Create your own Atheist Gift Cards

I came across a site (GiftCardLab) that allows you to create your own Visa gift cards. I love buying these types of cards, especially for online purchases and such in order to keep my own accounts more secure. However, I noticed that this place allows you to put your own photos on the cards... so long as it is withing their guidelines. Ok, so what are their guidelines you ask?

Well...

GiftCardLab will not accept any images which contain any of the following:

• Company names, trademarks, logos, slogans, works of art, copyrighted materials or brands of any third party and their likeness.
• Celebrities, actors, cartoons or computer games figures.
• Advertising or promotional materials or branded products.
• Phone numbers, addresses, URL addresses, account or PIN numbers.
• Violent, bloody, indecent, nudity or semi-nudity, obscene, maltreatment under 18 content.
• Culturally or socially insensitive texts or images, or those show alcohol, tobacco, gambling, firearms or other anti-social behaviors.
  
• Texts or images that display the views, opinions or beliefs of political groups or religions.
• Libelous or derogatory or defamatory content.
• Discriminative content.
• Provocative content.
• Numbers, texts or images that might induce misunderstanding.
• Instigate anti-government, overthrow government, or content which is in violation of any rules, regulations or laws.
• Texts or images that might result in card acceptance confusion by merchants.
• Other texts or images that are deemed not suitable for any reason for use as a GiftCard face by GiftCardLab.

Interesting... so the only problem I can see is "Texts or images that display the views, opinions or beliefs of political groups or religions." However, taking this literally atheism is neither a political or religious opinion or belief, rather it is a lack of belief. So TECHNICALLY we are covered. Also it may be considered a violation of the first or copyright infringement, unless we get permission to use a photo or one that has fair use.

So what did I do? I decided that the "A" for the OUT Campaign would be perfect. So I formatted a picture that would fit you can get it here. So I uploaded it to the site and it fit like a glove. Here is what the outcome looks like:
So now I can order this (for a nominal fee) and make purchases anywhere that accepts Visa and also show my support for the campaign and perhaps piss off a few fundies and make a few atheist smile... cause in our community, we need more things that make us smile.

20 Logical Fallacies (Or how to debate idiots)

I found this article (via stumbleupon) about logical fallacies, which is great to know when you want to put an idiot in their place, and wanted to share it with fellow atheist, skeptics, and debaters. It is Copyright 2007 - The New England Skeptical Society, Inc. and can be viewed here on it's original page:

The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Presents our Top 20 Logical Fallacies

(Link to a more thorough article on Logical Fallacies.)

What is a logical fallacy?

All arguments have the same basic structure: A therefore B. They begin with one or more premises (A), which is a fact or assumption upon which the argument is based. They then apply a logical principle (therefore) to arrive at a conclusion (B). An example of a logical principle is that of equivalence. For example, if you begin with the premises that A=B and B=C, you can apply the logical principle of equivalence to conclude that A=C. A logical fallacy is a false or incorrect logical principle. An argument that is based upon a logical fallacy is therefore not valid. It is important to note that if the logic of an argument is valid then the conclusion must also be valid, which means that if the premises are all true then the conclusion must also be true. Valid logic applied to one or more false premises, however, leads to an invalid argument. Also, if an argument is not valid the conclusion may, by chance, still be true.


Top 20 Logical Fallacies (in alphabetical order)

1. Ad hominem An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO's are crazy or stupid.

2. Ad ignorantiam The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. UFO proponents will often argue that an object sighted in the sky is unknown, and therefore it is an alien spacecraft.

3. Argument from authority Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.

4. Argument from final Consequences Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves. For example: God must exist, because otherwise life would have no meaning.

5. Argument from Personal Incredulity I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.

6. Confusing association with causation This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they are correlated, although the relationship here is not strictly that of one variable following the other in time. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990's both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time. A corollary to this is the invocation of this logical fallacy to argue that an association does not represent causation, rather it is more accurate to say that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it can. Also, multiple independent correlations can point reliably to a causation, and is a reasonable line of argument.

7. Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation. An example of this is the "God of the Gapsâ" strategy of creationists that whatever we cannot currently explain is unexplainable and was therefore an act of god.

8. False Continuum The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful: There is a fuzzy line between cults and religion, therefore they are really the same thing.

9. False Dichotomy Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two possibilities). This fallacy can also be used to oversimplify a continuum of variation to two black and white choices. For example, science and pseudoscience are not two discrete entities, but rather the methods and claims of all those who attempt to explain reality fall along a continuum from one extreme to the other.

10. Inconsistency Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others. For example, some consumer advocates argue that we need stronger regulation of prescription drugs to ensure their safety and effectiveness, but at the same time argue that medicinal herbs should be sold with no regulation for either safety or effectiveness.

11. The Moving Goalpost A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists.

12. Non-Sequitur In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow". This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

13. Post-hoc ergo propter hoc This fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related (the Latin translates to "after this, therefore because of this").

14. Reductio ad absurdum In formal logic, the reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument. It follows the form that if the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to an absurd (false) conclusion and therefore one or more premises must be false. The term is now often used to refer to the abuse of this style of argument, by stretching the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion. For example a UFO enthusiast once argued that if I am skeptical about the existence of alien visitors, I must also be skeptical of the existence of the Great Wall of China, since I have not personally seen either. This is a false reductio ad absurdum because he is ignoring evidence other than personal eyewitness evidence, and also logical inference. In short, being skeptical of UFO's does not require rejecting the existence of the Great Wall.

15. Slippery Slope This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not consistent or tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted. But moderate positions do not necessarily lead down the slippery slope to the extreme.

16. Straw Man Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.

17. Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results. For example, one might point out that ESP has never been demonstrated under adequate test conditions, therefore ESP is not a genuine phenomenon. Defenders of ESP have attempted to counter this argument by introducing the arbitrary premise that ESP does not work in the presence of skeptics. This fallacy is often taken to ridiculous extremes, and more and more bizarre ad hoc elements are added to explain experimental failures or logical inconsistencies.

18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation (without touching) of the life force.

19. Tu quoque Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours."

20. Unstated Major Premise This fallacy occurs when one makes an argument which assumes a premise which is not explicitly stated. For example, arguing that we should label food products with their cholesterol content because Americans have high cholesterol assumes that: 1) cholesterol in food causes high serum cholesterol; 2) labeling will reduce consumption of cholesterol; and 3) that having a high serum cholesterol is unhealthy. This fallacy is also sometimes called begging the question.

Olbermann: the beginning of the end of America

On CNN Keith Olbermann (One of my heroes) recently talked about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in which we have lost one of our essential liberties, the writ of Habeas corpus. What has American become? I am saddened deeply by this, but more so I am angry at a world in which people think it is ok to due such vile and despicable things, so long as it is in the favor of Country. It truly is a sad day, when we are coming closer to a world where we will live in a police state, not have the rights to be as we are, and to defend ourselves accordingly. We as people need to stand up and make a difference. First we loose our right to Free Speech & Privacy with the USA Patriot Act, Now we loose our right to have our selves a fair trail in front of a judge, with a lawyer... and soon and very soon, we may very well loose our right to keep and bear arms.

I can tell you this... if it comes down to where we have no freedoms or liberties. I will make it my mission to seek out those liberties at any cost, defending my life and my way of life by any means necessary.

Here is a video you should watch with full attention. Enjoy... as much as you can.

Via www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html I bring to you something that is still true today as it was in 1993 when this was first written. Enjoy.

A Cypherpunk's Manifesto

by Eric Hughes

Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.

If two parties have some sort of dealings, then each has a memory of their interaction. Each party can speak about their own memory of this; how could anyone prevent it? One could pass laws against it, but the freedom of speech, even more than privacy, is fundamental to an open society; we seek not to restrict any speech at all. If many parties speak together in the same forum, each can speak to all the others and aggregate together knowledge about individuals and other parties. The power of electronic communications has enabled such group speech, and it will not go away merely because we might want it to.

Since we desire privacy, we must ensure that each party to a transaction have knowledge only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction. Since any information can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible. In most cases personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. When I ask my electronic mail provider to send and receive messages, my provider need not know to whom I am speaking or what I am saying or what others are saying to me; my provider only need know how to get the message there and how much I owe them in fees. When my identity is revealed by the underlying mechanism of the transaction, I have no privacy. I cannot here selectively reveal myself; I must always reveal myself.

Therefore, privacy in an open society requires anonymous transaction systems. Until now, cash has been the primary such system. An anonymous transaction system is not a secret transaction system. An anonymous system empowers individuals to reveal their identity when desired and only when desired; this is the essence of privacy.

Privacy in an open society also requires cryptography. If I say something, I want it heard only by those for whom I intend it. If the content of my speech is available to the world, I have no privacy. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy, and to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Furthermore, to reveal one's identity with assurance when the default is anonymity requires the cryptographic signature.

We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their beneficence. It is to their advantage to speak of us, and we should expect that they will speak. To try to prevent their speech is to fight against the realities of information. Information does not just want to be free, it longs to be free. Information expands to fill the available storage space. Information is Rumor's younger, stronger cousin; Information is fleeter of foot, has more eyes, knows more, and understands less than Rumor.

We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do.

We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money.

Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can't get privacy unless we all do, we're going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don't much care if you don't approve of the software we write. We know that software can't be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down.

Cypherpunks deplore regulations on cryptography, for encryption is fundamentally a private act. The act of encryption, in fact, removes information from the public realm. Even laws against cryptography reach only so far as a nation's border and the arm of its violence. Cryptography will ineluctably spread over the whole globe, and with it the anonymous transactions systems that it makes possible.

For privacy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract. People must come and together deploy these systems for the common good. Privacy only extends so far as the cooperation of one's fellows in society. We the Cypherpunks seek your questions and your concerns and hope we may engage you so that we do not deceive ourselves. We will not, however, be moved out of our course because some may disagree with our goals.

The Cypherpunks are actively engaged in making the networks safer for privacy. Let us proceed together apace.

Onward.

Eric Hughes [ hughes@soda.berkeley.edu ]

9 March 1993

Pan seared jumbo scallops w/roasted butternut squash ravioli

Below is a recipe that I have gathered together from a few separate recipes in order to create the most amazing dish I have had in a long, long time. I had the dish at Mimi's Cafe here in Las Vegas, NV and wanted to get the recipe. However, they don't offer in, nor have I found a complete one online. I have found various other recipes like "Butternut squash ravioli with brown butter" . It is just not the same (though still good). So here is my compilation of recipes that ultimately make up something very close to the original.

(Note: If you happen to be a Chef or someone who has worked for Mimi's and would like to share the REAL recipe. I would call you a friend for a very long time. e-mail me and let me know.)

Pan seared jumbo scallops served atop a bed of roasted butternut squash ravioli, tomatoes, garlic mushrooms and roasted tomato cream sauce


Pan Seared Jumbo Sea Scallops (And Garlic Mushrooms)

INGREDIENTS:
2 Tbsp. - Olive oil
10 each (about 1 pound) - Jumbo sea scallops (sized at under 10 per pound)

1 Hunk of Smashed Garlic
1 Handful of Mushrooms (to suit) any kind


1. Season scallops lightly on both sides with fresh ground black pepper and salt.

2. Heat the olive oil in a large sauté pan over medium heat until hot but not smoking.

3. Add the scallops and sear on each side for 2-3 minutes until rich golden brown on each side and moist, yet cooked through in the center. Remove scallops from pan to avoid over cooking while plating. Set aside until ready to plate.

4. Use oil when finished to caramelize garlic and to sauté chopped mushrooms until crisp.

5. Drain on paper towel until dry.

6. let set until sauce is ready, Toss with sauce once warm.

~~~~~~~

Butternut Squash Ravioli

Ingredients:
15 ounces durum flour
15 ounces high-gluten bread flour
1 teaspoon salt
4 eggs
1/4 cup olive oil
3/4 cup water
3 butternut squash, roasted, pureed
3/4 cup fat-free ricotta cheese
1/4 cup Parmesan cheese
1/4 teaspoon cinnamon
1/4 teaspoon nutmeg
1 teaspoon black pepper
salt to taste
1/2 cup bread crumbs
egg wash as needed

1. Prepare pasta dough by mixing flours and salt. Add eggs and oil, then water, mixing until smooth; knead. Allow to rest 1 hour.

2. Mix squash puree, cheeses, cinnamon, nutmeg, pepper and salt. Mix in bread crumbs. Place in pastry bag.

3. Using pasta machine, roll out pasta. Lay out 2 pasta sheets, cut to 12-in. by 6-in. Pipe 1 Tbsp. filling into 2 in. of space, 3 across, 6 down.

4. Brush second pasta sheet with egg wash; carefully lay over bottom sheet. Cut into squares with pizza wheel. Repeat with remaining pasta sheets.

5. Cook ravioli in boiling, salted water about 4 minutes. Per serving, plate 6 ravioli, top with sauce.

(Note: There are two ways to cheat on this portion. 1. Buy pre-made Butternut squash Ravioli or 2. You can buy pre-made pasta and still make your own version of butternut squash to add to the pasta.)

(Note 2: You can change or make your own to suit your own taste see also this recipe w/o the sauce)

~~~~~~~

Roasted Tomato Cream Sauce
Original Recipe courtesy of Chef Geoff Gunn at the 2006 Taste of Tillamook County

Ingredients:
2 lbs. Ripe Roma Tomatoes, quartered
1 1/2 Cups Garlic Cloves, whole & peeled
1/4 Bunch Fresh Thyme
1/4 Bunch Fresh Oregano, stemmed
1/2 Bunch Fresh Basil, stemmed
1 Tablespoon Ground Black Pepper
1 1/2 Teaspoon Kosher Salt
1/2 Cups Olive Oil
1 Pint Heavy Cream

1. Toss tomatoes, garlic, thyme, salt, pepper and olive oil together in a bowl. Pour out onto a sheet pan, and roast in oven at 350 degrees for 30 minutes or until golden brown. Transfer into food processor and puree until smooth. Strain and chill in refrigerator until cool.

2. Once chilled, transfer sauce back into food processor and add basil and oregano. Puree until smooth.

3. Add sauce to one quart of heavy cream in pot. Bring to a simmer. Serve pasta.


~~~~~~~

Last but not least, add Ravioli to Dish, pour tomato cream sauce on top w/ mushrooms added and plate scallops on top, garnish as desired.

This says what I Feel

(Thanks to xkcd.com )