MiloCast

Every magician has one or more heroes or idols. They may be living magicians, or magicians of the past whose skills reached new heights or brought more prestige to the art. We also have great respect for those magicians we have personal access to who have been into magic for many more years than we have, or who have achieved success in their magical careers. Take, for example, Denny Haney. Denny has earned tremendous respect from magicians worldwide, and those of us lucky enough to be within driving distance of his shop constantly hound him for advice and opinions. His decades as a professional performer, unflinching devotion to ethics, and broad knowledge of every aspect of magic is very valuable to us all.

However, I think we have a tendency to take such resources for granted, and in doing so we limit ourselves tremendously. Consider the computer programmer seeking help from an online group. If he doesn’t demonstrate that he has worked hard on the issue before asking for answers, he is unlikely to be handed the solution. Even if he is handed a working solution, the benefit is minor because it doesn’t force him to improve himself. The same goes for magicians asking Denny what they should buy. He probably knows, but the book he recommends will often go unappreciated, even if we do buy it. We can only improve as magicians once we have earned a solid footing at our current level through study, practice, and thought.

If you are lucky enough to know an experienced magician willing to help you advance, consider them to be a last resort. If you think about a problem on your own, you may invent something new, or improve upon something old. By asking for the solution, you may be robbing yourself (and others) of your own creative contributions to the art. Those you respect didn’t earn that respect by mimicking others — they earned it by making a contribution.

Also, allow yourself to question or disagree with their advice. What is best for one person may not be best for another. If you and your mentor are different (and you are), their carefully selected repertoire may be perfect for them, but it’s almost certainly not perfect for you.

It’s rarely a good idea to “re-invent the wheel,” but if we use something without ever really understanding it, we necessarily limit its usefulness, and our own success.

I was listening to the unabridged audiobook of “The God Delusion” on my way to work this morning, and Dawkins quoted an unintentionally funny bit of advertising copy he had seen for a book. It said that the book “filled a much-needed gap.” Obviously the advertiser meant that the book was much-needed, but what they said was that the gap is what we need — not the book.

Gaps are needed — they’re vital to progress. Without unanswered questions, there would be no science and no curiosity. If we, as a species, didn’t seek out the reason things are so, we would not have the medical knowledge or technology we enjoy and our standard of living would be much lower.

When a gap is filled with a tested and reasonable explanation, we’re all richer for it. When a gap is filled with nonsense like “God did it,” we’re robbing ourselves of curiosity, wonder, and a chance to make the world a better place.

One of the fantastic things about the human species is that every time we gain knowledge, we enrich our lives. We throw away the old ideas that seemed plausible for a while, and the new ones work better — because they fit in better with reality. Maybe we’ll improve upon them later, but for now we have at least shed some ignorance.

Even Christians do this — to a point. They have finally accepted that the earth orbits the sun (albeit after committing murder in defense of their wrong ideas), and more and more Christians accept the truth of the fact of evolution. This is good, because the evidence is so overwhelming on both points that only an idiot or someone who intentionally refuses to be educated could disagree if they were presented with the facts.

Why is it, then, that when “truths” of the bible are utterly discredited, the Christians go on believing everything else that hasn’t been shown to be absolutely incorrect — yet? They believe in God because he created man in his own likeness and image — literally. No man — poof — man. Now that they must accept evolution, they just claim that God created the beginnings of life and set evolution in motion. Why the need to insert a god at all?

The bible was the indisputable word of God for a while. Now it’s not. But it’s somehow still “true” in some sense, and the increasing number of holes in its claims don’t seem to diminish that idea in some people’s heads. I still believe that most self-proclaimed Christians haven’t read the bible — they listen to a man in a pulpit tell them what certain small parts of the bible say, and then spend an hour telling them what they should believe it means. Apparently it can’t be taken literally — then you’d either have a bunch of Christians going on murder sprees or becoming atheists.

Christians: Nothing you believe about Jesus has any provable basis in reality. Many things you believe about Jesus and the bible have been conclusively shown not to have happened. Why are you clinging to these stories? Many religions, believed just as strongly as yours is, have long since been abandoned because they are no longer relevant to this world. There was no less evidence for those than Christianity, and many of them were older and lasted longer. It’s time to give up the big Santa Claus in the sky and become grown-ups.

Ever notice how, when a Christian says they used to be an atheist, they expect that to carry some weight? The implied message is that they know both sides of the story, and they finally understand the truth.

But tell a Christian you used to be an Christian, and you’re still an idiot — either they think you were never a “true Christian” — whatever that is — or you somehow had the truth but got confused.

The interesting thing is that an ex-religious atheist can probably give many evidence-based examples of reasons why what they once believed just doesn’t hold water. An “ex-athiest” Christian can’t give a single valid reason why Christianity is true. They can give you thousands of reasons why they want it to be true, but not a single solitary reason it is even remotely probable.

What is it about some people that makes them prefer to believe something they would like to be true when there is no evidence for and plenty of evidence against? What drives an otherwise normal person to dismiss validated scientific research for no other reason than that it conflicts with their baseless beliefs? Some of them even know they’re completely full of crap, and they put out misinformation and just plain lies about science, evolution, and anything else which doesn’t agree with their religion. They seem to think that there’s some kernel of truth in their mythology, and any piece of it which is obviously untrue must be defended for the greater good.

Maybe it’s just the frustration talking. I encounter theists on a regular basis, in person and online, who all act exactly the same predictable, ridiculous ways. They can’t give a straight answer to a question because that would require being honest, which necessarily conflicts with their beliefs. They use every logical fallacy in the book with ease. They repeat blatant lies which have been disproved long ago. As someone who cares about the truth, and that other people understand the truth, this just frustrates me to no end.

A common claim among Christians who found their faith later in life (after childhood, when most people are indoctrinated), is that they “used to be atheists.” Technically, that’s true. Everyone is born an atheist, by definition. However, there are different types of atheism. There is “default atheism,” also known as “weak atheism,” which simply describes a person who was never indoctrinated into a religion. Then there is “strong atheism,” which describes people who have decided based upon actual information that there is no valid reason to believe in any gods.

So a weak atheist converting to a religion is simply a gullible person accepting irrational claims made by other human beings. You don’t see strong atheists converting to religion, because they value the truth. The closest we can come to knowing the truth is to base our opinions on the best evidence we have. If a strong atheist were to convert to a religion, there would have to be a reason compelling enough for him to explain to other strong atheists. If such an argument existed and was valid, all strong atheists would convert to religion, because it would be the most convincing position based upon the facts. However, this has clearly not happened.

I am well aware that I have used strong language in this article, including repeated use of the word “indoctrination” to describe the way people gain their religious beliefs, and the use of the word “gullible” to describe adults who accept baseless claims about a religion as holy truth. I stand by everything I have said. However, any evidence which shows that I was mistaken will be acknowledged and I will amend my statements if such information is provided. At this time, the only exceptions I can think of to what I said above is that I believe a strong atheist could convert to religion without evidence if he experienced brain damage.

I had a conversation with a theist via e-mail, and his silly arguments about the bible inspired a reply which I paraphrase below because I think it’s such an obvious proof.

The bible contains plenty of depictions of people doing good, and plenty of depictions of God’s own people committing the most horrific crimes imaginable — often at God’s command. However, Christians do not do everything the bible commands. They claim that some of the bible is literal and some is figurative, or allegorical. They make the decisions as to what parts of the bible should be taken literally by their moral values.

So, the truth is that people of all religions and people of no religion all have the same concepts about right and wrong, which we get from our culture. These values have some variations in different parts of the world. For example, the way women are treated in some places, or the way animals are treated. So a Christian and an atheist who are both born and raised in the same place are going to have the same moral values as each other, and two Christians or two atheists born in different cultures will have the same values as the people who surround them, but not necessarily as each other.

Based upon these facts, it’s very clear that the bible is not the source of morality. It is simply a reflection of the values of the cultures which wrote it, and is limited by their understanding of the world, which was much smaller than ours in the modern age.

The authors of the bible demand the death penalty for all manner of transgressions, from disobeying your parents to adultery. Even trying to get a Christian to change their religion requires them to immediately kill you, according to the bible (Deuteronomy, 13:6-9).

Considering that so many people claim to believe that the bible is the inspired or direct word of their almighty creator, upon whose mercy they will be delivered from eternal torment, it’s amazing that we see so few murder cases from obedience to the bible.

The simple fact is that nobody — believer or non-believer — really gets their morality from the bible. We all get it from the same place — society. If someone chooses to say they got it from the bible, or their parents, or from watching daytime television, we may not be able to change their minds. But they are wrong. And isn’t it fantastic!

On my way to work, I sometimes stop at a rest area which contains a Starbucks and a Burger King. I may patronize one or the other, but if there’s a long line I won’t bother. It’s bad enough I’m buying that stuff without waiting in line for it. Today I did wait in line, however, because the traffic was so bad outside that I wanted to kill some time. I had left my iPod (and thus the podcast I had been listening to) in the car, so I ended up watching the muted television as I stood in line for Starbucks.

On the screen was an infomercial for yet another fitness system. There were pictures of people working out in groups, working out at home in front of their televisions, and the obligatory before-and-after photos. The photos are what really annoyed me. The sad part is that they were probably extremely convincing to a lot of people, and would have convinced me if I didn’t know certain things.

First of all, although there were many people shown sweating and exercising, there were only two people depicted in the before-and-after photos. One man and one woman. However, in the few minutes I was waiting in line, the same photos were shown on screen several times each.

The most obvious discrepancy was that both “before” photos showed the person completely pale, and the “after” photos showed them each with a dark tan. The “before” photos were very bright — almost over-exposed or washed out. Also, neither person was standing the same way in both photos. The “before” people were always facing the camera directly, with their body as wide as possible. Their arms hung down by their sides, their legs were together, and they had sad little expressions on their faces.

However, both “after” pictures featured smiling faces, facing the camera at a three-quarter angle to fully display their narrow abdomens, with arms raised in a triumphant pose, and legs bent and separated. Since each set of photos was shown multiple times, it was easy to see that there wasn’t an amazing difference in either photo.

Here’s another piece of intel for you: Infomercials have been known to hire a fit person to intentionally gain weight and pose for a “before” picture, then go back to their normal lifestyle, lose the weight, and claim that the product they’re advertising is what did it. I’m not saying that’s what these people did, but the “before” pictures I saw on-screen looked to me like people who had already been working out, but weren’t quite there yet. Or maybe they had been there, but spent some time at McDonalds preparing for their photo shoots. Dishonest commercial makers have been known to hire active, fit people who have gained weight due to injury or pregnancy for the same reason.

Also, it’s extremely unlikely that the dozens of fit young adults in the group exercise scenes got in that condition from the product they were helping to sell. Think about it. When you invent a fitness product, do you go find a fat guy and get him to use it until he looks good enough to sell it, or do you find a guy in a gym and pay him to put on a tight workout outfit and get sweaty for the camera?

Obviously I’m not claiming I know that any of these things took place in this particular case, although I strongly suspect they did. The important thing is that people are aware of these practices and take their fitness product advertising with a dose of logic, instead of at face value.

Bear in mind that I’m not in any way suggesting that the product wouldn’t work if used as instructed. Actually, there are plenty of programs which encourage eating a more healthful diet and exercising more which will work wonderfully, if they are followed for a few months. In fact, if you join a gym you will probably get a free session or two with a personal trainer. Just do what they suggest, on the schedule they suggest, and you’ll see some great results within three months.

Just don’t believe that anything you see on television is somehow special, and will help you finally get in the shape you’ve always wanted to be in. People have been in great shape and in horrible shape probably since we’ve had people, and we have yet to see a product which has been proven to do something not already done by plenty of other people by other, cheaper means. But most importantly, do not try something, fail, and then conclude that you’re a loser because all those people on TV could do it but you couldn’t. They just went to the gym and worked at it. No miracle product whipped them into shape, just like no great trick makes me a better magician and no expensive tool makes me a better mechanic.

If you’re a member, please Digg this story. Thanks.

“I think that on the balance the moral influence of religion has been awful. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil — that takes religion.” — Steven Weinberg

Looking back on the Crusades, how can we deny that the inhuman torture imposed upon people by other people was entirely because of religion? The very religion which is supposedly the “moral majority” in the United States today. It was believed that Satan gave his followers strength, so although they screamed in agony and begged for mercy, they really felt no pain. The devices and techniques of torture from those times are so horrific as to make the atrocities of the war in Iraq seem innocent.

Those people who committed those acts considered themselves good, moral people. They believed in the word of the bible with unshakable faith. And that is exactly why they did things which were pure evil. There is no chance to blame this on a few nuts — these were actions sanctioned by the church. Even worse, they were doing these things to people who believed in the same god, just differently.

Happily, Christians no longer consider it okay to torture people for believing different things about religion than they do, just as they reject the barbaric commandments in the bible, like stoning their children to death for disobedience. Now that nearly no Christians actually follow the bible, (they’d probably be in prison if they did), maybe we can get them to put it down and read some non-fiction.

Now the major problem is undeniably Islam. The Muslims aren’t really doing anything worse than the Christians did, and definitely nothing worse than the god of the old testament. The problem is simply that they are still taking their book literally, which Christians have pretty much given up on.

As long as they believe in a book which says that Allah chose some people and not others, and that the chosen people must dominate in this life and the next, there is no hope for peace. May we yet choose knowledge over ignorance.

Seeking to replace one’s religion with something else has been likened to being cured of one disease and seeking another to take its place. Nobody gets cured of cancer and decides that they should switch to herpes instead. However, in an excellent letter, Michael Shermer points out that a movement which is entirely negative, being against something rather than for something, is extremely unlikely to have much success.

I have to admit that I’ve spent most of my efforts trying to find just the right words to explain to theists that their religion is hurting the world and is without any basis in reality. Maybe what I should have been doing is explaining to them the way I see the world, and how beautiful it can be. Instead of trying to talk them out of one thing, I should have been trying to talk them into another.

But what, exactly, is the “alternative”? As I wrote recently, atheism is not a worldview, a political leaning, a religion, or anything else, really. What is it that atheists/freethinkers/Brights are onto? I can’t put it into words at the moment, but it is certainly something I’ll be thinking about.

If a theist can be likened to a child (and I think they most certainly can), it’s much easier to get them to take a new toy and have to drop the old one by default. Trying to take something away from such a child just causes them to scream “Mine!” and become determined never to let go.

Fortunately for humanity, I truly believe that the world seen without a veil of faith is much more precious and beautiful than the battlefield theists see. So we have a chance.