1. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #207713 by RobDinsmore on July 10, 2008 at 5:58 am

But is the scrambling a coding process or a random process? If the latter, the the information is erased. Or am I missing something?

It's not really a coding process. Entropy just tells you how many ways a system could be rearranged and still be the same system. I think the simplified version of the idea is that the information is all the state variables needed to describe the black hole. Things like angular momentum, total spin, ie any quantum mechanical quantity that would appear to disappear in a singularity is still recorded in the black hole's entropy. When the black hole evaporates the particles emitted decrease the entropy in a way that can be accounted for.

2. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #201129 by RobDinsmore on June 29, 2008 at 5:35 am

I think it would be a good idea to start teaching children these important "facts" early in their lives. Perhaps that knowledge could act as a rudimentary BS filter.

3. Scientists confirm that parts of earliest genetic material may have come from the stars

Comment #192905 by RobDinsmore on June 14, 2008 at 7:41 am

I believe you're refering to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, the 2nd law is just heat [energy] transfer (hot --> cold [heat transfer]) & entropy does not change in a closed system. Earth's in an open system.
Also, chaos in laymen terms is not really the same as chaos in chemistry & physics.

This is incorrect. dS >= 0 in a closed system.
If entropy did not change in a closed system then you could theoretically set up an isolated system in an extremely low entropy configuration , ie all the gas confined to a small percentage of the total volum, e and expect it to stay that way.

4. Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests

Comment #185624 by RobDinsmore on May 28, 2008 at 7:59 am

Another contends that religion benefited our ancestors. Rather than being a by-product of other brain functions, it is an adaptation in its own right. In this explanation, natural selection slowly purged human populations of the non-religious.

I really don't think it is as black and white as the article seems to imply. Religion could have merely emerged and gained acceptance because people liked it. Behavior doesn't need to be an "adaptation" in order to evolve it can simply be an adoption.

5. Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?

Comment #184252 by RobDinsmore on May 24, 2008 at 7:07 am

Rearranging macroscopic objects does not increase the number of accessible microstates, therefore no change in entropy!

Although this statement may have some validity with respect to the sock drawer comment, it is not universally true. If those macroscopic objects effect the energetics of the system then all bets are off.


I also have a comment on the article. What the hell is this that it can pass as a piece of scientific journalism. "Time may run backwards" OK what would that even mean? Not even a hint is provided and then they go on to talk about entropy without even giving a simple reason for why high entropy states are more probable. They use the old all the gas in the room never goes to the corner argument incorrectly. Mixing milk into coffee is a nonequilibrium process. You cannot talk about the entropy until the cold milk you just poured into your hot coffee has had time to come to thermal equilibrium. After that occurs then you can use the "gas" argument. There really is no need to be sloppy when trying to explain science in lay terms.

And again what would time moving backwards even mean? Does it mean that all things tend towards order because fluctuations only happen in one direction or that fluctuations do not even happen? It's hard to read something like this and take it seriously if they don't even hint at the consequences.

6. Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory

Comment #182947 by RobDinsmore on May 21, 2008 at 6:33 am

He is not a professor, he is a lecturer. Big difference. I should hope no one would be given tenure for such a lousy research topic.

When I read the first line I was hoping that it would be an article saying this was how the shroud was made, end of story. Sadly its not.

Well at least we now know that Jesus emitted carbon monoxide, the holy asphyxiant.

7. Face to faith

Comment #181749 by RobDinsmore on May 18, 2008 at 6:39 am

Personally, I'm glad I'm not amoral, because that would mean being immoral wouldn't be any fun.

If you believe this statement to be correct you either misunderstand the definition of the words used or are misguided in an attempt to be funny.

A large part of what most consider morality is completely arbitrary and much of what I do on a daily basis, unprotected sex, swearing, treat gay people with respect, what have you, is considered immoral by others, but is something that should be amoral ( except the respect, thought that could be substituted with respectfully ignore and still not be immoral).

8. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #181745 by RobDinsmore on May 18, 2008 at 6:17 am

from LeeC

If the question about God doesn't interfere with your work, then there is no problem believing in God I suppose.

As far as I can tell this is true. In my physics dept there are many xtans and some are actually creationists. Even some of those do astrophysics, but most are condensed matter people. They all just work around their beliefs because the bible says nothing about cooper pairs or Fermi levels. They do pretty good science, but they are in no way good scientists as they reject the scientific method when it suits their own personal bias.

9. I Am Evolution

Comment #178835 by RobDinsmore on May 12, 2008 at 6:06 am

After a degree in Mathematical Physics, a career as an engineer, and decades of pleasure from reading about science (many books each year, New Scientist each week, etc), I am still cautious about what scientists say!

As you should be, but more so towards individual scientists and not the aggregate. On average science gets things right and it is OK to take some of it on "faith" (accepting their analysis to be reasonable and their understanding of previous works to be sufficient that they do not contradict any fundamental physics etc) because it takes way too much effort to be a specialist in this day and age.

Yes most of the population is grossly ignorant about fundamental science. It would be nice if they could be taught to trust the scientific community as a whole. There are millions of us out here now and many millions in the past and future that put countless lifetimes of work into painting the most consistent picture of the universe and constantly improving it. People should be made aware of the shear magnitude of work that goes into science, and that is where society is failing.

10. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165184 by RobDinsmore on April 21, 2008 at 7:26 am

Gay "rights."

Anyone who writes such a line really should not be taken seriously. What is the other side to this argument? Gays don't deserve rights? WTF? Yeah we "PC liberals" are just one sided morons for having the idea that all people should be afforded the same rights.

At least his last name sounds close to what he is, a Bozo :)

11. Science Debate 2008

Comment #161455 by RobDinsmore on April 15, 2008 at 10:04 am

"America's seemingly inexorable decline" ? Look at any issue of Nature, Science, PNAS etc etc What percentage of papers are presented from American labs/researchers? It must be approaching 90%. I suspect also that to gain points in any debate candidates will have to pay lip service to alternative therapies etc. Would any of the candidates risk dismissing ID in a science debate? I do like the idea of such a debate however

Even if it is 90%( 10/13 reports in last Science) as you say, you are picking elitist journals, which often publish based on the lab the research was done it and the author's connections. You would then have to look at the authors names and see where they end up in 5 or 10 years. Graduate students come form China, do their PhDs and perhaps a postdoc or 2 and then go back to China for their careers.

Also look at other journals. APL, Applied Physics letters, for example has a lot of papers from non US labs. The results in this journal are not as sexy as those in Nature or Science, but they show work done on advanced technology. Another piece of anecdotal evidence comes from my lab. A Korean postdoc who works in my lab says that he has to get a Science or Nature paper in order to compete for academic jobs at top Korean universities. So his intent is to get a good publication in an elite journal and then set up shop back in Korea. The paper would of course appear to come from UIUC.

12. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161434 by RobDinsmore on April 15, 2008 at 9:41 am

When I was in high school(public) I am pretty sure that a gay couple would have been ostracized if they went to a dance together. Heck they would be ridiculed for just coming out. I am not sure things have changed that much in the last 15 years in Massachusetts, but perhaps I am wrong. What is the attitude towards gays among teenagers these days?

Also I find it kind of advantageous, although reprehensible, that xtians, and muslims alike tend to treat gays as they do. (Obviously I mean the nonviolent shunning, not the extreme violence) It seems to me that gays are gaining more and more social acceptability and as such their treatment by religious factions is yet another thing that highlights their built in, god approved, hateful bigotry. I just think that the more aspects of religion tend to clash with the prevailing moral zeitgeist the more traction they will lose with future generations.

13. Science Debate 2008

Comment #161046 by RobDinsmore on April 14, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Well I signed it. Lets see what will come of it.

They just debated jesus last night, perhaps they would like to discuss a real issue.

14. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159442 by RobDinsmore on April 12, 2008 at 7:55 am

I would like to remind the idealist who think the best option is to vote her out of 2 important things:

1) She is the incumbent Democratic candidiate in an area that almost always votes for the person with the "D" next to their name.

2) The primaries were in February and that was the last chance to have a democrat run against her unless she withdraws from the race or resigns from office.


With those two facts in mind what is the best option? I highly doubt it that enough people heard about this to really hurt her reelection chances and would they really remember this come November when they are there primarily to vote for Obama? ( assuming he gets the nod). Unfortunately this country doesn't really have the option to speak with your vote since there are really only ever 2 choices.

I think the best option is for all Illinois democrats, especially those in the 27th district to voice their concern about this and to see what happens or wait two years to vote for an opposing D candidate.

15. Anti-evolution bill clears another hurdle

Comment #157509 by RobDinsmore on April 9, 2008 at 8:02 am

38. Comment #157497 by discipline on April 9, 2008 at 7:30 am
As a former resident of New England now living in rural Virginia, I often wish that the South had perhaps not won the Civil War, but at least been allowed to secede from the union. Problem solved....

I have a similar situation. I moved from Boston to central Illinois for my doctorate. Now the University area has plenty of intelligent academic types, but the locals, whoa!. There are so many goddamn churches with signs saying Jesus this and Jesus that. There are large churches in the middle of cornfields with no other structures for miles and miles. It really opened my eyes to the problem. In Mass all the religion seemed to be about solemn child molestation instead of this evangelical bullshit. I suppose I was lucky that I was a fat kid who grew up in Mass.

The one hope I have is due to the high correlation between rural and jesus/republican and urban democratic.

16. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156834 by RobDinsmore on April 8, 2008 at 10:02 am

I emailed and caller for her resignation. I plan on calling my state representative as well. I bet she never imagined her career would vanish so quickly.

Now will she blame satan or assume god is testing her faith?
:)

17. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156253 by RobDinsmore on April 7, 2008 at 7:40 am

@ hungarianelephant

The problem comes from the fact that these children will cry "offense" because the teacher refuses to acknowledge their erroneous beliefs. Another problem is that even if they are taught evolution they are still so strongly biased against it. You can't show someone the stars if they refuse to look up.

18. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #156118 by RobDinsmore on April 6, 2008 at 8:33 pm

24. Comment #156022 by ivo on April 6, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Yeah, thank you Crossman. That Overcoming Bias site looks promisingly interesting. The thought on "emergence" talk explaining as much as "magic" talk seems smack on. May I, tentatively, point at two further suspects: "non-linear" and "complexity".

Another possible reason that such concepts catch on (other than the fact that lazy thinkers can use them to explain anything at all :-) is that they may help knowledgeable experts sell their ultimately reductionistic explanations to an intrinsically anti-reductionistic public. For instance --- Look how the mind works: its from all these tiny mindless computing gadgets that [adding up to something bigger and nobler than its parts] thought [tada!] *emerges*. In other words, it may also be a way of nurturing some holistic penchant, in a hopefully harmless way. (Better that invoking God or phlogiston, say.)

Wow aren't we arrogant in our lack of understanding of the study of emergent phenomenon. It is in no way a form of antireductionism. Basically it is applying the type of modeling that one would apply to different phase transitions or other critical phenomena and trying to see how that actually leads to the emergent property. Real physicists study this stuff and just because there might be some idiots that use words they don't understand it does not invalidate the idea.
And what is so bad about nonlinearity? Have you tried to study any nonlinear effect lately?

so is this really a bad idea?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group

19. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155321 by RobDinsmore on April 4, 2008 at 10:21 am

What's your point scottishgeologist? If the God of the Bible does indeed exist, there might be a very strong case for being prepared to meet him, don't you think? If he does not, not all that much is lost by believing in Him.

If you believe in such a fairytale and are flat out wrong then you can never truly hope to understand yourself or the people around you. Thinking like that is nearly criminal in it's fallacy.

I feel sorry for you.

Besides if God is real, he would not hold something so petty as not believing in him against anyone because the Bible says he is forgiving. It also says he wont forgive you. And that Jesus wants us all dead for having better things to waste our time with that defending a few hundred pages of text against honest research done by thousands, if not millions of scientists.

20. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #155014 by RobDinsmore on April 4, 2008 at 4:30 am

No, I don't think Robertson is a creationist - but he is a dishonest, opportunistic little bigot of a man who will use, abuse or distort anything he can lay his sweaty hands on in order to make himself feel important and worthwhile. I really don't think it matters to him what is actually true or not, just whether he can use it to score points in his own crazy little game of self-aggrandisement.

I don't think it is fair to call these people dishonest. They are more then likely fully unaware of how irrational their beliefs and behavior are. True they certainly ignore evidence that contradicts their ideas, but it is because their ideas control their mental programming. Or in other words their minds are pretty much impaired and we should probably feel sorry for them more than we should attribute malicious intent to their actions.

But the problem with labeling them as mentally defective is that it is just as "offensive" to these people as calling them liars. But I do believe we can use softer terms and promote the ideas that religious people are blindly controlled by their own personal bias and that their actions and statements reflect this aspect of human psychology rather than active dishonesty, which would require them to really know that they are wrong.

He may not be a full fledged creationist, but he certainly has a strong belief in the xtian god and he is desperately defending his belief, because for some reason that too is a common human behavior.

21. Who wants to kill the elderly?

Comment #153809 by RobDinsmore on April 2, 2008 at 5:43 am

I just want to chime in on my agreement to what has already been posted.

The author claims that religion is a myth but he does not condemn the belief in that myth for he concedes that it may have some value. Actually he goes a little further than that and says it fulfills a universal need.

I, of course, condemn this idea. Myths have no value outside of entertainment or as the subject of scientific inquiry. There is no universal need for a myth based world view, though it does seem likely that it is a universal phenomenon, at least in human culture.

22. Christian Founders 3D Adventure Computer Game

Comment #153156 by RobDinsmore on April 1, 2008 at 6:19 am

As a side note:

Has anyone been watching the docudrama on John Adams on HBO? How close is the portrayal of the founding fathers' religiosity in that show to what is held to be true by non biased historians? There certainly is a lot of "god this" and "god that" and of course the terrible swearing in on the bible.

Jefferson comes across as a true visionary though and I would like to learn more about him if I ever get the time.

23. My quest to get de-baptised

Comment #152565 by RobDinsmore on March 31, 2008 at 8:14 am

First of all, is that even a practical solution to circumcision? Second, even if it is practical, it can't restore any sensitivity that may have been lost in the original procedure.

From what I have read on the topic it is hit or miss when it comes to restoring some sensitivity. Probably has something to do with time spent circumcised and overall sensitivity. Also I do recall several devices on the market designed to pull the skin had names that made me chuckle.

24. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152316 by RobDinsmore on March 30, 2008 at 5:04 pm

So does the extent to which the Koran in more brutal and intolerant than the account for why Muslim fundamentalists are more violent that xtian ones? Or is it more of a matter of numbers?

25. In His Name We Pray, Ramen

Comment #151757 by RobDinsmore on March 29, 2008 at 10:19 am

Not that I believe this kind of nonsense, but I am always tempted to equate the xtian view of the universe with that of a computer simulation. Here god wrote in the standard model, GR, etc as the rules and put the Earth at 6000 years ago with these silly fake fossils as the initial conditions and hit run on his super complex computer. Of course numerical error is responsible for all the physics we cannot yet understand and the "soul" is merely the portion of memory containing each individuals thoughts, so of course he know all of thoughts. He then interferes with this simulation from time to time just to see how it reacts. It also explains why he gets so angry when we don't appreciate how much work he put into getting this simulation to work. I mean c'mon have any of you tried to get a simulation that works on timescales that span ~100 orders of magnitude. Holy shit is that hard.

26. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151414 by RobDinsmore on March 28, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Children are born atheist, you have to teach them to be theist.

This isn't strictly true. Although children don't pop out of the womb and immediately thank Jesus, they do tend to attribute intent to almost all happenings. Ie someone made the wind blow, etc. Now this is just normal developmental psychology but it more closely reduces to theism than atheism.

Fortunately most people on this site grew up and dropped their childish ways of looking at things.

27. Expelled from Expelled: PZ story goes global

Comment #150509 by RobDinsmore on March 27, 2008 at 3:23 am

Bonzai:
Heard that they are going to put up an hour long discussion between RD and PZ over the incident here. More he says she says and for a whole bloody hour! The fan boys and girls no doubt are salivating for it.

Oh, brother, spare me.

I have to agree with your sentiment here. This site is a little to fan boyish and I have actually considered writing a complaint about it. I don't know how something can be billed as a "clear thinking oasis" when it keep jamming all these RD images down your throat and promoting him like some sort of, for lack of a better word, god. My idea of clear thinking is ideas without BS embellishment or celebrity attached to them.

28. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149233 by RobDinsmore on March 25, 2008 at 9:44 am

From: Tacitus

Sue Blackmore has long done sterling work as a skeptic investigating paranormal claims. It's news to me that she's given up the investigating, but it's clear from the bitterness in her voice on a couple of answers that she finally came to the end of her tether when dealing with those charlatans. I don't blame her one bit!

Actually she started out trying to find evidence for the paranormal. Read her blurb in Edge about what she changed her mind about.( It's linked form her homepage).

It makes the debate rather interesting because each side, in a sense, are converts. Now I don't know how McGrath converted, he didn't really make himself clear, but I have a lot of respect for how Sue did.

29. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148858 by RobDinsmore on March 24, 2008 at 7:51 am

@ Spinoza.

I think what needs to be emphasized is that if you want to open your mouth as a proponent of a view (and against another view), say, in a debate, you better know what the hell you're arguing against... and you better be able to do more than just parrot stock responses...

This quote captures the essence of so much of the bullshit I read in forums such as these. Take the US democratic election for example. I wont go into details, but I can tell you that from time to time I read through the comments on CNN in hopes of finding some signs of independent, intelligent thought.

However this is human nature for those humans that cannot recognize it in themselves and move beyond it. It does not exist because of "dumbed down" books, rather, there is something in whatever view they adopt that attracts them. Its unavoidable and it should be taken advantage of because at the very lease these people get to vote too. Also the more parrots we have reading these posts, the more likely we are to open their eyes to their flaws and get them to start thinking more critically. After all if we are out there to convert people it is to a state of mind where they actually think about things, not to adopt our views.

One more thing I do think you are a bit elitist when it comes to pop science books. I read as many pop science books that I have time for because I am more than capable of extrapolating the consequences of the ideas put forth in them. Why do I need to read something written for Ph.D's in a field other than my own narrow subfield of physics? It takes a great deal of intellectual prowess to be able to word ideas so concisely that any undergraduate can get the gist of and any Ph.D can decide what topics they want to explore in more detail.

30. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148720 by RobDinsmore on March 23, 2008 at 4:34 pm

I blame Darwinian evolution for Hitler. What else am I supposed to blame, Satan?

sorry I couldn't resist the inappropriate and unfunny attempt at humor

31. The science of religion: Where angels no longer fear to tread

Comment #148515 by RobDinsmore on March 23, 2008 at 8:37 am

I really don't agree with the idea that religion needs to serve any evolutionary need when it comes to individuals or to a species. It probably evolved to fill some of the space left when we went from being hunter-gatherers to settling into agrarian villages or perhaps a little before that. Once people began to interact with each other for extended periods of time for reasons beyond just plain survival culture was born and religion is just an element of culture. It exists because there was time and energy available for it to do so and it stuck around because it was able to captivate people better than the other "wastes of time" available.

32. Flipping particle could explain missing antimatter

Comment #146940 by RobDinsmore on March 19, 2008 at 3:07 pm

This Bs meson reminds me of the BS boson, named Dinesh D'Souza, who changes his argumentation about as fast as our flipping particle, when confronted in debate by an atheist.

BS was the first thing I thought of when I read this, then I checked the calendar and told myself to read more. One can never bee to careful this time of year. :)

33. The atheist delusion

Comment #144248 by RobDinsmore on March 15, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Damn he got me.

Yes I do think the world would be better off if they thought like me. I.e. that they think critically about their own beliefs and question what they are told by others even when it seems feasible. I am such a hypocrite. But then again if people did that to his statements then they would most surely disagree with most of them.

34. Out of the Blue

Comment #140765 by RobDinsmore on March 8, 2008 at 2:39 pm

There are lots of models out there, but this is the only one that is totally biologically accurate.

Why must some scientists blatantly exaggerate their claims in an attempt to dumb them down?

Totally biologically accurate? What is that supposed to even mean? Computational power can only classically simulate a virus for a few ps or ns each hour. A neuron is far more complex so clearly this "total accuracy" has nothing to due with simulating all the important physics responsible for the biology.

At best they are modeling the brain from a higher level and making a lot of approximations in order to study the effects of communications between these neurons. It's interesting stuff indeed, but it doesn't need to be sold to the public as "total accuracy".

35. Please Call Earth. We Still Haven't Found You.

Comment #137627 by RobDinsmore on March 3, 2008 at 9:17 am

I never considered the energy concerns either. I am glad it was pointed out. Of course we will try to radiate less wasted signals into space. I guess it makes the time a technologically advanced species is detectable many orders of magnitude smaller than it needs to be in order for us to have any real chance at detecting other civilizations.

Are there any other means for detection besides radio waves?

36. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #133391 by RobDinsmore on February 26, 2008 at 6:45 am

Prof Turok gave a colloquium in my department last semester. It was all fine and good except for the fact that he only spent 2 minutes talking about real physics, ie how to test his theory. His ideas could be tested in as little as 5 years IIRC. That's what sets this brand of string theory apart from the others.

And those that criticize him because he tries to separate God from science, don't. He separated the concept of God from science, not the existence on the Christian, muslim, etc God. Dawkins himself makes that distinction and it is valid.

37. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #124358 by RobDinsmore on February 9, 2008 at 7:30 am

I think emmet's analysis may prove right, but if not he has identified the crux of the issue here. We have no idea what he is connecting, disconnecting or even measuring for that matter. Sure he makes some claims, but as far as we are really concerned, his device is a black box and his dmms read whatever he tells them to read.

I teach an electronics lab to senior physics undergrads and I can tell you from experience that they can produce very strange measurements because they are just learning how to do these things. These kids are further along in their education than this nut and it takes them some time to get a good feel for what is going on in circuits. If this guy really doesn't know the difference between open and short I feel a little sorry for him. Shoulda stayed in school bub.

Now the biq question here is what is going on with this MIT guy? Did he get a chance to examine this guys device and perform his own analysis on it? Did he agree to look at this guy's device with intent to debunk it, perhaps as a consultant for a would be investor?

38. MySpace: No place for Atheists?

Comment #119091 by RobDinsmore on January 31, 2008 at 10:06 am

It seems to me that there is much overreacting here. Some hacker ruined the group and the "customer service" people screwed the pooch when they deleted the group.

Boycotting myspace is not going to accomplish anything. It is the most popular site and segregating atheists to one site rather than both is not going to benefit anyone but the jesus freak hacker that caused all of this in the first place.

39. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116004 by RobDinsmore on January 25, 2008 at 8:49 am

Whew! I have been living on the border of Jesusland and the sane US for nearly 5 years and this stuff still surprises me. I guess living on the east coast and being sheltered by academia for so long shielded me form this insanity.

40. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65067 by RobDinsmore on August 22, 2007 at 7:58 pm

I quickly typed out this response:


I am not at all faithful. At an early age I recognized that all cultures seemed to have religion and that those religions were always different form one another. This was the case up until they were saved by missionaries and the like and brought a civilized religion like Christianity. This did not teach me what it was intended to teach, namely that Christianity was the only true belief, but that religious beliefs were arbitrary, and the arrogance and bigotry associated with them could be out right evil.

I am of the opinion that religion is attacking modern society. This country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state yet we can divide the political landscape of the nation along lines of faith and come up with nearly the same result as red state/blue state.

The fact that this survey even exists is representative of the problem. Many religious people think that us free thinking scientists and people of similar mind sets are attacking them because we don't share their beliefs. It is sad and frightening that or society has degraded into such a state and I blame it on the attitudes that we were brought up with and are perpetuated in the media and government policy. The attitude of which I speak is of course that religious views are somehow sacred and should be respected above all other considerations. The idea that people should be allowed to believe in whatever they want to believe in is admirable and I am not against that, but the idea that those beliefs should entitle a person to indoctrinate their child, or any child for that matter, is ludicrous. Children need to be protected from the abuse they will receive as a part of being brought up in a fundamentalist family and they will end up being just as paranoid as the people whose responses this survey was created in order to solicit.

As an atheist and an American I demand that people like myself be represented in positive light in the media. As it is now we are vilified most of the people with any religious inclinations and the only way that will ever change is if public awareness is increased allowing people to see for themselves that we are not all angry heathens.