Fuck you, @DrWayneWDyer, for shilling bullshit to the unemployed (and gullible)!

Forty-eight hours ago, I’d never fucking heard of Dr. Wayne Dyer.

Then my friend, Jeff R., sent me a request to check out his interview on Media Bistro with Dr. Dyer here and post a response. I did and did. And I was quoted here. With a link to my alter ego.

With the opening exchange of…

So What Do You Do, Dr. Wayne Dyer, Bestselling Author and Speaker?

“I don’t write the books — God does.”

…I got nervous. What ensued was this deluge of wanna-be-The Secret horseshit on how if you just pretend you have the job of your dreams… you’ll have the job of your dreams. It sounded so familiar. Where had I heard this crap before? Oh, that’s right, from these guys!

For about ten years, I was indoctrinated to believe that if you imagine something (or “visualize” as was often said), it’ll become real. It will “manifest” itself in your life. They had a couple of terms for this. One was “prosperity consciousness”; if you imagine being prosperous, you will be. Another was “positive affirmation”; if you declare that something (good) is, it will be. It was all based on the bullshit notion that like attracts like, arguably loosely based on the actual social phenomenon of happy, fun people liking to hang out with other happy, fun people. But as Unity’s claims of money flowing into your life, The Secret’s claim of shiny, new cars flowing into your life, or Dr. Dyer’s claims of employment flowing into your life, all because you want it to and imagine it happening, there is not one shred of objectively verifiable evidence to back up one lick of any of it.

Zilch.

But that doesn’t stop Dr. Dyer. Oh, no.

Hats off to @jaredscheib for his #DickieDawk foundation #TenPointVision-winning entry “Do You Believe in a #Secular America?”!

I’ll admit it. I paid hardly any attention to this contest. I saw the announcement, realized I had no ideas or time for it, and promptly ignored it. Better for all as Jared‘s winner, announced here, is great and I don’t think I could’ve done any better. Jared won two tickets to fly out and meet Richie D and I won a whole bucket of jealousy.

Hats off to @jessicaahlquist for Chuck-ing Sheen!

As reported by Fox News, a Cranston School committee threw in the towel!

By 5-2, they decided not to further appeal the removal of the prayer mural. Cited reasons were the escalating cost it would take to further appeal. This is hilarious as I’m pretty sure certain members of the supporters of the mural vowed to take this all the way to the Supreme Court. Although I haven’t been able to find any sources for that, so maybe I’m just making it up.

In any case, the case is settled. Jessica and the constitution won. Theists who can’t read or couldn’t be bothered to read the constitution or realize that it applies not just when it’s convenient, but especially when it’s not, lost. ratio semper vincet. (Or maybe inopia pecuniae semper vincet. Whichever.)

My video “#leftbehind games=BULLSHIT” is live on #AtheistConnect!

Atheist Connect is here. The video is here, below, and under My Media H-Z.

Thank you, #stevelikes2curse, for taking on #LeeStrobel’s #TheCaseforChrist in “An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 2″

And now the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

One gem, “Dr. Blomberg says, ‘Well, we can assume that the writers of the gospels intended to record accurate histories because Luke’s gospel opens with a statement of purpose to that effect and although Matthew and Mark… do not include such a statement, they are so similar in style and focus… that we can assume that they had a similar intent to record history faithfully.’ The problem is this is basically Blomberg saying well, yes the gospels intended to record accurate histories because they say so.” And really how substantive is the notion of style and focus being an accurate assessment of the non-Luke gospels having the same intent? If we’re going to make assumptions on authors’ intent based on similar styles and focus, what stops us from widening such an assessment to include political speeches by Reagan and Hitler? They both spoke rhetoric of national enemies. They both spoke of defeating those enemies. They both invoked similar themes of patriotism. A thousand years from now, will they be viewed as mutually agreeing colleagues?

Another gem, “The argument basically boils down to the people who wrote the gospels were of honest and reliable character because the gospels say they were. And this is just laughable.”

And another, “The fact that Joseph Smith didn’t invent a more plausible explanation for where the Book of Mormon came from, when he obviously could have, means that we should believe the story about him being visited by the angel Moroni…? A total of 11 witnesses testified–swore–that they had seen and handled those plates… Three of them claimed that they were shown the golden plates of the Book of Mormon by an angel and they had heard the voice of God assuring them of their authenticity.”

Still another, “The gospel writers weren’t necessarily intentional liars, but that doesn’t necessarily make what they say true.”

“If evidence cannot compel faith, of what use is faith?”

–Steve Shives

No shit.