Cuz when you put it this way…. I think I can be convinced! 
Archive
I’m moving this blog from http://exdoctrinate.com to http://ttyl.ca. If you’re reading in your reader, unsubscribe from exdoc and subscribe to ttyl.ca if you want to keep receiving my ramblings.
Reviving my old domain ttyl marks a bit of a change for me. I’m still going to be concerned with exdocrinating, etc, but I think I’m also going to muse on some more random things too.
Today, I’m poised on the brink of an entirely new work life, and I suspect I’m going to have a thing or two to say about that soon..
FMF pointed me to this piece about an atheist church. From the article:
The “atheist church” draws a variety of freethinkers, who identify themselves as skeptics, atheists, agnostics or doubters. In lieu of theology, these churchgoers cherish rationalism, and the motto of their church is “think”. The NTCOF [North Texas Church of Freethought] is concerned with issues of justice, honesty, and values, and teaches most of the same concepts of right and wrong as other churches, but they maintain that making the right moral choices has everything to do with rational thought and nothing to do with belief in a higher power.
My first reaction was “ew!”
…but then I thought, okay, maybe this is a good idea. If you want to do this, it would be good if it were organized into a flat structure where, instead of having a weekly preacher, all congregation members took turns contributing on topics of their choosing, which were then opened up for discussion among all attendees. Skepticism and challenge are valued and encouraged.
And THEN I thought, we already HAVE this. It’s called science! (And it’s not even restricted to just one day on the weekend!)
Do we NEED atheist churches for the plebes? I’m a plebe, and I’m asking seriously — if not slightly bemusedly. Is this a viable approach to ending the war on science?
UPDATE: This has been overturned. Good job YouTube!
Pat Condell has the most subscriptions of any comic on YouTube. He has been making candid, no-holds-barred critiques of British society, Muslim theocracy and religion in general for quite some time.
Recently YouTube threatened to suspend his account, and pulled his latest video on Sharia law in Britain. From his user page on YouTube, Condell tells us:
I’VE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE FROM YOUTUBE EXPLAINING WHY MY VIDEO “WELCOME TO SAUDI BRITAIN” WAS REMOVED:“Your video was removed due to a violation of ourpolicy against hate speech. The specific portion of the video found to be in violation occurs around 2:20.”
But it doesn’t matter that he’s popular or that he’s consistent. What matters is whether or not he has the right to say what he’s saying. Here’s a heads up regarding YouTube’s comments about what happens at 2:20. He calls one Saudi an “idiot,” and the entire country “mentally ill.”
He’s angry about Sharia law being instituted in Britain. He’s angry that his society, which values tolerance, does so to the extreme of allowing an INtolerant subculture to establish and legitimize its own INtolerant court system. Rules in a Sharia court would not be allowed in society at large’s court. He’s angry that political correctness rules common sense.
Is that not something worth being angry about? Has he crossed some line to rail against a culture that punishes rape victims as mentally ill? How should members of socially tolerant liberal democracies react exactly? Please, YouTube, enlighten us!
The point is, even if you don’t like the WAY he is saying it, or for that matter, even if you disagree with him altogether, you ARE simply proving his point by censuring him for this video. Watch ALL his videos (start at the end of the list and work back to get them chronologically), and tell me you don’t come to the conclusion (as many have) that he is really a peace-loving patriot, that his heart really is in the right place and that he is genuinely concerned and, yes, outraged.
Sticks and stones, YouTube. As has been said, WAY WORSE language than this has been used in all sorts of official public discourse around the world, whether it’s politics, courts or food critics!
What can they possibly hope to accomplish by banning this video? I am dumbfounded that they would even try. There’s NO foundation for it, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
For fuck’s sake, are you even paying attention to the last 8 years in America, and the current election? YouTube, are YOU mentally ill?
Simple. Channel Hillary.
He can’t seem condescending. He can’t really sell his record (yawn — especially next to a sexy librarian with great guns).
He definitely can’t attack her (meanie!).
But Hillary can!
Imagine him spending the entire debate responding as though he were Hillary’s advocate. No matter what you think of her compared to Obama, Hillary’s policies TROUNCE Palin’s. If Biden were to use Hillary talking points, AND CREDIT HER FOR THEM, as his modus operandi of making his own points, this would be a fantastically confusing strategy for whatever the Palin camp has up their sleeve.
This strategy has so many positives, and only one minor negative. The McSames can rightfully attack him for not being his own man. …like THAT’s going to stick!
The positives include: good policies seen against bad (reproductive rights anyone?); girl on girl (no condescension, no cruelty); all those Hillary voters!
The biggest positive of all is the fact that he cannot LOSE the debate this way. …which is much more important then him actually winning it.
Previously, I asked if there was anything better than Kiva.org.
Kiva allows lenders to organize themselves into groups, or “lending teams.” When I saw the Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious lending team, I was sold. (There are other groups organized on a full range of interests/issues.)
I am so surprised that it took our species so long to figure out that lending money was better than giving it away when it comes to alleviating poverty.
From the point of view of the borrower, the gains in dignity, responsibility and sense of empowerment are obvious. For the lender, the gains are clarity, personalization, ease and very low risk.
In the past, when I’d hear about a new charity that I liked, I often did not follow through with giving to it for a few reasons. For one thing, it was often up to me to find out how to give them money at all. An even bigger barrier was the feeling a feeling that the little bit I could give would just disappear into the ether. There was no sense of satisfaction for me. You just have to trust that the charity does a good job.
The net result was that I just hardly ever gave anything at all.
But Kiva changes all that. How much could I part with without feeling it? $25 every 2 weeks? Sure. That’s $650/year. After 3 years, almost 2 grand. Can you imagine managing a two thousand dollar investment in the poorest people of the world? Imagine all of us doing it.
That brings me to the best part of this to me… It’s extremely scalable. First of all, I think estimates that we can solve half of world poverty in a very short time are conservative. I think it could be even better. Second, after the poorest entrepreneurs have rolled through our excess dinero, the huge resulting capital pool could be used to fund even larger projects.
Wait a second, is this socialist?!
heh heh
Recently, I saw Peter Mansbridge interview Muhammad Yunus. I think I had heard about him a few years ago when his idea of micro-finance was first reported on the news, or maybe when he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.
The whole idea of lending very small amounts of money to the very poor just seemed to make sense. I think I smiled, and then I went on with my life.
If you have an hour, you can watch Yunus describe his work at Google, or you can watch Charlie Rose interview him.
Enter Web 2.0. Also recently, Seth Godin pointed me to kiva.org. It’s a web service that allows all of us to participate in the micro-financial market that Muhammad Yunus invented.
I’m blown away. Go there, join, and get started.
If you have gone there, and you still need a reason, here’s a few…
- Instead of giving $10 to charity, lend it (directly to an actual poor entrepreneur), get it back, and then lend it again. Rinse and repeat.
- Empower and educate poor women.
- Actually see the effects of your loan, and read about the successes of the people you’ve helped.
- If you’ve given a few thousand dollars after a long time, and you hit hard times, and you need your lent money back, get it back.
- This could not be simpler. If you can use Facebook, you can change the world with kiva.org.
The problem with trusting your perceptions without testing them is outlined nicely by Michael Shermer (yet again) here.
At least we’re able to figure out that our perceptive powers are suspect! Of course, you could always argue that if we can’t trust our percpetive powers, then how do we know we’re right to not trust our perceptive powers.
…riiiight. And luckily you came along with your “other ways of knowing” to save the day!!
Or, we could just acknowledge that tested results are the only results worth paying any attention to, and that we gravitate to bad explanations in the face of none (or partial) ones.
Put on a brain condom and get on with it already! Safety first people! 
