I love the comic brilliance of Dan Aykroyd. I have such fond memories of watching him act on Saturday Night Live and in films such as Ghost Busters and The Blues Brothers.
And then my mind was blown. He is so much more.
My flat mate introduced me to this man’s passion for the paranormal and love for conspiracy theories. He’s even a Hollywood spokesperson for The Mutual UFO Network (MUFON).
Did you know Dan Aykroyd made vodka?
This video was the sole reason we bought Crystal Head Vodka. We just could not contain our mirth. The bottle is now sitting on our bookcase, and the vodka is actually rather tasty.
For all you Netflix members, there’s an interview-posing-as-documentary on Netflix Streaming called “Dan Aykroyd Unplugged on UFOs” that is just as hilarious as any UFO believer raving on about the topic—except this is Dan Aykroyd being serious, which makes it even more funny to me. The description on Netflix reads: “Skeptics beware!” So obviously, skeptics should grab the popcorn and enjoy this failure of a documentary. I can’t even describe the terrible narration by the interviewer, cheap camcorder production value, and the graphics. Glorious.
I think Aykroyd might just be the most entertaining rambler of all time:
A few months ago a reader, Roofwoofer, posted a question in response to my Love questionnaire:
Many atheists state that one of their primary objections to the existence of God is that there is no evidence for it that would stand up to the scientific method.
So the question is, are there things that are real but that reality isn’t supported by results of scientific testing.
So, in what sense is love real? Does it exist? If you believe someone loves you, what would you say if someone asked you to prove it?
I was recently asked this same question by my mother, and I’ll admit I hadn’t thought it through very well and was feeling defensive at the time, so I didn’t have a good answer for her. In fact, this comment sounds so creepily similar to the words my mother said to me that I wonder if Roofwoofer is my mother or if they get their debating points from the same source. Maybe this is a more common argument than I realized?
How would the atheist community answer questions like this one?
A believing science teacher? I’d like to see one of these in its native habitat. Granted, this blog isn’t active anymore, and these posts are a bit old, but I find these tiny snippets tantalizing, and I’d love to see more. I am so fascinated by people who study and work in professions that lend themselves to the rational and critical mind and find those studies uplifting to their faith.
I teach evolution as a theory-because it is. I believe in creationism, yet I do think that organisms have changed over time, but not to the extent that every living thing on this planet evolved from one single-celled organism.
…But so many times I feel like teaching is a great way to be Gods hands and Feet–and to love and make a difference in so many peoples lives…So as I thought more about it, I realized that perhaps it is better for my students to hear about Evolution from a Christian–(even though I do not tell them about my beliefs) than someone who is a strong advocate for Evolution. I always say prayers. All the time for my students, my school, and the things that I teach…So hopefully I’m doing the right thing–even if it is a little contradictory.
There are those moments in life, when you experience or see something that just touches your heart, to the point where you think, “This is one of those things-where it seems impossible to me that anyone in this world couldn’t believe in God.”
What brought this thought to my mind today is my current Biology unit. Protein syntheis. … I know this sounds like gibberish, but the real fascination is that these [DNA and mRNA] molecules are living–something is pushing them to keep going every day. They’re so tiny. We don’t even think of them, but they keep growing, replicating, and changing. The only explanation I can find for this phenomenon is God. He is what keeps us living, and going, and at a molecular level, our proteins synthesizing.
Isn’t it interesting how our perspectives and conclusions can differ so drastically?
During a recent discussions with my (devoutly Catholic and highly intelligent) mother, we touched on the question of proving the existence of things that cannot be observed scientifically. I wish I could recall the entire conversation for you here, but one of her questions was, “If you were asked for proof that I love you, could you give it?” Meaning that love–which she sees as a very real thing and more than just synapses and chemicals reacting in the brain–cannot be proven, but it still exists. You can guess that she wished to illustrate that God can exist while we cannot scientifically observe or test it.
All that to say … I just read a highly fascinating article called “The Science of Why We Don’t Believe in Science” on why scientific findings can be so thorough and so solid, yet there are still those who will argue against overwhelming evidence and hold tightly to anti-scientific beliefs. You may find it as enlightening as I did. I even see this behavior in myself, so don’t go thinking all atheists claim to be rational and without bias, now.
… [A]n array of new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience has further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. This tendency toward so-called “motivated reasoning” helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, “death panels,” the birthplace and religion of the president (PDF), and much else. It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts.
We’re not driven only by emotions, of course—we also reason, deliberate. But reasoning comes later, works slower—and even then, it doesn’t take place in an emotional vacuum. Rather, our quick-fire emotions can set us on a course of thinking that’s highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about.
That’s not to suggest that we aren’t also motivated to perceive the world accurately—we are. Or that we never change our minds—we do. It’s just that we have other important goals besides accuracy—including identity affirmation and protecting one’s sense of self—and often those make us highly resistant to changing our beliefs when the facts say we should.
Modern science originated from an attempt to weed out such subjective lapses—what that great 17th century theorist of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, dubbed the “idols of the mind.” Even if individual researchers are prone to falling in love with their own theories, the broader processes of peer review and institutionalized skepticism are designed to ensure that, eventually, the best ideas prevail.
Read more on MotherJones.
Meghan on 
LeetheGirl on 
Loading ...