Let’s begin with the mundane, normal response, because this is how I’d reply. Obama said in an interview that he believed aliens existed.

…former President Obama piqued the interest of many Americans when he said on a separate podcast last month that aliens were “real,” but he had not seen them, and they were not being held at Area 51.

Obama attempted to walk back his comments the next day, saying that he “saw no evidence during my presidency that extraterrestrials have made contact with us.”

“I was trying to stick with the spirit of the speed round, but since it’s gotten attention, let me clarify. Statistically, the universe is so vast that the odds are good there’s life out there,” Obama said in a post on Instagram.

That’s not “walking back,” that’s just clarifying a statement that he had initially assumed no one would be nuts enough to misinterpret. I also believe that there almost certainly alien intelligent organisms somewhere in the immense universe. There’s nothing magical about life, or intelligence. But I agree with Obama that there is no evidence of aliens, and that it is only a hypothetical likelihood.

Every scientist I know would agree with it. Typically, only some religious cranks argue that it’s not possible for aliens to exist. Of course, there are other cranks who argue that aliens have been visiting us already.

President Trump pledged a few days later to direct the Department of Defense and other agencies to release their files about UFOs and “alien and extraterrestrial life” to the public, citing the “tremendous” interest.

He previously told reporters he did not know if aliens were real and that he “may get him out of trouble” by declassifying records, referring to Obama.

The White House registered the domain names “Alien.gov” and “Aliens.gov” earlier this month, drawing speculation that information could be released soon.

I eagerly await the news from aliens.gov. Not holding my breath though.

And then there are the total wackos who believe aliens exist, but that they are supernatural beings.

JD Vance, the vice-president of the United States, said this weekend that he considers aliens to be “demons”.

With the war in Iran continuing, petrol and grocery prices soaring, and chaos continuing at US airports as a partial government shutdown endures, Vance appeared on the conservative Benny Show podcast, released on Saturday, to promise that he would spend time looking into what he called his “obsession” with UFOs and extraterrestrial visitors.

Johnson, who bills his show as the place for “cutting, behind-the-scenes insight into the global conflict for freedom”, wondered if Vance, who has been noticeably quiet about Donald Trump’s war in the Middle East that he is said to oppose, had yet looked at any of the files about unidentified flying objects – known these days as unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) – which the president has promised to release.

“I actually haven’t,” Vance replied, mustering significantly more enthusiasm than for any previous question about the US-Israel military strikes on Iran.

“I have not been able to spend enough time on this, but I am going to. Trust me, I’m obsessed with this.”

This is inarguable evidence that the intellectual ability of our political leaders declined precipitously between Obama and Vance.

Let’s make sure looney JD never gets to the presidency, OK?

I have a lot of different genetics texts, and I sometimes browse through them to get different perspectives, or in this case to get ideas for exam questions. I was skimming through Cummings’ Human Heredity: Principles and Issues when I ran into this surprising text box.

I fail to see what this would add to a student’s understanding of genetics: OK, lot of inbreeding among the Biblical patriarchs, I was entertained by the description of Noah that sounds more like Snow White, I guess Michael Cummings is revealed to have an interest in obscure Biblical text reconstruction, and it might appeal to theologically inclined students, but yeesh, I expect my students to have a better appreciation of the quality of the data.

I don’t think you can claim that Noah was an inbred albino on the basis of such slim evidence. This is a figure who is pretty well swaddled up in myth and legend, who is claimed to have lived through a global flood that didn’t happen, who lived, supposedly, to the age of 950, and who is claimed to have lived around 3000BCE, when your evidence is based on a text fragment from 200BCE. And now we’re going to deduce a detail of his genetics? No, thank you.

Elevatorgator
small, mindless undead
chaotic evil

Armor class: 14
Hit points: 1d4
Speed: 10ft

Attacks: annoying whine
Weaknesses: die at a touch from any female party members

Yesterday, I was complaining about the low information content and tedious predictability of most atheist content on YouTube. It was only a matter of time — less than 24 hours — before some regressive numpty chimed in to blame women, trans people, and Atheism+, claiming that atheism has turned into a religion. He hasn’t learned a thing in over 15 years.

@SmilingSynic
The atheist content on social media peaked fifteen or so years ago, until the introduction of Atheism Plus made the movement “jump the shark.” Indeed, the welding together of atheism (and other expressions of anti-theism) with social activism and progressive ideology turned much of the movement a quasi-religion holding laughably anti-scientific, mystical positions on, for example, human sexuality, in the form of gender identity. Atheism as a movement even adopted tactics found in religions/cults, including the shaming of those like Richard Dawkins who questioned, rightly, the basis of the transgender movement (in scientology, Dawkins would have been identified as an SP, or Suppressive Person, lol). Atheism used to be AGAINST religion, until the movement was hijacked by some who actually turned into something much LIKE a religion. I have zero interest in modern atheism as a movement, and am now embarrassed that I used to listen to podcasts on the topic.

No, Atheism+ was a great idea, ahead of its time, and most atheist organizations have adopted its principles to some degree. It was merely howled out of open existence by regressive twits who harrassed the organizers, joined it to undermine its membership, and who were appalled at the idea that mere women could fight back against a hierarchy that denied them a proper role.

Dawkins has since identified himself as sympathetic to Christian religion — he just hates those wicked Muslims. If anyone has become a religious proponent, it’s the supporters of an authority-based belief system that exists to oppress outsiders.

I think Modern Atheism As A Movement is now embarrassed that dull-witted trolls such as @SmilingSynic now claim to be the only True Atheists, in opposition to those bad anti-scientific atheists who think that women and gender identity and progressives are real.

Via Mano, I am reassured to learn that not all scientists were taken in by Epstein. Sean M. Carroll represents what I’d regard as the best response to the blandishments of a perverse, corrupt weirdo trying to seduce scientists with money.

His host interrupted the meal to call Epstein and then handed Carroll the phone.

“It was a 2-minute conversation, and frankly, it didn’t make much of an impression on me at the time,” Carroll says. “As best I can remember, we talked about the Big Bang and dark energy and things like that.”

But Carroll says when he told others about the call, including his wife, science writer Jennifer Ouellette, we “were rolling our eyes.” In a recent blog post, Carroll said Epstein came off as a “standard, fast-talking charlatan who trotted out lots of big words with no real understanding [of them].”

A few months later, Carroll received an email invitation to a scientific conference at Epstein’s home on his private Caribbean island. “It was billed as a workshop of scientists from different fields, something that I usually find appealing, and it sounded like fun,” he says. But he declined after learning a bit more about the arrangements.

“Jennifer was also invited,” Carroll recounts. “But when we asked if she would be a participant, they said ‘she could go shopping with the other wives.’ And we were repulsed by that sexist attitude.”

“I had no idea through any of this that he was a convicted sex offender,” Carroll adds. “That would have made it a much easier decision for me. But in 2010 he was not a famous person. If I had tried really hard, I could have found out about [his criminal record], but the thought that I would really have to try hard never entered my mind.”

Carroll says the lure of possible funding wasn’t an issue for him. “I’m not desperate for money,” he says. “And besides, at the end of your life, who you are is the accumulation of the things you did. It’s not just how much money you got.”

“standard, fast-talking charlatan who trotted out lots of big words with no real understanding [of them]” is a pretty good summary of the the Epstein spiel. Keep that in mind when you read about scientists who were taking rides on Epstein’s plane — they had to be either stupidly naive or criminally greedy.

Hey! I’m going to be speaking at an Iowa Atheists event tomorrow, which has me mildly shocked. I hope I haven’t forgotten how to talk, or worse, that the only thing I can talk about is spiders (No! Do not talk about spiders! People find it either boring or horrifying!)

It’s been a long time. You know, I’ve been effectively blacklisted by all the major atheist organizations because I’ve loudly criticized some of the atheist saints, like Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens, and then got attached to some hated shibboleths like feminism (but I’m not a woman), or gay liberation (but I’m straight), or trans rights (I’m also not trans), or some other heresy. The last time I talked to an atheist organization about speaking was about ten years ago, and that was painfully tentative — the person I spoke with wanted to check my availability, but they were afraid that some members of their group hated me so much that they’d veto the suggestion…which is what happened, I guess, because I never heard from them again.

Just as well. I’ve got an hour or more of macrophotos and videos of spiders that no one would want to see, anyway. If any of those groups that blacklisted me somehow decided to bring me on, that’s what they’d get, and it would serve them right.

Today I’m driving to the Twin Cities. Tomorrow at 2pm in Des Moines I’ll be talking about social justice, instead, which would make them cry even harder.

Mano Singham considers an essay from one of those people who say they were an atheist, but have now returned to their faith. Mano treats it thoughtfully and respectfully, and I can appreciate that, but nowadays my response to such a claim is “You’re full of crap, bye.”

I know, I’m a bad, rude person.

Unfortunately, it seems like even the most fervent, fanatical televangelist has a similar story about having been a heretical wastrel in their youth, but then they found Jesus and are now saved. It’s part of a redemption arc, and also part of a slur against atheists, that they only deny God because they are immature and hedonistic and haven’t thought seriously about faith.

I think Mano has it exactly right.

I left religion for purely logical reasons. not emotional ones. I found that however hard I tried, I just could not reconcile the scientific view that everything occurs according to natural laws with the traditional religious view that seemed to require an entity that could bypass those laws to act in the world to change the course of events. It took me a long time to overcome the emotional attachment to the religious beliefs that I had. So while I can understand how logical reasoning can make one leave religion, I cannot see how it can drive the reverse process, as Beha seems to desire.

Same here, except that my family faith tradition didn’t have much of an emotional attachment to Christianity, so shedding it was relatively trivial. I agree, though, that there are no good rational reasons to compel return to a faith, which is why I reject any attempts to rationalize it. It feels good to you, it connects you to friends and family, you have fond memories of your time in church…that’s fine. I believe you. Go ahead, I’m not going to deny your feelings. But if you try to tell me you have compelling, logical, scientific reasons to believe in a god, I’m going to tell you you’re full of shit.

This guy, Christopher Beha, has his own simple excuse.

To ask “How am I to live?” is to inquire as to not just what is right but what is good. It is to ask not just “What should I do?” but “How should I be?” The most generous interpretation of the New Atheist view on this question is that people ought to have the freedom to decide for themselves. On that, I agreed completely, but that left me right where I’d started, still in need of an answer.

That’s about as superficial a rationalization for becoming a Catholic as I can imagine. Why become a Catholic? Because you need someone to tell you what to do. Maybe Mr Beha should then ask, “Why should I trust this guy in a clerical collar or this holy book to know what I should do?” He’s not looking for an answer, he’s looking for an authority.

The more complete interpretation of the atheist view is that there is no one to tell you what to do with your life. And anyone who is telling you otherwise is lying to you.