Sunday 15 February 2015

CWC 2015: Early umpiring decisions baffle and confuse

This is the first of what may be a short series of mini-posts on the ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 ( I'll abbreviate as CWC15).

In England's opening game against Australia there was an incredible decision at the end of the game where England batsman James Taylor was denied what would have probably been a first century in ODI cricket, by what can only be described as the Umpires not knowing the rules.

The ICC later came out and admitted the decision was wrong, but that doesn't help Taylor or England. And on the basis of this game, the latter team at least need all the help they can get!


http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015/content/story/831485.html

""Article 3.6a of Appendix 6 of the Decision Review System Playing Conditions states that the ball should have been deemed dead when the batsman (James Taylor) was given out lbw. No further runs or dismissals were possible. "

...even though the LBW decision was overturned, it was dead ball when originally given. That's pretty simple stuff, guys.






More Papal blunders: This time, childlessness is selfish

I just wanted to re-post a very good article by Rosa Rubicondior on the Pope's comments about childless people. Apparently they are "selfish", which, and this must be a nuance he missed, means that he himself and all the other Catholic Priests and Nuns are selfish too. It seems he can't say anything these days without being extremely rude and insensitive to many people.

There are few clearer ways in which he could have effectively said "You all must contribute to the Catholic virus and if you're not an official member of our exclusive club for the sole purpose of its diffusion, then make sure you have plenty of kids and indoctrinate them as well so some of them will grow up to help our virus proliferate". 

If you say that, you really need to think about if you're being played.

The confusion, cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy of Pope "Frangelic-Halo" is truly staggering.








Sunday 1 February 2015

More mystic malarkey: The boy who came back from Heaven didn't actually go there at all, he admits

More mystic malarkey: The boy who came back from Heaven didn't actually go there at all, he admits, 

but not because he's interested in the truth, rather that his brand of Christianity says "it ain't so".

I don't want to go into too many details, to risk becoming an advert for this thing, but basically back in 2004 there was a case in the U.S. where a young boy entered a coma after being involved in a car accident with his father. He later claimed to have visited Heaven during his unconsciousness and revealed "details that he could not have known" of his time whilst comatose. 

The book can be seen here
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=The+Boy+Who+Came+Back+From+Heaven

along with at least 2 other "associated works" which totally aren't just trying to profit from an emotional story by completely, uncritically and credulously believing what a kid says. Because kids never lie. No, Siree.

Alex has now admitted that he was mistaken

You might think that the reason Alex reneged on his claims of attendance at the Pearly Gates might be because he now realises that it was more likely to be rooted in a psychological phenomenon common to people in a coma. Or maybe he realised that Heaven probably doesn't exist. Or maybe he was just cut up about lying for years and wanted to set the record straight. Any of these would have been commendable, but unfortunately, none are true. 

The real reason he's disclaiming his formerly attested experiences is that they don't conform to his Christian doctrine. Yes, he can't have gone to Heaven and seen Jesus because in his version of Theology, he wouldn't have got there. Seriously, this is one of those rare occasions where a religious experience is claimed to be false because it's not nutty enough.

Perhaps now the original book's subtitle, "A Remarkable Account of Miracles, Angels, and Life Beyond This World" will be posthumously changed to "A Remarkable Account of a boy's dreams not matching up with Christian Theology" but somehow I doubt that will happen.

The free-speech debate: Analysing the Pope's comments

The Pope, and Charlie Hebdo

Pope Fran-key-"to-the-kingdom" has recently raised some eyebrows, shall we say, in our community when he spoke recently on the topic of free speech in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

In response, Brian Dalton, best known for his persona "Mr. Deity",  produced a video in which he had a "few choice words" for the Pontiff. Warning for some pretty severe language here!

Further, Mr Deity was interviewed by Seth Andrews on his Thinking Atheist podcast where he goes into more detail on the ire that stoked the video's creation:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/podcast/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo

This episode of Seth's excellent show, which I highly recommend, also includes a very interesting discussion on the problems with Islamist fundamentalism, including a contribution from Ali A. Rizvi who I've mentioned before.

The Pope's arrogance in claiming that we cannot say what we think against a religion, that has caused much demonstrable harm to the world without expecting some kind of grievous bodily harm in response, is staggering. He is basically acquiescing to terrorism and admitting that the Charlie Hebdo attackers were perfectly entitled to seek retribution for a victimless "crime".  At best, that is victim blaming, and at worst it is directly approving of terrorist acts. It is re-making the mistakes of the past, and drifting far from Jesus' proclaimed message of love in the face of violence, let alone speech. This is a sentiment of mine not borne of hatred but a genuine desire to avoid the giant rabbit hole the Catholic Church is in danger of falling down.

Therefore if I ever meet Pope Fran-cis-"gender-bias" in person, I shall expect a punch from him, or I'll be disappointed.

***

The GTA5 controversy

The GTA5 controversy: Misogyny and promoting violence against women

There's recently been an interesting controversy developing around a campaign to ban a shop from selling a video game. In response and in protest to this cause, a group of gamers started their own petition to ban the Bible from being sold by the same shop. To an atheist, this story is pretty amusing. I think this was a satirical attempt rather than a serious one though, and so I'll focus on the issue within the game itself: Grand Theft Auto 5 (GTA5).

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/outraged-grand-theft-auto-ban-754136

There was an online petition started on Change.org to ban a store called Target from selling the game. Of course, even if this succeeded, that would only mean one less source from which to obtain the game, and would hardly be the same thing as an outright ban. Yet, predictably, the free-speech warriors were up in arms, no doubt fallaciously claiming that this was the start of a slippery slope where eventually  they couldn't get the games they wanted, or that developers would have to rein themselves in when making open-world, sandbox type games like GTA.

But there is no way it can be right for the game to be as it is. To allow players to double-cross prostitutes and violently and graphically kill them to get their cash back, then run away with "bonuses"? Seriously, it's unconscionable. When this type of situation arises in other games, it is usually handled as a sequence in a non-interactive area where the money is automatically removed and afterwards you are deposited back outside with no means to take matters further. This approach, though less "realistic", seems preferable.

So in conclusion I think there is misogyny in GTA5, although it just one of the many problems with the game, and indeed with many games of its type, from a moral standpoint. Crimes such as theft and murder are treated as trivial and have no to little repercussion. They are sometimes even demanded by the game's mechanics.

The best games give you more choices on how to proceed through tough situations, often including more morally justifiable options. Take for example, Deus Ex: Human Revolution or the Dragon Age or Mass Effect series of role-playing games. And when you do take the murderous option when there was another way, the game lets you know you fouled up, and gives serious in-game consequences. 

Of course you could say that if someone is going to commit morally questionable or indefensible actions with no consequences, it's best to do it in the virtual world rather than the real one. I don't disagree, and I've said as much before. But do we really need an "out" for that kind of desire? 

I don't think we should completely ban the games, but it may be useful to send a message to the developers that they've gone too far in "freedom" by allowing such casual slaughter in a domestic environment. Remember, this is not GI Joe beating own on the boss of Hydra. It's more akin to recreating a frighteningly familiar reality for many millions of abused women round the whole world. This is why I avoid these types of game.

The religiously-founded delusions of a modern day New York City Pastor

"Crazed" NYC pastor, 67, rails on about gay people in bigoted sermons

There is a new source of crazy out there. A new fountain of unhinged bigotry and homophobia that won't stop. He has come to our attention, and now podcasts like Cognitive Dissonance (in this episode especially) are fighting back by calling him out for his scripture-based proclamations.

His name is James David Manning, and it's quite funny to listen to someone so fuelled by disgust and hate, and yet so completely unaware of his own misconceptions or any of the other nuances involved in being gay. Whether it's sticking to bronze age mythology or buying into crazy news stories from known fake news sites, it' hard to imagine how anyone could have fewer critical thinking skills.

His most famous quote to date, that being "There's no life in the rectum!" tells you all you need to know about this man's level of factual accuracy, and deluded way of thinking. In fact, rectums are teeming with life - microbiological life, at least. And secondly, his slavish submission to the religious virus is revealed when he assumes that "the goal of life is to produce more life". Yes, if you want to emulate a single-celled organism, maybe. But I think we've moved a bit beyond that and can now actually make a choice and make it our mission to improve the lot of others. This is a noble goal, even if we don't produce more "life" in the process.

There are no words. He knows not of what he speaks - This guy is a walking advert for atheism. We don't need to try and deconvert people when he is a possible result of a devout Protestant Christian life.

The series of videos done by Adam Reakes of the Herd Mentality podcast is a particularly humorous take of Manning's crazed nonsense. It certainly gave me a few laughs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u2hoPFVABk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLMGzAhkMCU