1. 'Glowing' jellyfish grabs Nobel

Comment #262791 by bamafreethinker on October 9, 2008 at 12:40 pm

They interviewed the scientist who discovered the gene for this trait (and shared it with the above prize winners) on NPR this morning. He's driving a courtesy transportation van for a car dealership here in Huntsville, AL. He's been unable to find a job in his field for over two years now... what a shame!

Edit: His name is Douglas C. Prasher and he has a super good attitude - didn't complain one bit.

2. Christian review of the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #253544 by bamafreethinker on September 24, 2008 at 2:30 pm

How does the sceptic differentiate between Giberson's type of Christian, who believes in some supernatural events without evidence, to the more fundamental Christian, who believe in a few more supernatural things without evidence?

I think that beliefs held on the age of the earth, the explanation of biological diversity, and the belief in an intervening god is a good way to spot a fundie (oh, and don't forget eternal punishment/rewards).

Writings like The Selfish Gene, programs like those found on the Discovery Channel, and articles like the one above, are the most effective ways of dismantling a fundie into a harmless moderate IMO. After that, I don't really care what they believe - as long as it doesn't pick my pocket, try to control my kid's education, or blow up infidels, etc. Books like The God Delusion will likely soften few fundies into moderates.

If a religious person is okay with an ancient earth, evolution, and other well established scientific theories - then let him keep his impotent imaginary friend.

EDIT: And thanks everyone for the Sagan recommendations - looks like I'll start with DHW and PBD

3. Christian review of the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #253505 by bamafreethinker on September 24, 2008 at 1:54 pm

This piece is intended for a Christian audience. When he says "our most precious knowledge" perhaps the "our" is referring, not to all of mankind, but to Cristianity. "Precious" is in the eye of the beholder - so maybe it's not so strangely WTF in this context.

EDIT: "Our precious flag" could hold many different connotations based on what flag you're talking about and to whom you are talking.

4. Christian review of the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #253382 by bamafreethinker on September 24, 2008 at 11:37 am

For this to be printed in a conservative Christian publication is truly wonderful! Millions of the people who need to read this the most will read it. Personally I loved the article in any context, but when I imagine its audience - that makes it even better.

I've never read any Carl Sagan, but he's moving to the top of my list.

5. It's All In The Hips: Early Whales Used Well Developed Back Legs For Swimming, Fossils Show

Comment #249573 by bamafreethinker on September 18, 2008 at 9:58 am

This proves that there are at least two people who accept evolution in Alabama... me and that guy : )

6. How 'Secondary' Sex Characters Can Drive The Origin Of Species

Comment #242616 by bamafreethinker on September 4, 2008 at 7:29 am

I've often wondered if sexual selection might have a great deal to do with why humans look so much different from the other apes. As for me, the less a woman looks like an ape (less body/facial hair, rounder butt, etc.), the more sexually attractive I find her. A "monkey butt" on a woman is a major turn-off for me - not sure why. Could that be a significant factor that drove us to look like we do? Once we were able to think of ourselves as superior to apes, perhaps looking ape-like was a real turn off sexually? A relatively hairless body may have its disadvantages in most climates, but if turns us on, we figure a way to survive without it - like a peacock overcomes the cost of his elaborate feathers? Just a thought.

7. How 'Secondary' Sex Characters Can Drive The Origin Of Species

Comment #242075 by bamafreethinker on September 3, 2008 at 11:14 am

For she doted upon their paramours [lovers], whose flesh [genitals] is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [semen] is like the issue of horses. - Ezekiel 23:20 KJV

Some of the reasoning behind the Abrahamic religions' treatment of women as property, as apposed to them being free agents, seems to be driven by penis envy : )

An insecure bunch of men on so many different levels.

If you can't win a woman's heart with your charm, hygiene, personality, physical condition, age, etc... then use religion and its arsenal of tools. But what you end up with is a jealous, untrusting, insecure, man who is afraid to even let his property go out in public - a living hell for both parties.

The long horned beetle must be constantly on watch to make sure a fleshier male doesn't sneak in and win the heart of one of his lady beetles. In a free beetle society, the female could just pick the one she finds more attractive - whether he be long horned or long membered.

What survival (reproductive) advantage does long horns (alone) have though? Larger horns are usually accompanied by bigger muscles and physical size which have a more intuitive survival (and hence reproductive) advantage; or is this simply the result of being placed in a more (or less) competitive environment?

EDIT: And we can speculate that the race of people described in Ezekiel above, survived and who's offspring still exist and thrive as modern day actors in the porn industry. Why don't the fundies use this passage as proof that the bible is inspired - no wait... it's because Christians don't watch porn isn't it? : )

8. How 'Secondary' Sex Characters Can Drive The Origin Of Species

Comment #242005 by bamafreethinker on September 3, 2008 at 9:52 am

So that's why the devil is in such a bad mood... long horns!

God politely asks Satan; "Do you want long horns or a lo..."
Satan impatiently interrupts; "Long horns, long horns!!!
God replies; "But that means that you'll have a sho... "
"Just give me the damned horns!" shouts Satan as his face turns a bright shade of red.
"Okay, you little prick" says the maker with a smile.

9. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #239240 by bamafreethinker on August 29, 2008 at 9:48 am

Well... it could be loose your religion : ) Since Gates has left MS, I guess Word will never catch those.

Gotta go for now - headed to the beach for the weekend.

Did you check the long edit after my response to point 4? Any comments?

Enjoyed it everyone!

10. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #239198 by bamafreethinker on August 29, 2008 at 8:30 am

I've been away for a while - this ugly thing known as employment, keeps distracting me : )

Backing way up, I want to address root2squared's four points below, some of which seemed to have slipped throughthe cracks"

1) By introducing NOMA, you are implicitly acknowledging the existence of god.

2) An atheistic student now thinks that god exists (or may exist) and there are questions that should/may be addressed through methods other than the scientific method.

3) You have undermined science in an attempt to appease arrogant people and also tainted the thought process of a child with "Another way of looking at the world" which you KNOW is completely incorrect.

4) My concern here is something similar to "Better to let 10 guilty men go than to let 1 innocent man suffer". I would rather not taint a pure mind with religion than to convince 10 other students of evolution.

Without getting into all of the intricacies of NOMA, I would like to address these points as they apply to the statement Campbell made in front of his class in the contexts of biology - summarized thusly: "Science cannot prove/disprove god"

As I see it, Campbell is saying, "There may or may not be a god out there somewhere, but science is the only way to tackle the subject at hand. We don't need god to explain plant/animal diversity, because we have abundant physical proof that we can see and touch."

About your 4 points:

1) Saying that god may or may not exist is a NEUTRAL stance on his existence. If I say that IPU's may or may not exist, I am in no way acknowledging the existence of IPU's - only the possibility - no matter how infinitely small I think the chances are.

2) A high school student who has never even heard of god or considered the possibility that he may exist must have been previously home schooled and brainwashed by an extremist militant atheist family. So the sheltering of one atheist (from hearing that god may or may not exist) is more important than the opportunity to plant the seeds of freethought into the barely open minds of ten fundies?


3) Saying that god may or may not exist in no way undermining science. You may KNOW that some kind of a god does not exist or has ever existed, but that amount of dogmatic atheism is held by the tiniest of minorities. Heck, even saying god does exist doesn't undermine science as long as god minds his own business.

4) I agree with some of your points and disagree with others, but this is one of the strangest statements you've made. I know of religious parents who are frightened that little Johnny may read Paine, or Dawkins and poison his mind with the seed of doubt that may grow into atheism, but I have yet to meet an atheist who would try to shield his kid from even hearing that there are people out there who believe in god - shhhhhh...! Do you actually think that the very idea of god can poison the mind of clear thinking human? A "pure" atheistic mind??? That is the most religious, and frightful thing I read in a while. I scoffed at many of the fleas who mention dogma, evangelical, militant, and atheism in the same sentence, but perhaps it's not so far-fetched. Is there a weak atheist under that militant exterior that is afraid you will loose your atheism if some of your social peers believe in some deistic god? You speak of arrogant parents, but how are you less arrogant by insisting that the "pure" students are shielded from even discussing god? If we're not outright attacking god then we've done science a terrible injustice?

Edit: Atheism can be based on faith and dogma. If little Johnny says "I'm an atheist" and teacher asks, "Why" and Johnny replies, "Because my daddy told me there ain't no gods". Little Johnny then would be in danger of loosing his atheism - but in no way is his mind pure or free. All babies are atheists, but there comes a time, in our society at least, that some could be considered dogmatic. Atheism based on authority is still atheism but it's a type of faith. (This just popped in my head, so I am open to debate).

I would rather Campbell not have said that god is not a question for science - I think him partly wrong on that one tidbit, unless you apply it in the same sense that the tooth fairy is not a question for science. Then, I agree, science should not bother, so it's not a question for science in that context, and that could very well be the context that Campbell intended. The part where Campbell says "science cannot say what's right or wrong" is gradually becoming obsolete perhaps, but when we're talking about physical science he's probably more right than wrong.

Campbell's narrow use of NOMA in no way says anything like: "There IS a god", nor did he say that god is an alternate way of explaining things.

Edited to remove a few things that didn't sound as nice when proofread : )

11. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #238713 by bamafreethinker on August 28, 2008 at 1:44 pm

As long as the dems support gay rights and abortion, they are wasting their time courting fundies. It will not help one bit. Obama is taking an unnecessary risk (by being more religious than McCain, and by being dishonest) if you ask me. I think he would be better off leaving faith out altogether. Heck, Gore only lost the election by a few hundred votes without pandering to the IDiots and the homophobes. I hope Obama doesn't believe all the BS he is spouting about faith. McCain may be the most religious of the two, but you wouldn't know it by their words.

12. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238021 by bamafreethinker on August 27, 2008 at 2:01 pm

root2squared

Where does Campbell leave the door open for "guided" evolution?

I read nothing in the article that leads me to think that?

[Campbell] "Science explores nature by testing and gathering data," he said. "It can't tell you what's right and wrong. It doesn't address ethics. But it is not anti-religion. Science and religion just ask different questions."

"Can anybody think of a question science can't answer?"

"Is there a God?" shot back a boy near the window.

"Good," said Mr. Campbell, an Anglican who attends church most Sundays. "Can't test it. Can't prove it, can't disprove it. It's not a question for science."

This is a live, real-time discussion. Campbell didn't have time to think exactly what he was going to say, proof-read his responses, and change it to cover all the possible bases.

Where exactly do you think Campbell went wrong?

I was just trying to be funny with the "I missed the post" comment... didn't mean to be disrespectful. Perhaps we're slightly misaligned on the argument. Edit: My whole point is that PZ was wrong in criticizing Campbell for his soft, chicken-hearted (in PZ's opinion) tactics.

13. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237999 by bamafreethinker on August 27, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Bonzai

I agree, and my main argument has been this: The god that Campbell says cannot be tested, proven, disproved, etc., is the kind of god that NOMA becomes valid when applied, and that Campbell is essentially NOT playing the NOMA card as comprehensively as some are implying, IMO.

Campbell's god is obviously different (more Spinoza's-like) than the god of the fundies in his class or he would be one of them.

Science may prove that god doesn't exist, but if god-believers sit around with their fingers in their ears and refuse to use their brains, science will be as impotent (in their case) as their god. You can't just insist that people use their brains - they need guidance and training - especially those who have grown up indoctrinated the way many have (believe me... I know!) Throw them in the deep end and they will likely sink. If Campbell does his job, there will be fewer Idiots in this world, thanks to him!

14. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237948 by bamafreethinker on August 27, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Smith,

"some posters..."

I know that was lame, I didn't want to miss anyone or include anyone by mistake : )

This seems to be a principle vs practical issue and in principle I guess I'd agree with you (and the others : ) for the most part - I just don't think it's practical.

I have really enjoyed the discussion BTW.

Bama

15. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237933 by bamafreethinker on August 27, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Campbell is apparently trying his best to teach evolution the best he can with what he's got. It seems that some posters will only be happy if he (and the rest of high school teachers) also becomes an evangelical atheist and tells the religious kids that science has destroyed all forms of religion. Do you guys really think this is practical - or just the way you wish it was? Are you not okay with people who want to hang on to a deistic god if it makes them happy? Will you not rest until every human on the planet is a full-blown, I-know-there-is-no-god atheist? A religion that is totally harmless to society and science should be a person's own business. Most people who understand and accept evolution are well on there way to becoming a harmless. pro-science, productive member of society. Campbell's way of handling his class is an extremely important first step in deconstructing the harmful parts of religion.

16. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237925 by bamafreethinker on August 27, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Comment #237922 by root2squared

Please explain what part of Campbell's approach will leave students with a half-baked understanding of evolution?

Is it evolution = strong atheism or nothing?

What if your religion posits that an alien planted the first replicating cell on earth 6 billion years ago and then left it do run its course? What part of that belief system will limit in any shape form or fashion your ability to accept and understand every facet of evolution?

17. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237918 by bamafreethinker on August 27, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Comment #237905 by root2squared

Oh... I didn't realize that we had already proven that god does not exist. Sorry, I must have missed the post on RD.net : )

18. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237891 by bamafreethinker on August 27, 2008 at 11:33 am

Comment #237862 by root2squared

I'd rather alienate students than teach a contaminated version of evolution which undermines science.

What part of "science cannot disprove god" undermines evolution?

.

Any encroachment of religion in science class should not be put up with. .

What part of "science cannot disprove god" encroaches upon science class (in any meaningful way)?

So alienating the students who didn't believe in evolution to start with so that the students who already understand it don't have to hear "Science can't disprove god" is the best approach - priceless!

19. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237878 by bamafreethinker on August 27, 2008 at 11:22 am

"Can anybody think of a question science can't answer?"

"Are there invisible pink unicorns?" shot back a boy near the window.

"Good," said Mr. Campbell "...Can't test it. Can't prove it, can't disprove it. It's not a question for science."

I switched the subject from god to the IPU, because I think they're the same thing in the context of this discussion.

These silly little magic beings, in a very practical sense, really are NOT a question for science, IMO. Sure science could waste valuable resources and minds trying to disprove IPU's, but why bother? Obviously, Campbell's personal god (if he has one at all - going to church most Sundays is certainly not proof that he's a theist) must be this type of god or he would not be teaching evolution. Anyone who believes in evolution strongly enough to put his life and career on the line certainly doesn't believe in the kind of god that science can touch (yet).

I think that people who persist in saying hat Mr. Campbell is wimping out under the pretense of NOMA are failing to see the forest for the trees and should be ashamed for picking on him for his very vague reference to NOMA. (I'm still not convinced that his response to the "is there a god?" question is the same NOMA we're arguing here anyway).

If you insist that high school science teachers can and should challenge the existence of this extremely impotent deity, then I feel that you are being too greedy and unrealistic.

NOMA is a multifaceted topic and to insist that everyone should agree that NOMA has no business in a high school biology class is very nearsighted, IMO.

20. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237777 by bamafreethinker on August 27, 2008 at 6:36 am

Comment #237668 by beeline

No ravens are white

If I produced a white raven, would that not falsify your claim?

Did you mean "Some ravens are white" ?

This one seems much more difficult/impossible to falsify.

Sagan's dragon in the garage seems to be exactly the kind of god we end up dealing with if we try to use science to disprove his existence and would be a waste of a scientist's time - especially a high school science teacher's time.

All the proposed disproofs of god seem philosophical to me.

21. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237483 by bamafreethinker on August 26, 2008 at 2:39 pm

I've read a few articles on NOMA and from what I gather, it generally posits that science can't answer moral and spiritual questions and Campbell actually alludes to this just before he poses his big question. Campbell says :

"Science explores nature by testing and gathering data," he said. "It can't tell you what's right and wrong. It doesn't address ethics. But it is not anti-religion. Science and religion just ask different questions."

I can't say that I disagree with him (on the first part) here either, though science is starting to overlap philosophy and ethics with the help of thinkers like D. Dennett, J. Diamond and others.

"Science is not anti-religion"

Now that really depends heavily on how you define religion doesn't it? If your religion prompts you to believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is bunk, then science IS anti-religious - big time! If your religion tells you that the world was spoken into existence by the FSM and that we go to heaven when we die, then science will likely never answer either one of those questions.

I do disagree with the last part of his statement: "Science and religion just ask different questions." That makes no sense to me. Religion answers questions - it doesn't ask questions. Science asks questions and sometimes the answers are different from religion's, i.e. "How old is the earth? And that is where all the battles come from.

NOMA is too vague and, as you said, weak to get all in a wad about. It has some merits and it falls short in some areas, therefore I refuse to totally appose it or support it at this time.

22. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237429 by bamafreethinker on August 26, 2008 at 1:13 pm

[Campbell] "Can anybody think of a question science can't answer?"

"Is there a God?" shot back a boy near the window.

"Good," said Mr. Campbell, an Anglican who attends church most Sundays. "Can't test it. Can't prove it, can't disprove it. It's not a question for science."

Can someone please tell me exactly what is wrong with the above Q&A?

The boy didn't say: "What is the age of the earth?", or "Is evolution true?", or "Did the biblical flood really occur?" or any of a number of scientifically testable subjects.

Is this really NOMA?

Q: "Is there a god?"
A: "...It's not a question for science"

I'm afraid I'm not as studied on the NOMA argument as I'd like to be.

I am 99% behind Campbell on the "Can't test it. Can't prove it, can't disprove it..." part; but what about the "It's not a question for science" part?

What will science need to do to prove that there is no god, FSM, tooth fairy, etc.?

If the answer is: "Science can't prove that god does not exist", then would "It's not a question for science" not be accurate in that context?

Thanks in advance.

23. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #236921 by bamafreethinker on August 25, 2008 at 2:26 pm

My hat's off to you InfuriatedSciTeacher!

Thanks for all you do and all the crap you put up with (both from inside the classroom and without).

Perhaps PZ has been out of the trenches too long. As the old general shouts... "If you run out of ammo, strap on your bayonet and go hand-to-hand with the bastards!" ...from his cozy warm tent behind the lines : )

24. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #236835 by bamafreethinker on August 25, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Comment #236720 by Layla Nasreddin

PZ says this of his own teaching tactics?

Well, he [PZ] admitted in that conversation he had with Dawkins that he does NOT do that even in his own classes! Instead of attacking religion directly, he simply says (indirectly), This is the material for the course and I'm going to teach it. I won't attack your religion or mark you down for your beliefs; I will only grade you on how well you know the material.

hmmmm... I hate that chicken-hearted response... he is blowing it!

This seems very similar to the way Campbell is approaching his students to me. By his own standards then, is PZ blowing it and is chicken-hearted? (Not exactly the same thing I know - but close).

PZ could have said "I just hate it that Campbell is forced to go about teaching evolution the way he does... " Apparently PZ thinks that his own way of "not attacking religion directly" is genius and is in no way respecting religion.

25. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #236786 by bamafreethinker on August 25, 2008 at 10:16 am

Comment #236751 by King of NH

Perhaps my distaste for PZ's methods has skewed my opinions. But it seems to me that when PZ says that Campbell "blows it", that his response is "chicken-hearted", and then goes on (in the following two paragraphs) to tell us how Campbell (and the rest of school teachers) should be attacking religion directly with science, he is unnecessarily criticizing him.

I wish that we could just attack religion and that work better than what we're doing, but in my experience, attacking religion makes people more close-minded than they were before. I've lived over 40 years surrounded by creationist and if you want to get them to accept evolution (an extremely important mission - regardless of what you think about their religion) you are almost assured of failure if you start with stating that science can (and does) prove that their god doesn't exist. (That's the one criticism I have on RD's Genius of Darwin series - but I understand he was forced to take that stance by the producers)

Where in PZ's response did he say that he thinks his tactics should not be used in the bible belt? It seems to me that this is exactly what he is saying since this is where this is taking place. To me, he's saying "See how this chicken-hearted teacher is blowing it? Let me tell you how we should do it!" Maybe PZ is right, but I don't think he is.

(I do agree that PZ was fundamentally attacking our culture however and maybe my argument is slightly off target).

Imagine two equally fundamentalist schools and you go into one school teaching evolution with Campbell's approach and the other with PZ's. I'd be willing to bet you'd have more people at least answering test questions than defying them at Campbell's school. Many parents would jerk their kids out of PZ's school faster than you can say Jehovah to home school them - creating even more resistance in the future.

Getting kids to accept evolution is much more important than having them reject their ever more impotent god.

26. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #236749 by bamafreethinker on August 25, 2008 at 9:16 am

Here's what I dug up on Usher:

In the closing months of 1997, Usher embarked on a series of tour engagements including a spot on Puffy's No Way Out tour, dates with Mary J. Blige, and the opening spot on Janet Jackson's The Velvet Rope tour. My Way was certified 6x platinum in the United States. Usher received his first Grammy Award nomination as Best Male R&B Vocal Performance for "You Make Me Wanna," which was also nominated for a Soul Train Music Award as 'Best Male R&B/Soul Single.'

Uh... just noticed there's two esses in the bible scholar Ussher... sorry.

"Now, go away you English pig-dogs... before I taunt you a second time!... you kaaaaannnnnniggits!"

27. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #236740 by bamafreethinker on August 25, 2008 at 8:38 am

Comment #236720 by Layla Nasreddin

The few debates and other material I've heard/read from PZ turned me off a little. Subsequently, I have indirectly avoided delving into his media. I did read his entire response to the featured article and it seems to me that he is dissatisfied with Campbell's soft approach to the science/god separation subject.

A few of PZ's words:

"And I'm sorry, but Campbell blows it, too."

Blows it? Really? Darwin pussy-footed around religion too, but did he blow it?

PZ says of Campbell's view: "I despise that chicken-hearted answer."

Just think of the slack this poor teacher will catch from angry parents and preachers. He's probably making less that $50,000 a year and will likely have his life threatened and job in jeopardy â€" just for trying to teach a proven scientific theory! PZ should have more respect for this soldier for even trying - instead he chooses to criticize his fighting techniques!

PZ ends by saying:

"Isn't it obvious yet that a policy of temerity does not work? If we're ever going to win, we have to fight back directly at the root cause of bad science and bad education: religion."

I disagree. Let's keep winning the small battles and be patient!

He could have just as easily said something like: "I wish that we could do more, but I commend Campbell for standing up for the truth (even if it's not the whole truth) while so many others are content to sit there and do nothing. Perhaps his actions will inspire others to follow in his footsteps and even take the battle to the next level".

28. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #236729 by bamafreethinker on August 25, 2008 at 7:59 am

Were it not for those outrageous accents (think Holy Grail taunting), I would have sworn that this show was taking place in the bible belt USA! Richard does such a good job with this type of format/call-in questions.

29. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #236718 by bamafreethinker on August 25, 2008 at 7:02 am

Comment #236655 by beeline

I agree 100%. If you insult their intelligence, their minds will close and you may loose them forever.

PZ can be an idealistic militant prick sometimes. There probably is a niche for idealistic militant pricks in this battle, but I feel that it's not in high school science class. Let PZ have 'em in college! "I want it all... I want it all... I want it all... and I want it now" Yeah, but get real!

I think that Campbell's tactful, kid-glove approach will persuade those students to think for themselves and will hopefully not cause them to close their minds with a knee-jerk defensive reaction.

Teach them evolution and one of the cornerstones of their religion will be crushed. There will be no need to force atheism down their throat - they will likely nibble it down on their own. Even if they choose to hang on to some watered down, powder-puff god, at least they won't be fighting to keep evolution out of their kid's schools.

Folks (the arm-chair critics) who criticize Campbell should be ashamed. In my opinion, he's a hero on the front lines - facing the IDiots in the trenches!

30. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #234540 by bamafreethinker on August 21, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Larhule,

Thanks for spending so much effort on that last post. I really enjoyed this discussion (though I was veering off topic somewhat). I was essentially on your side from the beginning on the free speech/press subject; I just wanted to challenge myself and others to think and imagine some limit to it and try to fathom all possible scenarios; but even the ones that seem to protect innocent people on the surface likely do not in the long run. (I stated several times (per Jefferson) that I'd rather err on the side of liberty). There are many ideas that I wish people didn't/wouldn't publish, but to take away their right is to limit my own freedom.

As Thomas Paine stated:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. "

and,

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

I must admit that I had never thought so deeply about these freedoms before now, and this discussion helped me.

I guess the whole point of my initial "tough" reaction might be better explained if I use the infant rape/cure pamphlet as an example. If I stand beside freedom of speech and grant this imbecile his license to print it â€" I would still have this awful feeling in the pit of my stomach and would not issue the license with a smile on my face. A "fatigue of supporting it" if you will - that was the tough part I was referring to.

Free Press Rules!!!

Bama

31. Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain

Comment #233891 by bamafreethinker on August 20, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Punishment as a deterrent to the guilty and the would-be guilty and not a form of revenge/retaliation?

It is hard to resist the revenge part sometimes, but hey if God can do... no wait a minute...

We should tell God about this concept!

32. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #233820 by bamafreethinker on August 20, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Stevezar,

I tend to agree with you. I think McCain is much less religious, as he talks about his beliefs much less. I think he's less of a politic and I like him for that. Obama has said some pretty scary stuff. If it weren't for the likelihood that a couple of Supreme Court justices may be appointed by the next prez, I would strongly consider McCain.

Wasn't McCain the only republican that raised his hand when asked if he believes in evolution, or was that someone else?

Of course is doesn't matter since I live in Alabama. We will vote McCain in on a 70/30 landslide.

33. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #233808 by bamafreethinker on August 20, 2008 at 12:30 pm

McCain would wither on the vine after that debate

Wither on the vine?

It could possibly catapult him to the presidency.

Remember... we're talking about the US here!
Obama answering these questions honestly and correctly would convince even more people that he is the Antichrist!

34. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #233221 by bamafreethinker on August 19, 2008 at 11:45 am

If you point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger a couple times, there's a good chance they'll die.

Your statement is scientifically well-founded and I can't see that it would prompt a person who was not naturally inclined to harm someone to do so.

The infant rape/cure for HIV theory is not scientifically founded and in fact, totally un-founded, and innocent children will likely get hurt because of it. I think it is highly probable that it would cause a desperate, superstitious person to do something he would not normally do. When faced with death, even with a legitimate counter-pamphlet in hand, he may be prompted to give it a go - just in case it works. Without the pamphlet, the chances of him trying rape "on a whim" would be very unlikely.

To me, motive seems to be the key here.

A bomb-building book equips a person to do harm. If he has the resources, he can equip himself with the tools he needs to cause massive suffering. These tools, however, do not motivate a person to use this technology to commit a crime.

A religious fanatic has the motive for causing massive suffering, yet he lacks the tools. So a text that brings the motive and the tools together is the harmful part of the equation - imilar to how the 9/11 bombers used flight training manuals/training to equip themselves to do harm.

A six-foot, 175-pound man has all the tools and power he needs to rape a helpless child, but he typically has no motive. The superstitious pamphlet provides a motive for causing harm.

There's no danger/crime in posessing a bomb or a 175-pound frame capable of raping young children, but when those tools are coupled with motives (and the willingness to follow through) they become a real threat to society.

Since we can't read people's minds, we have to limit the distribution of bombs of mass destruction as best we can. And since all men have the capacity to rape a child, we must limit the source of a false motive to do so as much as possible. (Of course the tricky part is who decides which are false motives - and based on your posts you would say that no one can decide, and maybe you're right)

But I agree with you that it is ultimately the rapist's decision to go through with the experiment. The pamphlet is not responsible for the crime, but it is responsible for the motive.

These are interesting thought experiments and the truth is that free press will be beneficial 99.9% of the time. The prices we pay for this freedom will generally be lower than its benefits. It's not us (affluent, freethinking Western males) who have to pay the price in most cases anyway - it's generally the poor, uneducated, helpless, third world-women and children : )

Last post on this... I think : )

35. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #233212 by bamafreethinker on August 19, 2008 at 11:05 am

What about this one?

Mr. Extrema has been dying to get his hands on a nuclear weapon all his life, but so far, has been unable to save up enough cereal box-tops to procure one, and is intellectually incapable of inventing one of his own. Low and behold, Joe Fusion publishes detailed instructions on how to construct a bomb nearly as destructive as Mr. Extrema's fantasy bomb. With a glow in his eye, Mr. Extrema builds his bomb and detonates it in a stadium filled with people killing 51,256 folks. So in your opinion as long as we catch him and put him in jail after the fact we've done our moral duty? Those 51,256 people are simply the unfortunate casualties of a free press?

Can't you think of one valid scenario for limiting free press? Kiddie porn? Bomb making 101? Infant rape tactics? Something... anything?

Either way, I will bow out of this argument and agree to disagree. Enjoyed it!

36. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #233203 by bamafreethinker on August 19, 2008 at 10:16 am

So a pamphlet that posits that a man infected with HIV can be cured by having sex with a 12 month old baby girl should be allowed to be published and distributed freely in scientifically ignorant sub-Saharan Africa? Is it, "Let the free press roll - to hell with those babies - the truth will eventually rise to the top!" ?

This could be a very real scenario as revealed here: http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/april/virgin.htm

The scientist in his pamphlet states, "Having sex with children will not cure your disease, you will likely die a slow painful death"

The superstitious pamphlet states, "Having sex with a n infant will cure your illness, you will live a long and prosperous life"

Now let's sit back and "let those negative materials fall by the weight of their own doctrine". How many babies should we allow to be raped while this little free press experiment sorts itself out?

A free press is the freethinking man's best friend, a charlatan's best outlet for pedaling his particular brand of lies, and the uneducated man, with limited resources, is at the mercy of the more powerful and persuasive of the two.

37. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #233158 by bamafreethinker on August 19, 2008 at 7:46 am

Bonzai,

I agree. I did not intend to imply that this specific situation in China was a free speech issue - I had ventured off of the main point of the featured article slightly. When we have several slightly different discussions going at once, it's easy to get our wires crossed.

My point is that there are limits to both freedom of speech and freedom of press when it encroaches upon the liberties of (or endangers) others, and was a little taken aback by the idea of absolute freedom of press (or anything for that matter). It seems to me that we (me included) often fail to recognize the potential harm in some of these sacred texts.

My question is; should a text that can directly cause harm be protected by freedom of press? My instincts say no, but I am open for further debate.

38. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #233111 by bamafreethinker on August 19, 2008 at 6:37 am

Larhule,

I don't think the issue is a black and white as you are painting it. My point is this; if this material (or speech) will cause emotional or physical harm to innocent women and children (not everyone in this world is a big, tough, man with good rational thinking skills) Ten-year old brides don't have much say in the matter before they are raped for years and years.

So if this right to spread lies and destructive ideologies hurts innocent children, then are they just unfortunate victims of this liberty? As long as the thinkers and leaders (big strong men) get their free speech - to hell with who gets hurt?

For obvious reasons, the only material that I know for sure that is actively banned in the US is child pornography, but how different is a religious text that promotes (if not condones) child marriages? My opinion is that one person's freedom stops when it encroaches on another's - especially if that encroachment involves the physical or psychological harm of innocents.

I simply cannot agree with your opinion that freedom of speech (or press) is absolute and that there are no "tough", grey areas. If it were just us independent, educated, free-thinking adults - then yes - but there are some people out there who deserve and need a little protection sometimes.

Maybe we should just let the harmful ideology infiltrate the uneducated gullible masses in the name of liberty and then we can try to catch the child molesters after the fact?

I hear that a convicted child molester is writing a book from his cell that explains the top ten secret guaranteed ways to lure children into your vehicle - let's all rally behind his absolute right to free speech!

Perhaps you could go to Pakistan and tell a group of tweenage brides, peering through the tiny opening in their veils of shame, how fun it is to bash religion in your free society.

39. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #232695 by bamafreethinker on August 18, 2008 at 1:54 pm

The "tough" part is not the freedom of the press part. The tough part is the fact that we must be on the side of the Christians even though we know they are promoting lies and that those lies will actually constrict a person's freedom from within; i.e. teach them that women are inferior, homosexuality is sinful, their friends and relatives who do not agree with them will be punished forever in hell, etc, etc... that's the fucking tough part!

... the law forbidding the import of religious books sucks ass - but so do the books that would benefit from abolishing said law. Again, as Jefferson pointed out: it's better to err on the side of liberty.

40. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #232628 by bamafreethinker on August 18, 2008 at 12:08 pm

What if it were 300 copies of the Koran - a book tha could possibly inspire hate and crime and at the very least - instill the fear of hell into young gullible minds?

This is indeed a tough one, but as Jefferson put it: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it".

41. Poll: Should the motto 'In God We Trust' be removed from U.S. currency?

Comment #230290 by bamafreethinker on August 14, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Comment #230150 by Diacanu

I think you will enjoy this song by Tool:


Aenima lyrics

Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will.
I sure could use a vacation from this

Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of
Freaks

Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay.

Fret for your figure and
Fret for your latte and
Fret for your hairpiece and
Fret for your lawsuit and
Fret for your prozac and
Fret for your pilot and
Fret for your contract and
Fret for your car.

It's a
Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of
Freaks

Some say a comet will fall from the sky.
Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves.
Followed by faultlines that cannot sit still.
Followed by millions of dumbfounded dipshits.

Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will cuz
I sure could use a vacation from this

Silly shit, stupid shit...

One great big festering neon distraction,
I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.

Learn to swim.

Mom's gonna fix it all soon.
Mom's comin' round to put it back the way it ought to be.

Learn to swim.

Fuck L Ron Hubbard and
Fuck all his clones.
Fuck all those gun-toting
Hip gangster wannabes.

Learn to swim.

Fuck retro anything.
Fuck your tattoos.
Fuck all you junkies and
Fuck your short memory.

Learn to swim.

Fuck smiley glad-hands
With hidden agendas.
Fuck these dysfunctional,
Insecure actresses.

Learn to swim.

Cuz I'm praying for rain
And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.
I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.
I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in.
Watch you flush it all away.

Time to bring it down again.
Don't just call me pessimist.
Try and read between the lines.

I can't imagine why you wouldn't
Welcome any change, my friend.

I wanna see it all come down.
suck it down.
flush it down.

42. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230269 by bamafreethinker on August 14, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Mt Hari has fired me up a little. I'm going to pre-order the controversial book/novel mentioned in another post to show my support. It's not much, but it's a start...

43. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230264 by bamafreethinker on August 14, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Comment #230258 by Fanusi Khiyal

Thanks, I will mix some Crown/Coke one evening and hide all the sharp instruments in the house until I'm done. If I never post here again, you'll know what happened to me : )

Please tell me it's not as long as the bible?!?! And... is there a kinky Song of Solomn-esque porno break in the middle?

44. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230253 by bamafreethinker on August 14, 2008 at 1:25 pm

18. Comment #230241 by Fanusi Khiyal

Your points are well noted. I think it comes down to cherry picking: Christians can (and plenty have) construct pretty evil religions from the teachings of the OT and Jesus by picking lemons instead of cherries. I've never read the Islamic texts and if I may interpret your statement further - there seems to be few cherries to pick from in Islam?

Edit: And a free society, a free press, education, and science/philosophy/etc. are what equips us to know which are lemons and which are cherries.

45. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230244 by bamafreethinker on August 14, 2008 at 1:18 pm

When you think about it though, it doesn't have to be the women; change could come from the leaders/oppressors. If the leaders/men read Koranic criticism and change their evil ways...

if it trickled down from the top, fewer people would get hurt.

46. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230237 by bamafreethinker on August 14, 2008 at 1:09 pm

13. Comment #230224 by Bonzai

I agree and much of that fragmented power (in Europe) was in the form of, and came from, protestant sects who resisted theocratic rule.

I agree with HourglassMemeory: It seems to have to come from within - and that is where our hands are so tied. Islamic women and girls seem to be the people we need to reach - but how?

47. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230232 by bamafreethinker on August 14, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Scenario A: A brave fringe media entity starts criticizing Islam: Extremist suicide bomber blows up said fringe media office killing the brave publisher of criticism: Awareness is heightened a small amount, but fear stomps out future progress: Little girls continue to be raped and mutilated.

Scenario B: Numerous mass media entities criticize Islam: Extremist suicide bomber blows up a random media office killing several innocent people: Awareness is raised to a much higher degree and people take more actions to improve the situation for all: Little girls are raped and mutilated on a steadily-declining frequency.

Scenario C: Everyone minds his/her own business and is afraid to criticize Islam: Extremist suicide bomber blows up random locations, killing innocent people anyway: Islam continues to thrive/grow: More and more little girls are raped and mutilated:

Scenario B seems to be the only moral choice to me.

We have freedom of the press â€" let's use it!

48. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230204 by bamafreethinker on August 14, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Perhaps bible criticism, made possible by the freedom of the press, and accessible by literacy (education) in the 17-19th centuries is what paved the way for the softening (de-fundamentalism) of Christianity. People like Thomas Hobbes, Benedict Spinoza, Richard Simon, Hermann Samuel Reimarus, David Strauss, Ernst Renan, Johannes Weiss, Albert Schweitzer broke new ground much to the chagrin of the church, Once those lines are crossed and those doors are opened it's hard for even a powerful theocracy to resist progress towards the truth. Even Christianity's own protestant movement helped by inviting lay-men to read the bible for themselves and use their brains instead of letting someone else think for them.

I think the same tools/methods can be applied to Islam: It will take time, but a free press (which we have, but are too intimidated to use), secular education, and Koranic criticism will have the same effect on Islam as is had on Christianity. We need more folks like Sam Harris, Johann Hari, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and this brave little ten-year-old girl to get the ball rolling and of course media outlets not afraid to print/publish/show their works. I think it high time that we forget about "offending" Islam the way we've been ignoring the whinings of Christians for a few hundred years now. It's really sad how we've let a handful of extremists intimidate the vast majority of the rest of the world.

I wrote this for the other Hari article, but it seems okay here too : )

49. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #230190 by bamafreethinker on August 14, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Perhaps bible criticism, made possible by the freedom of the press, and accessible by literacy (education) in the 17-19th centuries is what paved the way for the softening of Christianity. People like Thomas Hobbes, Benedict Spinoza, Richard Simon, Hermann Samuel Reimarus, David Strauss, Ernst Renan, Johannes Weiss, Albert Schweitzer broke new ground much to the chagrin of the church, Once those lines are crossed and those doors are opened it's hard for even a powerful theocracy to resist progress towards the truth. Even Christianity's own protestant movement helped by inviting lay-men to read the bible for themselves and use their brains instead of letting someone else think for them.

I think the same tools/methods can be applied to Islam: It will take time, but a free press (which we have, but are too intimidated to use), secular education, and Koranic criticism will have the same effect on Islam as is had on Christianity. We need more folks like Sam Harris, Johann Hari, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali to get the ball rolling and of course media outlets not afraid to print/publish/show their works. I think it high time that we forget about "offending" Islam the way we've been ignoring the whinings of Christians for a few hundred years now. It's really sad how we've let a handful of extremists intimidate the vast majority of the rest of the world.

I'd loved the article above even if Ben Stein wrote it!

50. Optimism in Evolution

Comment #229415 by bamafreethinker on August 13, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Thanks Nathanial_BB!

Actually, I find myself in a socially secular society as well. Most people I know never allude to their beliefs in public. They have savings accounts, good jobs, enjoy an occasional adult beverage, drop an f-bomb when appropriate, have lots of un-missionary sex, etc. I honestly don't think most of them believe what they say they believe. Their actions speak louder than their proposed beliefs.

I have read Dan Barker's works and can't identify with his story directly â€" but I was never a leader or even a vocal member of any church.

I think it comes down to this: Most people that I know are effectively human beings first and Christians second. Those who are Christians first are the real arse-holes of society and I've been fortunate enough to have never gotten close to a real fundie (probably no accident). Dan's entire circle of friends was likely the Christian-first persuasion.

I truly hope that the US will follow in the UK's footsteps and become more secular for obvious reasons, but for the most part, I'm happy here.