Cheap false hope from scam artists is what you get when you “respect everyone’s beliefs”
Before she became a successful actress, Michelle Pfeiffer was a young Hollywood hopeful who got involved with a cult of breatharians when she was first starting out.
A breatharian is an individual who believes it’s possible, through meditation, to reach a level of consciousness where one can obtain all sustenance from air or sunlight, according to the Oxford Dictionaries.
“They worked with weights and put people on diets. Their thing was vegetarianism,” Pfeiffer told the magazine. “They were very controlling. I wasn’t living with them but I was there a lot and they were always telling me I needed to come more. I had to pay for all the time I was there, so it was financially very draining. They believed that people in their highest state were breatharian.”
1) So clinically tested and scientifically verified vaccines are poison, but these products and their unknown effects are worth shilling for?
2) She implies she smoked regular cigarettes. Jenny McCarthy was a smoker? Was the overwhelming evidence connecting cigarette use to cancer not compelling enough for her, whereas the shaky proven forgery connecting vaccines to autism was?
3) She’s the mother of an autistic child and the image she as an actress chooses to cultivate is one of a e-cigarette spokesperson?
Childhood autism is a subject near and dear to my heart. I hate to shit on McCarthy because I empathize with her as a mother of a child with autism, but she is cheapening the issue.
Scientists at Cornell have put 3-D printing to an incredible medical use: They’ve made an ear remarkably similar to a natural one. Using 3-D images of a human ear, they printed a mold to be injected with gel containing collagen from rats’ tails, HealthDay reports. Next, they added cartilage from cows’ ears.
I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.
As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.
So I guess you’ll be wondering—what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.Personally, I still think companies should have to label GMOs, even if there’s no reason to suspect there’s a problem with them. I support transparency above everything.
[I cut out just the relevant segment of ajbuchan's post, there was a lot more.]
There is an abundance of evidence for the reliability of the New Testament’s eye-witness accounts of his life.
Really? An abundance. Well, in the more than half a decade I’ve been atheist blogging and studying religious claims worldwide I’ve heard about none. Although, I must say, I’ve sure heard a lot of people make these types of cocksure claims about evidence without presenting any.
There really was a man named Jesus of Nazareth who came to be called ‘Christ’.
I deny that, show me a single piece of extra-Biblical evidence of this.
There really was a trial, a sentencing and an execution of a man who didn’t deserve it.
First of all, there’s also no record of that, unless you’d like to produce some. Even the accounts in the Bible vary, probably because they’re slightly different versions of the same myth that had previously been passed down orally.
Second, within the context of the story, what makes you think Jesus didn’t deserve what happened? He wasn’t wrongfully accused, he was truly guilty of the crime he was charged with. You could say that the crime was bullshit or that death was severe, but you make it sound like he was innocent.
There is evidence that what happened next changed that part of the world in a way that meant his followers went around sharing about his life and ministry with the world around them, risking their lives for the sake of their message.
You can’t just say there is evidence and think that that counts. Back it up! Show me the evidence. Of course, this point doesn’t even matter because proving that the spread of the story of Jesus changed the world doesn’t prove the story true. It just proves the story effective. Superstitious people, near cavemen really, living in fearful times under a dictatorship, of course this story of hope and redemption appealed to them. Of course power structure was fearful of it.
What does Minchin think happened instead of this?
I can’t speak for him, but I bet part of what he believes happened was a guy didn’t rise from the dead and promise a magical kingdom of supernatural wonder to the ghosts housed within the bones of all who apologized to him for masturbating.
Why would you create a story and risk your own life in sharing it, and die for it like many have?