Toward the bottom of the Links section on the left side of this page are "Favorites", links to sites I tend to visit on a fairly regular basis. It's been a while since I've added to that section, but for once I removed two sites from the list, and on purpose. These sites are Linus Torvald's Blogger page and XKCD, and they both have been removed from this section due to their authors' ridicule of other peoples' beliefs.
Before we get too far into this I would like to point out that South Park ridicules EVERYONE's beliefs, without discrimination. Because of this, South Park does not fall under this criteria. I don't think that the creators of South Park hate everyone (maybe they do) but rather that they find the way the world works and the way people interact with each other to be completely hilarious. Isaac Hayes quit South Park after the creators ridiculed Scientology, but seemed to have no problem with their ridicule of Judaism, Christianity and other religions in prior episodes.
In our society, there is an underlying tendency to believe something so wholeheartedly that when someone believes in something that does not align with someone else's beliefs the result is typically ridicule. If, for example, I stated for the record that I believe in alien abductions as popularized on the series X-Files and elsewhere in the media, the majority of readers would consider me an idiot for believing such ridiculous nonsense. Likewise I would be ridiculed for decrying a belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
If, however, I stated that I believed in God, Jesus Christ and an eternal afterlife in Heaven, there would be very little ridicule, except perhaps from some Athiest readers. Why? Because a large portion of the population believes in the doctrines of Christianity, even though there is little more evidence to support them than to support the existence than aliens, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
So let's get to the nitty gritty with some examples, shall we?
XKCD's episode 765 is titled Dilution:
When you mouse-over the comic on the XKCD website, the title field pops up and reads: "Dear editors of Homeopathy Monthly: I have two small corrections for your July issue. One, it's spelled "echinacea", and two, homeopathic medicines are no better than placebos and your entire magazine is a sham."
Please note that in general I tend believe in natural medicine, and there is a distinct difference between homeopathy (which requires a laboratory) and natural medicine. However, I have tried homeopathic remedies before, most recently to deal with a stomach virus, and found that they can help ease symptoms and speed recovery. I have also found that homeopathic teething tablets are actually rather effective, at least where my youngest daughter is concerned, and they are certainly less potentially toxic than other options available on the market.
However, I would never recommend homeopathy as the only treatment for every ailment. But the part that confounds me more than anything else is that the people who are so wholeheartedly against the "bogus science" of homeopathy, are 100% in support of the "true science" of vaccinations, even though the associated risks with vaccinations are exponentially higher. Furthermore, the fundamental theory behind both vaccines and homeopathic remedies are essentially the same - introduce a small, safe(?) amount of the toxin/virus/etc. that is behind whatever illness the patient is currently experiencing or as a preventative measure in order to jump-start the body's immune system in order to create a surplus of anti-gens that will fight off the real thing. The difference is that homeopathy introduces these things in such miniscule amounts that in many cases the original source cannot be detected by any means we currently possess, whereas vaccines add additional things such as mercury and other toxins in addition to the main ingredient with the idea that this will make the body's immune system even stronger.
Based on the above paragraph - why would anyone believe either of these things actually work? Yet somehow vaccines are an accepted part of modern medicine, and homeopathy is not. Why? Because the pharmaceutical companies that create vaccines make more money, and they are behind the push as to what is accepted in modern medical facilities, while the majority of non-medical people in our society listen to whatever the men in white lab coats tell them without question. Or at least, that's my opinion.
Regardless, XKCD's subtle snarkiness on the topic has some serious fangs with the statement "homeopathic medicines are no better than placebos and your entire magazine is a sham"; the implication that idiots rely on homeopathy in order to conceive is a bit rough, but that extra sentence was really unnecessary. I cannot in good conscience promote a website that posts comics along those lines.
Linus Torvalds also weighs in on homeopathy here: Peeve of the Day
Please bear in mind I hold Linus Torvalds in deep respect as the father of LINUX, without which this website would likely not exist. However, Linus is a very strong-willed individual, and as a result can get rather caustic while discussing certain things. Most of the time these things fall under the category of what should or should not be added to the LINUX kernel, which is his domain and final say. I completely respect his decision-making process in these circumstances.
However, as seen in the above article, he has no problem calling people who believe in homeopathy "ignorant" or "crackpots". If Linus was a medical professional, his opinion might carry more weight, but it would still be ridicule.
I stopped reading his blog for a while as a result, but recently I got a bit curious (as the link was still on this site) and I came across this article: Demons? Really?
Let me state for the record as a recovering Roman Catholic (I was baptized, had first communion and was confirmed before I decided I was being a hypocrite when I attended mass) who is no longer a practitioner of any formal religion, and would be best described in a single word as agnostic. Actually assigning the term "agnostic" to me is kind of like assigning the term "plant" to various species in the plant kingdom - it's a bit too general.
Regardless, as someone who has lived through Hurricane Katrina, the events leading up to it and the aftermath, I can assure you that demons exist (for lack of a better name), that they can inhabit human bodies, and that a large portion of humanities ills could potentially be attributed to them. Those who indulge in alcohol, drugs, and other related behaviors are more open to being "possessed" than others (again for lack of a better term). For the record, I would also like to state that I believe there are "good" demons who have humanity's best interests at heart.
Linus writes "What the hell is wrong with people?", and I have an answer for him. Demons. Among other things.
Look, I don't expect anyone to believe what I believe, nor do I assume that all of my beliefs are 100% correct. Part of the reason something is considered "unknown" such as what happens to us after we die, is because we don't really know until it happens. Even those of us who have experienced "near death" may not necessarily have accurate stories of what happens to us immediately after we die.
But to have such a rabid, inflexible grip on your own system of beliefs that anyone who believes otherwise is not only wrong, but an idiot, or worse - evil; this is the stuff wars are based on. You would think that by now we would have learned the lessons taught to us by Nazi Germany during World War II, but apparently that just isn't the case. Come on people - just because you see things a certain way doesn't mean you are right, and it doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong either. There is no reason why we cannot coexist with our own beliefs to help us through this bizarre set of trials called "Life".
Tolerance would go a long way toward making "Life" a lot easier for all of us.
