prove-it-or-lose-it

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

Podcasts have meant a lot to me as someone who spends most of his time alone. Working all night with nobody around, as much as I love not having coworkers to deal with, gets pretty dull and depressing. But my "ear friends" tend to keep me hanging on when I've got nobody else to fill the tedious void that is my job, and often most of my free time as well.

That's why I'm sad to see that one of my favorite shows is saying goodbye.

'Oh No, Ross and Carrie,' is one of the reasons I started this blog. They've been a tremendous inspiration for the way I approach the topics I deal with and have left the internet a masterclass on engaging with belief and those who believe in all kinds of things that might not comport with reality.

Both of the hosts have had their own journeys through evangelical Christianity and came through the other side with a solid grasp on what is rational, a passion for learning, and a very human approach to discussing views that they don't agree with.

All of that shines through on their podcast where they report on a wide range of topics like "alternative" healing, spirituality of all shapes, paranormal claims, and much more. Their motto was always "when they make the claims, we show up so you don't have to," and they consistently delivered some of the most amazing content for people with interests in any of those categories.

I was already an atheist when I started listening, but listening to their show helped me to find skepticism. My reasons for not believing at the time were not actually good ones, and it's through their show that I got to a place of actually applying critical thinking when confronted with these kinds of ideas. They were my gateway drug into rationality, but also, through their outright refusal to ever punch down, helped me to realize that being fooled by bad ideas isn't a statement about someone's moral character.

They introduced me to James Randi, someone I admire very much and whose foundation continues to help spread skepticism and to encourage people to be open minded, "but not so open that your brains fall out," as many people have famously said. I really appreciate their work as being a major stepping stone to where I'm at now epistemologically.

This is already too long and I'm sure I've lost some folks' attention (if I ever had it to begin with), but I just wanted to dump a sentimental "so long," and hopefully maybe get some other ears on their fantastic work which remains on the Maximum Fun network among a ton of other great and entertaining shows.

My recommendations for those interested are their investigations where they became Mormons, joined scientology, learned the art of exorcism, and found the spiritual light through the questionable methods of (cult?) leader Teal Swan. There's a ton of sometimes funny, sometimes horrifying, usually baffling, and always entertaining investigations that they've left behind for new audiences to listen to. Check it out!

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

Science Is Not A Faith o.O;

I love science.

But the whole thing about science is that it's a method of investigation, not a person or a thing...and the results that one gets from science aren't "unseen".

It's not something you "have to have faith" in.

It's all there, out on paper, in the data, the studies.... there's EVIDENCE there.

Evidence that other scientists are then challenged to disprove, not support.

And the more the findings stand despite other scientists' attempts to tear it down, the more the data becomes predictive and helpful in figuring out other problems, advancing other experiments, and describing other tangible situations; and the more it can be accepted as truth (or at least as a part of the truth).

And of course, nuance can (and should!) be applied to that data.

And sometimes, that changes how the data is interpreted... changes what it means; inspires scientists to go back and do additional studies and experiments to clarify and better interpret the results...but that just improves the data, so long as it really is evidence that is truly in step with our reality.

So...I don't have to have faith in anything.

I believe in Life... because I have good reason to.

And being able to ground myself in humanity and in what is humane (instead of seeing myself and everyone else as automatically evil, "sinful" creatures who do bad just because we just love evil so much, rather than due to the pressures and lack of options provided by the systems around us), I feel has made me a better person.

Now that I'm an atheist, I feel more in touch with a good set of morals that is based on well-being, consent, autonomy, and thriving -- instead of just going with 'Whatever god says, because his Might Makes Right!'.

I wish so badly that I had become an atheist much earlier in life. It would have changed so much for me.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

saw a reply on that post about a subway worker refusing to service to some dudes wearing hate speech shirts and claiming they were being religiously discriminated against that said "as a christian, i don't claim them."

okay but do claim them, actually.

inconvenient and embarrassing and even frustrating as it is, your religion, your faith, has become all but synonymous with hatred and vicious oppression. that didn't happen by accident. it wasn't unearned. it's not new and it's not a perversion of the good true pure christianity when it's the core and foundation, in fact.

are there good, kind, compassionate christians who refuse themselves to harbor this kind of hatred? denominations that are more progressive, welcoming, loving, and inclusive? absolutely, and that's great and all.

but they have not been the ones defining the story of christianity ever, at any point in its history. you don't get to retcon the narrative. you can't "no true scotsman" your way out of association wth the vast majority, the most vocal and politically driven majority of your shared faith.

your religion historically, traditionally, and most commonly shelters and cultivates bigots and oppressors, hateful, vicious people who want to strip others of their rights and their lives and legislate them into being officially lesser-than.

claim them. own that. it's necessary if you ever want christianity to be seen as better than the worst of your lot, because the worst are the loudest, the most powerful and wealthy, the ones who've been steering the fleet for centuries.

if you want christianity to actually be the faith you strive yourself to live and exemplify, you have to reckon first with what it is, what is has long been.

those christians would claim you're not real christians, but you both are. you can't change or take control of the story if you try to pretend you're on page one. you have to straighten your back and acknowledge it.

if you want to clean house or even rebuild, you have to admit the rot is there, first, and that it's still your house anyway.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

The other thing about discussing harmful things about the christian church and getting "that's not what that verse really means/that's not how that doctrine should be applied/that's not actually supported biblically/etc" back is that... at a certain point it doesn't matter. Yes there are varying beliefs within christianity (understatement with 45,000 different denominations lmao), but you don't get to claim that christianity is separate from any harmful beliefs when a lot of harmful beliefs are the majority.

You can say "the bible wasn't ever talking about gay relationships in [xyz] verses" but that doesn't make the average church actually safe and affirming for queer people. You can say "actually hell doesn't have any biblical backing" but that doesn't mean very much when like 75-80% of christians believe in hell. You can say "men and women are equal in the eyes of the Lord" but it doesn't erase the rampant misogyny in christian culture.

If the members make up the church, if members are the church, then at a certain point the cultural beliefs or majority beliefs have precedence over what was intended. You can't say "oh just ignore [belief/doctrine/interpretation/etc]" when that would be dismissing the church's most predominant collective beliefs. You don't get to just disregard harm because that "wasn't the intention". You don't get to look at the result of said harm and decide it doesn't matter because it makes you look bad.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

One last talent show to save the rec center

Ok everybody here's the deal.

My science education nonprofit, Skype a Scientist (you might know her, creator of the squid facts hotline and matcher of classrooms + scientists) has secured absolutely no grants to support general operations for 2025. But! We're selling advent calendars to fund our program! They absolutely rule. They can save our nonprofit asses. If we sell 5000, which I realize, is so many, we can fund our program for 2025. Then I can offer a bunch of programming for free. Running a nonprofit is a weird job.

Every day, counting down to frankly whatever you want (it's usually Christmas, but man, maybe you want to count down to Halloween, that's fine by me) scratch off the sparkly sparkly iridescence and reveal a fact about frogs! We have 24 top-notch frog facts here.

You should get one for every kid in your life, then get one for all the adults who still let themselves access joy in critters.

Get 'em here: https://squidfacts.bigcartel.com/

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

Excellent reporting from the BBC, celebrating this replica's public display, while never once mentioning the FACT that there's no possible way that the "original" is anything other than a fraud. I expect that kind of shit from the media in my country, but I'm more than a little surprised to see this kind of pandering to irrational beliefs in UK media.

For the uninitiated, there was a study done in the 80s on this infamous piece of linen which dated its origin to the mid 1200s at the earliest. There is no reason at all to believe that this shroud or any particle it's composed of has ever touched the body of Jesus. This fake of a fake should be the subject of ridicule, but here's the BBC just casually acting like it's some significant thing. Pathetic.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

Just a reminder that if you're not watching Chewed Gum, you're missing out.

Also, if you're fascinated by evolution and you're not subscribed to Erika aka Gutsick Gibbon, you're missing out.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

smth i think ppl who werent raised christian need to understand is that a) fear of death will make you do things you wouldnt otherwise do and b) being raised christian fundamentally kneecaps your ability to process death. most christians are the way that they are because if the bible isnt true, if god isnt real, then neither is heaven. if there is no heaven, then all their loved ones who have died arent actually waiting for them, there is no place theyll get to spend forever with the people they love now, there is no eternal reward for being good, there is no guarantee of any afterlife whatsoever. and as science progresses and christianity becomes harder and harder to maintain, as various claims in the bible get disproven and we learn more about how life actually came to be, that possibility that Death Might Actually Be Something They Have To Fear After All gets stronger, and so that protection of the idea must get stronger too. the bits of the bible that are too hard to defend have to be removed or papered over or talked around, the rules that dont make sense have to be explained or maintained without question, the people who dont believe must be agents of satan sent to damn their soul to hell. the way they learned to cope with death is to say it didnt happen, not really, not in a way that mattered, theyre still out there somewhere, youll see them again someday. and with that came a promise that their death wouldnt be permanent either. it all has to be true, that heart has to be maintained, because otherwise. otherwise, this is it, and we dont know what happens next. otherwise, death becomes scary again. otherwise, death is no longer the loading screen before your eternal reward. otherwise, they have to think about what might come next, how their actions affect others here and now, fully grieve the people theyve lost, grieve the eternal life of happiness and love they were promised from birth. and that is. hard. and while obviously none of this excuses the way they treat people, i do think that like. keeping that in mind during interactions with them, being aware of how high the stakes are for them, can very much effect the way you approach those conversations.

at the heart of every horrible christian with bigoted views and worse actions is a scared little kid who doesnt know where you go when you die, because the answer they were given when they first asked is turning out to be full of holes. and while you may not be able to work with the adult in front of you here and now, maybe you can at least find that little kid for a moment. maybe you can sit down with them and say yeah bud, that is pretty scary, isnt it? it's scary not knowing what's gonna happen to you. it's scary learning something you thought was true might not be. maybe you can tell the kid that theyre allowed to be scared, that being scared doesnt have to mean hurting others. and maybe the kid wont listen, maybe youll have wasted your time, who knows. but maybe not. and even if you did, youll have learned something about how to find that kid in others, so was it really a waste?

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

Fine, I'm not going to push it if you don't have any good reasons to believe something. But you shouldn't be surprised that I'm going to reject your assertion without any good evidence to support it.

I have a book that says there's a great cosmic turtle out there, which carries four elephants (there used to be five of them) on its back who support on their shoulders a giant flat world full of magic. It's true because I have a book that says it's true. This reasoning is exactly as sound as "god is real because the bible says so."

"You can only claim skepticism so far," is one of the sillier things I've seen lately. Your thought-stopping ideology tells you that skepticism is wrong and bad, to just have faith that something is true despite a lack of any good evidence. It stops you from questioning why you reject other (equally poorly supported) books that say other gods are real, and encourages you to engage in special pleading for your particular version of god on top of the circular reasoning demonstrated above.

I'm not arguing for argument's sake; you made a truth claim and I asked for evidence. If any god is real I'd like to know, but you decided either that I'm not worthy of the truth that you possess, or that exposing yourself to the possibility you might be wrong is too dear a cost to pay for attempting to save me from damnation.

I argue to bring myself closer to any truth that I might have access to. I argue because I think people should have the self respect to examine their beliefs, and to reject any belief that can't be demonstrated to be true. I don't want to believe a lie, no matter how comforting it might be.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

I've heard of several, you're going to need to be specific. And I'd like to know how you know. I like to believe true things but can't do that without good reasons, which you must have in order to be as sure as you are.

i mean regardless of who is president God is still sovereign and in control so. maybe jot that down.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

Which god? How do you know?

i mean regardless of who is president God is still sovereign and in control so. maybe jot that down.

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

Most of the claims you're mentioning here are not made by any serious atheist who actually wants to have productive conversations on this topic. Certainly none that I'm aware of.

To your first point, how many atheists DO claim what you say they do? I myself would avoid making such a broad claim that would involve a hell of a lot of understanding, likely in multiple fields of study, in order to confidently state the point you set up there to apparently argue with yourself. What I have read over and over though is that the "happiest" countries, based on a myriad of factors, are the most secular. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd be interested in seeing it.

The mythicist position when it comes to Christ is a fringe position. Again, most of the people seriously engaging in these discussions are not claiming what you say they are. Scholars and historians basically agree that he lived, he was baptized by John the Baptist, and that he was likely crucified. But that seems to be the extent of concrete claims that can be made about the man, and claims that he was the son of god who performed miracles and rose from the dead have all failed so far to meet their burden of proof. People aren't trying to legislate my rights away based on claims of ancient Greeks, so can you see why it's more important to scrutinize the historical records when it comes to biblical claims?

I'm aware that the consensus of historians has shifted in recent times to accommodate a new understanding on the period known as the dark ages, and none of the people I've seen discussing religion are even remotely interested in talking about that time in history when we have plenty of modern concerns regarding irrational beliefs.

So if you see this, and you're actually interested in engaging with real atheists - instead of the ones you're apparently seeing everywhere but you're reluctant to cite in this post - what reasonable, logical, and evidence based arguments can you make for your beliefs? Does it matter to you whether what you believe is true? I'm not convinced that any religion is true; this is your opportunity to provide a valid reason for another person to believe as you do.

You know, it never ceases to amaze me that the people who claim to believe in "logic, reason, and evidence" often make bold claims without any logic, reason, or evidence to support them.

Case in point, how many atheists claim that a world without religion would be "a much more civilized, compassionate, kinder and loving world"?

LOL! Okay. And what "logic, reason, and evidence" do they have to support those claims? None whatsoever.

In fact, quite the contrary: according to the Encyclopedia of Wars, of the 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history, only 123 wars (7%) were fundamentally motivated by religion.

Or how about the claim that Jesus Christ is a fictional character and not a historical figure? What evidence do they have to support that? Again, none. If anything, there's far more evidence for Jesus' existence than any other ancient figure including Aristotle, Homer, or Socrates.

Or how about the idea that the Christian church was responsible for the Dark Ages? When most reputable historians have since agreed to the consensus that the Dark Ages never actually existed.

Again, what is with people who claim to believe in logic, reason, and evidence not actually believing in anything with logic, reason, and evidence?

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

Ooh, now do "good reasons to think it's true," starting with your best verifiable evidence. If you can provide empirical evidence that indicates the truth of Catholicism, while disproving the possibility that any other religion could be true, I'll have no choice but to be convinced. I'll no longer be an atheist and you'll go down in history as the first person to ever prove an unfalsifiable hypothesis!

Reasons to be Catholic:

Because it’s true

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

People who study the Bible as their life's work - actual believing Christian scholars - know that they can only evidentially support three facts about Christ: he existed, he was likely baptized by John the Baptist, and the Romans probably crucified him.

They are responsible and intellectually honest enough, despite their faith, to say that these conclusions represent the whole of our collective knowledge based on the available evidence. They believe in any of the other claims about him as a matter of faith and don't allow it to taint their research and don't make claims like the post above, claims which can't at all be verified or even indicated to be possible.

If you want more people to believe that a 2000+ year old dead man still perceives us and judges us on the basis that he's a god and we're all wicked sinners, you're going to need to present that evidence to support your claims.

If you can't actually show any of this to be true, then you don't actually know it yourself; and if you don't actually know it, you should have the integrity to not make baseless assertions as if they were facts.

TL;DR - Prove it!

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

Hey, if you're looking to use your psychic "talents" for a money grab, why not stop grifting the gullible and go to the Center for Inquiry and demonstrate once and for all that clairvoyance is actually possible?

If you're so confident in your 100% accuracy, you should have no problem claiming their substantial cash prize which is available for anyone able to put their abilities to a proper test and succeed. All you have to do is prove that you're more reliable than a coin toss in a test whose parameters will be constructed to your satisfaction around what you claim to be able to do.

Somehow I think you won't be taking them up on the challenge, but you'll still be here online taking money from people who should know better than to trust you for the simple fact that your kind are notoriously allergic to anything resembling accountability, ethics, or verifiable truth. Because although they put up their prize and welcome the opportunity to prove there's any truth to claims like these in good faith, few people ever make it through the preliminary phase of the process which involves simply being able to say what exactly it is that they do and how it's supposed to work. Taking advantage of the credulous is much easier.

I dare you to click this link and get on your way to proving that there's any truth to what you claim. You'll make headline news and the book deals will come pouring in; you'll never have to beg online for people to give you money again. In short, put up or at least consider shutting up.

Starz Psychics

Clairvoyants and Psychics that you CAN TRUST 100%

Open 24/7

Live phone lines and chat advisors - so if you are in need of help and support give us a call or message if that is what you prefer.

Come to Starz Psychics you are assured of accurate and empathetic advice

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

I understand that evangelizing is both required by some interpretations of Christianity and seen by believers as a compassionate act. If I was afraid of hell or any other eternal punishment, I'd also be trying to save as many people from that fate as I possibly could.

But this metaphor here, as convincing as it might be to people who already believe, doesn't accurately paint the entire picture and I'd like to correct it.

Using the same example: the real situation is that we're sitting here in our homes enjoying our free time, when suddenly someone bursts into our home uninvited. They start raving at us, "Get out, get out! There's a fire in the house, you're going to die if you don't get out right now!"

We look around and see no flames. We sniff the air, but detect no smoke, and no alarm is ringing. Just changed the batteries yesterday, in fact. We were actually just thinking about putting on a sweater; it's a bit drafty, no detectable sources of extreme heat. Not a single sign anywhere that we're in danger of even a singed hair or slightly overdone food. If there's a fire here, we have no way of telling and will have a lot to explain if someone sends the fire department out on what looks in every way to be a false alarm.

So maybe consider, before breaking down our doors, whether you really have any good reason to think that the house is burning.

Christians don’t tell you about Jesus because we are trying to add one more member to our religion. We do it because we believe you’ll be in eternal trouble if you don’t hear about Him. We’re worried for you. In other words, Christians tell you about Jesus because we love you. This may not always be the case, but usually it is. We may come across as annoying or intrusive. We understand. But if you saw someone standing in a burning house, would you watch them burn just to keep from bothering them, or would you run into that house and pull them out? We love you. Do you really believe we would hold ourselves up to ridicule if we didn’t really believe our testimony was true? We know we are going to get called names and laughed at for talking about Jesus. We do it anyway. Why? Because we believe. And we consider it more important that people are saved than that our pride is preserved. Consider this: Maybe something that Christians are willing to get insulted, humiliated, even wounded just to talk to people about is actually worth listening to. People don’t just run into a burning house for no reason.