He's on his way to Oklahoma (no, that's not what rouses my envy), and an Oklahoma legislator has proposed a resolution to condemn him.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.
Wow. This from the same crowd that gets all fluttery and happy at "academic freedom" bills — they want to kick Richard Dawkins out of the whole state. I thought I was the scary one when I was the guy getting kicked out of a mere movie theater.
- Log in to post comments
...what? WHAT?
OH dear.
Doesn't the second paragraph contradict the first one?
Wouldn't expect less from uneducated morons.
I guess he doesn't trust he useless omnipotent and omnipresent sky fairy.
OH NO, Dawkins will make the whole state become atheistic in one speech. Time to batten the hatches, furl the sails....oh yeah, OK doesn't have an ocean.
Oklahoma, Louisiana, Turkey, Tehran, Pyongyang, ... same thing, all containing some intolerant fuckwads.
Does getting kicked out of Oklahoma have a place on a CV? I think it should
PLEASE let them pass this.
Remember when the word "Okie" was a slur that meant uneducated, ignorant idiot?
I've only visited two states, Texas and Oklahoma. I'm doing it wrong, aren't I?
meh
I'm confident that if anything happens in OK, ERV will kick 'em in their communion wafers.
Is this legislater calling most Oklahomans easily-offended ignoramuses?
Hold on, Hold on...
So they oppose the University of Oklahoma inviting Dawkins to speak because he holds opinions at odds with the majority, but they encourage the University to engage in open and fair discussion on the theory of evolution?
Did they redact the clause that said "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength"?
Holy shit!
If this is true, then they'd want Dawkins to speak. Thomsen is talking out of both sides of his mouth and out of his ass simultaneously.
@ Newfie (#8):
Yep.
he's being Expelled?!
*hugs irony*
I think Abbie (ERV) is about to suffer a stroke.
There's the problem...no matter what the intelligentsia (or illuminati or whatever you want to call 'em) have to say about matters evolution, the "average" American will say "no thank you". You would think that tenured teachers would be in a position to teacher proper biology in any case, but it isn't so. The social pressure of the community on a biology teacher can be immense, often leading to the quitting of the teacher, or possibly their removal, despite tenure (the teacher in this being unwilling to fight back).
What ridiculous, cowardly, arrogant people. But why stop with just one offended state? We should get President Obama to invite Dawkins to the White House to discuss science education and then sit back and watch all the fundies' heads explode.
Kaddath @ 3: I noticed the same thing that the second paragraph contradicts the first. I guess this is okay when you don't like evolution and want "academic freedom" to teach "the controversy" which is code for getting prayer back into public schools.
wow... the war is escalating...
"... to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution."
As if Richard Dawkins couldn't do that. I agree with 'Tis Himself (#13) that they should *want* him in that debate. But what do I know? I'm a Zonie, not an Okie.
Be it resolved by the legislature of Oklahoma: whereas, many elderly people have fallen and been unable to get up; whereas, small children have fallen off of bicycles and otherwise healthy adults have tripped in stairways or on ice and suffered grievous injury therefrom. Therefore, be it resolved that, since the majority of citizens of the great state of Oklahoma find the theory of universal gravitation offensive and dangerous, that such theory is strongly opposed by the legislature and gravity is unwelcome in Oklahoma.
Dawkins must be doing something right.
THEREFORE we the representatives of the state of Oklahoma do declare that it is to be know to all persons that a known ATHEIST is ON THE LOOSE in our fair state of Oklahoma. Any persons coming into ear-shot of said ATHEIST should avoid making eye contacts at all costs.
Do not respond to the taunts of the ATHEIST -- it will only further encourage him to expand upon contrary and offensive opinions concerning topics in biology. It is also to be known that said ATHEIST is a known DARWINIST given to DARWINISM and will dogmatically reject alternative explanations which consider the possibility of supernatural explanations of said biology.
One more thought: Maybe if Michelle Bachman were still in Minnesota's legisature, we would have had a similar resolution here! Fuckwads - they're everywhere.
I guess this is okay when you don't like evolution and want "academic freedom" to teach "the controversy" which is code for getting prayer back into public schools.
You forgot the "Darwinian". "Darwinian theory of evolution".
It's always "Darwinian" this, and "Darwinian" that. The "Darwinistic" theory of "Darwinian Darwinism".
The legislator authorizing this bill:
"Making no response to this person speaking endorses academic freedom"
"I respond that I oppose his speaking"
"Therefore, I do not endorse academic freedom"
"But I endorse academic freedom"
So: "I endorse academic freedom except in the cases in which I oppose the conclusions."
Is this legislator proposing this legislation due to his
(a) personal beliefs
(b) perception of the beliefs of the majority of his constituents
(c) disregard of physical evidence
(d) combination of the above
(e) physical evidence
Beautiful, the IDiots can never prevent their desires for censorhip from showing through. I seriously doubt the whole legislature is stupid enough to pass such a hypocritical condemnation, but I'm only too happy to see one dolt being too stupid to know that he's not only letting the cat out ofthe bag, he's displaying it for all to see.
Anyway, it's only a fact that those who don't accept evolution are wicked, stupid, ignorant, or has some other cognitive impairment. The only addendum I would append to that is that, indeed, many on our side politically on the evolution issue do not know the facts either. Nevertheless, they still do much better to agree with science in lieu of personal knowledge of the issues, as almost everyone does when some gross prejudice doesn't demand otherwise.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
You know PZ, the only way to trump Professor Dawkins on this is to get yourself kicked out of the UN or something.
Its so weird-- so many DI buzzwords are in that 'resolution'... Its like some DI fellows whispered ideas in his head... but no DI fellows have been in Oklahoma the past few weeks...
OH WAIT.
THEY HAVE. ALL OF THOSE PRICKS HAVE BEEN IN OK WITHIN THE PAST 2 WEEKS.
...
brb. Making voodoo dolls.
I see the condemnation, but I don't see anything about actually taking any sort of action against Dawkins. It's silly, yes, but hardly an attempt to ban him from the state.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Great State of Oklahoma.
America's Iran.
What I found most interesting is that he wants to keep him out because *gasp*: he holds views that the majority of OK citizens do not hold!!!
Glen wrote:
You have obviously never been to Oklahoma, aka the buckle of the bible belt.
I lived there for 2 years, it is like it own little fundie alternative reality. I got to see GW Bush give a graduation speech to the only state where he had a positive approval rating at the time. Nothing that comes out of Oklahoma fundies surprises me...NOTHING.
Well, since intelligent desigh/creationism is demonstrably NOT a scientific theory, methinks this doofus could be hoisting his little fundie tuckus on his own crucifix.
Come on ppl ... there are stupid people everywhere, that's a given. They won't stop Prof. Dawkins from speaking.
This can only be good for publicity. Let them yammer on ...
How long are people going to put up with this rubbish? If anyone can herd cats, Dick Dawkins can.
Won't somebody please think of the children!
Seriously, I feel bad for those students, whether they like Dawkins or not. That's just sad.
Do they really want "to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion"? I doubt it!
Richard Dawkins: banned in Oklahoma?
...
BWAHAHHAAAAHHAAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
*wipes tear away*
*takes deep breath*
perfect.
I had to post this reaction before reading the comments, which are probably filled with essentially the same reaction.
However, for those considering anything different... this is a GOOD thing, not a bad one.
the more these fucktards expose publicly just how ridiculous they are, the more they do our work for us.
fucking. awesome.
They will have to provide similar legislation in neighboring states, as the evil influence of atheism is well known to be no precise respecter of state boundaries, whatever the legislature may wish.
Fervent prayer from border churches may also be needed.
looks like a certain representative named "Thomsen" needs to be voted out of office.
I like how the next paragraph resolves to send a copy of the resolution to the President of OU, the Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, and the Chair of the Zoology Department. The Dean, as it turns out, is a cell biologist, and (at the risk of coming off like J*hn Kw*k) I know the Zoology Chair, Bill Matthews...he'll get a real kick out of it. I guess they figure that plants and microbes are irrelevant.
Am I the only one who thinks the second para is logically inconsistent with the first?
Aargh! Why do mandatory in-service dinners have to be opposite RD? I even live next to campus. Then again, mebbe the reason they want to ban him is because I took the last spot in the atheist quota for OK. The state only allows as many nonbelievers as it has votes in congress, perhaps.
Academic Freedom, my ass.
Well, this is the same state that gave us James "Climate Change is a hoax" Inhofe and Tom "No-Brain" Coburn. The latter gutted NASA's budget for conference travel because he didn't like how headquarters spent its budget. A special kind of stupid, there.
"THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma."
Fair discussion would exclude those who just push for their views without scientific backing, which would, of course, exclude all creationists. Perhaps they have not thought of that. Of course, condemning Richard Dawkins would fit into the category of "pushing their views."
"Doesn't the second paragraph contradict the first one?"
Nothing could be more obvious.
Qwerty@19:
It's more than just okay ... it's OK!
In 1940, Bertrand Russell had his appointment to City College of New York annulled by court order because he was "morally unfit".
"Darwinian" evolution? So, what are the acceptable kinds of evolution, then?
There's no way that the Oklahoma Legislature can present anyone from speaking on campus, even if they shut down Richard's venue (which I don't think is likely). Since it is public property, Richard can stand outside and address anyone within earshot, if it comes to that. But I doubt that it will.
This is just a bone-headed move that is sure to give the creationists more bad publicity that they don't really need right now.
If I were worried, I wouldn't be laughing!
Tsk. And they have such a nice natural history museum and the U of O.
Do you guys get ribbons for being banned, resolved against, or expellified? Or those cute little blog medals? Somebody needs to be designing those so you can rack 'em up and flash 'em at each other.
OK, yes, I'm envious too. Plus I'd like to be a mouse on the wall to see RD's reaction to this onstage.
Wow, PZ! You only get kicked out of a movie, Dawkins gets kicked out of an entire STATE!
Tentacles be damned... it's as if you're merely an "Old One" to the "Elder God" that is Dawkins.
I have to say, I think this is perfect - I hope it passes! I mean, what bragging rights would Dawkins have then! So feared, so relived, based upon writing a book and giving some talks. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if it were all illegal under the US constitution (religious discrimination by an governmental body), so he could even sue the state, generating huge amounts of publicity, and showing them for the idiots and hypocrites that they are.
I do so hope that this passes.
My state absolutely confuses me.
But then, I actually haven't heard his arrival being advertised at all. I don't know if that was just because I don't pay attention or if it was kept fairly hushed...
http://www.oudaily.com/news/2008/nov/13/god-delusion-author-visit-ou/
Here's something from the school's newspaper back in November.
Oh great... now I'll be quote mined. "Atheists think Dawkins is deity".
To: todd.thomsen@okhouse.gov
Subject:HR1015
Dear Okie nutjob,
In these dark and difficult times it's good to know that at least someone is continuing the tradition of hayseed redneck boobery that has made Oklahoma the laughing stock that it has been known for for so long. Rather than try to get your state out of the sinkhole of ignorance, bigotry and poverty that it has perennially been in since God knows when, you've elected and been elected to propose idiotic bills pandering to the ignoranti that believe that science is just a liberal conspiracy to make conservative Christians look stupid. Congrats. I'm not sure why an intelligent man like Richard Dawkins would even bother to try to educate you and your fellow Cro-Mags about the facts of science since it's inevitable that demagogues like you would lead your fellow Luddites in holy battle against reality with pitchforks at the ready. Most sane folks avoid your dismal state like the plague. And folks like you are one of the chief reasons. But keep on truckin'. It's comic gold.
"Of course you have freedom. You have the freedom to agree with me."
...not in Kansas anymore....
It is quite an honor. I expect that resolution to be quoted on the back cover of his next book along with the reviews from the NY Times.
Unfortunately, the christofascists completely screwed it up. They babble on about evolution which is a scientific fact and theory and completely skip over his Militant Atheism. This verges on insulting. I suspect the guy who wrote it thought if he spelled atheist a demon would appear in a puff of smoke or something.
They are setting the bar high on crackpottery in Oklahoma. Of course we all really know what they want. A good old fashioned witch hunt culminating in a burning at the stake. Oklahoma, superstition, persecution, bigotry, and hatred...You are doing it wrong!!!
I assume that in reality this resolution has no chance of being passed, and would have no effect even if were.
Is this anything other than a senator stridently grandstanding for his religious voters?
I think the state legislature trying to ban you from speaking at the state university might merit a shoulder chord (something like a French Fourragere).
xeric #57 for the win!
Dear Okie nutjob,
LOL
I wonder if his staffer has a special circular file for the likely thousands of letters such a dumbfuck representative must have received over the years that started off just like that.
(With apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein)
*Ahem*
OOOOOOOOOO0-klahoma,
where the fundies 're pretty near insane!
And these fools for Jesus
do what they pleasus--
half an eye's not half as bad as half a brain!
TAKE IT!
Is there anything beyond cheap populism playing a significant role in the american political process?
Still does. Where I used to live on the WC, out in the boonies many areas were settled by refugees from that part of the USA during the Dust Bowl.
Two generations later,
1. They still speak with a hick accent that can be hard to understand and makes them sound stupid.
2. Many of them are illiterate and cash their paychecks with an X when they have one.
3. They are very religious and their economically depressed communities have high rates of social problems such as domestic violence, crime, drugs, and alcoholism. Just like the old home.
Kel: Absolutely. Sometimes people die.
Ichthyic said,
..."However, for those considering anything different... this is a GOOD thing, not a bad one.
the more these fucktards expose publicly just how ridiculous they are, the more they do our work for us.
fucking.(sic) awesome."
Right-on, man! Spot on.
"...contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma."
And that's why we love him.
Damn, what an embarrassment to be living in Oklahoma. I am jealous that I won't be seeing Dawkins at his sold out appearance in the state.
OT:
"EU want to skip Pacific Forum prayers"
link
Rationality v Desperation?
Don't these legislators have better things to do with their time?
If this kind of news were shouted from rooftops daily, no one would accept any form of creationism in the future.
Can someone please tell Matthew Nisbet this?
Obviously this person does't believe his all powerful god can strike down RD.
"I've prayed and pray for RD to be shown the light and it hasn't happened. Next step is to legislate against him!"
Come on god, get your act together!
Well, this is the same state that gave us James "Climate Change is a hoax" Inhofe and Tom "No-Brain" Coburn.
And don't forget Sally "Fundie Fucktard" Kern. Or as ERV memorably referred to her, "Hate-Filled Bitch for Jesus." She tried to get books banned that were tolerant of GLBTs, among other hateful nonsense.
Sometimes, just sometimes, I wish atheism were a religion. Then we'd show 'em.
You and Dawkins having some sort of banning contest, PZ?
Following public outcry, Ben Stein was disinvited from the University of Vermont, where he was to give a commencement address on economics, becuase of his anti-evolution views. He wasn't even going to speak about evolution or ID related topics. I'm strictly on the pro-science, evolution, anti-creation side of the debate. However I see more than a little hypocrisy from both left and right. A curse on both their houses.
Ben Stein knows jack shit.
Ben Stein was 10000% wrong about the economy, his supposed area of expertise.
He directly insulted academia in his shit-for-brains film, Expelled.
Having him speak would have been an insult to the professors of both the sciences and ecomonics.
And the reason he got pulled was because people spoke out against his speaking--including graduating students who would have been subjected to this fucktard. Graduating science students among them.
This fucker in OK is from the fucking government.
If you don't understand why that's unconscionable, then there's no hope for you.
Go back to school and take a fucking Civics lesson, you moron.
There's only one thing to do: Call up the University of Oklahoma, help them organise a year-long Darwin festival of speakers and events.
Dave:
The quote is, "a plague o' both your houses!". And that's not the only error you made in your post.
Just FYI,
The Darwin celebrations, talks, and programs at the Sam Noble Museum of Natural History and University of Oklahoma have been OVERWHELMINGLY positive.
There are so many people coming to these lectures that the museum and university usually run out of room. There are many pro-science people surrounding the University of Oklahoma, and many great scientists as well.
Oh yeah, forgot about that.
*reads title*
*reads 3/4's of the post*
*follows link thinking, "This is definitely something from The Onion. PZ's satire choices are getting lame."*
... O_o!!
*genuinely surprised at the utter stupidity that exists in reality*
And be arrested for disturbing the peace?
Me too. Another step in the acedemic retardation of the USA, can only be a good thing for the rest of the world. Sucks for those of you who live in the states ofcourse, who aren't batshit insane. Oh well, survival of the fittest.
OMG. I though OUR legislators (California's) were boneheads...
The thing that really pissed creationists off was the Dawkins' quote they constantly repeat all over the place:
"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
Trouble is, it's not really as insulting as they take it. To academics (especially British academics), the term "ignorant" often applies to specific cases. One is ignorant of such and such a fact. It means they don't know it. It's meant to be fairly neutral.
But, in many parts of America, calling someone "ignorant" is serious: it's a blanket label saying they know nothing about anything, are low class, uncouth. It's even worse than being "stupid."
So that means there is no option in there for those who are merely misinformed. I suspect Dawkins would agree that that's probably the largest category.
Just being called ignorant is not an insult as long as you chose to not remain that way.
Unfortunately, many creationists do.
Even the idea of learning about anything that might alter their established view is terrifying, so they don't.
Willfully.
Being called willfully ignorant is an insult.
That makes a lot of sense. But then again, we are talking about people who can't discern between the scientific and everyday use of the word theory; getting them to recognise the difference between academic ignorance and an insult sounds like a bit too much for a lot to reconcile. Anyway, Dawkins has changed the statement to: "Stupid, insane, or hasn't read Jerry Coyne" ;) Stimpy is reading Coyne right now, I wonder which one it's going to boil down to when he finishes...
To that trilemma of Dawkins, there really only needs to be two: ignorance and stupidity. And it's not an either / or situation, for the most part they go hand in hand. I have not come across one creationist yet who is either ignorant of: a) how evolution works, or b) what evidence there is for that. I wonder if there really is a creationist out there who can explain both (a) and (b), Behe would be the closest but as Coyne says "[Behe] has bought all but the tail of the Darwinian hog."
and as any good southerner knows, you gotta go Rooter to the Tooter.
Oklahoma, where the wingnut comes sweepin' down the plain ...
Is it only me,or are these outbreaks of open calls for christofascism getting more frequent?
First Egnor,now this fella......
And Im not convinced that its brilliant for us,there are probably more people in OK than I care to know about, that would be ok with banning Dawkins,or anyone un-christian,for that matter.
Unfortunately - as the economic meltdown has amply demonstrated - the world is somewhat closely interconnected with the US these days. The time when one could sit back, safe in the knowledge that one's borders were inviolate, has long gone.
As a self-selected resident of the US, I'm doing everything in my power to reduce and attack the wingnuttery*. It's incumbent on every 'free thinker' globally to do the same.
* I live in North Georgia - the wingnuts grow on trees round here, and the entire state is a freakin' orchard!
@ raven, #67:
"Many of them are illiterate and cash their paychecks with an X when they have one."
This is really just unapologetic meanness, which is perhaps why I laughed my ass off as I read it.
I always try to guard against my tendency to condemn an entire state as a result of its bursts of stupidity, however frequent and grating. But Oklahoma really must be a pit given the fact that James Inhofe ever rose above the political standing of Assistant Dogcatcher. It's not as though the guy's ever kept his true colors hidden (not that he has the intelligence to do so anyway).
I thought that SW Virginia could be bad, but I'm grateful I never had to live in a place like OK. As it happens to be one of fewer than 10 U.S. states I have never been to, I think I will happily keep it that way.
I missed this but that's frankly a pretty ignorant view on the world. I'm not claiming any superiority in any way but currently, as the US goes, the world goes.
As better more educated US is only good for the world.
Agreed. I call that arrogance. I'd assume that before stupidity. Does that make me generous or naive?
I honestly don't know.
As a native of Louisiana, with some family roots in Arkansas and Mississippi, who is an alum of universities in Alabama and Tennessee and currently residing in Texas, I just have to say:
Go Oklahoma! You make every other state look good by comparison!
It seems slightly difficult to engage in "pen, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories" by banning prominent individuals from said discussion.
damn
As a resident of SC and born in NC you almost had the full Risk board of stereotypical southern redneck states going there.
Richard will, I imagine, be tickled pink by this. It should at the very least ensure sellouts, were there any doubt about that, at his remaining stops.
If Dawkins is banned from their university then I want the "God Hates Fags" guy banished from mine!
David at 79
There is a significant difference between the two situations, however. Ben Stein, when asked what his talk would be about, did not confirm it would be about economics - that was assumed by Prof Fogel. Ben Stein knowingly and willingly distorted facts (i.e. lied, if you prefer that) for political ends - something Dawkins is not trying to do.
Just because two sides are warring, it does not mean that they are equally culpable.
WHAT THE FUCK.
I just found out he was going to be in Norman today, and now found out our dumbass rep's don't want him. I was gonna make the trip from Tulsa and all. Every day I find something new to loathe about this state. Yesterday, in the editorials of the tulsa world, some jack off went off about the evolution 'myth' and cited 'expelled' as our atheistic attempt to stifle freedom of discussion.
This state's a fucking joke. Anyone need a rommate in more sensible part of the country?
Why oh why do I have to be ashamed of my state every day? Couldn't just once per week or so suffice?
I hope you all realize there are good, intelligent people in Oklahoma. Maybe just not at the state capitol - just a few blocks north of where I lay my head down at night, sadly.
Oh the humanity.
PICKING IT UP FROM @65!
Oooooooklahoma, Ev'ry night my honey lamb and I
Sit alone and pray
to turn a gay
into a god fearin' het'ro kind of guy!
Well we know that we're dumb and we're bland,
In the land where all science is banned!
And when we saaaaaaay!
Dawkins you better stay awaaaayyyyy!
We're only sayin'
Don't diss our god in Oklahoma!
Oklahoma O.K.
L - A - H - O - M - A
OKLAHOMA!
OH.....MY.....GOD! I know we Okies are backwards, and mostly inbred morons, but I never thought I'd have to hang my head in shame whilst passing through Kansas! Now I'm gonna have to take the long way, through New Mexico, to visit my in-laws in Colorado. FSM help me!
To be clear, when I said I hoped it passed, it was NOT for the purposes of making America a dumber place, but simply for the ammunition and ability to further promote Richard that it affords us.
Oh yes. A curse on the pro-science people.
/eye roll.
And the award for missing the point on not having an anti-intellectual pro-poor-critical-thinking talking head speak as an invited guest at your university goes to...
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.
Wow. It's impossible to buy that kind of excellent publicity. Congratulations Richard Dawkins.
OT, but just in time for Friday Cephalopod... Truman The Octopus is in the news!
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/03/truman-octopus.html
This is to let you all know that not all of Oklahomans are ignorant, biased, religon-dominated, closed minded, bigots. We are open-minded, willing to listen to and engage in discussions, etc. But there are few of us here. I've been a resident of this state for over 50 years and I am, for the first time, ashamed to say I'm an Okie. It might have been a slur once, but then we were proud to be Okies. But no more. We, who are few, do our best.
Wow, first the Illinois legislature declares Pluto a planet, and now this.
But surely it is merely a kindness to be banned from Oklahoma. Everyone should be so lucky.
"I just found out he was going to be in Norman today, and now found out our dumbass rep's don't want him. I was gonna make the trip from Tulsa and all."
I don't think that this resolution, even if it passes, is going to prevent Dawkins from speaking. It appears to be one of those "sense of the house" resolutions that is no more meaningful than when the legislature passes a resolution praising the local sports team. (The resolution "asks" the university to reconsider, but I can't imagine the university will comply.)
Douchebaggery is apparently alive and well in the Oklahoma legislature...
Kaddath #3 --the opposition to DAwkins is his disrespect for people who disagree with him on science AND faith --his almost militant atheism and scorn (like the scorn on this blog) for persons of faith who ALSO point out that science does not PROVE Darwin's origin of species anymore than science proves God. In fact, to me, the facts of observeable science speak more in favor of design and designer than in favor of Darwin's theory. Tax payers are tired of paying for liberals to come on to our tax-supported campuses with their scornful views (not their scientific or religious views) while conservatives are denied the same forums --not always, but more often than not. Let him talk about his atheism or his evolution belief without scorning the opposition. He can't do it--but it could be done.
Yeah, but your opinion hardly matters. You think that evolution is one species turning into another existing species, and that the heart beats without an external enegy source.
"In fact, to me, the facts of observeable science speak more in favor of design and designer than in favor of Darwin's theory."
Oh... TO YOU. Well, then, we should just shut up then seeing as evey individual, even the least educated and most deluded, gets his or her own personal reality.
You would like people to think that atheism is as capable of producing humane values as Christianity.
And this blog is your example??? tsk tsk
The sentiments expressed here are the kind of disrespect and insensitivity for others that lead to lynchings and beheadings. So would the world really be better off if we were all atheists? I think not. USSR tried it. No. Korea and China, too.
Scorn is just an early step on the slippery slope....
Barb can't even explain how the basics of evolution work, her opinion on the topic is worthless.
In case anyone's still listening (looking). When Dawkins was first scheduled to appear it was to be in a small auditorium, of some few hundred seats. The demand was so great that it has been moved to a fieldhouse that seats several thousand. And, further, because of the demand, there are no tickets. It is to be first-come, first-served. There are groups from Tulsa, about 120 miles from OU, planning to drive there, HOPING to get there in time to get in.
So, and I know that you all know this, we are NOT ALL IDiots in Oklahoma. But I agree that a great number are and I battle with them all the time.
Barb, evolution belief? You think scientific facts require faith? I find it impossible to not laugh at you religious hicks.
Translation: There's scientific evidence for magic and magic fairies.
Barb, thanks for providing more evidence for Christian stupidity.
Jafafa hots:
My point is that mutual respect is a good foundation for dialogue on any issue.
You assume that people are stupid and ignorant and uneducated in the sciences if they don't believe in evolution, common ancestors, transitions between kinds somewhere billions of years ago. But there ARE many REAL scientists who do not believe evolution is observeable today or that there is evidence that it ever occured. NOr is such belief necessary to be a good scientist, do good science, teach practical science, and achieve in science fields, make discoveries and hold PhD's and leadership in science.
Humane like everyone who doesn't ask for salvation will spend eternity being tortured? Humane like calling someone an abomination based on their sexual preferences?Morality is an evolved construct, humans for the most part are programmed to behave in certain ways. The human race has been around for around 400,000 years. Christianity hasn't even been around for 2000 years, and the times it has been around has been plagued with slavery, genocide, burning young women alive, torturing non-believers, conquering nations, pillaging and looting - all done in the name of Christ. Some humane religion you have there Barb
Oklahoma legislature: breeding ground for morons.
ATTENTION! ATTENTION!
ATHEIST ALERT!!
ATHEIST ALERT!!!
This is not a test!!
I repeat.
This is not a test!!
An atheist is on his way to Oklahoma!
I repeat.
An atheist is on his way to Oklahoma!
All our attempts to protect against any possible atheist infiltration apparently have failed!
Our best hope at this time is the passage of an anti-atheist legislative resolution which may contain the atheist contamination!
It is too late to evacuate the State!
Shelter in place!
Use your emergency food and water supplies! Duct tape openings to your safe-from-atheists room! Use your emergency Bibles!!
Do not, I repeat, DO NOT leave your safe room until the "all clear" signal is given.
May Gawd have mercy on us all!
ATTENTION! ATTENTION!
ATHEIST ALERT!
ATHEIST ALERT!
This is not a drill!
As a North Texan (non-native), I've only journeyed north over the border for two things: Turner Falls and the nearby fried pie restaurant and after reading this post I intend to keep it that way.
Barb wrote "My point is that mutual respect is a good foundation for dialogue on any issue. You assume that people are stupid and ignorant and uneducated in the sciences if they don't believe in evolution, common ancestors, transitions between kinds somewhere billions of years ago."
Barb, you have shown beyond any doubt you're stupid, ignorant, and uneducated. Why should anyone respect that?
Please enumerate who some of these people are.
A creationist talking about respect? What a laugh.Is it respect to lie to people about the basic principles of evolution? Is it respect to conduct absurd straw-men arguments against evolution? Is it respect to tie evolution to atheism? Is it respect to tie the teaching of evolution to moral decline? Is it respect to evangelise while ignoring the processes of science? Is it respect to continue to push falsehoods like "there are no transitional forms" or "irreducible complexity proves there is a designer" long after they have been both evidentially and logically refuted? Is it respect to spend time and money to use the political process to damage science? I ask you Barb, why should scientists show creationists any respect when creationist behaviour is so disrespectful to the scientific process? Why should creationists be respected for continuing to peddle their falsehoods and publically preach misinformation?
Are you sure you're not a Poe? There's something in your writing style that indicates you as such.
Barb:
Eat me.
that is all.
Hmmm, I don't see anything in there about wanting to kick him out of Oklahoma; just that they don't want him to be invited to the University of Oklahoma. Maybe you're looking for something that isn't there. How ironic.
Barb wrote:
Yes, that's exactly what we assume. People who deny evolution are stupid and ignorant and uneducated in the sciences. It really is that simple.
Stupidity and ignorance are not worthy of respect in any dialog, so there's really no grounds for mutual respect, now is there?
Yes, that's exactly what we assume. People who deny evolution are stupid and ignorant and uneducated in the sciences. It really is that simple.
...and nearly always make ignorant ad-populum arguments like:
There are a LOT of scientists who agree with me!
have you ever seen Project Steve?
crap.
Project Steve?
Academic freedom only for people he agrees with? Some Oklahoma Legislator badly needs a visit from Miss DoAsYouWouldBeDoneBy and Mrs. BeDoneByAsYouDid.
"Scorn and mocking". Does anyone else think that Barb has come to us through a time warp from the 1800s? It would certainly explain her reference to lynching, that time-honored activity of God-fearing Christians.
Don't they know that over the top parody is best left to comedians? Or is this yet another case of Americans with a desire to make themselves and their country the target of ridicule and a neverending source of amused puzzlement?
I find all the gold and crap at the Vatican offensive, so I'm off to convince the Illinois legislators to ban the pope from Illinois, wish me luck!
I have relatives in Oklahoma and visit them often. So, yes, my first-hand experience of Oklahomans informs me that they are indeed that stupid (not my family, just the rest of the state).
Oh, yeah, and each person does personally know all 3.6 million people living there, so feel free to ask any Oklahoman about any other one.
You assume that people are stupid and ignorant and uneducated in the sciences if they don't believe in evolution, common ancestors, transitions between kinds somewhere billions of years ago.
Yep, pretty much.
But there ARE many REAL scientists who do not believe evolution is observeable today or that there is evidence that it ever occured.
No, there aren't.
It's a tragedy that people like you are allowed to reproduce - a crime against the human genome. You and your ilk are a waste of precious natural resources that could be used to foster the existence of people who are capable of actually making a contribution to civilization, instead of taking up space while waiting for Jesus to return.
State legislatures are usually the most ideological extreme.
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html
As Science Digest reported:
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science
Partial list of Creationist scientists
(past and present)
600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).
150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.
(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)
Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]
Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]
Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]
Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]
Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]
Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]
Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]
Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]
Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]
John Grebe (chemist) [more info]
Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]
D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]
James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]
Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]
Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]
Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]
A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]
John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.
My husband would qualify for membership in the ICR, but is not a member. There are many like him who just haven't "joined" a group, but nevertheless share the ideology of creationists and/or ID theorists.
Proving my point --science educators should stop making evolution their new litmus test for who is a "real" scientist --because "real" scientists in science related careers ARE creationists. In fact, some atheists don't believe in Darwin's theory. To me, a layman, it's preposterous.
"...The sentiments expressed here are the kind of disrespect and insensitivity for others that lead to lynchings and beheadings..."
You mean the ones religious fanatics around the world are guilty of?
"...So would the world really be better off if we were all atheists? I think not. USSR tried it. No. Korea and China, too..."
Ah yes, your stupidity is laid bare. Yet another religious apologist who thinks she knows her history. North Korea is not atheist, just as pre-WW2 Japan was not atheist. Human-as-god-figure is still a religion, whether it is the size of an international one or not. The USSR has also been plagued by cults of personality , both before the Soviet era, and during. You mean to tell me Russia was a becaon of happiness and virtue before Communism? You really are pretty ignorant. Russia has had as much blood spilt as ma result of religion's corrosive influence as any other nation. Further, people starved and died in the USSR and in China not because of atheism, but because of reliance on terrible economic policies and fake science. It had nothing to do with atheism. You need to retake a few history and economics classes before lecturing anyone about the "evils" of atheism.
"...Scorn is just an early step on the slippery slope...."
I don't need someone who's abdicated her critical thinking skills to one of the oldest institutions in human history telling me about slippery slopes. The history of your religious social group is frought with slopes more slippery than any atheist has tread. Again, if you really knew your history, you wouldn't come around here and make ignorant apologetics if you gave a crap about actually being observant and correct about anything. And to act as if the church hasn't heaped scorn on others for two thousand years. We're the ones acting high and mighty? Why don't you check yourself in the mirror?
"...My point is that mutual respect is a good foundation for dialogue on any issue..."
So show some. We've heard your arguments a hundred thousand thousand times. We don't give them credence or respect for a reason. And even when we do, you guys, to a person, trot out the same old disproven tripe over and over as if it were true. You don't ever actually consider what we say, you just focus on the disrespect we offer for disrespectable positions. You care more about how you're argument is treated rather than worrying about whether your own position is correct. You're not adding anything new to the conversation other than the same old admonishments about atheism being the greatest evil, about how uncivil we are, about how noble you are. Spare us the self-righteous cross-bearing. You are not the truth defender you've been indoctrinated into believing you are.
"...You assume that people are stupid and ignorant and uneducated in the sciences if they don't believe in evolution, common ancestors, transitions between kinds somewhere billions of years ago..."
Another common godbot mistake. Scientists don't "believe" in evolution. Evolution is testable and verifiable in real life. It is not an idea written in some cob-webbed old book from ages past. Once you start convincing yourself everyone "believes" like you do, you'll be on your way to a happier life steeped in reason.
"...But there ARE many REAL scientists who do not believe evolution is observeable today or that there is evidence that it ever occured..."
Then it is up to them to show us their profound new insights, while backing them up with concrete experimental data combed through with the greatest of skill. Unfortunately for you, such people don't actually exist. Or maybe you can provide us a list of them, leaving out all those who have been roundly discredited, of course?
"...NOr is such belief necessary to be a good scientist, do good science, teach practical science, and achieve in science fields, make discoveries and hold PhD's and leadership in science."
Exactly. Belief *isn't" necessary to do science. It's the only good point you've made. But I am still interested in hearing about these scientists who've held positions of leadership as you say, and have done all the things you suggest while thinking logically and substantively that evolution is incorrect. Name names. Name the high positions they've held. Name the awards and advances they've made. Oh and BTW, just because someone has a PhD in something doesn't mean they are automatically experts on anything. A PhD shows that you've worked hard enough to earn the piece of paper. What takes place after - the actual substantive and positive work one does - is what matters. You would be wise to take heed on this point.
lol, most the people on that list were dead by the time the theory of evolution came out. Prominent scientists these days who reject evolution: *crickets*
Partial list of Creationist scientists
Project fucking Steve.
goddamn you are dense.
are you sure you're not FTK in disguise?
Barb
Most of the dead scientists you list were likely atheists but due to the political climate at the time couldn't say so openly.
I'm pretty sure you're fully aware of this though -.-
The simple fact is (as you've doubtless been told many times) that there is vast evidence for evolution and none whatsoever for your favourite imaginary friend creating all forms of life as is 6000 years ago.
I almost laughed, until I remembered that Barb can vote.
pdferguson @ 135:
It should really be "or" instead of "and", though not an exclusive "or". Either can suffice to keep one from understanding something. Of course, where there's stupidity, there's often ignorance.
Also, I think the list leaves out the possibility of intellectual dishonesty (which seems like the biggest culprit for some of the high profile creationists). One needn't be stupid or ignorant to fool oneself (though it sure helps).
Though I think I'm being fairer, I'm sure it'd be no less offensive to the creotards to hear that they are either stupid, ignorant or intellectually dishonest. A great many are all three.
And it's not surprising that the really dumb ones think that there's some actual science behind creationism. I was amazed the first time I talked to someone who thought Kent Hovind was making strong scientific arguments. Lots of people just can't tell the difference.
Carlin said it well: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
My previous list was from ICR website --sorry for lack of citation. Somewhere there is a list of present day scientists in leading careers who do not believe in evolution per se. I'll be looking for it. The movie "Expelled" introduced some of them.
Jeff Eyges wrote It's a tragedy that people like you are allowed to reproduce - a crime against the human genome. You and your ilk are a waste of precious natural resources that could be used to foster the existence of people who are capable of actually making a contribution to civilization, instead of taking up space while waiting for Jesus to return.
Sounds like Hitler to me. You obviously have no idea the contribution of people "like me." That is, believers. So who is ignorant and uneducated here?
what contribution are YOU making, by the way???
You need to read Parrish's (?) December article in the London Times about his recent trip to Africa --and the need of Africa for more Christianity and Christian missionaries. He, an atheist, sees the undeniable value of the Christian groups in Africa. My church has a hospital in Kibogora Rwanda --I saw pics of it recently --looked like a pretty modern facility. Some scientists devote themselves to medicine and then take their expertise to Africa, India, because of Christ's command and their commitment to Him and people. Are they just wasting space? taking up air? leaving a carbon footprint at your expense??? Of course not --and shame on you for making such a blanket indictment of those who do not believe in evolution.
Barb, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. So any scientist who claims otherwise is going to have a battle on their hands. But the place for that battle is not among the ignorant masses, it's among scientists. Ken Miller was telling the story of a scientist who felt that AIDS was not caused by HIV. Now all evidence points to the contrary, but this scientists still fought for his idea in the scientific arena and even had articles published on the matter. Yet what are the creationists doing? They aren't playing in the realm of science, they are preaching to the public and are acting as a political front to subvert evolution. They aren't showing any respect to science or it's progress, they espouse concepts that were either invalid to begin with or have since been refuted, and they are lying to the general public in order to garner support.
Jeeze, did I need another reason not to set foot in this miserable state?
Bullshit. You have repeated stated the people like me (Homosexual) are evil. You are not showing me any respect. And I find it hard to respect someone who condemns people like me. Also, I have seen too many people who were kicked out of their homes by parents who believe like you.
As for your list, you have a lot of dead people there. Quite a few who died before the theory of evolution became as well supported as it is now. It is oh so easy to force words into the mouths of dead people. But for those who are alive, here is a little task for you. Ask them if they think that a heart beats for a lifetime without an external power source.
Stop talking about real science, you know shit about how it works. But here are two clues. First, the results are not open to a vote. Second, the results are not determined by what the taxpayers say.
And Barb, do you know the background of Wernher von Braun?
Once the rockets go up
Who cares where they come down
That's not my department
Says Wernher von Braun
Barb @117
The facts of observable science, eh. What are those then?
@ Barb 145:
Do you take us for a bunch of idiots Barb? Your list include Sir Isaac Newton. Are you kidding me? This is exactly why you creobots/IDiots engender so much scorn: You have to reach back into history beyond the point the concept of evolution even started, in order to make your point. You list Newton's name, as if he was even familiar with Darwin's theory 150 years before Darwin formulated it. You're freaking pathetic, and this only displays your disingenuous tactics. And this is on top of the wild ignorance of the fact that Newton tried many things the church deemed heretical and off limits for research. You try to misappropriate his work first of all, and then try to assign to him modern understanding and critical analysis of concepts POST his death by two centuries. Do you seriously not see how you are in the wrong here? Leonardo Da Vinci and Gish on the same list as supporting the same thing?
This list is a horrific malediction on good scientists mixed with intellectual charlatans, all for the purpose of advancing stone age mythology. You are a shameless hack, end of story, and highly gullible. Lemme guess: The US is a Christian nation, the only one ever truly bless by your god, right? You're done. Your point of view deserves zero credibility or respect. Those you've chosen to align yourself with on this issue are thieves of dead persons' thoughts and positions and works. By the standards represented by this list, nearly anyone pre-Darwin is a sympathetic figure to your vain cause. Nice way to rig the numbers Barb. Sounds more to me like you and your group are trying to have your cake and eat it too, rather than facing the reality that real hard-working scientists, under constant threat from religion since time memoriam, are tearing down your precious little pipe dream with each passing day.
Your list is duly dismissed for the crap that it is. Next time try limiting the included individuals to those not dead yet.
I'm with them that having an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory is a good idea. It's just that the scientific community already had one... 150 years ago.
I rather doubt that, unlike evolutionary theory, creationist theory has come up with much new evidence in that time. To my knowledge, the Bible doesn't have a post-1859 update.
I'm also all for representing the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma, but... well, what are they really planning on accomplishing by having Dawkins not speak? I mean, is evolutionary theory going to go away if no one in Oklahoma has to hear about it from this one (albeit rather vocal) source?
Looking at the bugger picture, aren't there - given the current state of things - better focuses for legislative attention? Certainly there's something doin' economically, if I'm hearing Fox News right.
Barb, here's a challenge for you. Read the book "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne and then come back to us.
"Somewhere there is a list of present day scientists in leading careers who do not believe in evolution per se."
Not good enough. Not even close. There are plenty of economists and mathematicians and acupuncturists that would consider themselves "scientists in leading careers." They may even be PhD's. They don't need to understand evolution to excel in their respective fields.
You will need to provide names of modern day BIOLOGISTS that reject "evolution per se." But, there aren't any.
You are truly an idiot.
Funny you should mention Hitler. I'm pretty sure that Hitler did not believe in evolution either.
I think that's where the idea of a humane Christian comes from. "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." - Adolf Hitler
Communism is atheistic and no. korea is communist --even if Little Kim demands worship of himself. Yes, The Czars were cruel --the proletariat crueler in numbers killed by Stalin.
AS for ignorance of Russia --I know as much as you expressed --you may know more than I but you didn't show it here --you only bragged. I know Chrsitianity has a dark era --before availability of scriptures to the masses -- Any religion can be used wrongly for power --but the real teachings of Christ give no permission to the abuses of some cults and the Catholic Church. Governmental systems don't change overnight --the landed gentry and royals weren't eager to give democracy to all the people in the name of Jesus. But the Bible tells us every person is of value in Christ's eyes if he chooses to follow Christ --and even if he doesn't, we are obligated to serve the least of these in His name. The Golden Rule imples equality of persons --and thus, equal voice for all. The extension of grace to the whole world implies equality and thus equal voice.
Atheism implies that values are whatever we people want them to be --and we see where that has led in every country promoting Marxism.
OH the SHAME ( a blogger) --go read some works of those famous scientists. They were men of faith who managed to do science well. This list may have been a list of those with faith and those who didn't believe in evolution--but I thought it was the latter and not the former.
follow this address to a better list of modern creation scientists --and some others "since Darwin" who did great science
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
Barb. Brave, plucky, misguided Barb, I guess we're all living up to each other's expectations, aren't we? We Pharyngulites are all snarky and thinky and disrespectful with our big words and theories—all vectors, gene expression and generally just plain ornery. You seem earnest in a jesus-y sort of way, flailing about with your pathetic grasp of facts, fallacies and complex concepts. But you hit it out of the park when you pinched out the old, incredibly stupid atheists-are-immoral crap! I can't believe you didn't whip out Hitler while you were at it. So Barb, expectations met all around. Nobody's mind will change and you won't win any points with your Bronze-age sky-god for converting any of the god-free on this blog. Fail.
gee whiz, kel, don't you know a phony when you hear one? Namely Adolph --trying to justify his social darwinism with religion? I guess not.
Then everything went rosy and no-one killed doctors or blew up abortion clinics. Nor did any of them tell regions rife with AIDS that condoms will give you AIDS. Everything went magical and happy and Christians became perfect people once they got the book in their hands...
Aaron at 128, I love that fried pie shop! It's one of my favorite little bits of roadside America. Nothing like a fried pie and a Pearl Lite on a hot day.
And Barb's crazy list... ridiculous. Francis Bacon? That cat lived 400 years ago. How successful do you think anyone was in any sphere of life in London, in 1600 as a professed atheist? How much atheist philosophical literature was there? We didn't have synthesis of organic molecules, shit, we didn't even know about oxygen. How reasonable was it for ANYONE to be an atheist or even believe in a materialistic worldview? I would say not very.
But you have no excuse. You have organic synthesis, DNA, Mendel, Darwin, Sagan, Russell, potassium-argon dating, the Hubble telescope, I could go on... you really have no leg to stand on.
To reiterate:
Creationist in 1605 CE: Makes sense.
Creationist in 1800: Even Madison and Jefferson think something is fishy, but what's the alternative?
Creationist in 2009: Willfully ignorant toolbag or well-meaning slowpoke.
At 120, Barb wrote:
Ooh, Barb, including the name of a fallacy as you commit it really takes some kind of special, um, thinking skills...no...no...what's the phrase I'm looking for?....ah....ignorant babbling.
And you don't convert me either, Pareidolius. Nor impress me with all this knowledge you claim has been demonstrated here. I mostly noticed the ability to be disrespectful, scornful, arrogant, rude, --and religious in your beliefs. you are all monolithic in your beliefs and your approach. Be proud.
I didn't bring up Hitler --Kel did.
Even funnier is the inclusion of Gregor Mendel. Apparently Barb and her IDiotic friends have never heard of the Modern Synthesis.
Social darwinism has nothing to do with evolution, Hitler himself was a Lamarkian (so was Stalin for that matter) and his hatred of the Jews in several places were justified by religion. I can throw more quotes your way if you don't believe me..."And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited.""And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God.""I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it.""Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people."
correction: I did bring up hitler --in response to someone who said I ought not exist because of my alleged ignorance --carbon footprint and all that. the blogger sounded like adolph in his disdain for someone he considered too uneducated to deserve to live.
you guys are dangerous.
Liar!
Barb @ #152 - Sounds like Hitler to me.
Stalin? Seriously? Look up "Lysenkoism" while you're at it.
Barb, you did not check your fucking list. Google the name of Wernher von Braun. And read the fucking things you cut and paste.
Also, you never answered me when I asked you about parents kicking out their gay children. Parents who believe as you do.
Barb grunted:
Um, I have. A lot more than you. You certainly would have recognized them as having predated the theory of Evolution, much less the Modern Synthesis, by CENTURIES, had you even recognized their names.
Do you hear that sound? That was the point, zooming light years above your head.
"...you are all monolithic in your beliefs and your approach..."
Spoken like a Grade A projectionist. Why don't you try truly being different for a few seconds by taking off your religious glasses and having a look around. You expect us to break our mold, but refuse to do in kind. Do as I say not as I do, no Barb?
Barb further grunted:
I give you Exhibit A: Comment #145. It's no longer "alleged". You didn't even know that many of the "scientists" in your list were FUCKING DEAD.
"We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."
-- Carl Sagan
PROTIP for Barb: He's dead, too. But don't bother trying to harvest him posthumously for your hilarious list, though. He's made his opinion abundantly clear.
"correction: I did bring up hitler --in response to someone who said I ought not exist because of my alleged ignorance --carbon footprint and all that. the blogger sounded like adolph in his disdain for someone he considered too uneducated to deserve to live.
you guys are dangerous."
I just searched this entire thread for "carbon footprint". You're the only one that ever mentioned it. Nice job making up personal threats of violence on your person BTW. When exactly will you be coming down off your meds to engage us logically? You seem entirely incapable of doing anything other than concocting grand schemes and stories, and stroking that martyr gland you developed in church.
@Barb
I do hope your group is not affiliated with these nutcases:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-07/the-truth-abo…
I'm still waiting for barb to provide a list of (living) biologists that reject evolution.
I've got a feeling I'm going to be waiting forever.
@Kel
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the Nazi's notion of an aryan superman fall under Eugenics, a concept that I recall even Darwin was strongly opposed to?
BlueIndepedent @ #177 wrote:
Well, she's probably using God as her role model.
Dear Babbles, I am proud. I'm proud of my compassionate, caring, militantly atheist father who helped people at every turn during his 94 years on earth. I'm proud of Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers and Sam Harris and Orac and Randi and Carl Sagan, the Pharyngulites and all the countless brilliant atheists who stand up to the mindless spew of people who want to send us back to live in the 12th century. I'm proud of those who stand up against people who think I'm a second class citizen and stand against people who's theology seems to consist of believing that Adam and Eve rode to Church on dinosaurs. Yes, I'm proud of people who think and change their minds when new evidence is presented to them. Believe whatever makes you happy, but your right to swing your bellicose sky-god ends where my civil rights begin.
Twin-Skies, it was a combination of eugenics and the worst excesses of antisemitic christian thought. The Nazi systems basically worked like this, Hitler desired some result and let his underlings fight over how to achieve this goal. So some Nazis killed because the Jews were the traditional enemies of Christ. And some Nazis killed because they though Jews were subhumans.
Just keep in mind, Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS and responsible for running what became the final solution, came from a agricultural background. He was trying to set up up a warped viewed of the Roman warrior-farmer in Eastern Europe. And his ideas about eugenics was an equally warped view of animal husbandry.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! Barb's arguments are even more fallacious than facilis', hard as that is to believe. Here are just some examples:
Argument from personal incredulity
Argumentum ad Hitlerum
Downright lie
Association fallacy
Appeal to authority
Slippery slope fallacy
_ _ _
Alright, break out your logical fallacy Bingo cards. Winner gets a prize!
Well the western world is, so we Europeans are probably going to be hit bad initially, until we get our act together.
Really? Explain that to China, who now practically own all your financial institutions, and if acedemic standards keep slipping in the US, within a decade is going to be the worlds only remaining superpower.
Ofcourse there are. Just like I'm sure there are in Iran and Saudi Arabia. They just don't get much news time, because they're not ignorant to the point of disbelief, Q.E.D.
They aren't, and the list you provided is not proof, in either the scientific or judicial sense of the word. The litmus test of a real scientist is a matter of whether or not they are able to form a basic scientific hypothesis. If you can't, you're not a scientist, in much the same way you aren't a skater if you can't skate, or to extend the analogy to creationists, you aren't a skater, because you can jump on a pogostick.
It also happens to be 100% true, including the X for a signature.
My old friend from back there (rural WC) was involved in a literacy campaign. It didn't work very well. Some of these illiterate godbabblers don't bother to send their kids to school. Of course, they are also illiterate.
She was teaching some of the kids to read when the parents decided it wasn't really necessary and pulled their preteen kids out. The children aren't born stupid and some of them were picking up that ol' readin' thang right kwick.
Partly, but it's hard to deny there was strong nationalism and religious motivation behind the movement.
Now now, lets not say things we'll regret later... actually Barb's arguments are full of logical fallacies and gross distortions of the truth. Facilis is just an idiot with one bad assumption underlying his whole core.
@Blue Independent: I just searched this entire thread for "carbon footprint". You're the only one that ever mentioned it.
Actually, she's referring to my comment that she and her kind are a waste of natural resources. I stand by it. This civilization is going down the tubes, and I hold the Christian fundies primarily responsible. For nearly thirty years, they've been voting into office, at all levels, the conservative ideologues who've gotten us into this mess. America is unsalvageable, and we're taking the rest of the world down with us.
But it isn't your fault, is it, Barb? It's because of abortion, paganism, the "gay agenda", Obama the antichrist - but mainly because we liberals stopped spanking our kids.
And I love the bit about Africa needing more Christian missionaries - because it isn't as though Western colonialism, fueled by the Christian concept of divine mandate, has done that sorry continent enough damage already.
As far as the comparison with Hitler is concerned - I'm a Jew, but, in this context, I don't find it offensive. Coming from someone like you, it's a compliment.
Don't worry, Barb - Jesus is coming back real soon. You and your friends will get to stand around on a mezzanine in heaven, watching while your god roasts us alive for all of eternity. That will afford you all a great deal of pleasure, no doubt.
@Barb
The Luther Bible translation into German was widely available in Protestant households in the 2nd half of the 16th century. Your claim that after that Christians stopped slaughtering each other is absurd in the light of the Thirty Year's War between Protestants and Catholics that followed a quarter century later and wiped out between 15-30% of Germany's total population killing in some regions up to three-quarters of the population.
Also please avoid the Hitler references. Whatever his religious views were — he personally didn't kill the Jews, it was the German SS and army. And they were over 90% God-fearing Christians.
Doesn't that bill call "most" Oklahomans morons? And how can published statements be offensive to 'views and opinions'? I didn't realize that views or opinions could be offended.
“Free speech? What free speech? We creationists don’t need it, all we need to know is in the Bible.”
Seriously, this is the biggest compliment ever paid to Dawkins.
Very few atheists don't accept evolution. The only one I'm aware of is Berlinksi, an agnostic Jew, who also describes himself as a crackpot.
More to the point, the majority of xians worldwide don't have a problem with evolution.40% of US biologists describe themselves as religious, including some prominent evolutionary biologists. Evolution is taught as most xian universities including BYU, Notre Dame, most Lutheran, some Baptist, some Nazarene, and most mainstream protestant ones.
You don't speak for xianity in any way shape or form. Just your toxic trailer trash Death Cults.
Very few atheists don't accept evolution. The only one I'm aware of is Berlinksi, an agnostic Jew, who also describes himself as a crackpot.
And, for the record - he was recently overheard, at a debate, telling one of his opponents that as long as the Discovery Institute was willing to write him checks, he'd keep cashing them.
I think, in his case, it's a combination of disingenuousness and an eccentric personality - he's the little boy who likes to see how much he can piss off his parents and their friends.
@Jeff Eyges:
Yeah, that was after the debate at St. Andrews with Lawrence Krauss and 2 others, at which Krauss reportedly demolished the ID "arguments" (I love that guy), and despite claiming beforehand they'd be selling DVDs of the debate, it is mysteriously nowhere to be found.
I've been aching to see it, too. :(
@Oh, the Shame,
Right, it was Krauss. I understand that he and Berlinski were the only ones really participating, and, during the intermission, Krauss told him he had a fine mind, and asked him why he was wasting his time with that nonsense. The remark about the checks was his answer.
Krauss is great. he needs to have more airtime.
Wow, Barb the shithead actually invoked answers in genesis, the anti-science christian organization that claims people and dinosaurs lived together. Barb, you're an idiot and a disgrace to the human race. Please drop dead.
Barb, you would not know what respect is even if it bit you on your arse. In fact, it is biting you on your arse at this blog. We respect your humanity so much that we are spending our valuable time confronting your blinkered and very dangerous ignorance. Your silly notion of respect is nothing than a ploy to sell your intellectually dishonest agenda. And we can see straight through it to your complete lack of respect for the people who post at this blog.
In short, you are a scary, immoral, hypocritical, and confused creep. Please do not worry about me presenting any danger to you, because if I met you I would run away in the opposite direction in abject fear, putting as much physical distance as I possibly could as fast as I could (perhaps the wind ensuing from my frantic, hasty retreat would cause you some discomfort, but that's about it).
Happily, I live in a secular community, and at times, when I have a chance to see the 'respectful' barbarity of Barb, I realize how difficult it must be for the American posters here to live with the pathetic, religious nut jobs represented by Barbaric Barb. Keep being disrespectful to these idiots, they have earned your disrespect over and over again.
Let's not forget the Raelians. They're at least nominally atheists. That is, they believe that all the gods people have believed in were real, but that they were really aliens, and that there's an infinite regression of aliens creating one another and eventually sharing technology with their creations once they advance enough.
Some politicos love being pompous arse wipes!
Is this pond scum up for re-election or something?
Go! Richard Go!...give them hell...err!..actually on second thoughts ...give them rationality!
That would be the Discovery Institute's list of ultradarwinists? The text of the statement has some wriggle room, but taken at face value the signers are merely skeptical that mutation and natural selection are sufficient to account for the diversity and disparity of life; while evolutionary biologists are sure that it isn't (genetic drift exists).
Barb writes:
"My point is that mutual respect is a good foundation for dialogue on any issue."
That is an opinion I do not share. Respecting relentlessly ignorant idiots is a waste of precious time, and wasting precious time is most decidedly not a good foundation for dialogue. That said, may I respectfully suggest you stop posting links and droppings from idiotic creationist sources and instead take the time to actually educate yourself about evolution? Your posts show that your "knowledge" of the subject consists entirely of hoary old bullshit, misrepresentations and lies peddled by the aforementioned creationist sources in the face of repeated debunkings.
Unless and until you do that you will neither deserve, nor receive, respect. Respect has to be earned. Deal with it.
The word "respect" has so many interpretations it is useless in any debate unless very sharply defined. To me it seems mostly a power-trick. "Respect me", "respect this", cherished by gangsters and religious, conservatives etc. Even earned respect is a many-headed monster.
The US should probably pull out of Oklahoma before it goes from worst to well... worse, but the world should initiate a process for reconstructing the place.
Now, where's my cake...
Perhaps we can all send Rep. Thomsen an email congratulating him on making Oklahoma look like it is populated by a bunch of moronic hicks....of course we should do this in a polite way.
mailto:todd.thomsen@okhouse.gov
Barb,
What exactly is that list that you posted @145 meant to be? It cannot be scientists who reject evolution, because some were dead before Darwin was born. The list contains a disclaimer that it does not say anything about the individual's religious beliefs; so this is not a list of christian creationist scientists, although this is implied.
Barb, show us evidence that this list is not just a dishonest propaganda piece.
prl | March 5, 2009 8:57 PM
Fixed the link for you. I especially love this bit about his books:
Now folks, if anyone ever tells you philosophy or mathematics is boooring, remember that bit about Bertrand Russell's books.
I was moved to send Todd Thomsen a message - his e-mail address is available on the website of the Oklahoma House of Representatives.
Dear Representative Thomsen,
I noted your proposed resolution to oppose the invitation to Richard Dawkins with a mixture of sadness and hilarity: sadness because it seems so unnecessary, hilarity because of the contradictions and ambiguities in the proposal itself and the because of the general impression it inevitably conveys about the leadership of Oklahoma.
"THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma."
A few specific comments:
The two paragraphs above simply contradict each other: an open, dignified and fair discussion must admit points of view that are contentious.
No-one is asking anyone to "believe" in the theory of evolution. As a scientific theory (and i assume you are choosing to confuse the word with "hypothesis"), it is underpinned by a massive body of evidence. It does not require belief.
Even if the majority of your citizens disagree with the Theory or Dawkins' support of it, he would expect his views to be tolerated and considered in a true democracy, just as he in fact tolerates the views of those he disagrees with. Richard Dawkins is only trying to persuade, with words.
It is likely that Richard Dawkins will give a talk, similar to that he has just delivered in Minnesota, on the subject of "the Purpose of Purpose". From the extracts I have seen and heard it is a considered and thought-provoking discussion, not the kind of polemic you appear to fear.
It is probably only a kink in your sentence construction, but you appear to be condemning Oxford University (motto "Domina Mea Illuminata" - I assume I don't need to translate) rather than Dawkins.
Finally, if I unravel your first clause, you appear to be concerned that Dawkins might offend a view or an opinion! As I'm sure you'll agree, you can only offend a person.
In the final analysis, I do not understand why you feel the need to object; if it is only words and if the faith you and your citizens profess is strong, you should not feel threatened. Well, it is only words and perhaps we have all become a little too sensitive and inclined to play the role of victim.
So could it be that your own faith is not as strong as you would wish? Or am I reading too much into your action, when it is no more than an opportunist attempt at making political capital through a convenient posture. In any case, among my friends over here in the UK it has served only to make you a bit of a laughing stock. Sorry about that.
Of course, I don't expect a reply from someone as busy or important as yourself, although I would be interested to hear you justify your proposal.
Yours sincerely
The court case against Russell also included 'moral' arguments, accusing his books of being "lecherous, salacious, libidinous, lustful, venerous, erotomaniac, aphrodisiac, atheistic, irreverent, narrow-minded, untruthful, and bereft of moral fiber"
"I take umbrage, Your Honor! I'm not narrow-minded!"
Erotomaniacs - weren't they the little Looney Tunes characters?
Here in the United Kingdom they recently banned a Dutch politician from entering the country. Why should Dawkins be allowed to experience hatred towards the religious at a public university? Now on the other hand if he came with the intention of discussing the controversy and it was an open forum I would be quite happy.
Pete "total fool" Rooke, in case you haven't heard, freedom to travel within the US is not restricted by states, but the federal government. Also, given your limited mental faculties, you couldn't debate a muppet and win.
So much for freedom of speech...
Are you equating inciting moral panic over Islam with objecting to philosophical criticisms of religion?
I wonder if Barb, while ranting about respect, ever read the parts of the bible where women were given up for rape instead of a male house guest...or entire cities and peoples were wiped out through gods will...i also see that she hasnt posted in a while, thats understandable i suppose.
I also read recently that the laws against discrimination and hatred against the religious are being beefed up in the EU. The US could learn a lot from the laws in the UK already where it such hatred is already illegal and can be seen as incitement of violence (e.g. 'Scientology is a cult'/although I actually agree that it is). For instance you would never find filth like "Lady" Gagga (and other modern "music") on the BBC and they have the Proms (And did those feet in ancient times etc.), Songs of Praise, a show devoted to religious issues with Jeremy Vine on Sunday and Though for the Day on Radio 4. Additionally, religious figures are represented in government.
OK, Petey, all you have to do is propose someone whose education and skill would make him competent to argue the opposite case with Dr Dawkins.
Of course, she or he will have to agree to do it without lying, without obfuscating, without claiming that the visual aids used show something which they definitely don't.
A fairly massive vocabulary, style and a degree of wit would also help.
I'm sure that if you can nominate such a person Richard Dawkins would consider the proposition with his usual courtesy.
When what would be protecting your speech there Petey?
Petey:
As Nerd @213 pointed out, travel within this country is not controlled by states. This little piece of offal is just a sop to the godbots who vote these dolts into office.
"Why should Dawkins be allowed to experience hatred towards the religious at a public university?" Experience? Wrong word, lad. Editing for you, Dawkins has the perfect right to express his views so long as he does not incite violence. Most of the violence and hatred seems to come from the christers.
As for debating Dawkins - you might find yourself a bit out of your depth. Stick with trolling here.
I for one would happily debate Professor Dawkins here in the UK. I'm currently attending King's College London and I'm sure it could be arranged. I would not be able to pay any significant fee however.
Hey, Barb's here! Hey Barb, you still haven't answered my question from last week or so. Which is more worth saving in an emergency, a two year old child or a petri dish full of a hundred embryos? I'm feeling rather hurt and slighted that you won't answer my question.
How on earth have you managed to read my post before I published it Allen N? That is very suspect! What have you done?
Thomsen is probably just mad because The Flaming Lips' "Do You Realize??" has just been made the state's official rock song. I guess he has trouble with a couple of the lines:
"You realize the sun doesn't go down
It's just an illusion caused by the world spinning round"
oh, lol. you serious? Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
Barb has left...she's gone the way of the Dodo...she couldn't compete with intelligent humans.
Pete "total fool" Rooke, because of your limited intellect, we can predict what you will say. Your god doesn't exist and your bible is fiction. Have a nice day.
So? I was at Leeds in the 1960s and am a trained and experienced public speaker but I wouldn't take on Dawkins!
To rout someone in a debate you first have to understand his case, with all its subtleties. You show little sign of that, Pete, unless you are hiding your light under a bushel - which I was taught was A Bad Thing.
You assume my superiority is illusory. I could equally make the same charge against you so this moves the debate precisely nowhere. Dawkins is clearly an intelligent being. Intelligence comes in many different shapes and sizes however. AN argument often levelled against people like Dawkins and Peter Singer is that they lack an intelligence of the heart.
Why not comment? Hence this!
fromBrian Coughlan
totodd.thomsen@okhouse.gov
dateFri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:44 PM
subjectRegarding HR1015
mailed-bygmail.com
Dear Todd!
Here I was thinking that the American public was finally shambling reluctantly into the 21st century by electing an articulate, intelligent president. My bad. Thanks for setting the record straight, and doing your part to ensure that the US (or at least Oklahoma) remains the laughing stock of the developed world.
Keep the hilarity coming! In these tough economic times we need something laugh at, and your effort to ban an academic from speaking at a University on the grounds that their "... published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.", will leave me chuckling for days.
At least you've got your priorities straight, eh?!!
*Guffaw, Guffaw*:-)
Regards,
Brian Coughlan
Ireland
Maureen
It is not I that have forsaken subtlety, it is Dawkins. His reductive arguments fail to account for all manner of things!
lol
Such as what?
(I'm off to eat fish and chips now so won't see your answer, if any, for some while.)
slow down there facilis... oh wait
Creationists....Here's a couple of lists for you.... Things religion has opposed: the Earth being round, heliocentrism, modern medicine, physics, chemistry, explanations for lightning, for storms, for eclipses, proof that natural events weren't caused by angels (or archangels...or God)...in other words every step science has ever taken. Scientists who were attacked by the church: Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Halley, Darwin, Hubble, Lyell, Agassiz, Buffon, etc etc
And now you feel the need to fight evolution and Richard Dawkins. Do you see a pattern here? You have always lost to science. Always will (in a sane society).
Petey:
I thought that you were suggesting a debate in your previous post.
Now - I have not read all of your debates on this blog - I have to go dive with my eels and sharks, open my observatory, and take the dogs for long walks - the days are just packed. So - would you please specify what, exactly, is the reason evolution is wrong? 25 words or less, no metaphysical crapola please.
Pete "total fool" Rooke, religion is the answer for nothing. Your god doesn't exist, and even it it did, it is not needed for any explanation in the modern world. Mankind is moving to a properly godless society. Until you see that, you are a fool.
Maureen
While you eat your fish and your chips think about what I have said. Perhaps, when you are in a better mood (your blood sugar levels lifted) you will be more inclined to accept the arguments I put forth. I have sometimes changed my mind somewhat on similar occasions.
I didn't bring up Hitler --Kel did. - Barb
Barb, it's wicked to tell such lies. Foolish as well, when the evidence that you are lying is readily available. The first mention of Hitler in this thread was by you @152.
Allen N,
At now point have I asserted that Evolution is definitely wrong. It has merit. There are other theories that have merit as well (ID etc.) an many great scientists believe these as well. Futhermore, it is dishonest of Dawkins to pretend there is no controversy about some of his conclusions. It is perfectly possible to believe in God and accept that evolution is true. Perhaps this view would entail God providing a helping hand or seeding life. It is not cut and dried however, and there is a controversy.
Pete Rooke Said:
"For instance you would never find filth like "Lady" Gagga (and other modern "music") on the BBC"
Huh?
I'm new here. This "Pete Rooke" is an internet persona adopted for comic effect, right?
Pete "total fool" Rooke. You have nothing to say that anybody here is interested in. You know that. Take your faux concern elsewhere. Your god doesn't exist. Deal with it elsewhere.
Allen N,
I would also dispute your characterization of Metaphysics. There are truths found in such things far more fundamental than in any Physics textbook (let alone biology textbooks).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA
Petey, there is no truth in your god or your bible. Just delusions.
Pete Rook re: intelligence of the heart.
Well that explains a lot, next time, assuming you have any of course, try using your brains instead of your heart. It might, only might I say, stop you appearing quite so stupid.
I missed that. The content on the BBC (television) is typically quite fair to religious issues. Although, that recent Andrew Marr piece on Darwinism was a bit much.
Petey:
Not talking belief - as Gil Grissom would say - "It's all about the evidence." Now - in 25 words or less (you ran over last time) what is one piece of evidence you find debatable which ID gives a better, testable explanation that evolution does not?
No appeals to authority, such as "many great scientists" either.
And I love the bit about Africa needing more Christian missionaries - because it isn't as though Western colonialism, fueled by the Christian concept of divine mandate, has done that sorry continent enough damage already. - Jeff Eyges
One of the Christians I admire (yes, there are some!), Desmond Tutu, had a good one on this:
"When the Europeans came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes, and when we opened them again - we had the Bible, and they had the land!"
Petey, do you have any physical evidence for your imaginary deity yet? If you don't you have nothing but delusions. Follow the physical evidence to the truth.
Pete, ID doesn't even have a coherent definition or explanation that allows one to describe how it could even be proposed as a hypothesis much less a scientific theory. In fact, people who support ID do everything except explain the only thing that would make ID relevant to science itself. All support for ID is spent on taking advantage of a public that is generally ignorant and uneducated in the basics of scientific principles. The only money that is used to support ID goes directly to legal efforts and obscure proposals that hide behind ambiguous language. Not a single penny or thought goes to any actual science behind the claim itself.
I find it laughable that Pete Rooke thinks he has what it takes to match wits with Dawkins - especially over evolutionary theory.
Allen N,
Religious experience (e.g. Francis Collins).
I for one would happily debate Professor Dawkins here in the UK. - Pete Rooke
That would look great on your CV - not so good on his!
(hat-tip: Robert May)
Okay Petey, have a trial run. Imagine you were up there having a debate with Dawkins and you had 10 minutes to state your case. This should be about 1500 words. And... go!
I'm afraid I would have to put lots of work into such a speech and would have to take advice from experts. Besides the parameters have yet to be sketched.
Hatred? Is that what you think this is about? It's about empathy! We don't hate you, we feel sorry for you, that you lack the mental capacity and strength, to challenge your belief in bronze age superstitions rationally. It's like a retarded kid in a wheelchair on a public bus. You don't hate him for holding up the line, you feel sorry for him, because he's not all he could be.
Imagine what you could acheive if you weren't shackled by your archaic beliefs!
Poor Pete the Fool seems to confuse evolution with atheism. Not all atheists believe in evolution. And it is not required to be an atheist to believe in evolution. Anyone can personally tack "goddidit", like Collins and Miller. But science cannot use god as an explanation or result of an experiment. So science is really adeistic. And will remain so, because "science works bitches".
Petey:
I did not ask for a spokesperson, I wanted to know what evidence you had that was testable that would give the edge to ID. In a quick Wiki check, the good doctor did evade, much as you did, by citing experience.
Your homework is to bone up on the biology - sans religion, and have a specific point. You did do better on reply length, though. Outta here, time for walkies.
Remember people, Pete "If my brains were methane I would not have enough for a fart" Rooke is likely to busy making excuses for his Church insisting that a nine year old girl who was raped and pregnant with twins must carry them to term, despite the fact doing could kill her.
So you can't give a basic rundown now? Pretty pathetic there Petey. remember that in a debate you have to be able to think on your feet, it's not like you are Sarah Palin with palm cards during question time. Just another ignoramus who thinks he knows better on a topic. The Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
That is libellous. Such people speak only for themselves.
Well on your blog, which I checked, you go through some of the possible arguments, (e.g. testimony, historical perspectives). One could easily write 1 million words on the issue.
Yes ID happened because a few followers of a cult leader attest to the cult leader's divinity... Bring out what you would say to Dawkins. You mentioned that his position has holes, so demonstrate your ability to argue them.
I have to get back to my studies. I will, at some point, leave a reply on your blog.
Point of information, Mr. Chairman. The resolution was proposed. Does anyone know if it actually passed?
hahaha
It's hardly even true that the University of Oklahoma is a state-funded institution. The State of Oklahoma provides less than 20% of the university's funding. If Dawkins is being funded out of the other 80+% of the university's funds, it's pretty rich for the legislature to think it should have a say at all.
Please don't bother. The only reason anyone will read it is for the comedy value.
Well you won't know how coherent the arguments are until you have read them. I will be working on it.
"When the Europeans came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes, and when we opened them again - we had the Bible, and they had the land!"
Yeah, I've heard this before. Yet, interestingly enough, he's a Christian.
Stockholm Syndrome, or No True Scotsman? ("The people who did this to us weren't Real Christians™.")
Although, seriously - I'm fine with TuTu. The Dalai Lama is friendly with him; that's good enough for me.
I have to get back to my studies. - Pete Rooke
Oh yes, Pete has lots of studying to do. He has to study the role of miniskirts in rape, bookbinding with a special emphasis on unusual binding materials, the importance of dental hygiene among milk delivery staff...
PS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00j0c54/Darwins_Dangerous_Idea_Bo…
(use a proxy server if it is unavailable). Andrew Marr examines whether Darwinism is viable as a faith (in a very sympathetic manner to Evolution however).
Having been to Oklahoma I'd have to say that Mr Dawkins should feel quite privileged. Clearly the state has spent considerable resources to prevent Richard from wasting time or money going anywhere near that shithole. The people that live there might like it, but I highly recommend giving it a miss.
While we're at it, the state legislature might be able to determine what and how public funds should be spent but by telling the school system what should or should not be discussed in such terms is clearly an effort to establish morality police. Doing so publicly like this clearly shows that Oklahoma has at least a few complete idiot who have managed to get elected. This does not speak well for the citizenry who vote.
I'm reasonably certain that if he were alive, Will Rogers would be packing his things and moving elsewhere in the wake of this action.
Well you won't know how coherent the arguments are until you have read them. - Pete Rooke
*Chortle* Ah, unintentional comedy is often the best!
True. However, we do have a pretty good history of how you argue here in this blog and if that is any indication, well, let's just say it's not very promising.
Pete, anything you say or anthing you link to is not real science. Just comedy. HAHAHAHAHA We are laughing at you and your so called evidence.
Just one fucking time.
They show up with the same nonsense we have all heard a thousand times and demand a civil dialog. They have no idea how they sound to us. They think they are being persuasive. Instead of researching anything, anywhere except "answers in genesis" they come here and want everyone to read their awesome arguments and debate them IN A NICE WAY. They lie to us and themselves about that making a difference.
Just one fucking time I want to witness one of these people recognize that they need to re-think their position, to see that they might be wrong, to see a fucking light bulb come on in their heads.
Someone tell me a story about this happening.
A couple of weeks ago, I thought I made an Episcopalian think, but I was mistaken.
Ok, on topic. This is chest beating to impress the ignorant constituents. That doesn't make me feel any better though. I think I have five minutes to email the dipshit and point out the contradiction in his own resolution.
Umm, why are people attacking that Pete Rooke guy so much? I haven't bothered to read all the hundreds of comments here, just stumbled upon this page a few minutes ago.. No, I don't believe in any kind of supernatural things, includings gods, and I have never seen even slightest hint as to the existence of anything like, but that doesn't really give me the right to ridicule someone else's opinions and beliefs. And it doesn't give you the right for such either.
As for that Rooke...if he does not try to force his beliefs on others nor harms anyone, including restricting their freedom of speech, he should be allowed to belief as he wishes.
I spent 30 years in Oklahoma, between 1994 and 2000.
Oklahoma is a feculent, festering hole. If it weren't for I-40, I'd never set foot or tire in the place again...
Who cares what Oklahoma thinks? Who cares what the whole freakin SOUTH thinks!
Thank you, Nita.
Some of the language (specifically analogies) I've used may have been somewhat OTT but all has been written in good faith.
Nita, Pete "total fool" Rooke is a long term troll that is a real idiot for his religion. So we make fun of him. If he was smart, he would stop posting here. Pete, your efforts will receive better results elsewhere.
Nita... The topic is teaching science in our educational system and the intrusion of creationists trying to define the Bible as a book on science. Like you say...everyone is entitled to their own beliefs as long as they don't force them on others. Trying to sneak religion into science education by calling it "academic freedom" is the issue. Read the post. Read the previous posts.
So, it would be fair to say that you are unfamiliar with facts of the matter?
I absolutely have the right to merely ridicule anything I want to. So do you, as does everybody else here.
There are arguments to be made about how constructive or socially appropriate any specific ridiculing statement is, but nobody should be afforded special protection.
Also, if you really haven't bothered to acquaint yourself with the history of the situation, then why do you care?
Somewhat over the top? They were the stuff of horror movies. And you were so proud of them, you kept reposting it and you made it the centerpiece of your short lived blog.
And now you seek the shelter of a person who is not familiar with your history. If anything, my estimation went even lower. Thank you, I did not know it was possible.
"Communism is atheistic and no. korea is communist --even if Little Kim demands worship of himself..."
Do you take exquisite joy in making a fool of yourself with every sentence you post? You say communism is "atheistic", based surely on the simple fact that Marx advocated an end to religion and not because of any real ethos "belief system" baked into communism, and then cite a leader who manifests a cult of personality in his country that includes him as a living god. Kim Jong Il is as much an example of the ills of religion - based on human gods or vaporous entities - as he is supposedly an argument against atheism. Countless civilizations across history have worshiped human gods; nobody refers to those societies as atheistic. That is, not until recently as historical revisionists that are part of large global religious movements seek to differentiate themselves from the debasing qualities of that which they share with all religions that have ever been.
Your statement is also ignorant of the fact that quite a few communists in this country were god-botherers as well. It appears communism doesn't cure anyone of god worship. The fact of the matter is communism, whether your believe it or not, has no direct implications on religion or the lack of it. Just because Marx wanted religion to go away doesn't follow that religion automatically does in the wake of his economic theory. Further proof can be found in Native American tribes, many of whom practiced a form of communism yet still had a religion. Granted those groups existed prior to Marx's formulation, but it is an example that religion and communistic economics can exist in parallel.
Petey:
You must be an insufferable grind if you are spending Friday afternoon at your studies. Get a life, man. Get a pint or two, chase a few lasses (you might get lucky) then you can do your homework. I might suggest vestigial organs as an interesting place to start.
Allen:
What have you got against lasses?
Very funny...I might tun across someone like Janine, the self-styled "Insulting Sinner" though.
Rookie, you first came here because of Crackergate, defending the honor of The Roman Catholic Church. There is now a thread where people are expressing their disgust with the Brazilian Roman Catholic Church. Yet you have not come with an OTT analogy to help us better understand why the RCC is right to demand that a nine year old rape victim must carry twins for a full term and are right to excommunicate the child, mother and doctors who preformed the abortion.
One would think you would relish the chance to explain the moral superiority of the church and how we atheists are merely engaging in petty attacks on the religious.
Wow. This makes me want to travel the 1500+ miles to see Dawkins. I proably would, if there were tickets and I knew I could get in. No way I'm coming without a guarentee, though.
A state in a modern, democratic country, surely cannot be quite so backward...
Rookie, the titles I have used are not self styled. The titles are from insults that religious posters have lobbed at me. But here is an insult I will gladly lob at you, bloody stupid git.
I agree, it is immoral, unjust and sadistic. That lawyer doesn't represent my views. There are Catholics, believe it or not, who are not opposed to abortion in all circumstances.
Behold, from the Rookie, the no true Catholic defense. Bloody stupid git.
Indeed it may have been my label, sorry. I think it is hypocritical of you to complain about being insulted when you are clearly very offensive and insulting, at times, and appear to revel in crudity and vulgarity - often lobbed towards me.
Ugh. I almost forgot about the analogies.
Those were not just OTT, they were horrible.
Why should Dawkins be allowed to experience hatred towards the religious at a public university?
That's so far the only odd statement made by Rooke here on the comments that I have found.. That sure is an odd statement, though, as Dawkins isn't trying to incite any kind of hatred towards anyone. Disagreeing with someone isn't intentional hatred or an attempt to provoke anyone. It's a matter of opinion and beliefs and should stay as such.
And yes, the topic about Dawkins getting banned is ridiculous; religions altogether should be kept out of politics as there are hundreds of different religions in the world and no one has the right to claim that their religion is the only correct one and as such they can decide what the others can do.
I would call them psychotic episodes. The religious mind is insane.
Nita,
In many hectares of posting things here Petey has never said one word which would make the average gnat stop to think. He claims to have the answer to everything anyone ever thought but refuses to tell us. Either he is saving it all for his coming bid for world domination or he is bullshitting. My money is on the latter.
Petey,
I've been in a great mood all day. I thought you understood subtlety - I was trying to tell you that I regarded haddock and chips at Crown Fisheries, Hebden Bridge, as a far better use of my time and energy than trying to beat any sense into your head. Next time I'll just use the rude words I was thinking.
Rookie, I am not complaining, I am laughing. As for being vulgar, you should fucking talk. I do not know which I find more vulgar, your book bound in a loved one's skin or your rape fantasy based on mini-skirts. Bloody stupid git.
r10t3r. #292: A state in a modern, democratic country, surely cannot be quite so backward...
Probably not, but Oklahoma is a state in the USA.
Rev. BigDumbChimp, they were not just horrible but symptomatic of a very sick misogynistic mind, and that is being kind about Pete Crack.
Pete Rooke mumbled:
And yet you still tithe?
Have you considered expressing your concerns and opinions with their actions within your diocese, or otherwise trying to help prevent further instances of superstitious interference in necessary medical procedures in the Really-Real World™ from happening again?
Maureen,
I thought you needed more time to mull it over. Obviously not.
Janine,
1. It wasn't a rape fantasy, in that I desired it to happen, although it was fantasy in the sense that it was a fictional imagining.
2. I don't have any such book. It was an analogy. I had read about such books existing in ancient times.
@Nita:
Pete at his finest.
He has a long history here of troll, artful dodger, bad analogist, and failed, regurgitating apologist.
More evidence for the theory that when the beliefs of a group are threatened, that they feel this threat because they don't really have faith. I mean if they absolutely accepted the truth of revealed religion, it wouldn't matter to them who was coming to speak, since the word of God is true, right?
I mean, I am certain that 2+2=4, so any one would would debate it with me is welcome, since I know they'll ultimately fail. So if these Oklahomians are so certain of the truth of 'revealed' religion, then shouldn't they also be certain that any debate with them would also fail?
Rookie, you thought those disgusting analogies would help us degenerate atheists understand why being mean to a cracker was a terrible thing. And you kept reposting them as if they were meaningful despite almost everyone recoiling in disgust. It says a lot more about you than it does about any of us. Bloody stupid git.
I take it then that if Fred Phelps was booked to speak at a public university and a state legislator introduced a resolution condemning him, you would have the same reaction. Or does that happen only when you agree with the speaker in question?
*.*, the state legislatures should not be involved in approving/disapproving speakers for state universities. Period. It is not their job. What part of that are you having trouble with?
Again with the compulsory "Oh, I'm so offended" statement. I didn't know the American heartland was filled with such pussies.
*.*: Actually, while most of us here despise Phelps and his methods, yes we would have the same reaction. It is not up to the government to dictate what people may say, with the obvious proviso of limits on inciting violence and the like.
None. I just want to make sure that when the shoe is on the other foot; i.e., the speaker is someone with whom certain individuals disagree that the condemnation of said legislators will be just as loud. Somehow I doubt it.
E.V.
I was just suggesting that Petey could do some research - you know, do a lab, on vestigial parts of people. I'm not sure he could handle a Janine or most of the other femmes who post here.
Seriously Petey, quit banging on about your views, round up some evidence - not opinions or experiences - and come back. Until then, go find a young lass who is a real screamer and sin a little. After all, you can still go to confession Saturday.
*.*:
Of course, that's the way democracy works. Fred speaking anywhere is protected free speech, and any G.O. trying to limit that would be a form of fascism.
If the Government sponsored Fred Phelps, then there would be objections.
Fred is a fantastic culling machine, he sorts people into two distinct ideologies and makes it easy to determine "us" and "them", and that is only one of the reasons it is important that he has the rights to free speech.
Democracy means we give people reasonable rights to free speech and freedom to assemble. If you're a conservative fascist control freak, try China or any Banana Republic, you'd fit right in.
Have a look at, say, the results of the presidential election of 2008. And weep.
Like what, for example?
Is not repeatable and must therefore be ignored.
(…Except when it actually is repeatable by stimulating certain brain areas. This is not ignored. To the contrary -- it's an area of active research.)
The latter is a stance that is very easy to reach.
ROTFL!!!
Look, Pete, if you suffer from such basic misunderstandings, you can't debate the shadow of Dawkins' hair.
I mean, what next? Will Marr examine why Napoleon crossed the Mississippi?
Hint: The theory of evolution is science. It's not a faith. Whether it's viable as a faith is, it follows logically, a wrong question.
You are new here. He isn't. Use the search engine.
That's quite reasonable. Surely though the effect of such speech might have such consequences whereby it would be prudent to exercise censorship? For an extreme example consider British propaganda and controls during the war.
*.* said
Of course you do, but only because you project your likely behaviour on to us. That is your problem, not ours.
BTW, worth noting that most of us are actually more laughing than complaining about it for how it makes the state rep look, i.e. pretty stupid.
Ben Stein was not removed as an act of the Vermont House Of Representative. He was removed because having Ben Stein; using his right to free speech to condemn scientists as murderers; was an insult to the students who study science.
Also, it is not likely that Fred Phelps will be invited to address any public university.
It is not David M.'s post I was referring to. But the previous post on censorship.
I am totally against the State resolution but to those Oklahoma bashers (most of whom have never stepped foot in the state:
Just remember when the Okies left and went to California that it raised the average IQ of both states!
Pete "total fool" Rooke. Read amendment one to the US constitution. The government cannot censor free speech except in some very narrow circumstances, which do not exist here. Which makes you a very delusional person to suggest that it can. Why don't we have PZ follow your idea and censor you?
If it hasn' been made clear over the last 50 years. "Open and Fair Debate about Evolution." means "Creationism gets a chance to speak."
I'd actually have a problem with Phelps; he constitutes a public danger.
Now, if they wanted to have Karl Rove, that's another matter. I'd gag, of course - but, yeah, he'd have the right to speak. If anyone aged 22 or under actually wanted to hear him. Which would make me weep.
@309 -- a (negative) right of free speech obligates others to refrain from prohibiting you from speaking; it does not obligate others to provide you with a forum. The actions of the Oklahoma legislator are designed to prevent Dawkins from speaking and so would count as a violation of his (negative) rights. The decision to cancel Stein's address by the University of Vermont simply involved denying him a forum, to which he had no entitlement, and so Stein's rights were not violated. Re. Phelps: although I am not entirely comfortable with hate speech codes, Phelps' hypothetical speech could arguably be banned without violating his rights on the grounds that, unlike Dawkins, Phelp's speech would be designed to incite hatred.
Petey:
You cannot use some sort of crystal ball to predict the effect of speech. Using that standard, MLK would have been locked up for the dangerous speech advocating equality for African Americans. Prior restraint is just censorship wrapped in safety.
If it hasn' been made clear over the last 50 years. "Open and Fair Debate about Evolution." means "Creationism gets a chance to speak."
It actually means, "You immoral atheists get to hear why we're right and you're wrong - before you go to hell."
Fundies have absolutely NO concept of dialogue.
I would, however, be glad if you did refer to it soon, and answered the question in it.
He and what army?
Does he do anything except scream?
Gavin:
ID folks can speak all they want, just not in science classes since what they do is not science. You do understand the difference, right? ID believers are free to submit thier exhaustive research findings to Nature, Science, or other peer reviewed journals. If they pass muster then those ideas belong as part of the science discussion. Saying "goddidit" is not science - it's religion.
What is the legality and purpose of such a resolution? The legislature has no legal mechanism for keeping Richard Dawkins out of the state, or denying him his First Amendment rights (despite him being a non-citizen). If the state actively seeks to silence the speech of an individual, that's a flagrant violation of the First Amendment.
So why waste time? Even if I were religious, I'd be upset that my state's legislature was wasting the time and paper to do something of no tangible benefit.
The only danger Phelps provides is the danger to himself. One day his "God Hates Fags" demonstrations at a military burial is going to result in a blood bath when some gung-ho Dad, brother or friend goes ballistic - literally.
Janine wears the badge of many insults, all from good christianists, with admirable pride.
You might consider emulating her and changing your name to "Pete Rooke, fucking knobhead and wanker for Jesus". I gather that Janine has managed to overcome her obvious hurt at such apparently insulting epithets, and thus bemonickered,hold her head high. Would you be prepared to do the same?
Not everyone in Oklahoma feels this way. Don't condemn the entire state for the psychotic, unconstitutional rantings of one idiot who doesn't represent most of us.
Gavin Greenwalt said
More accurately, as proposed by the Dishonesty Institute and its supporters, 'Open and Fair Debate about Evolution' actually means spouting manufactured faults and weaknesses about evolution in the hope that eventually it will be replaced in the science class by ID/creationism. Even though there is no evidence to support ID/creationism. Nothing stopping them discussing ID/creationism in philosophy or comparative religion classes, but nothing merits ID/creationism being discussed in a science class. Except possibly as a demonstration of the antithesis of the scientific method.
I'll give it a go.
"It's not repeatable" so it can be ignored.
People in societies since the dawn of civilization have reported similar experiences. One has to assume that humans have an underlying psychological disposition to experience these moments. Either it's inspired by God or it is an evolutionary bi product. Now even the people on here must admit that sociobiology is on extremely shaky ground. Any number of factors could account for these and the ultimate answer may be unknowable. For this reason, holding that, as people crudely say, God "done it" is every bit as tenable as other a priori reasoning concerning this issue. Their can be no reason stemming from empiricism in this matter because science cannot go that far. In this respect, I follow Newton in that it is not possible for science to say why gravitational force acts as it does. We can merely describe. Eventually the underlying cause become unknowable for science and religion provide An answer that I accept.
Which god?
So does Oklahoma actually do their legislative business in comic sans? because that would be fucking hilarious
@ Peter Rooke.
Except that a scientist will keep trying to find out, whereas the "God did it" person stops looking.
"Which god? "
His Noodleness, of course!
Note: I posted a link to this article at the "Poe" blog "Republican Faith Chat".
Pete "total fool" Rooke. One cannot say "goddidit" and have it be science unless they show physical evidence for god that can be examined by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers to confirm that it is of divine, and not natural, origin. Otherwise, god falls into the category of pixies, elves, santa claus, easter bunny, and other fictional characters.
We are waiting for your evidence.
The God of the religious experience. This gets circular very quickly.
"So does Oklahoma actually do their legislative business in comic sans? because that would be fucking hilarious"
Actually I think they do it sans common sense.
One day his "God Hates Fags" demonstrations at a military burial is going to result in a blood bath when some gung-ho Dad, brother or friend goes ballistic - literally.
That's pretty much what I meant.
Also, as he ages and becomes more shrill, and as people react to him and his followers with increasing disgust, I'm not sure but that one of his young family members may become violent one of these days.
Don't kid yourself. You are in the minority in Okie land just as I am in Texas. Fortunately the majority isn't completely overwhelming. The Bible Belt is home to psychotic, unconstitutionally minded idiots.
Pete On Crack: But one day, and possibly not too far in the future, we will likely know why gravity works as it does. In fact, the LHC when it finally spins up to its full potential, if successful, could well put us on the way to finally working it out. Again, another bad analogy on two counts. Firstly, gravity actually exists, and secondly, we can actually describe it in some detail now, even if we don't fully understand it yet, neither of which applies to your god.
Therefore you agree with the divinely revealed fact that the universe was masturbated in existence, as revealed to the Egyptian Priests?
It's no more asinine than Genesis and is supported by religious experience.
Mmmm blockquote fail.
You miss the point. One will always be able to enquire as to the causes of the causes. All we can do is render them as general as possible.
Pete "total fool" Rooke Religious experience = self delusion.
Since many of you obviously care about scientific accuracy, perhaps I should point out a bit of hype in the summary:
1. Resolutions are not binding
2. He's being "strongly opposed", not "condemned" or "kicked out".
3. The area in question is NOT the entire state of Oklahoma, but a specific event at a university.
This means that the passing of this resolution will have no legal effect whatsoever; he is still able to go and speak at that university if he desires. (They may decide to bow to state government pressure, but that is their decision to make)
That said, yes, I agree that paragraphs 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive (and pretty hilarious to read), and it's a ridiculous issue for the legislature to insert itself into. I highly oppose any government regulating who gets to speak at an institution.
It is a good thing that not all people bow before intellectual authority as does the Rookie. You have heard of Einstein and how he was able to achieve an insight that Newton never did. Bloody stupid git.
Pete clearly hasn't heard of String theory, Curved spacetime, or Loop Quantum Gravity, just three theories that attempt to explain gravity, and make testable predictions that we should eventually resolve- many hinging on the existence or non-existence of the graviton.
Newton lived at a time when they'd only just invented the vacuum pump- didn't know about atoms, and were still puzzling out magnetism. Its not suprising he didn't know why gravity worked.
Bernard,
That seems to assume that the natural explanation just is without any underlying mystery. Now if you refuse to accept God as a "first cause" then why are you willing to accept a naturalistic cause. It is not clear why it is more parsimonious to postulate a naturalistic explanation.
Me: it is fairly safe to say that most of us get that. We are simply having a bit of fun with it as we did when PZ got expelled from expelled and RD didn't.
I reckon I have seen this Pete Rooke character elsewhere. His insistence on citing Gil Grissom as unimpeachable evidence rang a bell. I wonder if it is him who writes under the appropriate pseudonym "itsallaloadofbollox"? The style and inanity would suggest so.
You may be interested to learn that "itsallaloadofbollox" is writing a knock-down to evolution - and it will be ready in about a year. He was advised by a poster to get his facts and arguments in order and then take them to "Nature". We are clearly moving in Nobel Prize territory - it's just so exciting.
Pete Rooke wrote: Any number of factors could account for these and the ultimate answer may be unknowable. For this reason, holding that, as people crudely say, God "done it" is every bit as tenable as other a priori reasoning concerning this issue.
This one I'd like to make an argument on; there are literally thousands of cases where the Church, some religious headman or similar has claimed that a certain event is done by God (or Gods), but they've all later on been proved to have been caused by something else. Even fire was once thought to be supernatural.
On such a base one can't consider religious hypothesis on a similar scale as a hypothesis created by functional trials. If there is no such working hypothesis then religious hypothesises still can't be accepted as any kind of actual scientific hypothesis because of literally billions of differing ways one can interpret the hypothesis depending on one's mood, beliefs, place of origin..
Petey:
Which god? Ra? Coyote (Navajo)? Wakan-Tanka (Sioux)? How to tell which is correct? More to the point, why is you god any better?
What you are saying is that when you reach the limits of present understanding, you can say "goddidit" and that's enough. That is GoG - God of Gaps , a process in which the job description of the deity is always decreasing as our knowledge of the real world increases. Think about it for a moment. Plagues were the wrath of god - no wait - viruses and bacteria. Lightning was the wrath of Zeus - no wait - has to do with separation of charge and field lines. These two examples were seriously and completely believed to be acts of some god. Now they are not.
God is not needed by the theories. It is a complication, what problem does the complication solve? If it doesn't solve any, why are you adding it? How do you resolve any additional complications without resorting to special pleading?
David,
Surely you must understand it was merely an example. As to the causes of the cause what can we know? This is a genuine question. Why is there something rather than nothing (although I feel queasy reproducing that question)? Perhaps the question makes no sense but how would it theoretically be possible to determine whether it does?
Phelps has not gotten more shrill over the years, he is the same loather of humanity that the GLBT community has dealt with for decades. And please forgive my bitterness but most of the mainstream ignored his incestuous caravan until he started picketing at the funeral of military personal. He did the same for victims of AIDS and gay bashings for many years without much notice.
"Grissom"
I don't know who he is and don't remember citing him.
|My Point on the naturalistic explanations was there must always be an explanation of the explanation. In what manner is it therefore more parsimonious. Is God not perhaps more parsimonious than an unexplained relations of explanations
The natural explanation is that; the brain exists and religious experiences are a product of the brain.
The supernatural explanation is that; a supernatural being created the brain and religious experiences are a product of the supernatural being communicating via the brain.
Pete, putting god anywhere is unnecessary. If he requires special pleading, he is not much of a god. Still no physical evidence for your friend that only exists between your ears.
*Than unexplained relations of naturalistic explanations.
You are using special pleading to end an infinite regress. Try again. It is more parsimonious to end it one level lower, eliminating that special pleading.
NoR,
My point is that if we adopt naturalistic explanations we can never get further than the next explanation. Perhaps this is the case though, some scientists accept this I believe.
"My Point on the naturalistic explanations was there must always be an explanation of the explanation"
Okay, then what is the explanation of the explanation of the explanation?
If there has to be an explanation of naturalistic explanations, then there must be an explanation of the explanation, right?
It's turtles allllll the way down.
Phelps has not gotten more shrill over the years, he is the same loather of humanity that the GLBT community has dealt with for decades. And please forgive my bitterness but most of the mainstream ignored his incestuous caravan until he started picketing at the funeral of military personal. He did the same for victims of AIDS and gay bashings for many years without much notice.
It does seem as though he's been getting more coverage. I thought it was because he was making more of an attempt to be omnipresent.
OK, then - can I change my reason to "Because he's a carbuncle on the bum of humanity"?
Pete On Crack, because to date, everything previously explained by god or gods has proven to have a 'naturalistic' explanation. God has proven to be an unnecessary adjunct for any of them. Thus, without evidence to the contrary, and you are welcome to present any real evidence you may have, it is more parsimonious to continue with expectations of naturalistic explanations.
You are another trying to hide your god in the gaps which only keep getting smaller and smaller as science does its thing.
But how can you even postulate that it is possible to end one level lower, as you put it, with naturalistic explanations. It is difficult to grasp even theoretically.
A couple of things:
1) Someone else above pondered the question "Why should Dawkins be allowed to experience hatred towards the religious at a public university?" (they weren't asking the question themselves, but addressing it). The answer is, in a free society the question is never "why should they be allowed" but "why SHOULDN'T they be allowed..." The question itself is anti-freedom.
2) Oklahoma is, of course, the home state of Sally Kern, who is an affront to thinking people everywhere (and probably even a few thinking non-humans). Can we get someone in Oklahoma to introduce legislation condemning her? Just a thought...
Let's assume for the moment that the god of the gaps exists.
What the heck is the point of worshiping such a being? I just don't see it.
Pete Rooke - Just when you have me convinced you cannot get any stoopider, you do.
SOME NEW NEWS FROM NORMAN,OK:
I had breakfast this morning with Dawkins, Nick Matzke (who is here to give a talk at a Zoology Seminar)and Dawkins staff I gave them copies of the resolutions (which Dawkins had not seen, but knew about). His assistant is making thousands of copies to hand out as folks attend his talk so that they will know what he is addressing when he talks about the resolutions.
Dawkins will also announce at the end of his talk that his foundation is giving Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education (OESE, http//oklascience.org) $1000 and will urge others to donate as well. The OESE web site address will be shown on a sldie. Thus, some good comes from this stupid stuff!
Part of the attacks from the religious right legislators is likely due to their disappointment that the 'Academic Freedom Act' failed in a senate committee. Three of us (OESE Board members) worked hard to get the one Republican Senator to vote against the freedom bill; it failed by one vote. We lobbied as members of OESE, NOT as representatives of the University and our handout only mentioned OESE as the author. However, two of us are from OU Zoology and they must have known that. One Senator called he University Administration to complain and try to intimidate. Nothing came from the call. OESE has been very active for the past 10 years in opposing these creationist bills and, so far, none have passed, although last year it took a Governor's veto to kill the 'Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act' that is now law in Texas. The bill is back again, however.
Now that the Republicans control both houses of the Lege for the first time in history, they think they can start giving hard payback for all of the years they were without total power. The hypocrisy of these klegislators is almost unbelievable - and they want to push academic freedom?
The case only appears to be getting smaller and smaller if we accept that there is a naturalistic explanation at the end of the road.
Religion is terrified because it knows it is wrong and morally bankrupt. For those people to face that is more than they can bear. If you knew you had the "truth", there would be no fear of opposing opinions. How sad for the ignorance that is faith and religion.
Whereas if we adopt supernatural explanations, we can never get further than that one explanation...
...an explanation without predictive ability...
...without any hope of generating real-world applications...
...indistinguishable in truth value from any number of other supernatural explanations for the same thing.
Oh, yes, that's much better.
How hard is it to understand that there's no evidence for another level.
It's just wishful thinking and mythology.
There is no level above this one. Other dimensions? Possibly.
How can you postulate an end at all?
Patricia, how very insightful of you. You, NoR, and Janine are what I think of as the gruesome trio, spewing hate whenever you catch sight of my name.
Rob,
I admit that perhaps it isn't possible. That doesn't rule out God though.
Pete, if you ever quit spewing woo, in the form of your imaginary god, people will not respond to you with invective. Keep your god to yourself. And keep yourself to your blog. That is the safest way.
I'll repeat what I said before. The existing theories make him completely and totally unnecessary. Unnecessary gets trimmed out of theories. Postulating something that is unnecessary and using special pleading to hold it in place is antithetical to science. Show evidence or show necessity, until then, your god and any variations on it doesn't exist since the null hypothesis is assumed.
Rob, very true. Additionally, we are almost at the point where the only gaps left that are small enough for this god to hide in means that he would have to be below the plank length in size. Or perhaps he is hiding in a string somewhere. Either way, that is one titchy god. :)
Why Pete, how lucky for you that the gruesome trio are here. More opportunities for you to show True Christian love. Jackass.
#375. Please forgive the typos. I am madly trying to respond to a flood of e-mails on these resolutions.
I need to emphasize that there are two resolutions - one against Dawkins, the other primarily against the OU Zoology Department for their statement on evolution, etc. For the record, Zoology is not a sponsor of Dawkins talk, but is a co-sponsor of several other Darwin Year events. The ignorant legislator author of these resolutions does not realize that many biology departments (maybe most) in the U.S. have similar statements supporting evolution, including Oklahoma State University.
And its a crap one, because we've got a whole list of possible explanations, and physicists have a list of things they're planning to do to narrow them down. By extension why should religious experiences be any different, after all we can trigger them under controlled conditions in the lab, and watch what the brain does. These processes provide a possible explanation for other religious experiences, and the culture you live in provides the context for how they're interpreted.
Because if there was nothing rather than something we wouldn't be here to ask questions. :) Its the weak anthropic principle- which is very, different from the strong one. As the saying goes if the universe was different we wouldn't be here- we'd be somewhere else.
I wonder if, collectively, we could come up with a solution to the triune global-hate-vomit epidemic?
Patricia the Gruesome Vulgar Slut is just too long of a tag line...sigh.
DUH! Planck not plank, bloody spellchecker :)
All of the people who point out your errors in logic and facts and your bad analogies but it is we three who stand out? I think you are being a bit selective there. I do have a question though. When you had your short lived blog, did I ever leave a comment there?
Also, it is not hate on my part. I just like making fun of you. You produce such great whine. Bloody stupid git.
Pete, until you show physical evidence for your metaphysical ramblings, you have nothing. We know that, as we have been through this many times before with other people. Keep your god to yourself, unless you are willing to show physical evidence for god. This is science blog. Put up or shut up until you can put up. Welcome to science.
Pete, that's the problem. Nothing can rule out god. Why not dispense with that that can always be explained away and never disproven?
Petey:
Clearly, you have nothing by way of evidence to support your views, just opinions and another version of the regression question. You appear to be flumoxed by the idea that we cannot know everything, so you need a big sky daddy to be the ultimate explanation. Having seen you god get repeatedly demoted, you fall back on the "what came before that?" routine. In science, the answer is "We may not know right now, but we are looking into it."
Grissom - Google CSI - it's a reference understood over here in the colonies.
Since you appear to be just another artful dodger, perhaps you should return to your studies. Let me suggest vertebrate embryology and comparative anatomy classes if you have not taken them already.
Well I'm disappointed I didn't make the cut. Come on! I have implied that you were into placentophagy, have called you a "sick fuck" several times, submitted your comments to a public forum to be mocked...I mean what does a guy have to do?
Ditto. If you weren't such an idiot Pete we wouldn't rub your nose in it.
Show us your god and we'll quit. Until then I'm going to laugh at you every time your sick, sorry ass shows up here.
My blog is still being updated, I have merely limited its access to those I know.
I sense I have reached an impasse in this discussion.
Rookie, you did not answer my question. Did I ever comment on it?
Feynmaniac,
You too are welcome to join. I am unsure of what comes after "trio" so... I am unable to access wikipedia on this computer but I assume the link is vulgar and obscene.
Pete,
You sense that you've reached an impasse in this discussion?
Excuse me whilst I roll around on the floor laughing at you and you arrogant presumption.
What people have been trying to tell you, with varying degrees of "nice" is that you had reached that impasse BEFORE you engaged in any discussion here or elsewhere. Your errors of thought are YOURS to correct. People will help but, to varying degrees, will come to a point where your obvious willingness to lie and weasel for your faith becomes odious to them. They will deal with that odiousness in different ways.
People here have recommended various biological topics for you to study. I'd say don't waste your time, study some basic philosophy instead. You appear to be as yet unequipped to deal with science in any meaningful fashion.
Louis (That one!)
@ Barb -
I second Kel's endorsement. After you finish reading Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" - which is a short read - then read another slim volume, Ken Miller's "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul". After you're finished with both, you might want to tackle Don Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters", focusing particularly on the chapters devoted to the history of creationism and why modern day creationism - including Intelligent Design creationism - has such an unnerving Fascist overtone to it that closely resembles the great totalitarian movements of Germany, Italy, China and the Soviet Union in the last century.
John
"Show us your God"
I'm hiding him from you...
Have you commented on my blog? What relation does this question share to why you are abusive on this blog? Are you more entitled to post here than me, I assume you think the answer is yes?
Louis,
I too can recommend plenty of texts for you to study. Start with a book that's found in every hotel room in America: the Bible.
But John Kwok, Barb will only tell you that it is us atheists who are the pinko commie Nazi fascist Maoist murderers. After all, she has already blamed us for Germany, USSR, N. Korea, and China. Oh, and we are rude which means that we are well on the way down the slippery slope to annihilating her and her kind
I will answer the question, asshole. No, I did not. I do not go out of my way to go into blogs with beliefs different from mine and create a shit storm. You, on the other hand, are here to provoke. You learn nothing. You have no respect for other people's experience and knowledge.
To you do not use bad words. You argue in bad faith. You preach to us. And you cannot bother to get your facts straight. You are a bloody stupid git.
Pete On Crack, I bet, like many of us on here, Louis has read your wholly babble. By the way, that label should tell you all you need know of what most of us think if it. BTW, I am UKian ex-xian.
Like I said, an impasse.
Pete,
The Bible is a bad choice, go for the Book of the Dead, it's older and thus has more weight and is closer to being divinely inspired.
Oh, wait, it's too old? Not new enough? What about Dianetics?
What precipitated your change of heart?
If so than she is correct. PZ has said :
1
2
. . . Dawkins you lucky sod. Turned away from wading into one of our major cesspools -- some god or other must be working the juju for y'all.
** Sanitize the State, stop all government support of religious institutions **
Mr. Obama just doesn’t get it.
Xians are oppressors in the US. They are not the oppressed. They make jihad against women and their rights not to be dominated by male throwbacks to 19th century hypocritical puritanism. (The pro-birth idiots, male and female.)
Persecute fundies? Sure. Get rid of their unconstitutional special status: tax their property, tax their income, de-fund their so-called faith-based initiatives. Then we’ll see how long their pernicious special interest groups last.
Where's our just restitution for 225 years of xians enforcing prig morality and unlawful control, especially at the state, county, and local levels.
A secular state ought to stop forcing us to support xian con men, liars, pedophiles, politicos . . . who cram their non-existent god and perverted values down our throats.
“Crush the infamy.” -- Voltaire
anti-supernaturalist
Where? He must be a wee god.
Actually reading the wholly babble as well as the so called holy books of the other major religions and thinking for myself.
"Are you more entitled to post here than me, I assume you think the answer is yes?"
Perhaps your focusing on the wrong "entitlement". You apparently suffer from believing you are entitled to post your opinions without response, refutation or criticism. That's not how it works.
You may not like how people respond, but unless PZ tells them to change their tone, etc, you've got no grounds to complain. This isn't your house and you don't set the rules.
The only impasse is the fucking boulder in your head, blocking any possibility of learning and thought. I mean, just what kind of knowledge and training do you have that allows you to question what paleontologist are doing?
Were you raising any questions that they have not considered many times over? Stupid bloody git.
I have no reason to ultimately dispute their findings, I do believe in dinos...More to the point, there's evidence for them whether I believe it or not.
You must not take comfort in the consensus of the masses. They have been wrong many times before.
Why is deep ignorance and religious delusions something that you don't have to be ashamed of anymore? When did that happen? Who decided it's ok to be an unlettered fool? Why is it ok to say that certain scientists shouldn't be welcomed in their state just because according to that bill, most people are ignorant? Shouldn't that be a reason to invite more scientists to hold lectures and talks? How come they don't realise they look like fools in the eyes of sane people?
I too can recommend plenty of texts for you to study. Start with a book that's found in every hotel room in America: the Bible. - Pete Rooke
Tried it. It's crap.
Rooke:
Yet another disgusting coward that's complicit with the rape of children. Where were you last night when you were called upon to speak out agains the evil?
Complicity with a philosophy that punishes rape victims and those who help them is equally evil as rape itself.
Which part of 'go fuck yourself you stinking pervert maggot' don't you understand?
Janine,
I feel we have be come like two tankers slightly sailing past each other in the night, neither aware of the other's existence.
The issues you bring up, and my counters, are irrelevant.
You should stop digging Pete. You're into the stoopid over your head.
I hope you live in Oklahoma.
YES. Welcome to how we see the world.
Science. Isn't. Democratic.
Absolutely. And will be again. This is exactly why we suggested that you read the paper. How can you critique someone's methods when you don't even know what they claim to have done?
Which is why empiricism and the scientific method are so important and why dogma, especially religious dogma, is so dangerous.
Pete,
I've read the bible several times. Interesting book. Not much more interesting than the torah, talmud, qu'ran, bhagavad gita, guru granth sahib...... Do you get my point?
Are you perhaps unaware that people can, and have, read your holy book and seen it for what it is? Do you realise that the philosophical naivety and poor argumentation you demonstrate HERE is evidence that you have either not read any philosophy or not understood any? If you had you'd be making better arguments, not trivially easy to refute pseudo-profundities. Take a course on epistemology, you'll be amazed how enlightening it is.
Louis
I am aware of the existence of people like you. You going on tirades on people like me, trying to force me into being a second class citizen. Stupid bloody git.
@Patricia the Vulgar, OM: Sadly, he is from my part of the world, the UK. See, even we are not free of the stoopid, though admittedly, it is nowhere near as bad as the US.
Dogma can be very dangerous, especially if adopted in an unquestioning manner.
And surely science is at least, on a very basic level, democratic. Peer review, but also complex mathematics which are at the foundation of many technologies/sciences.
"all other scientific theories"
Is that implying that intelligent design is a scientific theory?
Janine,
Second class citizen? Don't be ridiculous! As a woman you don't come that high! Surely male slaves, men without property, male lunatics, and basically all men come first?
Don't get above your station!
Louis
P.S. I'M JOKING, I'M JOKING AAAAAAARGH DON'T FUCKING KILL ME!!!!!! HELP!!
Petey:
I don't see the need for an impasse. There have been a number of questions posed you could respond to yet you remain silent. Don't tell me you don't have the knowledge background to discuss science topics on a science blog. You can get real debate here, but first get your poop in a group. You're like the poor sod who brings a knife to a gun fight.
As for restricting access to your blog, why not just do Facebook and then you can "friend" only those who agree with you.
Sheesh...
There is no "God of the religious experience". It's a fantasy, a fabrication of human imagination, reinforced by others whose livelihood depends on you believing the fantasies. Moreover, there's not one God, each one is unique and simply reflects whatever it is the fantasist desires at the time. The only thing they have in common is that they don't actually exist anywhere but in the mind.
This gets tiresome very quickly.
No, and I don't believe that it is necessarily a bad thing (that democratisation).
Pete definitely On Crack. No science is in no way democratic as everything is ultimately decided by the evidence, not what people think or want to believe. That is the very essence of the scientific method.
Physician, heal thyself.
Apply that to Religion Pete.
Pete, once again, you are not getting how science works.
Numbers in science agreeing is a matter of the numbers in science being able to replicate the findings. To see the data and evidence and come to the same conclusions themselves via replication of the research. Or at the least agreeing with the methods that brought the scientist to the conclusion.
The difference is it is checkable. If one scientist wants to check another, they can take the same evidence and see where it leads them. That's how it works Pete.
You continue to have a hard time with this notion despite the fact we've had to tell you this ad nauseum.
*@ Sam
Pete, could you restate this? I haven't got a clue where you were headed with this.
AllenM @ #433
I disagree most strongly.
Pete is not like someone who has brought a knife to a gunfight. He is like someone who has brought a haddock to a thermonuclear war.
Please be more accurate in future.
{shakes fist, glowers angrily}
Louis
Witness the people who attacked Webster Cook and tried to get him expelled. Bloody stupid git.
Pete, I have read the bible cover to cover twice. Doing that started me on the road to atheism. Yahweh is essentially a crimelord killing people on whims. The morals of the bible bites its own tail time and time again. A horrid book obviously not divinely inspired, but more like inspired by control freaks and thrown together by a committee of control freaks. And Pete, reading the bible is one of the biggest starts toward atheism. You lie again.
John, Really? I would never have guessed Retard Rooke was from the UK.
The IM 2000x is smoking. Calm down Petey
I'd like for you to explain what you think Peer Review means.
Josh, I don't really remember.
Patricia, I had forgotten the tendency of people in the US to accuse people they don't understand of mental incapability.
Patricia the Vulgar, OM: I know, I hoped for a while that he was one of your creotards until he mentioned in back in the cracker days, IIRC, the UK as his home. I have been trying to live it down ever since, the shame is almost unbearable :(
Well looky here, the hateful trio posted all in a row. Proof that this is an evil place.
Louis, I would be even lower than that. I would never have a man as a head of my household, I could not graciously submit. It is not my orientation.
I Have in fact lived in the US for a number of years but am currently at uni. here
But you make that accusation so easy to do. Bloody stupid git.
John Phillips,
I am also a UKian. I too feel your pain.
I thought we'd exported all the criminals and religious whackos. I mean isn't that what the colonies were FOR?
Louis
Rev., it's more brains on the same problem acting as verification.
Pat, I am certainly not a bastard child as you repeatedly allege (I would assume in jest).
Pete, take some science classes. You have no real idea how science works. And I speak as a 30+ year practitioner of science. Science has things like peer review built in to help ensure the integrity of the enterprise. Any mistakes are acknowledged and corrected. Science divorced god a while back, and there will not be a reconciliation. Religion will either have to adjust to science or it will wither away.
Feel free to take up a collection and ship ol' Pete to Oklahoma, I'm sure the idiot will fit right in.
Louis,
Where are you located?
Thinking that you're not understood is a delusion on your part.
Janine,
I don't mind being allowed to share the headship of my household with a woman, that IS my orientation! ;-)
As for graciously submitting: only on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and alternate Sundays.
Tee hee hee.
Louis
P.S. Aside re your comment regarding Phelps' current fame: I've been a long time campaigner for equal rights for gay people. My whole adult life in fact. Nothing virtuous on my part, it's pure self interest. It doesn't matter that I'm not gay, I know full well that after the fundies/prudes are done with regulating YOUR sex life they're going to come after MINE (not that they don't try already). I'd rather stop them a little bit earlier than that! ;-)
Funny someone mentioned Phelps. The WBC were in town just this week, protesting at Moore Hight School. Something about God hating Oklahoma because they have a Gay-Straight club or something like that. Last time they were here and protested at Tinker (after an Air Force guy killed his family then himself), a Marine got arrested for an altercation with them.
I'll be interested in seeing how many people show up to see Dawkins this evening. They had to change to a larger venue do to a large demand, and I know several people who are going. I'm going to try and make it. How could I miss out on seeing the EVIL ATHEIST...oh wait, I'm one too...
The proposed legislation refers to the "theory of evolution". Isn't it the "theory of natural selection" which explains how the "fact of evolution" results in new species which is offensive to some of the State's residents? If so, would this inaccurate language invalidate the legislation, if passed? Could we mount a formal challenge on these grounds?
NoR,
I will content myself with philosophy/
"Come out foul demons of Homoseculars and Lesbiterians! Of Bi curiousities and Transneutered genders! Can I have an Amen? Hallelujah! Now who ever wants to meet me in the Baptistry just come on in! Get on your knees, open your mouths and let Jebus into your hearts! Oh Lordy Lord Lord! Hep me Jebus! Hep me!!!!"
Hmmmm, why are so many preachers on the DL?
Run Louis! Pete's getting frisky.
Pete,
I'm located in London-ish. Why? Are you going to come and picket my godless abode and workplace with prim little banners?
I presume from your comments re: King's (IIRC) that you live in London. If so, they have (IIRC again) a decent philosophy dept. Get over there and gain some basic perspective and knowledge. It'll do you the power of good.
Louis
Louis, re the colonies, ironic isn't it. All the so called crooks got sent mainly to OZ and overall they are not at all a bad bunch. Well apart from nearly always beating the Northern Sides in rugby, except us Welsh this last time anyway :). However, most of the religiotards went to the US and look how that turned out :) Who would have thunk it.
Ok that's a pretty thin description of the process. But we'll go there.
And how do they verify?
What makes you think we don't understand you, child? You won't shut up, giving us a crystal clear picture of your mental incapacity.
You recall correctly, and I was merely interested. The UK is for some reason far more Godless than the US.
Pete, then don't comment on science. Listen to the authorities of science, like many of the posters here. Your god has no place in science.
WTF?
The whole point of [b]Dogma*[/b]is that is may not be, and is not, questioned!
That's why we call people like you, who refuse to budge based on presented contrary evidence, dogmatic.
Idiot.
* Dogma: [n] a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof; a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative
John Phillips,
Re: Rugby Test Matches.
Congrats! As a Welshman you must be (in general) made up by the Welsh team's performance of late (last match not withstanding). I've explained about the Aussies et al before. Colonials don't understand the purpose of a test match. As the game of rugby was invented in England, if anyone plays us and wins then they have obviously failed to play in the appropriately polite manner. Test matches are in fact a test of the manners, civility, and politeness of a team.
HTH HAND ;-)
Louis
Rev, Despite what you may think I have a full understanding of peer review as a process. It is probably the best method devised for determining what can be called knowledge and what cannot. Theologians also engage in peer review in a sense.
Does that include the English scrum? (I speak as a Scotsman, so we may use this against you!)
Dogma,
You will find very few theologians who readily accept dogma. Yes it's important but in many case it is impossible to ascertain why said dogma should be held as infalliable. I am fully aware of this.
...or tries. I have an idea...let's start an email campaign to the good Representative. Really! And request that we all get banned from Oklahoma. Kind of like a do-not-call list, but a do-not-visit list, for atheists, evolution-accepters, etc. I'd be proud to be on that list. Does anybody have experience setting up petition sites? For every name that signs up he'd get another email.
http://luckyatheist.blogspot.com
In the interest of all that is truthful, would that not be theology. Bloody stupid git.
Louis, your snark fu is mighty. I would not want to cross paths with you. But I will say it is a good thing that London is vast. Would not want the Rookie finding you. The Rookie is oblivious to snark fu.
Does anyone here have a group login to JSTOR on hand out of interest.
Yet you have nothing to say about Webster Cook and you dismiss the case of the raped nine year old girl as a case of "No True Catholic". Bloody stupid git.
Theologians also engage in peer review in a sense.
In the same "sense" that fashion critics at the Emperor's parade do, I suppose. Sure, they may gather together and compare notes, but there's no referent against which to check their conclusions. And I'm sure you can't understand the difference, but, see, scientists are always up against this annoying bugger called reality, which is the ultimate arbiter. Peer review is ultimately a check against "wishing it were so." Anybody, even scientists, can get so close to their work that they have trouble assessing it critically. That's what peer review does: subjects another worker's methods and conclusions to heartless scrutiny by experts in the field.
Pete I just wanted to verify because you seem to have such an issue understanding the process that science is supported and verified.
How does a Theologian verify what they are "peer reviewing"?
Whether they're Catholic or not is irrelevant. The Cook incident was an act of incitement and hatred.
@ Tony #472:
Sorry I should have clarified. Test matches test the civility, manners and politeness of any team OPPOSING England. We can, of course, do anything we like.* Honestly, didn't you all get the memo?
*Except, it would appear, in the presence of a South African referee. Ooooh I didn't go there did I? Yes I did and dammit....actually it's a joke, the reffing was fine! We've just got a pack of over ambitious donkeys atm. Johnson needs to sit on them. Hard! Anyway, enough rugby derailerisation.
@ Janine # 475:
You have my thanks, it is always nice to have one's meagre talents recognised by a GrandMistress of the Snark.
{bows}
Anyway, I'd feel sorry for Pete encountering me. I take far less prisoners in real life. Real life is far too short for moron-tolerance. On line I can even be......nice.....well, sort of.
Louis
Louis, yep, them damn colonials just don't play cricket :)
And yes, it has again been a pleasure to be a Welsh rugby supporter for the last few years, the French game notwithstanding. Especially as I was originally spoilt by the greats of British and Welsh rugby starting with the victorious 1971 Lions tour of NZ where my ex housemaster and rugby coach was the Lions coach.
Yeah, that Bill Donahue is a hate filled blow hard bastard.
Okay, that's great! So how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin? They've had plenty of time to peer review that, so I assume the question has been settled, hasn't it?
John Phillips,
My envy.
You has it.
Louis
To engage in theological peer review usually require taken a certain premise as a given (to a lesser extent this is true in science as well) and evaluating it from there for logical inconsistency and all of the fallacies. What can be verified is (e.g. issues of translation, historical fact etc.)
I was planning to attend but decided not to. There are no advanced tickets and they expect a couple thousand people to show up to stand in line. Some are planning to get there 12 hours early. You know there will be protests by nutcase christian groups and violence may break out. It's not a place I want to take my son to so we decided not to attend. Bummer, I was really looking forward to seeing Dawkins.
When I say Oklahoma is the worst place we have ever lived, I truly mean it. I cannot wait to get restationed and get the hell out of this disgusting place.
Dawkins needs to take precautions, this is one area where his life may actually be in danger, seriously. PZ, please tell him to be careful.
I had one of the most enjoyable few hours of the early 1990's sitting in a pub in London watching a Cricket game with about 10 70+ year old men and not having a clue what was going on. I had them explain it to me as things went on and beers were drank. I don't think I understood 75% of what they were telling me, but it was fun.
I played on our University Rugby squad if that's anything.
So us colonists are all that "uncultured".
;)
The comparison of what scientists take as a given and what theologians take is equivocation.
Give me a comparison of the givens from each group above and explain to me how they are similar. Maybe I'm just confused what you mean.
And best of all, there is no need to try to make any of it fit into reality.
I can't wait to hear what Dawkins thinks of this incident. Hopefully now he will understand how deep the stoopid is here in the US.
Please, don't feign ignorance. I'm off, until next time...
Oh Rookie, there is no need to point that out, you are always off. Way off.
Patricia, how bent are the tines of your fork from sticking it in the Rookie's thick hide?
I understand. You prefer pure, untrammeled ignorance. The real stuff. Home grown, with that country-fresh aroma and satisfyingly meaty taste.
Idiot.
Was that directed at me?
No I'm genuinely interested in what you think are equivalent "givens" in scientific peer review and theological peer review.
You running off is at a convenient time.
It's about worn to the nubbins' from constant re-sharpening.
Please, *THWACK* don't feign ignorance. *THWACK* I'm off, *THWACK* oof until next time...*THWACK* ow...
That is a disturbing image, and Rev, the review it in the same manner that one would review literature in a journal. It doesn't deal with empirical facts and so cannot be treated in the same manner.
I guess you go through a lot of forks. This must be an expensive hobby.
Ravyen Alandria wrote: When I say Oklahoma is the worst place we have ever lived, I truly mean it. I cannot wait to get restationed and get the hell out of this disgusting place.
"Restationed" may be the key here. Are you in Lawton? I lived in Oklahoma for 7 years (2 in Norman, 5 in OKC), and while the denizens as a body politic may be scary, on a personal level they're some of the kindest, friendliest folks I've ever met. Twenty years after I left, I still count a bunch of Okies among my closest friends in the world. I doubt Dawkins has anything to fear physically.