrong, when the fruit was eaten. Adam and Eve could not have known right from wrong before they ate that fruit, so they were not committing a sin. End of story.

But let’s have a little more fun. According to either bible, God specifically said that eating of the fruit meant death. The serpent, in both cases, told Eve that the fruit didn’t cause death, but brought knowledge. In neither bible did the serpent suggest that Eve eat it, or trick her into eating it. He simply told the truth. So the most holy of bibles (to billions of people), begins its first book with a god who lies to us, then punishes the serpent for telling us the truth. Go biblical morality!

Then, God punishes the serpent for being honest, punishes humans for learning, and then sets a guard with a flaming sword to guard the tree. Why didn’t he just destroy the tree? And why create the tree in the first place?

As if that’s not enough to discredit this god who supposedly loves us, how about this: God created humans in his own likeness, but was apparently trying to keep us ignorant. However, he thought the serpent worthy of knowing the truth about the tree of knowledge. So we rated below the serpent in godly honesty. Very interesting.

So, please go find a bible and read the first three chapters. They’re short — it’s probably about a page and a half of reading. Decide for yourself. And if you happen to meet any people who claim to believe in the bible, ask them something for me: How much of it have you read?