1. Analysis of SB 733: 'LA Science Education Act'

Comment #192041 by kurzweilfreak on June 12, 2008 at 11:16 am

Here's all you need to know about my governor:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/bobby_jindals_dance_with_the_d.php

I swear, I'm starting to hate living in Louisiana. I don't know how much more of this I can take. :(

2. Debating creationism in Louisiana schools

Comment #192037 by kurzweilfreak on June 12, 2008 at 11:09 am

I live in Louisiana. I work right outside of New Orleans. My name is Brett Guillory. I've been seeing this go on. And it makes... me... sick.

They can explicitly say in the bill "Hey, this isn't about religion! Noooooo way. We won't allow it." But OF COURSE there's a wink wink, nudge nudge in there. Because..... WHY THE HELL else would this shit come up in the first place? Like Prof. Forrest said, our science curriculum is just fine. Science isn't a democratic process. The only ones who have a problem with it are these Christian organizations with "Family" in the name, promoting "fairness" and "critical thinking" (how ironic is that). Sure, this bill says "no religion here" but it still allows for "outside supplemental resources" to be brought in. Any bets on whether the intent is to allow teachers to assign "The Selfish Gene", or do they really mean "Of Pandas and People"?

They're just trying to make their encroachment more and more subtle until some ignorant ass passes it and then they can start working their way back up. They can say it's not about religion over and over and over again, but as is always the case with these religious zealots, the facts firmly show otherwise.

3. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173264 by kurzweilfreak on April 30, 2008 at 2:54 pm

www.talkorigins.org = Evolution answers call-center. :)

4. Apologetic billboard replaces atheistic sign

Comment #123077 by kurzweilfreak on February 6, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Wahhhh, I'm offended! Don't I have a right to not be offended? Oh... I don't? Whoops.

Seriously, who the hell would hold an advertising company responsible for an ad that they're paid to put up? You pay them, they put up your message. YOUR message. Not their own.

I'm offended at their actions to "correct" this, as if it needed correcting in the first place.

"Ma'am, it's not our message. It's simply our space. We only put up what we're paid to." That's a pretty good way to respond. Common sense, imagine that.

5. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #115751 by kurzweilfreak on January 24, 2008 at 3:47 pm

I wonder what the congregation of Westboro would think about a group of atheists protesting EVERY church/religion-related service, function, and funeral of all of their members? I bet they wouldn't think it was a very polite, unrude thing to do. Someone should teach them that lesson. What happened to all the Bible-thumpers believing that The Golden Rule started in the Bible? What happened to "do unto others"?

6. Lewis Black - The Devil's Handiwork

Comment #115552 by kurzweilfreak on January 24, 2008 at 10:08 am

The best part was when he talked about the Jehovah's Witnesses of Gaydom. When he yells out at the end "and they just start.... fucking each other up the ass!" I fall out of my chair laughing. Lewis Black is great. Not everyone cares for his delivery style, but I love it.

7. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105519 by kurzweilfreak on December 31, 2007 at 8:51 pm

I would think if you are going to discuss someone's work, you should at least know who they are. I was always under the impression that an evolutionary biologist, which Richard Dawkins is to the best of my knowledge, was different from a geneticist, despite having some overlapping areas of study.

Or am I just being too picky?

8. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #86003 by kurzweilfreak on November 7, 2007 at 7:02 pm

Happy Primate:

I'm from Louisiana too, Kenner.

9. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #85966 by kurzweilfreak on November 7, 2007 at 4:02 pm

I do think that 'atheist' can put many people off because it has militant and aggressive connotations

I just don't understand how people can equate not being willing to lie down and suffer the moronicity of the religious nutjobs as being militant and aggressive. These are connotations coined by a religious opposition who can't see things outside of their own worldview in which any group with as much passion and fervor as their own must be as militant and aggressive as they are, especially one that opposes their theocratic aims.

To them, I say: fuck that. When we start bombing abortion clinics and running planes into buildings, until then, shut the hell up and keep it in the church. And pay some damn taxes.

10. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79320 by kurzweilfreak on October 16, 2007 at 11:04 pm

Pardon the expression but... holy crap, did McGrath ever actually answer any of the questions that were put to him? It seemed to me that he most wholeheartedly did not. He would go off on a long tirade with many tangents and run-on sentences, but never would actually give a specific answer. His ramblings sounded important, but would eventually be filled with meaningless words that sound important but really aren't.

Ahhh, reading comments above, I see that apparently I'm NOT the only one who noticed this. The fundamental difference that I see between the two speakers is that while both are very verbose and well spoken, it's much easier to follow what Hitchens says because he's actually saying something, whereas McGrath is saying a lot of words that lack any real meaning or substance. As with many others, I don't think I could take listening to another rambling of his if it all sounds like this. What a waste of time.

11. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79146 by kurzweilfreak on October 16, 2007 at 9:55 am

Someone way up above made a comment about religionists always being able to trot out cute little soundbytes, and upon reading that, I realized that it's very easy to create a soundbyte when your words are meaningless and nonsensical yet give food for other religionists to throw whatever meaning they want into them.

Just my two cents, which with our American economy today is getting to be worth less and less. :(

12. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72604 by kurzweilfreak on September 21, 2007 at 10:10 pm

Just once for a change, I'd like to see some creationist retard back up their demands on their own. If they want various "alternatives" to evolution taught.... name them! But wait, don't just stop there! Not only must you name them, but also present a completed course curriculum available for public review. And since your "alternative" theories should be able to stand on their own scientific merits since they'll be, ya know, in a science class, a whole curriculum just on "arguments" against evolution isn't gonna cut it.

Please, have one of them, or hell, a whole committee, please type up a publicly viewable course curriculum of what you plan to teach. Be specific. Fill in details. I await this action. For bonus points, I would love for them to submit their definitions of "education", "science", and to submit a short paper explaining exactly how they understand that the theory of evolution (a biological field) I'm assuming they have the most problem with relates to the origin of the planet (geology and astronomy). Extra bonus points: explain the difference between astronomy and astrology, just for shits and giggles. That should be fun.

I await with baited breath.

13. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #59151 by kurzweilfreak on July 27, 2007 at 3:58 pm

Again, all I want to know is why is he so threatened? Have there been rallies of atheists outside his church threatening to make it illegal for him to pray in church? I highly doubt it. So what's the problem then? Isn't church the place for that?

Or even just in his own home? I don't see any thought police trying to break down the door to his home and prosecute (or was that persecute, I think his ejamacation is rubbing off) his family because they have their hands together and heads bowed.

No, no one's doing that? Oh.... he should have the right to do that in public too? Why? Free speech? In that case, where is the line drawn? Would he argue for the rights of people of religions besides his own? Poseidonists? Satanists? Even atheists?

I think we all know the answers here. The hypocrisy would almost be stunning if it wasn't expected. Most telling of all is the lack of ability to respond, comment and rating disabling, both here and on other websites such as http://www.evolutionnews.org/ and most other Discovery Institute blogs. Seriously, we all know why commenting isn't allowed there: they'd get ripped to shreds right on their own sites, and that would just be bad PR.

Faithheads, you aren't fooling anyone...except yourselves. When you're ready for the 21st century, you just let us know.

14. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58948 by kurzweilfreak on July 26, 2007 at 6:17 pm

Wow, what a moron. Where to start...

Folks, this is what we're dealing with. They want to burn our bibles.

Noooo, they want to burn THEIR bibles, which is perfectly legal and there's nothing this guy or anyone else can do about it.

They want to burn our churches.

Either he's deliberately missing the sarcasm on purpose in the idea that burning churches would be considered less an atrocity than burning bibles, or this guy is really thick. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which.

This is clearly a battle we are in.

Indeed, this is a battle that we've been in for the last 2000 years. You poor, prosecuted Christians![/sarcasm]

The parts about us wanting to make it illegal and take away their right to worship is just rich. I'd like a cited example of this. Last I heard, there are tons of places for them to do their little worshipping. They're called churches. Do it there. Why is that not good enough? Oh, they want to do it in public also? How about we gather up a bunch of atheists to disrupt their church services?

Why is it so difficult for these people to understand the idea of "keep it to yourself, we don't want it."?

15. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53274 by kurzweilfreak on June 30, 2007 at 1:48 pm

As a Deist, how could you expect an answer on your question of morality if all your god did was start the universe? Me turning on a lightbulb would say just about as much on morality as would a god who only turned on the universe and then disappeared. To demand some morality of us, your god would have to stick around quite a bit longer.

16. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53259 by kurzweilfreak on June 30, 2007 at 12:16 pm

The blatently obvious anti-evolution Discovery Institute blog Evolution News and Views (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/sean_carroll_fails_to_scale_th_2.html) (which ironically includes a disclaimer at the bottom about existing only because of the biased reporting on evolution in the media) is quite a read, and you almost have to feel sorry for the ignorance displayed. Almost, because you shouldn't feel sorry for willful ignorance, which is what is displayed in each article on there.

One of the most telling aspects - to me - is the fact that unlike this messageboard and most blogs out there, there is no mechanism allowed for commenting on each article. This I suspect is deliberate, for if commenting were allowed, the flaws in each article would be readily pointed out, and they just can't allow that now could they? There isn't even so much as an email address on there to send comments directly to the author. Even if there were, would you expect them to be forthcoming and display corrections to their flaws in logic? What a crock. Overtly biased? Hypocritical aren't we? In any case, what's so biased about going with the facts?

17. Richard Dawkins to appear in Second Life

Comment #44121 by kurzweilfreak on May 23, 2007 at 10:47 am

If so, meet me on server Draka :D Look for "Kurzleth" :P

18. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off (more info)

Comment #41766 by kurzweilfreak on May 16, 2007 at 10:09 pm

Holy crap, there should be criminal penalties for that entire creationist "explanation" of evolution by Kirk Cameron, especially those absolutely retarded "transitional" pictures. The RRS didn't really do too great a job at refuting it, but you can't really fault them because it would be impossible for them to produce an understandable, lucid explanation that would be scientifically accurate within the kind of timeframe these debates take place. Don't they realize that there is a reason there are college courses that take an entire semester or more to explain sufficiently what these creationists want to hear in a 3-minute soundbyte?

Many of those questions could have been answered much better had there been a lack of time constraits and availability of research sources to pull from. Maybe there should be some kind of official on-going online debate where these topics can be brought up and refuted in a centralized location that everyone can view, but maybe only a few selected people can contribute to, with input from others and ability to cite sources, etc. That would be an interesting experiment to see where it leads. I'm thinking something a little more civilized than various message boards around the web. ;)

19. Ted Haggard Is Completely Heterosexual

Comment #39904 by kurzweilfreak on May 12, 2007 at 8:38 am

Every single one of Roy's songs is incredibly hilarious! I love this guy. :D And the whole Ted Haggard thing is just.... well, not surprising, I'd almost say typical and expected. All I can do is shake my head and say "figures". The hypocrisy is almost painful in that my sides hurt from laughing so much at these idiots.

Keep 'em coming Roy! :D

20. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38063 by kurzweilfreak on May 6, 2007 at 10:20 pm

Now, it is absolutely true that Dawkins' tone is often as charming as fingernails dragged slowly down a chalkboard.

I don't quite understand something. I always see people complaining about Dawkins et al "tone" of their arguments against religion and the existence of deities. What exactly WOULD the correct "tone" be to use? "Oh, um, I'm sorry, but I think that maybe, just maybe, and I could be wrong, but I'm not quite 100% sure that God exists... but I can't prove it so don't hurt me!" That seems to be the kind of tone that's expected. To me, it looks like ANY kind of argument against the supernatural deities is the "wrong" tone, so I'd like to know how all the faith-heads think we SHOULD say it?

Oh? "Just shut up and let us live in our delusion, we aren't hurting you." Is that it? Sorry, that hasn't worked for the last 2000+ years. Any other bright ideas?

21. Creation Science 101

Comment #28183 by kurzweilfreak on March 28, 2007 at 9:03 am

Holy crap, he's hilarious. I watched all of his videos on Youtube last night. Great, great stuff. :D

22. Artificial Intelligence, With Help From the Humans

Comment #27631 by kurzweilfreak on March 25, 2007 at 7:47 pm

Very interesting topic of discussion here. Has anyone read Jeff Hawkins' book "On Intelligence"? If so, what do you think of his HTM theories?

23. The Chronicles of Kearnya, or, Principles of Evolution Observed in the Field at Kearny High School

Comment #20595 by kurzweilfreak on February 4, 2007 at 7:51 pm

John P,

Are you sure that wiretap law applies to all citizens and not just members of the government and law enforcement? Usually, laws like that are provided to help protect your right to privacy in your own home and phone communications. I don't believe students taping their teachers in classrooms would fall under that heading. I could be wrong, but I would hope not.