1. Gay support group gets straight 'no' from Brethren

Comment #243751 by VrijzinnigMan on September 7, 2008 at 9:03 am

... the resort owners, the Christian Brethren church, deplore their lifestyle.

Lifestyle? Here is what the American Psychological Association (APA) has to say about that: "... most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

(Source: http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html)

2. Texas Fiction Science

Comment #219353 by VrijzinnigMan on July 26, 2008 at 8:08 pm

This is a note from the Freethinkers Association of Central Texas. We are are an oasis of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, rationalists, secular humanists, and skeptics in hostile religious San Antonio and surrounding territory. Take a look at our web site:

http://www.FreethinkersACT.org

We are of course very concerned about the direction the SBOE has decided to take in revising the public high school science curriculum. We can use every help we can get in battling Dr. McLeroy and his gang. The SBOE's recent decision to allow bible classes in public high schools without any guidance on curriculum has clearly demonstrated what they are capable of.

Unfortunately it is not only Texas. Last month Gov. Jindal of Louisiana signed a bill into law that opens the door for ID to sneak into the science classrooms of Louisiana public schools.

http://chronicle.com/news/article/4758/louisiana-governor-signs-bill-endorsing

But encouraging students to question what they are being taught in science classes might not be such a bad thing, because very little crititcal thinking will be required to debunk ID. For example, the article states:

First weakness: the fossil record. "There are gaps," said McLeroy, that do not include enough transitional forms of life to support evolution. Second, McLeroy says there has simply not been enough time on Earth for the minute changes required by evolution to have taken place. Thirdly, McLeroy says the incredible complexity of cells proves divine design. Information contained in the genetic code is just too mind-blowing to have come from anywhere but an intelligent creator. "Where did this information come from?" McLeroy mused. McLeroy would like to see these assertions and more taught in Texas biology classrooms.

Brief rebuttal based on "crititcal thinking":

1. There are many reports of discoveries of transition fossils. For example, the National Academy of Sciences in its publication "Science, Evolution and Creationism" describes the recent discovery of Tiktaalik, a creature "with the features of fish and traits characteristic of early tetrapods".
2. The dataset collected by NASA's WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) mission and released at the end of February 2008 (see http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/) confirms that the universe is close to 14 billion years old. There is ample evidence that the earth is about 4.5 years old.
3. Who created the intelligent designer, who obviously must be even more complex than his many sophisticated creations?

On a personal note, I am glad that the "Son of (Vrijzinnig)Man" has only one high school year left until graduation.

3. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #214717 by VrijzinnigMan on July 20, 2008 at 8:15 pm

Every time I read something from an intelligent person who tries to make a case against atheism, I take it seriously and try to determine whether this person may have a valid point. In this particular instance I can only conclude that Flew, in his old age, seems to have lost it.

4. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210582 by VrijzinnigMan on July 14, 2008 at 8:53 pm

This reminds me of a video clip on America's Funniest Home Videos. The clip shows how a priest drops the communion wafer down a lady's dress. He then tries to recover it by reaching into her bosom, but she fights him off. I wonder where that "cracker" finally ended up.

Here is what I wrote to Dr. Bruininks, signed with my own name:

"Dear Dr. Bruininks,

I am writing to ask for your support and protection of Professor Meyers against the vicious attacks by Mr. William Donohue at the Catholic League and a few other fanatics in response to Dr. Meyers' recent article "It's a Goddamned Cracker".

It is evident to me that consecration of the Host does not literally turn it into the body of Christ and that consecration of the chalice does not literally turn wine into His blood. If this were the case, people whose digestive system cannot tolerate gluten would have no problem receiving the consecrated Host. Those who have an issue with alcohol would not object to drinking consecrated wine. Consecration of the Host is purely symbolic and has no meaning beyond the Eucharist. A consecrated Host taken outside the church becomes a "cracker" like any other cracker. This is the point Professor Meyers was making.

Donohue, who obviously only speaks for a small minority of the 60 million Catholics in the United States, calls for Dr. Meyers' dismissal from his post at the University. Some fanatics even went so far to send Dr. Meyers a death threat. The proposed "punishments" are obviously uncalled for, given the fact that the "crime" was simply the use of free speech. I hope that that you will side with common sense and the defendant in this case. Thank you.

Sincerely,

[My Name]"

5. The Challenge of the New Creationism

Comment #188313 by VrijzinnigMan on June 3, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Great job!

I do, however, not completely agree with Dr. Coyne's final recommendation that we should focus on moving down along the x-axis (less religious) as opposed to moving up along the y-axis (greater acceptance of Darwinism). Although it is true that reducing the religiosity of the US will result in increased acceptance of evolution, IMHO that is not the best strategy to accomplish the goal.

Promoting rationalism over religion is bound to piss off a lot of moderate religious people and is likely to get us nowhere. We have to attack the fundamentalist nutcases head-on first. We have a lot of allies in the religious community on this issue. For example, the Catholic and United Methodist Churches don't see a conflict between religion and evolution.

Once we get rid of the fundamntalists and evangelicals, we can focus on moving down the x-axis.

6. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #185487 by VrijzinnigMan on May 27, 2008 at 11:18 pm

What was Bill Nevers (a Democrat??) thinking? Since when do the students make the decisions on what is science and what is not? What is next, that sunlight can exist without a sun as the creation myth in Genesis seems to imply?

Is the National Academy of Sciences not clear enough on this subject (see "Science, Evolution and Creationism", Third Edition, published earlier this year)?

A biology teacher who does not accept evolution and thinks that ID, which lacks any supporting evidence, is a reasonable scientific alternative to Evolution is incompetent and should be fired.

7. Bible Theme Park Faces Opposition in Tennessee

Comment #181294 by VrijzinnigMan on May 16, 2008 at 9:09 pm

".., the park would focus on historical aspects of the Bible..." What are those?

"He says he's got a problem with people making money off the Bible" What do you think your megachurch pastor is doing every weekend?

8. Pelosi, Reid shunning Ten Commandments?

Comment #181283 by VrijzinnigMan on May 16, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Great! What good is it to just celebrate the ten commandments? Pretty soon they will insist that those who do not follow them be punished per God's instructions. Expect a lot of stoning to death! Texas will most surely lead the pack. I guess I better start thinking about moving.

9. The US is a Christian Nation

Comment #82589 by VrijzinnigMan on October 26, 2007 at 8:30 pm

The US is a Christian nation as much as it is white nation, i.e. the majority of the population is Christian and is also Caucasian. Above all, however, the US is a democracy, which is different from "majority rules".

10. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #82580 by VrijzinnigMan on October 26, 2007 at 7:40 pm

I would first ask my opponent "What do you mean by 'believing in something'?" I suppose the word "to believe" in this context means "to accept as true, genuine or real" (see Webster's Online Dictionary)

I would then ask my opponent in the debate to give a few examples of what (other than God) he/she believes in. I would explain why I do or do not concur and respond with my own examples to illustrate that I only believe in something if there is supporting evidence that it is "true, genuine or real".

There is no evidence for the existence of God, so I do not believe in His existence. But I do believe in the use of statins to lower a person's bad cholesterol. The evidence is based on my own experience.

11. Britons unconvinced on evolution

Comment #19244 by VrijzinnigMan on January 25, 2007 at 6:47 pm

I have a very hard time believing that this survey is representative of the British population. For those who indicated that they question evolution and would like to see C/ID considered I have a suggestion. Read Jack Trickler's book!

For a long time I have been looking for a book that explains in layman's terms who wrote the books of the Bible, when they did it and why.

Browsing through amazon.com leads to two types of books: those written by scholars and those written by laymen. The former are an incredibly hard read for people like me. The Bible-bashing books of the latter kind get mixed reviews and very few stars from believers who are involved in Bible study for a living.

So, I continued to look for a readable and objective study and finally found "Who wrote the Books of the Bible" by Jack Trickler. The author is a retired engineer and a religious person. The 2003 version of his book (there is a 2007 version that just came out) consistently obtained four or five star reviews.

I am about halfway through the Old Testament, and it is clear from Trickler's detective work that virtually everything in the Bible is fiction. Each of the many authors had an agenda. Trickler puts the Bible verses in historical context and explains it all in clear easy-to-read language.

Trickler states that it is not his purpose to tell the reader what to believe and not believe regarding his/her religion. However, the open-minded Christian reader can nothing but conclude that he/she has been mislead in believing in a fairy tale. I am sure that the author would be very surprised to discover that his book provides strong support to the atheist's case against Christianity, in particular the fundamental brand.

12. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19077 by VrijzinnigMan on January 24, 2007 at 4:51 pm

I agree with "the great teapot" that it is not unlikely that the majority of the US population can soon (within a generation or two?) be non-religious. Compared to many European countries we are followers, but the US is ahead of the game compared to the Muslim theocracies.

To reach this goal will require a concerted effort on the part of atheists. Although Sam Harris is right that ultimately we will have to sway moderates as well as fundamentalist, I believe that initially we need to focus on the latter. If we want to deal with all religious people at once, we will be vastly outnumbered and will not be able to make any significant changes.

I like Michelle Goldberg's suggestion in "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism". She explains how the Christian Right became so powerful and influential in US government. It really started with a grassroots movement during the Clinton administration. They identified a number of issues that resonated with the moderates and were able to infiltrate the Republican Party. Once in a position of power, they started showing their true face.

Goldberg proposes to turn the tables and to use the same strategy to curtail the Christian Right. For example, most moderates are not anti-evolution and they do not support creationism. We could team up with the moderates to forever keep the creation nonsense out of the classroom.

The fact that we identify ourselves as "atheists" is a problem. As others pointed out, it is negative and synonymous to "immoral". We could greatly benefit from a new catchy name. "Bright" is not good because it is arrogant, again as many others pointed out. I like Godfrey (or godfree), but perhaps we should put some more thought into it. Why not a poll on this web site?

13. The Nodder

Comment #16791 by VrijzinnigMan on January 8, 2007 at 7:45 pm

This story once again proves that consuming too much of anything is not good for your health. I suggest Dr. Dawkins put a sticker with a disclaimer in his book to avoid liability for these types of accidents. The Kansas school board should be able to give him some ideas.

14. Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

Comment #16174 by VrijzinnigMan on January 5, 2007 at 8:00 am

Is this the same God who told Ms. Harris to throw her boys off the San Francisco bay bridge a few weeks ago? Chances are that she will be declared insane.

Why do the same standards not apply to Robertson? It seems logical that he be declared insane as well.

But he is not. Instead he gets continuous media coverage and is allowed to line his pockets (net worth in excess of a few hundred million dollars) at the expense of his naive followers.