A Guide to Skepticism for Non-Skeptics

One trait that humans all share when we are first brought into this world is our insatiable quest to understand what is going on in the world around us. Children ask repeated and often heartwarming questions which betray their innocence, almost following a non-systemic Socratic method. As we grow older, our beliefs become more fleshed out, our understanding of how the world functions becomes solidified in our learned minds. We stop asking questions, we know that certain natural laws govern, for instance, if you drop something it falls towards the Earth. In this essay, I want to introduce the non-skeptic to some basic principles of scientific skepticism. It should be abundantly clear from here that this is meant to be introductory, pushing towards further research on the part of the reader.

Before we can properly examine any premise, understand that your emotion towards any particular idea is irrelevant to whether it is "true" or not. For example, it doesn't matter if you are sad that gravity exists. Gravity just exists. Your emotions or feelings on the matter are irrelevant. Essentially what I am getting at is that there is an objective truth to any belief or premise. Our brains might process the world subjectively, but the medium world itself contains objective truths. This isn't to say that there are easy answers and that everything exists on a binary black-and-white scale, but its important to shed the idea that there is no objective truth to be gained from our universe and to end the concept of wedding our beliefs to our emotions.

Science is a great tool for understanding, because of its various methods of bias reduction and its razor-like ability to cut to the objective truth on any subject. I couldn't give a proper treatment of the scientific method here without greatly enlarging the scope of this essay, so I strongly encourage you to research the scientific method and the philosophy of science. Its also important to understand failures of reasoning, known as logical fallacies. When someone is trying to convince you of something, a good tool to figure out whether they have arrived at a belief or premise in error is to examine their reasoning for fallacious arguments. Its also important to minimize them with your own argumentation and reasoning. Once you understand the scientific method and logical fallacies, you can become a potent skeptic without even trying that hard or even needing to be a super intelligent person. Understanding how to think scientifically goes a lot further towards general understanding than rote memorization of scientific facts and again, doesn't require you to have an abnormally high level of intelligence.

In closing, I urge you to read. Read everything, all the time, even things you don't agree with, even fictional stories or merely for entertainment. As our society becomes increasingly more scientifically and technologically advanced, less and less people are reading and by doing such a simple action, you can set yourself ahead of an ever growing mass of unliterate people. I contend that actually reading the Bible is the easiest way to become an atheist, because the vast majority of people who call themselves Christian have never sat down and read the Bible on their own or have not had verses spoon-fed and interpreted for them. Reading fuels skepticism and is food for the brain.

Bill Nye: The Science Guy - Pseudoscience (1996)

I think its going to be a good year for popular science promotion. Cosmos is being rebooted with Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye is debating Ken Ham, and I'm sure there's much more to be had considering the year is just starting. This old Bill Nye: The Science Guy episode is a classic, still watchable and relevant.

Sean Faircloth - Can Religion Justify Bullying Children? (2012)

While sitting around the Thanksgiving table, the most loathsome activity that always comes up is the ritual "Thanksgiving Prayer" always lead by the most devout believer of the clan. I bite my tongue, usually stare straight forward with eyes wide open, taking note of who takes the ritual seriously and speculate which ones are the secret atheists going along with the ride for diplomacy's sake. I'm fine with sitting silently through the ritual as long as I don't have to bow my head, clasp my hands, and/or close my eyes. Since I have the capability to separate reality from fantasy play-land, I feel most offended for the children that have no choice and a limited ability to understand the world. Not only can they not refuse to participate, their squishy, sponge-like brains are being primed for a life of unquestioning servitude. Religion forced upon children is child abuse, a reality which has no proof for existing is being hoisted upon their minds. The guilt and shame of sexuality, the inferiority of women, all of the near-universal bigotry and falsehood of religion is shamelessly taught as "the virtue of faith".

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

James Randi - Investigating Pseudoscientific and Paranormal Claims (2011)

Happy Halloween everyone! Remember kids, ghosts aren't real and people who claim to be able to talk to dead people are lying!

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Sam Harris - Keeping Religion Out of Public Policy

Rallying against dogmatism, rather than simply just religion, is an important distinction that I believe more atheists should be clear about. As atheists, we post our anti-religious memes, make anti-religious jokes, and generally poke fun of religion. All well and good, I say. Lets just keep in mind the larger war while we do so, and perhaps use some of our energies to include anti-dogmatism in our argumentation. Whether its political dogmatism, religious dogmatism, or any fanatic dogmatism, it all deserves our derision.

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Michael Specter - Denialism (2009)

Denialism, Wikipedia defines it as human behavior where individuals choose to deny reality as a way to deal with an uncomfortable truth. Science is the ever-growing body of knowledge which seeks to test and measure reality in the—thus far conceived—best possible way, the scientific method. It operates with emotionless impunity, stripping away bias and unrepeatable findings, until the best possible theory to explain observed natural phenomenon is reached by peer-review and consensus. Sometimes science gets corrupted by bias, capitalism, or any number of factors, and we can point to certain instances in history or current events where this is so (take tobacco safety for instance). Even with error, the method razors through, who do you think discovered the harm tobacco actually does, in the end? It certainly wasn't the science denialists or the alt-med quacks. It was the persistence, in the face of substantial corporate pressure, of scientists studying the effects of cigarettes on health and loudly protesting the consensus until it changed.

In Michael Specter's book, Denialism, he takes on several strains of anti-science thinking. Fear of science and critical thinking, the anti-vaccination movement, organic food myths and anti-GMO activism, nutritional supplements and homeopathy cures, and genetics in regards to racial ethnicity. Each topic is well argued with plenty of entertaining interviews, quips, and Specter's personal insights. I could write a lengthy article in agreement with each of these topics, but Specter covers each point quite well already in his book, which I of course highly recommend. This is a strong first book for a writer who's future work I highly anticipate.

Portland is Epically Failing at Science

I have to hand it to Portland, its a nice place to live. It's arts and culture are a vibrant and welcome change of scenery compared to other large metropolitan areas. Its nearly a universal fact here that everyone either plays in a band, is an artist, or has a bohemian lifestyle. Progressive and intellectual thought is encouraged here in Woolandia, just don't go around challenging our tightly-held naturalistic beliefs or there will be hell to pay. We have one of the largest bookstores in the country (it takes up an entire city block for shit's sake) with small independent bookstores catering to all sub-genres and all tastes that can be found everywhere. So, why do we embrace so many anti-science and scientifically illiterate stances? It goes against all common sense. So lets go through all of the things this science class failing city embraces!

#1 - Anti-Fluoridation

Despite being the last of the U.S. top 30 most populated cities to not fluoridate its drinking water [1], Portland defeated (by a substantial margin) the recent measure to fluoridate this year and its been defeated here four times before (once voting in favor, then shortly after reversing the decision). Why would Portlanders defeat such a simple health measure when all of the scientific consensus is firmly in favor of fluoridation? Rampant "chemophobia" (or the irrational fear of chemicals), the appeal to nature (the logical fallacy that because something is natural it is inherently better), manipulative political campaigning combined with internet misinformation (Clean Water Portland, the anti-fluoride lobby here, has a name which contains a fallacious appeal), and—to beat a dead horse—a lack of scientific knowledge by the general public. In defiance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Dental Association universally hailing water fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century [2], the 65 years of studies in which the overall scientific consensus is that community water fluoridation is as safe as can be measured [3], and its incredibly low cost to high benefit ratio [4], Portland remains fluoride-free (except, of course, the level that already naturally occurs) and has no sign of swaying in favor anytime soon.

I consider anti-fluoridation to be number one on this list because of its widespread acceptance. The last time we voted, the measure was struck down by a 20-point margin [5]. Selected articles for further reading on the topic: Why Portland Is Wrong About Water Fluoridation, Water fluoridation controversy, and The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride... And Why They're Still Wrong

#2 - Anti-GMOs

If there's something else that can inspire a knee-jerk emotional reaction (MONSANTOOOO!) out of people here, just mention GMOs. Thanks to a rigorous campaign of misinformation and fear-mongering from grocery stores like Whole Foods [6] and New Seasons [7], if there's one thing people fear ingesting more than trace amounts of fluoride, its genetically modified organisms. Sure, who doesn't want to conserve the environment and eat good, healthy food? But how does organic food address these issues? Environmentally, growing organic food is a less efficient use of land (numbers are varied, but a fair estimate is that organic food is somewhere around 25% to 35% less productive [8])—food production takes up a substantial portion of the Earth's surface (with estimates as high as 40% [9]). Land use and its maximization is something that organic food will be unable to match with modern agriculture. The fact shatters the idea that organic farming is more environmentally friendly, especially since more and more arable land will be needed for food production due to an ever increasing human population. Are GMOs dangerous or have they caused a single illness or fatality? Are they less healthy than organic food? Its an unequivocal no on all counts, hippies. There is no evidence whatsoever that any GMOs are any more dangerous or unhealthy than organic food [10]. The scientific consensus is broad and clear on this [11].

Often the same companies that mass produce organic food also have products which are produced conventionally so the idea that buying organic is some sort of consumerist rebellion against large corporations and conventional agriculture is a myth. I consider myself to be an environmentalist and I'm strongly interested in preserving the Earth's extremely fragile and varied ecosystem. However, our current methods of organic food production are wasteful and costly to the environment. Its also important to note that I am not entirely arguing against organic food, rather the false modern science verses organic food ideological dichotomy. Obviously, using technology and engineering to splice genes together can have negative consequences and should be researched carefully, but its an option that needs to be explored if we're going to feed the planet and stop global warming. Every technology has risks, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take them, especially when the stakes are so high.

Selected articles for further reading: What scares you about GE foods?, More bad science in the service of anti-GMO activism, and Fruitless Endeavors: The False Promises of Organic Agriculture

#3 - "Alternative" Medicine

Welcome to Woolandia, where you can't throw a rock into a crowd without hitting someone who's studying acupuncture, naturopathic medicine, or reflexology. Everyone here is so healthy and supplements their organic, non-GM food with delicious multivitamins, echinacea, and homeopathic wellness pills. Acupuncture doesn't work [12], naturopathic medicine is pseudoscience [13], reflexology is not an effective treatment for any medical condition [14], most people who eat a balanced diet don't need nutritional supplements (they're basically expensive urine coloring) [15], and homeopathy is outright unethical quackery (you're buying pills that have nothing in them) [16]. But never mind all of that science stuff. Evidence doesn't mean anything in Woolandia!

Further reading: ASA Smacks Down Homeopathy, Another Negative Study of Vitamins, and The difference between science-based medicine and CAM

#4 - Anti-Vaccinations

This one is another belief straight out of the appeal to nature file cabinet. There are people here that actually believe vaccines are harmful, cause autism, or whatever despite the mountain (and its a giant fucking mountain) [17] of evidence that points to the contrary. The logic employed to justify these beliefs is often so riddled with fallacies that it becomes incomprehensible to any thinking person. Here in Woolandia, logic means nothing! You think vaccines don't cause autism? Well I got vaccinated and my foot hurts. How about that? Huh?!

Mo' readin': Retracted autism study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

Why Does the Vaccine/Autism Controversy Live On?, Autism And Vaccines: Fears Persist Despite Overwhelming Evidence That The MMR Vaccine Is Safe, One Thing We Know About Autism: Vaccines Aren't to Blame, and The Crash and Burn of an Autism Guru

#5 - Scientology

Greetings Earthlings, it is I, the great lord Xenu, ruler of the Galactic Confederacy! 75 million years ago I brought billions of humans down to Earth in jetliner spacecraft. I stacked them around volcanoes filled with hydrogen bombs, which I detonated, which killed everyone's material bodies but their souls live on in you (they're called thetans) and they're the source of all human misery. You can only get rid of them through auditing (which is extremely expensive) but as you advance up in OT levels (also extremely expensive) you gain powers such as: immunity to disease, mentally increasing your body weight, healing by touch, ESP, telepathy and remote viewing, mentally project illusions into other people's minds, generate electricity with your body, and of course spiritual immortality.

Scientologists actually believe all of this.

Further reading: Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine, Scientology's Space Opera and Confidential Materials, and Scientology controversies

Sources:
[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/05/portland_fluoride_vote_will_medical_science_trump_fear_and_doubt.html
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/
[3] http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1459459/
[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/22/fluoridation-fails-in-portland-by-20-point-margin/ 
[6] http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/mission-values/environmental-stewardship/genetically-engineered-foods
[7] http://www.newseasonsmarket.com/our-story/welcome#gmo-foods-and-you
[8] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html
[9] http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-17/national/35495975_1_organic-food-organic-advocates-organic-agriculture
[10] http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8180.pdf
[11] http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml
[12] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/acupuncture-doesnt-work/
[13] http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/naturopathy.html
[14] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19740047
[15] http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/truth-behind-top-10-dietary-supplements?page=2
[16] http://skepticalvegan.com/2011/02/05/homeopathy-unethical-quackery/
[17] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/toxic-myths-about-vaccines/

Joe Schwarcz - The Importance of Skepticism in Science (2012)

So many times during Portland's idiotic fluoridation debate, so many made the fundamental error of not understanding the dictum "the dose makes the poison". Repeatedly, without fail, studies were flung into the debate testing dosage levels far above any normal intake and showing detrimental effects. Studies (I'm mostly referring to the NAS 2006 meta-study because it was the most cited one) where rats were given human lethal levels of fluoride and obviously, the rat's bodies began to shut down. Because of Portland's near-universal lack of scientific literacy, they extrapolated high dose effects to low dose effects and were completely unable to critically analyze scientific data. If only I had a portable sound system and projector to constantly project this TED talk at the anti-fluoridation rallies.

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Michael Specter - Authors@Google (2009)

This week has been a whirlwind of band tour and now I'm preparing to hike the Timberline trail around Mt. Hood tomorrow. Should take me a few days to complete the hike and the posts will start flowing again. Its nice to get off the internet for days at a time, I highly recommend it.

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Rebecca Watson - The Religious Right vs. Every Woman on Earth (2011)

As the accusations of skeptical sexism start flying left and right, the rift between skeptics begins to grow. Emotions run high, people accuse each other of bigotry, and the apologists attempt their ill-fated defenses. If there's one thing that sends my skeptical alarm into red alert, its an emotionally charged argument. That's not to say that I'm dismissive of emotions like some sort of transmuted, real-life Spock like character. Obviously emotions are real, we all have them, and its a big part of what makes us human. The issue I take is when emotions are high, rationality and skeptical thought begins to crumble. This is understandably true when accusations of sexual harassment start being thrown. As with all things, I think its important to never think simplistically about any issue, to hear all the arguments from every side and absorb every piece of information you can absorb. Everyone is quickly taking sides, decrying injustice from either party.

I think its imperative to recognize a very important thing about our society at large before branding all skeptics as sexist pigs, which I've begun to hear from many people from within and outside the skeptic community. We live in a patriarchal society. Human culture has trained men and women to behave in certain ways for certain reasons and undoubtedly women have been given the shorter end of the stick over and over again (and a large portion of that reason belongs to organized religion). The reasons for this are many and I encourage you to explore the literature yourself, even to challenge this assessment. This absolutely needs to be rectified and I believe a secular humanist viewpoint/ideology should—rather must—include a feminist ideology. And this is why this rift is so fraught with emotion in addition to the horrendous nature of the allegations. How could secular humanists be sexually harassing women? The statement itself is a simplistic ad hominem against an exceedingly complex group of emotional, unbelievably diverse organization of humans. The answer can be somewhat reduced: we live in a patriarchal society. Inequality breeds sexism. We are a group existing within said patriarchal society, where men are commonly taught by society that women are sexual objects and nothing more. We're bombarded with sexual ads, pornography, a sexual superiority complex handed down to us from our bible-thumping fore bearers and note my intention is not to simply say, "Oh us poor men, we're just trained to act this way!" I'm merely attempting to place sexual harassment in its societal context and to examine the source of this abhorrent human behavior. Although our group premises make sexual harassment exceedingly hypocritical, it will undoubtedly happen (although I wish it very much to be eliminated). We are humans. We are inherently hypocritical. We make mistakes. What makes us the supposedly higher-level of primate that many skeptics, freethinkers, atheists, secular humanists think we are is how we learn from them.

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Michael Specter - Denialism (2010)

I took a short break from reading heavy non-fiction, but I will be returning to the grind shortly with Michael Specter's Denialism. After watching this lecture, I can expect a grand take-down of leftist science denialism. He takes on anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, and generally anti-science left activists that have taken over progressivism. 

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Sam Harris - Science Can Anser Moral Questions (2010)

Compared with the theocratic terrors of medieval Europe, or those that persist in much of the Muslim world, the influence of religion in the West now seems rather benign. We should not be misled by such comparisons, however. The degree to which religious ideas still determine government policies—especially those of the United States—presents a grave danger to everyone.

- Sam Harris The End of Faith

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Sam Harris vs. Williams Lane Craig - The God Debate II

Instead of reading two Christopher Hitchens books at the same time, I opted for reading Sam Harris' The End of Faith instead. I have to say, so far, its probably the best book I've read all year. Its better than Dawkin's The God Delusion and is extremely easy to absorb due to Harris' straightforward and entertaining style. Watch Sam Harris absolutely destroy William Lane Craig in this classic debate. He manages to make William Lane Craig look like a theological/moralistic nincompoop, which is actually hard to do. Out of the many christian apologists, Craig is one of the few cognizant debaters. Edit: I would also add that Craig tends to cling to one unfalsifiable proposition usually extracted from the main debate point. He defends this one proposition until the end, claiming victory when his opponent is unable to counter it, yet failing to make any meaningful counter-arguments.

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Sean Carroll - God Is Not A Good Theory (2013)

Sean M. Carroll has a Ph.D. in Astronomy and Astrophysics and has appeared on The History Channel's The Universe series (of which I am a huge fan and yes The History Channel does occasionally still have watchable programming see also Ancient Aliens), The Science Channel's Through The Wormhole series (also a huge fan, when are they making more?!) and Comedy Central's The Colbert Report. He's written a graduate level textbook on general relativity and two popular books: From Eternity To Here and The Particle at The End of The Universe (about the Higgs boson). He's also an outspoken atheist (go figure). Here is his lecture dismantling arguments for God as an explanation for anything.

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Christopher Hitchens - Authors@Google (2007)

The imitable Christopher Hitchens talks about his then new book god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything at the Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA. He lays out his foundational points which are discussed further in his book during the first half and does an audience Q&A with the second half, during which many oft repeated (but Stalin was an atheist!) arguments are levied against his hypothesis. Hitchens addresses them with his usual clear logic and dramatic charisma. I'm still pained by never being able to see him in person before he died. I just completed reading The Origin of Species and will be starting god is Not Great hopefully tomorrow.

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Genie Scott - Evolution and Global Warming Denialism: How the Public Is Mislead (2011)

"Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." - 2002 Memo for GOP Canidates

The contention is that since the science isn't settled there's no need to take action. Much as the tobacco companies argued that we don't need warning labels on cigarettes because our scientists say that smoking is harmless. Now the idea of questioning the science is often done through presenting a slate of scientists that support your point of view and certainly the creationists have done this for decades... At any event, even 30,000 scientists is a small fraction of the total number of people receiving degrees in science since approximately the 1970s which would be the cohort that would be being sampled, shall we say. One calculation had it as 3/10ths of 1 percent so the idea that there is this huge ground swell of scientists opposing global warming is, to say the least, overstated.

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Rob Brotherton - Psychology of Conspiracy Theories (2013)

In the aftermath of the Washington Post's article revealing that several major U.S. internet companies are in collusion with the NSA's long running post-9/11 data mining efforts, I felt it might be worth posting this lecture from Rob Brotherton on the psychology of conspiratorial thinking as a form of skeptical response to the Facebook noise surrounding this issue. This lecture explains the difference between what most skeptics call "conspiracy theories" and the more generalized definition of them, which tends to cause confusions of connotations and clear definitions. I think the misunderstanding is similar to the general definition of the word "theory" and the scientific definition of the word "theory".

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

The Great Debate - Kent Hovind vs. Michael Shermer (Creationism vs. Evolution)

This classic debate between Kent Hovind and Michael Shermer pits creationism against evolution as if they were two equally scientific ideas. Creationism, as Shermer repeatedly says in his rebuttals, is not science and not even close to being on equal footing. Just slapping the word science before or after a term does not make it so. We all know and love Shermer (he has some of his hair left in this debate!), founder of Skeptic magazine and author of Why People Believe Weird Things. I decided to look into Kent Hovind and his credentials to which I was immediately ROTFL (excuse my internet vernacular). From his Wikipedia article:

In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the non-accredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado, which no longer offers this program).^[9] Having a website called "Dr. Dino" has provoked some academics to look closely at how Hovind presents his education and credentials. Chemistry professor Karen Bartelt has said that it is "very unusual for a person with a Ph.D., even a real one, to list oneself in the phonebook as "Dr Hovind", as Hovind has done."^[10] [emphasis in original]. Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy, expert on the history of creationism and activist in the creation-evolution controversy, wrote that Hovind's lack of academic training makes it impossible to engage him on a professional level.

Other critics of Hovind have pointed out that Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme.^[12][13] The school's current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and even "Doctor of Ministry" degrees in months, rather than years, for as little as $25 per month. Currently Patriot offers a monthly fee, unlike most universities, which only charge per-credit fees.^[14]

Bartelt has stated that Hovind's doctoral dissertation is evidence of the poor requirements at Patriot and that Hovind lacks knowledge of basic science.

Also, most hilarious, since January 2007 "Dr." Hovind has been serving out part of a 10 year prison sentence for a litany of charges.

...after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions. He is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Berlin, New Hampshire.

This level of hypocrisy is astounding. It's somewhat reminiscent of the recent wire fraud charges brought against skeptical podcaster Brian Dunning. However Dunning doesn't espouse a hardline stance on biblical morality so I would say his case doesn't display nearly as much duplicity of character.

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Understanding Science - Lecture 6: Conspiracy Theories (2012)

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Understanding Science - Lecture 5: The Burden of Proof (2012)

Sorry for the long wait between posts. I usually wait an arbitrary amount of time between posts when I write a large fluoridation essay because the blog tends to get link dropped. I'm going to be fairly relieved when this damn vote is over. I've been wearing my pro-fluoride button which tends to get me into hilarious debates with passionate antis. Sometimes I'm in the mood for it and sometimes I'm not but I still haven't heard any argument that sounds rational or logical yet. The anti-campaign seems to have resorted to just saying "NOOO!" instead of engaging in rational argument. Another side effect of these high profile anti-science campaigns is that the online skeptical groups become awash with people name calling and attacking science-based thinking. They often purport to be "skeptical" but they are one-trick ponies, there only for countering arguments on this one issue. The momentary relief between campaigns draws near and we can all go back to posting Neil deGrasse Tyson videos and poking fun at religion.

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)