Christopher Maloney Is A Quack

From Pharyngula:

"Maloney is a naturopath in the state of Maine, where quacks like him get to call themselves "doctors". These so-called "doctors" get to make recommendations like this, in which he disparages standard flu vaccines and suggests these useless prescriptions:

 Parents waiting for vaccinations can provide their children with black elderberry, which blocks the H1N1 virus. A single garlic capsule daily cuts in half the incidence and the severity of a flu episode for children.

There's another way you can tell he's a quack. When a student, Michael Hawkins, dared to criticize him, pointing out that "Naturopathic medicine is pure bull" and stating that naturopaths are underqualified and do not deserve the title of "doctor," Maloney took action to silence him. After all, we can't have people questioning quacks — that just makes them look even more ridiculous, which could lead to a loss of business.

So Maloney complained to Wordpress, where Hawkins blog was located, and got them to shut it down. This does not speak well of craven Wordpress; if you're using Wordpress hosting, you might want to reconsider it and move elsewhere. You know, to someplace that respects reality.

Now not only is Maloney a quack, but he's a stupid quack. Shutting down blogs that criticize him? That never, ever works. In fact, it tends to backfire rather severely — because now a much bigger blog is going to spread the word that Christopher Maloney is a quack. I'm also going to ask all of you out there who reads this to echo the message: Christopher Maloney is a quack. Won't that be fun? Poke the net, and the net pushes back.

Share the message. Let the whole world know that Christopher Maloney is a cowardly quack.

He's also tasteless. This is possibly the ugliest youtube video ever."

The Biblical God Concept : A Logical Disproof

The logical disproof of the Biblical god concept to be presented involves malice toward none, is not an attack on particular religions nor a statement against religion in general, and is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good.

It involves only three definitions, each of which is self-evident. One is of a being, a second is of worship and the third is of a Biblical type god.

The definition of a being is that of a perceiver who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality. Of course Descartes defined himself as this type of entity on the basis of obviousness.  Very exactly, in that we have no way to test whether our perceptions have anything to do with an external reality we cannot know whether they do.  Additionally, however, our experiences suggest that when we dream or hallucinate we internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality.  Accordingly, especially with empirical suggestions that we sometimes internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality, we cannot rule out that it is our nature to do so all of the time. Therefore, our definition of a being is self-evident.

The definition of worship is veneration to the extent that its object is assumed to exist.  In that one cannot worship something without acknowledging its existence this definition of worship is entirely consistent with the actual meaning of the word.

The definition of a Biblical type god is that of a perfect (in goodness) being who holds that it is right for others to worship it. This is entirely consistent with the Biblical god concept.

We shall proceed with a logical technique that involves reductio ad absurdum.  That is, we shall first assume that a Biblical type god exists and from this using only logic arrive at a self-contradictory (absurd) proposition.  This will leave only that a Biblical type god does not exist and the disproof will be complete.  As such, assume that a Biblical type god exists.

By definition it holds that it is right for others to worship it.  By the definition of worship they must acknowledge its existence to do so.  Accordingly, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to acknowledge its existence.  However, they are beings.  By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions.  Therefore, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for them to do something that is impossible. At the same time, by definition it is perfect.  In this it does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible. Consequently, we have both that the Biblical type god does and does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible.

This is the absurdity.  Our only alternative is that a Biblical type god does not exist.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

It is incidental that the Biblical type god would not know whether others existed.  Notwithstanding, in its perfection it would not decide that they did much less that they did as perceived.  Moreover, in that it would not decide that any who might exist would exist as perceived it would not decide that any who might exist were imperfect.  That is, it would not decide that any who might exist were its subordinate.  In this, a perfect being would not hold that it was right for others to worship it and the Biblical god concept is again self-contradictory.

Analogously, of course, the Jesus concept is self-contradictory.

As set forth at the beginning there is no vindictiveness in this writing.  It is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good. As it pertains to enlightenment to the good it is meant to convey that our ability to know an external reality (if there is one) is scientifically precluded by our perceiver nature and, in this, meaningful development as the entities we are may only be realized in the form of internal rewards.  That is, it may only be realized through decisions that challenge the self in goodness of motive.  Only these afford fulfillment in effort independently from certainty of result.

John Jubinsky, MA–Mathematics, CPA, Atheism vs Christianity