Easter is remarkable in many ways, not the least of which is the complete implausibility of the story, and the extremely poor quality of the evidence supporting it. Practically every substantive aspect of the four gospel versions of the resurrection story, from the morning the woman (women) went to the tomb, contradict one or more of the others in nonsubjective and irreconcilable ways. The stories are relatively short and it takes little effort to mark each and flip between them. Here's a brief list of questions one might ask, and how the four Gospels answer them:
1) At what time did the visitors arrive at the tomb?
Mark: at the rising of the sun
John: when it was still dark
2) Who went?
John: Mary Magdelegne
Matthew: Mary Magdelegne and the other Mary
Mark: Mary Magdelegne, Mary the mother of James, and Salome
Luke: Mary Magdelegne, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women.
Who can resist the feeling when looking at this that we are watching a story grow?
3) Was the Tomb Open?
Luke: open
Matthew: closed
4) Who was found there?
Matthew: an angel
Mark: a man
Luke: two men
John: two angels
Many of the attempts to reconcile these contradictions is to brush them off as the inevitable differences one would expect from multiple witnesses writing their stories independently and making different choices as to who to name (say Joanna in Luke's story) or not (all the others). This situation with the men and/or angels blows that argument completely out of the water. For while it is plausible that one writer might mention Joanna, while another leaves her out and mentions Salome, it is not at all plausible that a writer might choose to mention meeting men at the tomb, but choosing not to mention angels. Even then, angelic appearances were not so common as to lack newsworthiness.
5) Was there an earthquake that morning:
Matthew: a great one
Mark: no
Luke: no
John: no
This is my personal favorite, and really seals the deal. There's just no way to rationalize missing a great earthquake. Someone is clearly making shit up.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Panicked GOP?
It's simply not possible to keep up with the lunacy emanating from conservatives these days, so I'll give you a two-stop shopping trip to catch up.
Here's an article making a very good case for the source of the lunacy, the slow realization that for the first time the time-tested strategies of Atwater and Rove won't work any more, and there are no other bullets in the holster.
And for the humor in it all, check out this collection of videos revealing the many humorous sides of this political and social meltdown.
Here's an article making a very good case for the source of the lunacy, the slow realization that for the first time the time-tested strategies of Atwater and Rove won't work any more, and there are no other bullets in the holster.
And for the humor in it all, check out this collection of videos revealing the many humorous sides of this political and social meltdown.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Gay Marriage Ban Trends: 2% a Year Progress
Leave it to Nate Silver of 538.com to do an analysis of the results of various gay marriage ban votes and come up with a general trend of 2% towards allowing gay marriage and predictions of when each state will do so:
It turns out that you can build a very effective model by including just three variables:
1. The year in which the amendment was voted upon;
2. The percentage of adults in 2008 Gallup tracking surveys who said that religion was an important part of their daily lives;
3. The percentage of white evangelicals in the state.
These variables collectively account for about three-quarters of the variance in the performance of marriage bans in different states. The model predicts, for example, that a marriage ban in California in 2008 would have passed with 52.1 percent of the vote, almost exactly the fraction actually received by Proposition 8.
Unsurprisingly, there is a very strong correspondence between the religiosity of a state and its propensity to ban gay marriage, with a particular "bonus" effect depending on the number of white evangelicals in the state.
Marriage bans, however, are losing ground at a rate of slightly less than 2 points per year. So, for example, we'd project that a state in which a marriage ban passed with 60 percent of the vote last year would only have 58 percent of its voters approve the ban this year.
All of the other variables that I looked at -- race, education levels, party registration, etc. -- either did not appear to matter at all, or became redundant once we accounted for religiosity. Nor does it appear to make a significant difference whether the ban affected marriage only, or both marriage and civil unions.
Say what you want about the man's ideology, his election predictions have been a lot more accurate than those of his political opposition.
Gawker then picked up the data, made a map and spoke the unspeakable:
What gay activists say when they hope no one's listening: Winning same-sex marriage rights is just a matter of waiting for old people to die. Here's a map of which states will go gay next.
And people wonder why it's often said that the south is 10 years behind the rest of the nation.
It turns out that you can build a very effective model by including just three variables:
1. The year in which the amendment was voted upon;
2. The percentage of adults in 2008 Gallup tracking surveys who said that religion was an important part of their daily lives;
3. The percentage of white evangelicals in the state.
These variables collectively account for about three-quarters of the variance in the performance of marriage bans in different states. The model predicts, for example, that a marriage ban in California in 2008 would have passed with 52.1 percent of the vote, almost exactly the fraction actually received by Proposition 8.
Unsurprisingly, there is a very strong correspondence between the religiosity of a state and its propensity to ban gay marriage, with a particular "bonus" effect depending on the number of white evangelicals in the state.
Marriage bans, however, are losing ground at a rate of slightly less than 2 points per year. So, for example, we'd project that a state in which a marriage ban passed with 60 percent of the vote last year would only have 58 percent of its voters approve the ban this year.
All of the other variables that I looked at -- race, education levels, party registration, etc. -- either did not appear to matter at all, or became redundant once we accounted for religiosity. Nor does it appear to make a significant difference whether the ban affected marriage only, or both marriage and civil unions.
Say what you want about the man's ideology, his election predictions have been a lot more accurate than those of his political opposition.
Gawker then picked up the data, made a map and spoke the unspeakable:
What gay activists say when they hope no one's listening: Winning same-sex marriage rights is just a matter of waiting for old people to die. Here's a map of which states will go gay next.
And people wonder why it's often said that the south is 10 years behind the rest of the nation.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Teabagging Congress
Yes, believe it or not, that's what some are calling the little pretend rebellions called "Tea Parties". I laughed so hard I cried watching this video of Rachel Maddow talking about these little pointless gatherings of angry losers from the last election. As I tried to explain to the Teabaggers [snort], they aren't worrying anyone, they are just making us laugh.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Frank Gaffney's "Code Words" = Making Shit Up
Check out this video where Frank Gaffney claims that Obama told our Muslim enemies that we "are willing to submit to them", and when challenged to support his claim with little trivial things like evidence, responded with this:
"When he uses the word 'respect', in the context of a waist-bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, for example, and talks about respectful language, which is code for those who adhere to Sharia that we will submit to Sharia. We will submit to the kind of program...I'm telling you the code as they receive it in the Taliban headquarters and in al Qaeda's cave and in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They perceive this as submission."
In other words, he is making shit up, and doesn't have a shred of evidence for what he is saying. Any time someone uses the phrase "code words", that should translate to "I have no evidence for what I'm saying". Now if they present tangible evidence that indeed the person speaking is using specially chosen words to convey a deceptive message (like the Intelligent Design crew does), that's a different story. But this demand for evidence can never be put aside, because it makes lying willy nilly far too easy for people like Gaffney.
Hat Tip: Ed Brayton
"When he uses the word 'respect', in the context of a waist-bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, for example, and talks about respectful language, which is code for those who adhere to Sharia that we will submit to Sharia. We will submit to the kind of program...I'm telling you the code as they receive it in the Taliban headquarters and in al Qaeda's cave and in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They perceive this as submission."
In other words, he is making shit up, and doesn't have a shred of evidence for what he is saying. Any time someone uses the phrase "code words", that should translate to "I have no evidence for what I'm saying". Now if they present tangible evidence that indeed the person speaking is using specially chosen words to convey a deceptive message (like the Intelligent Design crew does), that's a different story. But this demand for evidence can never be put aside, because it makes lying willy nilly far too easy for people like Gaffney.
Hat Tip: Ed Brayton
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Oklahoma Hermeneutics
Just how stupid can the religious right get? This stupid:
This week, a far-right state legislator in Oklahoma pushed a measure to have a Ten Commandments monument placed on the Capitol grounds. Asked which version of the Decalogue would receive the state's endorsement -- Catholics, Protestants, and Jews list the Commandments differently -- state Sen. Randy Brogdon (R) said, "Probably an Oklahoma version." I don't think he was kidding
Typical. I'll bet he can't even name the 10 Commandments.
This week, a far-right state legislator in Oklahoma pushed a measure to have a Ten Commandments monument placed on the Capitol grounds. Asked which version of the Decalogue would receive the state's endorsement -- Catholics, Protestants, and Jews list the Commandments differently -- state Sen. Randy Brogdon (R) said, "Probably an Oklahoma version." I don't think he was kidding
Typical. I'll bet he can't even name the 10 Commandments.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Fabulous Video on Open-Mindedness
If you are sick of people telling you that you are closed minded simply because you demand evidence before believing bizarre things, you'll love this video that goes through the classic bad arguments about open mindedness that amount to "accepting anything anyone else claims". And of course, notice this doesn't ever apply to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
