Spanish language refresher

I'm going to start working on a Spanish language refresher.

I took Spanish in high school decades ago. It was my favorite subject and I often miss feeling fluent, or at least conversant. So I'm going to start compiling some resources to help me remember all that I knew, and build new skills.

6 Ways to Relearn your Rusty Spanish
I really like this guide because it provides practical tips about including small bits of Spanish into a daily routine. I think this sounds like a really good way to make steady progress towards regaining fluency.

Mango beginning Spanish
This course is designed for gaining/regaining basic fluency in short practical speaking and listening sessions. I think it could be useful. It's from the public library.

Babbel advaned beginner course

Based on some information that I've read from people who have tried to relearn languages after many years of hiatus, it's clear that it requires
 reading,
 writing,
 listening,
 speaking,
 vocabulary,
 and grammar practice and study.


Omitting any of these renders the whole program less useful. I have to remember to speak and listen as much as I read or write. Book knowledge doesn't really help fluency without listening and speaking.

My goal is 1 hour a day of Spanish review. I'm going to think about how to accomplish this work meaningfully, but I think the first few weeks will be mostly reading and writing. I need to do some more research to planning my course of study, setting goals, and finding ways to manage 5-10 minute Spanish learning & practice sessions into my day. I'm excited about something for the first time in years, so I am writing this to encourage myself to follow through.

 Subject to review:
Oct 14 - Review Spanish Level 1 course (vocab & verb conjugations)
Oct 21 - Review Spanish Level 1 course
Oct 28 - Review Spanish Level 1 course
Nov 4 - Sentence Structure and other verb tenses
Nov 11
Nov 18
Nov 25

 Topics to review over the next year Verb tenses Vocabulary Idioms & expressions Technology and 21st century terms New areas to learn Vosotros forms

Today I arrived at TAM. I met several interesting people who I want to remember. I'll edit this later.

Collin from Science Based Parenting was quite helpful and introduced me to several people.

One of them was David from the Dallas area who runs a skeptics group there. I'll have to see if Hillary would be interested in meeting with them.

Barbara Drescher, cognitive psychologist and promoter of science based skepticism. Icbseverywhere.com. Her husband was funny and told me about a crazy sex-themed house in aspen colorado. Her in laws quite charming.

I met Two great fellows from Australia. I will have to get their names again as i have forgotten. They live in the Melbourne area. One is a Pharmacist and the other a Social Worker. We talked about what got us started in skepticism and about the Australian census, among many topics.

Greg from Vancouver was great to talk with today. He's new to the skeptic movement but always considered himself to have a skeptical approach to the world. He is a programmer who makes video games.

I said a quick hello to Matt Lowry from our north suburban atheists and freethinkers group.

Hitchens Quotes

Sin

Closing Remarks at a 2011 Debate

Message to American Atheists

The Founding Fathers argument

We often hear Christians insisting that America was built on Christianity, or that this is a "Christian Nation." Bullshit. Most of the influential members of this group were deists at most.

Here also is a really interesting comment from Reddit, from the user somn:

Don't play the quote game, go right to the heart of the matter.

The political and economic theories on which the US was built come from the Enlightenment. The enlightenment explicitly rejected religion as a basis for political and economic theories.

Follow up by inquiring where in the Bible it speaks of individual liberties and free market economics? Show me a single reference to democracy. Now, ctrl+f and search the words "kingdom", "king", and "lord". Tell me, if you were to base a government on the Bible, would it be a representative democracy or a monarchy?

Talk to me about what you believe

I'm interested in what people believe. I appreciate Matt Dillahunty's perspective: tell me what you believe and why you believe it. I think this posture provides a great way for believers to frame their presentations, and it demonstrates the real position of skepticism. It's a reaction to claims made by believers.

When we talk about your beliefs, however, I'll not be convinced of the truth of your claims by arguments from authority, arguments from ignorance, or arguments from personal experience. Your life experience is not sufficient to demonstrate the truth of your claims to someone else. Likewise, the fact that you can't think of a better explanation for something doesn't demonstrate that your claim is true. Finally, appeals to religious authority hold no sway for those who do not accept that authority.

There are other logical fallacies, but those three are the ones that will stop our discussion in its tracks. Let's be open and honest about the issues we discuss. If we are, we'll have a much better chance at creating a mutual understanding.

Here's a really enlightening statement made by Christopher Hitchens in a debate vs. Frank Turek.

It's an insult to be told that without superstition or the supernatural we wouldn't know how to treat one another well, or know the difference between right and wrong.

The emancipation of humanity, which has taken a very great deal of time, just as the expansion of our life expectancy had to be worked on very hard. When it was left just to god to decide these things, we didn't live very long, couldn't cure any diseases, and didn't know that our planet wasn't the center of the universe. But once this emancipation has begun, I think it is unstoppable. And the emancipation of hunanity begins when you throw off the idea that you live in a celestial North Korea, and that only a dictator can give you permission to think, behave well, or act morally.

I really like the connection between life expcetancy and the progress of unbelief. After creeping up very slowly over tens of thousands of years, from say 25 to 35 years, life expectancy has nearly doubled in the past 150 years. Throwing off the shackles of superstition and looking at the world scientifically has granted us more life than humanity ever experienced as when the world was ruled by gods. I think it's conceivable that the next 150 years could see another doubling of life expectancy. Imagine living in a time when we could expect live to be 150 years old, running marathons into our 120's. Such a gift of life will not be possible with societal adherence to a theistic worldview. We have to move beyond dogma to reach our full potential.

One thing that really bugs me

I really enjoy discussing religion with people who are open to an honest discussion. Even if we don't agree on much, it's fascinating to see how differently we can perceive the world around us.

What I can't stand is people who profess an expertise in religious matters without having spent much time bothering to understand the basic arguments. There's a rabbi posting on Huffpost (okay, not much credibility there, but that's another discussion) who has written an open letter to atheists. He writes:

The first point I'd like to explore is that there really are no true atheists. It seems to me that in order to claim with certainty that there is no God you would have to have knowledge of the totality of the universe - seen and unseen - and I don't think any of you guys are ready to make that claim.

Perhaps Rabbi Jacobs is honestly mistaken about the claims of atheism, in which case he will most certainly acknowledge his error, rethink his position, and rewrite the missive with some humility. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing that a Rabbi wouldn't understand the basic position of atheists. If the second case is true, he's simply lying to readers who don't have a strong understanding of the arguments.

A serious person will at least go through the trouble of understanding the arguments before wading into these waters. Maybe Rabbi Jacobs will surprise me and reassess his letter and try again. If not, he's just another in a long line of deceitful religious leaders who are afraid of having honest discussions.

A Christmas Letter from Ricky Gervais

Ricky's Christmas Letter


This letter is both funny and eloquent. Along with Tim Minchin's White Wine in the Sun, this sentiment represents my own views of Christmas and religion quite well.

I've been looking for this quote for some time now. I couldn't remember the source until I ran across it serendipitously. The quote poignantly captures the state of mind that I've been mired in for so long. If I'm not able to "come out" soon to my family and friends, I'm afraid I'll lose my sense of self.

No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.

-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter, Chapter XX: The Minister in a Maze

Civil Rights for Homosexuals

The idea of America is that people should be free to live their lives without interference from an oppressive government. So long as we don't harm others, "the pursuit of happiness," however we define it individually, is the central tenet of our freedom.

Gays aren't seeking special treatment; they're seeking equality under the law. Right now there are special rules in place to specifically exclude homosexuals from the benefits of civil society. The repeal of these bigoted rules is the goal here, not the establishment of privileges that the larger community does not have.

It's our patriotic duty to demand equality for all. Historically we've had this discussion regarding women's rights, the end of slavery, and the civil rights movement in the 1960's. In each case, hindsight offers a very clear perspective that discrimination is unethical and immoral. At some point we have to embrace a true equality for all. It's about time we realized it.

Nazis, religion, and atheism

Here's a good source of info regarding how the Nazis dealt with religion and non-belief.

Pharyngula discussion

Biblical Origins

Here's a great 10 part discussion of the content in misquoting Jesus. It's a good look at the real origins of the Bible.

Bart Ehrman on Biblical Origins

The beginning discusses the problems of copying the text for the first several hundred years after the events took place.

Interesting dilemmas:

The Parable of the woman caught in adultery was added to John 7-8 in about the 10th century.

Ending of the book of Mark originally had the women in the tomb instructed to tell the disciples to meet the risen Jesus in Galilee, but they fled and didn't say anything to anyone because they were afraid. Scribes later added 12 verses. 16:9-end. Woemen do tell disciples to meet in Galilee, they do meet in Galilee, and Jesus tells them they can handle deadly snakes, speak in tongues, and drink poisons without being harmed.

Mark Ch. 1 - Jesus heals the leper. Several ancient manuscripts say that Jesus got angry when he healed the man.

Luke - scene of crucifixion varies greatly from Mark's. Jesus is totally in control and consoling in Luke, but confused and distressed in Mark.

A very reasonable post from Pharyngula

Woo peddlers drive me crazy, and Deepak Chopra is a repeat offender. PZ Myers wrote a funny post, and this user comment balanced his humor with a sensible response.


A quick question for Deepak Chopra

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | March 2, 2010 12:22 PM

but I'd like to know what evidence can be shown against the position that if EVERYONE was honest and helpful that the world's problems wouldn't be solved!?

The world's problems don't all arise from dishonesty and selfishness. If everyone were honest and helpful, diseases would still exist, there would still be conflict between the needs humans have for food and water and our need to preserve biodiversity, we would still need to find ways to obtain energy more efficiently, we would still need to solve conflicts concerning humane animal use, blah, blah, blah.

Also, the argument that "spirituality" promotes honesty and kindness is taken as a given. I would challenge that notion. Further, "spirituality" provides no cure for ignorance, a serious problem.

Promoting knowledge and rationality would be much more effective at solving the problems of the world than honesty and kindness.

My Faves

Sometimes it's handy to have lists. Here are some of my favorite people, books, and ideas. I'll work on this as I have time.

Mark Twain - The first and last word in American literature. Hilarious, skeptical, and thought provoking. Among my favorites are A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses, The Innocents Abroad, Huckleberry Finn, and Letters from the Earth.

Carl Sagan - I love the PBS Series Cosmos, and the book The Demon-Haunted World.

His Dark Materials, a trilogy of fantasy novels by Philip Pullman.

Dr. Seuss. He can provide great moral lessons using simple rhyming language and wonderful illustrations. The Sneetches, The Lorax, The Butter Battle Book, Yertle the Turtle, and others.

The Hubble Ultra Deep field in 3D.

TED talks.
EDGE
Globe Forum.

Question Boldly, Mr. Jefferson

When I was in college, I gained a strong appreciation for Thomas Jefferson, and the role he played in the development of American notions of liberty. The Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom are perhaps the two most critical documents of the American Revolution. They established, at that point in time, an entirely new relationship between the state and the individual.

I was always fascinated by Jefferson's religious views, and how his lack of faith in the Christian God shaped his perspective on morality and liberty. The Jefferson Bible, formally known as The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, is a version of the Bible with most of the supernatural and spiritual elements removed. It offers an amazing insight into Jefferson's religious notions, and how he viewed the life of Jesus as noteworthy, but not divine.

Among his numerable quotes regarding religious belief, I find a paragraph regarding religion in a letter written to his nephew, Peter Carr, August 10, 1787, to be extremely enlightening:

Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place, divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty & singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, and the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand, shake off all the fears & servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

Jefferson encourages us to read the Bible as if it were a history from Tacitus or Livy, which I did myself during my sophomore year at UT. It's been a fascinating ride ever since.

Basava Premanand

Basava Premanand wrote a final letter declaring his non-belief in gods or the afterlife. He felt it necessary because so many "godmen" have claimed death-bed confessions for non-believers, Albert Einstein among the more notable.

His life is one about which I'm interested in learning more. Being a rationalist in the midst of a very spiritualistic India could make for a compelling biography.

The Atheist Experience: Jonathan Park and the Mind Pathetically Misled: a rant

The Atheist Experience: Jonathan Park and the Mind Pathetically Misled: a rant: "This is why we fight. Minds are at stake. Somewhere in the world is a student who will go on to cure AIDS, extend human life expectancy, and solve other ills that befall us, and that student will have to understand evolution. Creationists fear this, and want this destroyed at all costs. Religion doesn't care what destruction it leaves in its wake, as long as it comes out on top in the end."

Believe what you want, but don't force it on me

Religious people have every right to believe and worship and live according to their faith, as long as their actions do not harm others. However, these people cannot force others to believe their myths or obey their religious tenets. It's as simple as that.

PZ Myers blogged about a story that illustrates the point effectively. The short version is that a journalist in Israel was attacked for reporting on a story about a parking lot that would remain open on the Shabbot. She was attacked because she herself wasn't observing the Shabbot, even though she wasn't Jewish.

PZ's opinion here is much like my own:

This is something too many religious people fail to understand — you can practice your religion, other people can practice their religion, but you don't get to tell other people that they must practice your religion. If your crazy superstition says you aren't allowed to push a button on a certain day of the week, then don't. If your old myths claim that your god turns into a cracker when the right ritual is carried out, go ahead and believe that. If your dogma dictates that you should visit a certain magic rock before you die, then go ahead, make your pilgrimage.

But excuse us, everyone who doesn't have these wacky ideas has a perfect right to push the button, disrespect your cracker, or stay home and skip the crowds…and we also have the right to point and laugh at you.

A shocking statistic

Today I ran across one of the most interesting pieces of Biblical scholarship that I've ever seen. Steve Wells at
Dwindling in Unbelief has tallied up all of God's killings and massacres enumerated in the Bible. The total? 2,301,427.

This jaw-dropping number would be even higher if he included massacres that are unnumbered (such as the slaughter of the Midianites that I mentioned in my earlier post).

He is also retelling all of the stories of God's killings. It's a most extraordinary exercise.

Credulity vs. Skepticism

The perspective from which we evaluate claims of truth is a major factor in our view of the world. Claims about the existence of (or immediate experience with) extraterrestrials, bigfoot, paranormal abilities, and gods are met with an immediate reaction.

From one side, the credulous accept these claims at face value. On the other hand, skeptics don't believe such claims without evidence.

Is your first reaction to believe such claims, or to ask questions? Which is the better position? Is it better to believe something that isn't true, or to disbelieve some truth? I think this question is critical in determining how we perceive the world aroud us.