1. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174905 by Aquaria on May 3, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Does anyone know what is the standard of science education amongst teachers in the US? If that is low -- ie you have staff teaching science who don't understand it -- that will compound the problem because they won't be able to easily answer the students whose pastor's have sent them off to read AiG.

Standards? :::SNORT:::

There are no national standards. Each state determines its education policies and priorities. They establish minimum standards. In many (if not most) states, each school district within the state then determines if it will meet or exceed the standards.

And if a school doesn't meet the minimum, what then? Schools don't get closed down for not educating kids, so there's rarely any effort to make schools conform to the bare minimum standard. This is a real problem with inner-city and rural schools.

Then factor in how school boards (the people in charge of schools by district/state) are elected....

It's a mess. A total mess.

2. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168155 by Aquaria on April 24, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Aquaria,
garlic powder?
GARLIC POWDER????
I have some very irate Italian neighbors who are expressing their wish to have a talk with you now. Like, RIGHT NOW.
;)

Hee hee. Well, you could use fresh-roasted garlic (peeled and mashed natch), but that takes more time than I usually have. Sometimes, it doesn't make the sauce as smooth, either. Texture, with this sauce, is important for some people. Like me. And the human food consumption vacuums known as my husband and son.

Irony alert: I'm part Italian.

3. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168047 by Aquaria on April 24, 2008 at 1:36 pm

I don't know why any of you try to engage the likes of TTID. He is beyond reason and beyond reach. You will not change what we may generously call his mind. It is entirely resistant to any evidence you will present. He has his deity on his side, and that means he automatically knows more than all scientists that are, have been, or ever will be, about EVERYTHING, even though single-cell organisms have more cogent thought and capacity to learn.


You might as well start quoting poetry or exchanging recipes. You'd get as much accomplished.

I have a recipe for Fettucine Alfredo, for those who aren't afraid of risking heart attack.

1 pkg Fettucine (of course!)
1 stick butter (8 TBSP), cut into pats
1 16-oz (453 g) pkg Cream Cheese, cut up into cubes (a potato masher can do this quick)
2/3 cup (150 ml) shredded Parmesan cheese
2/3 cup (150 ml) cream
ground white pepper
garlic powder

Bring water to boil. Cook Fettucine according to package directions. Meanwhile, in saucepan, melt butter. Add Parmesan, whisking constantly. Add cream cheese, continuing to whisk. Add cream slowly, whisking until all ingredients blended together. Add pepper and garlic to taste.

Drain Fettucine. Pour sauce over.

Serves about four. I usually have a salad and sourdough bread with. The sauce is also great on vegetables, chicken, turkey, and shrimp.

4. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167973 by Aquaria on April 24, 2008 at 1:01 pm

I don't like the "new" atheist label, either.

I'm the same atheist I was before I read any of the Four Horsemen books.

But beyond that, the question I always ask when someone rags about the "new" atheists is: "So you think that these new atheists are militant and rude, but you thought an "old" atheist like Madlyn O'Hair wasn't? Really?"

5. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167155 by Aquaria on April 23, 2008 at 5:06 pm

Could the language up there be anymore loaded?

"Notoriously" rather than "notably?"

And there isn't an oversimplification in distilling the argument to its one essential question: What proof is there of any deity?

That's all there is to this. We don't need to know the theology of why evil is in the world. It doesn't matter.

We don't need to know how many angels can dance on a pinhead. It doesn't matter.

We don't need to know the difference between Augustine, Aquinas, Tertullian, Luther, Spong or Haught. It doesn't matter.

"What proof is there for any deity?'

It's that damned simple. Everything else is obfuscation and bullshit.

6. Judge orders La. school district to stop Bible giveaways

Comment #167141 by Aquaria on April 23, 2008 at 4:55 pm

No, public schools in America do not teach religion, except as elective courses. We don't dare. It would start a holy war in every town if a Methodist was teaching a religion class to a Baptist. And it would be genocide all around if an American Baptist was teaching a religion class to a Southern Baptist.

I keed, I keed... But anyone who knows the ins and outs of Protestant interfaith rivalry, especially in the Deep South, would know any of that is a possibility.

However, not teaching religion doesn't mean it's not communicated to us, in thousands of ways, because it is.

It's funny, but I didn't get much more religion exposure at a parochial (Lutheran) school than I did at public. At least there was some consistency and organization with the exposure to religion at the Lutheran school.

The Gideons weren't welcome at that school, by the way. For one thing, the Bible was on our school supply list at the beginning of the year. Of course we had to have one to attend school there. The other thing was plain old interfaith rivalry. The Gideons weren't Lutherans, so get the hell out.

My younger brother had some fun with the Gideons when they were passing out NTs with Psalms and Proverbs to his class at another school we attended. He said that his sister (me) was in danger of losing her soul to Satan, she was starting to reject the Word. All he wanted to do was see if they'd believe him and give him another copy. Of course both happened. In fact, he got the two NTs, PLUS two full bibles. He came home laughing his ass off.

Our atheist dad was delighted to have a bible he could underline and make notes in at last; the only one we still had in the house by then was a white leather bible that an aunt gave me for my birthday when I attended the Lutheran school. I didn't value it because it was a bible, but because it was both a gift and actually a very beautiful book.

I kept the NT the kid brother finagled from the Gideons for a lot of years, simply because it was a pocket sized book with a kelly green cover with gold lettering. Plus, it seemed to represent what Christianity seemed to be, at least to me: Cheap, garish and ridiculous.

7. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165840 by Aquaria on April 22, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Ugh. Church? No. Never. If I wanted a place to tart up so that people could be impressed with what expensive threads, jewels and beauty salon visits I could afford, if I wanted mindless conformity to some groupthink ideal, listening to people drone on and on about philosophy and society and our place in it, I'd make my husband's grandmother die a happy woman and convert to Catholicism. She might even take back calling me a Jezebel.

Thanks, but I'll continue to be Jezebel, and not drag my ass out of bed on a day off to go to frickin' church. I had so many bad experiences from attending a Southern Baptist church as a child that I still have nightmares about it. :::shudder::::

Does anyone else have a term for atheists that does not feel so rigid or hard? What about terms that are not in general use? Can anyone come up with any?

Sapients would be kind of fun, on a couple of levels.

Or how about People?

8. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164785 by Aquaria on April 20, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Come now. Do you think this guy derived his authority from religion? "God said thou shalt lay with thy local school principle if it is a Christian school.." I just don't see it happened like that. He offered to bend the rule in exchange for a sexual bribe, it is as simple as that.

He got cover for his abuses thanks to his religion. If the sex hadn't been a part of this story, it would never had made the news. In TX, if you accuse, no matter how justly, that a Christian school isn't educating its students, you will not be heard. Period. It takes a sex scandal to get anyone to listen. That's the saddest thing about this story.

9. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164776 by Aquaria on April 20, 2008 at 5:14 pm

"For lots of people it is a revelation that their spiritual leaders are fallible".

I doubt it. Unless of course, they've never read a newspaper.

Depends on your definition of "their" spiritual leaders. When things like this happen, the funniest thing about Christians (at least here in TX), is how quickly they'll employ the Scotsman fallacy: "Well, that's THEIR church/denomination/sect/whatthefuckever. That's not MY Christianity, that's not what REAL Christians do." No matter how long a laundry list of religious charlatans/sex fiends you list, that's always the defense. It's all they have.

We can say anybody could behave badly, but I don't think enough people are looking at why these things happen in such astounding numbers with the religious, how it's the way religion operates that creates a situation where exploitation is always a whisper away. Why are so many people who fall prey to scams and exploitation usually the religious or superstitious?

We know why: Religion creates the environment where abuses of power are more likely to occur. It thrives on gullible and irrational people. When you convince people that there are imaginary friends out there who will come back (when? who knows!") to "reward" you, when you set yourself up as the authority on what it takes to get that reward, when you convince them to "believe" regardless of evidence to the contrary of the preacher's or bible's authority, you have a built-in audience of suckers that you can exploit to your heart's content. You've taught them to put some or all of their reason on hold, and that makes them vulnerable. Is it any surprise that some slick operators then prey on religion's followers, for their own gain? And that they can do it again...and again...and again?

10. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164453 by Aquaria on April 20, 2008 at 9:23 am

I don't think the woman set the guy up at all; she fails at all the classic signs of a sting conversation, at least with the truck conversation. She's not bringing up the sex. She makes no reference to previous offers he's made. She's not even prompting or leading him to do so. She's talking about her kid and the grades...and then, out of nowhere, this guy starts propositioning her. He's busted.

As to everyone who's complaining about use of this story here, they're missing something important: The story is the school's policy of giving failing kids high school diplomas. Why is this just now making news? If a normal Texan had claimed that the school would take X number of dollars and hand out a diploma, willy-nilly nobody would listen. If you try to point out that any Christian school is failing to educate its students, or ripping people off, the stupid Texans (the majority) think you're out to get God, Jesus, Christianity and Christians. The media usually won't touch a complaint about fundie school's educational quality, because the loonies will inundate them with hate and threats via mail, phone calls, email, etc. How can this be, you ask? This is Texas. This is how things are here. Now if you can get a good angle for the allegation, like, oh S-E-X, then the media knows all bets are off.

And that's why this story got on the air. But the real story is still the diploma mill aspect of the school. The sad thing is that it took a fundie staff member getting caught with his pants almost down for this appalling disservice to the students (or potential students) of that school to get noticed.

11. Flea of the week

Comment #163546 by Aquaria on April 18, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Course, as any kid will tell you, books are a sucky present.
Kids want fucking TOYS, man!
An X-Box game, or a new kind of super-soaker!

Oh man... No wonder everyone thought I was weird as a kid. I always wanted books! The first time I ever went to a bookstore (a rare treat in hickistan) was the only time I felt anything close to a religious experience as a child.

12. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163535 by Aquaria on April 18, 2008 at 1:32 pm

I can't wait to read the LTTE's. Just because it's CA doesn't mean there aren't plenty of delusional people in Cereal City (nuts and flakes). LA is built on delusion. Plus, it's the home to Scientology!

Somebody pass the popcorn.

13. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162948 by Aquaria on April 17, 2008 at 5:43 pm

The stork is proof that Abrahamaic religion doesn't repress women through painful childbirth for eating that apple! Instead, he chooses more humane routes like sexual harassment and discrimination to keep them in their place. Isn't that proof of God's infinite love and mercy?

/sarcasm off

14. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162940 by Aquaria on April 17, 2008 at 5:30 pm

As for the ID film, why is this an either/or proposition with you? Can't you concede that you might leave the film with a bit of fresh cultural insight, and maybe even an isolated point or two on which you might conclude, "Maybe in this regard, the makers of the film are on to something that I should stay sensitive to"?

No

I live that crap, day in and day out. It's called Texas. Why do I need to pay my money to see the same crap I can get for free out my front door?

If they wanted to impress me, they need to come up with a viable scientific theory, backed by evidence and research and present it in a reputable manner.

Otherwise, they're not worth my time, just like it's not worth my time to go to a KKK rally. And, yes, I consider ID the moral equivalent of the KKK. They want to ban everything but their one narrow ideology from the world, regardless of evidence or plain human decency, and they're willing to tell (or BELIEVE) any lie to do it.

That's the working definition of morally bankrupt.

They can say crap all they want, I did my bit to defend that right for them, but nothing compels me to listen to it or support it in any manner whatsoever. They don't like that people don't want to listen? That's their problem. Stop whining and come up with something worth hearing. It's that simple.

15. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162924 by Aquaria on April 17, 2008 at 5:06 pm

In this case, there should be no lawsuit against the makers of the film. Why? Because they only used a brief portion of "Imagine," and with the intent of critiquing the message of the song. We might disagree with the filmmakers' position on evolution and atheism, but we should protect their right to "quote" media freely (for the purposes of critique) in the public square. Otherwise, we would have to say that websites like Media Matters should not be able to use FOX News clips without permission from Fox News.

Bullshit.

Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

There is a huge difference between the intellectual property of a work like "Imagine" and a clip of screeching harpies on Fox News. 1) The screeching harpies are a an uncontrolled, spontaneous effort, unlike the careful craft of writing a song. 2) Media Matters is a non-profit institution. If they are using a small portion of a news program to disseminate information without requiring payment to obtain it (not profit from it), that's fair use. If they used the whole fox show, they would be in trouble. If they tried to make money off it, they could well be in violation.

Contrast this with using someone's song to make money. Crass as it sounds, John Lennon didn't write the song for other people to make money off it. He wrote it to make money off it himself. It is his song to do what he (or his designated representatives) choose to do with it,

When you take someone else's work and try to profit off it, that's called stealing. Pure and simple.

And add me to the list of people who want everyone to get off the Yoko hate machine. She didn't cause the breakup of the Beatles. Their greed and egos and internal strife over a host of problems did the job for them. Long before she came along, they were having problems. She's the excuse for deluded morons who can't accept that their heroes were all-too-human, never mind the incipient racism at work in it all. Why not go after Linda McCartney, who would be a more valid target (at least for anyone who knows anything about the ugly underside of the band at that time)?

16. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161179 by Aquaria on April 15, 2008 at 2:24 am

At this point in our history, the bible is too much a part of Western culture to be ignorant of it. I don't want to eradicate it, either. Teaching it? Well, that's optional. But I don't think anyone can be fully informed about most aspects of Western society without understanding it, or at least its role in forming many of our ideas, perceptions, and ways of communicating to each other. LIke it or not, it has affected all of us, in more ways than we may want to admit.

Maybe someday human society will have reached the point where its influence will be seen as a charming anomaly (they believed this thing, can you imagine it?), but we're a long way from that.

17. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160976 by Aquaria on April 14, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Comment #160573 by Yggdrasill

lol, i'm actually trying to conduct a study to see if there is a relation between familiarity of the old testament and sadism, or if its purely coincidence most people that frequently encounter those stories enjoy seeing others in pain

Oh... I think you're definitely onto something there. The kinkiest people you will ever meet are OT-inspired fire and brimstone fundies. It's not a coincidence that people like Rev. Ted always end up caught with their trousers down. Sooner or later.

On a side note, why are churches in America so damned boring and uptight? I mean, if I'd had something like this to look at when I went to a service, I think the porno industry wouldn't be so prevalent here.

18. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160965 by Aquaria on April 14, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Comment #160506 by epeeist

I think you might be forgetting Beethoven's Missa Solemnis.

There's also Bruckner's Tedeum if you like that sort of thing.

A fair amount of Messiaen is good and based in his Catholicism.

Well, like you said, if you like that sort of thing! ;)

Bruckner's TeDeum, huh? Never heard it. Any recommendations?

19. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160485 by Aquaria on April 14, 2008 at 6:42 am

For those of us on the left side of the pond, who is this Ravenhill twit, anyway? This sounds like something a DNC consultant would snap out after extensive focus group testing of the extra chromosome crowd, followed by a barrage of triangulation between the Religious Right, Looney Right and Center Right to sufficiently add all irrational venom; filtered through a 'framing' consultant to remove all sanity, then vomited out of a computer printer.

That kind of twit?

And, for the record, Christianity hasn't produced any great art since...

Since...

Since...

Mozart's Requiem? Is that when it all went down the tubes for the delusionals?

20. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159297 by Aquaria on April 11, 2008 at 10:42 pm

I started college for the first time two years ago at 55 and it has been a wonderful experience. So much in fact that I will probably continue taking classes for the rest of my life.

That is so awesome. Congratulations on doing so well!

I've been thinking about going back (again...sigh). I had to quit before because my job required long, schizo-variable hours. I was also pulling down a 4.0, thanks to the maturity and focus you mentioned.

21. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159295 by Aquaria on April 11, 2008 at 10:34 pm

Copyright is a form of speech restriction.

I agree that some parts of copyright law, especially since DCMA, are onerous, but not all of copyright law is bad, and not all of it is restrictive. Anything but.

If you create a work of intellectual property, that work is yours. You deserve not to have others profit from it. One of the reasons we have such a colossal art, music, movie and publishing industry is BECAUSE the people who create intellectual properties can expect to have their work credited to them, and to collect any profits from their own ideas. Copyright is one of the bedrocks of freedom of expression. Your ideas are yours--not the government's. Not a royal patron's. When you have a reason to believe your creations will be yours, you have both the freedom, and the motive, to create.

I don't think anyone here would deny Professor Dawkins the right to invoke copyright law if Jane Doe printed up her own version of TGD, put her own name on it, and then tried to sell it as her own work.

This is essentially what Expelled has done, and for no reason. I doubt money is an issue with them, so nothing stopped them from using the XVIVO clip in a legal manner. They could have done the honorable thing (yeah right) and a) asked permission to use the clip from the company that created it and b) paid whatever was deemed a fair price for that company's time and effort. That's only fair. If someone came and took your car and drove it around without your permission, you'd be pissed, and rightfully so. Most of us call that stealing. Same thing with taking this clip for a spin in the flick. Except they gave your car a new paint job, and changed the wheels. But it's still your car.

There's also a certain sick satisfaction in throwing in their faces yet another of their big rules: Thou shalt not steal. #8 on the Top Ten Commandments (7, for the Catholics!). Play up the thou shalt not steal angle, and it might put a ripple of alarm through a few fundies. Not many. They're pretty good at rationalization. But it might trouble the ones who have a few remaining good sense cells left.

22. The Atheist Next Door

Comment #158567 by Aquaria on April 10, 2008 at 6:56 pm

There is NO family in America all of whose members are rational. I would wager that there are few, if any, who have even 1 rational member

What do you call family? If you mean a nuclear family unit of husband, wife and child(ren), then mine qualifies. My son and I are atheists, and my current husband is agnostic. My two siblings are both atheists. My late dad and my current stepfather--atheists. My ex-husband (and son's father) is an atheist. My stepbrother is an atheist.

And here's the most shocking part:

We're all living in Texas. Well, except my dad, who lived most of his life in Texas. And died here.

Hey, it happens.

Well, we can be sure that whatever country you are from has at least 1 completely ignorant person.

Dude, you owe me a new monitor!

23. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #158010 by Aquaria on April 10, 2008 at 1:14 am

However, as a long time observer of Illinois politics (which is the dirtest and most corrupt variety you will find)

Au contraire. Please take a raft down the Mississippi, all the way to Louisiana, and you will find truly corrupt politics that would make the Daleys look like angels.

Remember, LA is the state that had a governor who outright stated about illegal campaign contributions: "It was illegal for them to give, but not for me to receive." He was indicted for mail fraud, obstruction of justice and bribery (acquitted).

It's the same state that pitted this same crook against a KKK grand wizard. And the Crook WON. Of course, he's in jail now (racketeering, extortion, mail fraud and others), but never mind that...

24. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148918 by Aquaria on March 24, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Has anyone considered an active propaganda campaign to promote a god other than Yahweh, and use Expelled as part of its argument? That would get some fur flying, and might actually prove a point.

Actually, we have had something like a public policy version of this.

For all the foreigners who don't know this, here in America, the fundies have been pushing for something called school vouchers. In this scam, people who send their kids to religious schools because they don't want their precious angels tainted by things like, oh, reality (or brown people) want the government to compensate them for sending their kids to parochial schools, rather than the tax-supported public schools.

It's a backdoor way to get around the church/state separation. Tax dollars aren't supposed to go to religion, even though it does, all the time. Anyway, traditionally, it hasn't gone for educating your children in your particular religious faith's schools.

Still, some towns have tried it. And, lo and behold, Jewish and Muslim families leapt on the chance. No more sending their kids to school with the goyim and infidels on their own dime! Yippee!

And when it came out that the Muslims were getting the fundies' tax dollars for parochial education... Well, you're right: Fur flew! Suddenly, school vouchers stopped being pushed so hard, and it's all but disappeared from the national public debate. Imagine that.

A classic case of be careful what you wish for...and shoe on the other foot syndrome.

25. EXPELLED!

Comment #147977 by Aquaria on March 21, 2008 at 5:31 pm

I just checked out that NYT article, and nearly lost my lunch when I read this in it:

Mark Mathis, a producer of the film who attended the screening, said that "of course" he had recognized Dr. Dawkins, but allowed him to attend because "he has handled himself fairly honorably, he is a guest in our country and I had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film."

Uh, no, you douchebag, Dr. Dawkins has been in this country for weeks now, making appearances. He didn't come to America just to see your IDiotic film!

The mf'in' arrogance and mendacity is incredible!

26. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #143197 by Aquaria on March 13, 2008 at 3:54 pm

//I tend to agree with Hitchens on the war. I would like to ask someone against the war a question. Any response appreciated. What type of offense against
America would justify American military action outside the US? How should the US respond to the next attack given it is similar in nature to the last...not nuclear? ///

First of all, if I were lucky enough to get warnings of an imminent attack (like Bush did re: 9/11), I would have taken them seriously. You know, investigated it, seen what I could have done to foil it, maybe even had people on alert for an attack, rather than ignoring that warning. LIke my grandma used to say, an ounce of prevention...and all that.

But let's say I ignored the warning, or didn't get one.

Well, the best thing to do if you're attacked, and want to get all vindictive, Rambo-style, is to GO AFTER THE RIGHT PEOPLE. You know, the ones who actually attacked you. That tends to help maintain support from the citizens back home. Afghanistan clearly had a role in what happened on 9/11, so even anti-war people like me could understand going after them, even though I thought it would likely fail--A'stan has a LONG history of breaking Top World Powers--ask Britain and the USSR. Anyway, it's stupid to go after a country that had zero to do with the attack, and especially one that had a very fragile truce between three tribes ready to go for each other's throats, given the chance.

Of course, going after the right people means having competent people in your government who won't jump to conclusions about who attacked them, or, worse, gin up false or dubious info about it, just to go after someone they've been itching to attack for years. It's hard enough to get Joe Public to support a war for the right reasons, but to keep him supporting a war for the wrong reasons takes more skill than any of these bozos in the Bush Admin were capable of.

And what is "going after" them? Does it necessarily mean military action? The first time the WTC was attacked, we didn't invade anybody. It was investigated as a law enforcement issue. Evidence was gathered, arrests made, people indicted and tried in court, convicted and put in jail. For a very long time. What's wrong with doing this instead of going Rambo on everyone? This probably wasn't an option, but applying similar principles, on a military scale, might have worked better than the mess that we have now.

27. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #142649 by Aquaria on March 13, 2008 at 12:38 am

Let's use Ben Jennings excellent example in another way.

I'm sure if someone claims to have talked to the Easter Bunny this morning, and EB talked back, then any sentient, rational person would realize the possibilities were that

a) the Easter Bunny did talk to the person
b) the person suffered a psychotic episode
c) the person is lying to himself
d) the person was lying to others.

And the majority of sentient, rational people would say that b or d were the most likely to be true.

The same results apply to the invisible space god as to the Giant Lagomorpha of Spring (aka Easter Bunny). Or Santa Claus. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or Thor. Or Zeus. Or [fill in non-existent being here]. Claiming to have heard a supernatural entity speak to oneself does not prove existence of that being. Unless it is verifiable through testable, empirical means, it is not evidence. It is merely a claim. And since the person making the claim has made an extraordinary assertion, it is up to that person to provide the necessary evidence (and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence--as in overwhelming and indisputable) to prove the truth of that claim. Otherwise, that person is a fraud.

28. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122612 by Aquaria on February 5, 2008 at 3:53 pm

MHO, calling something a theory is not an expression of confidence. There are plenty of disproved theories (eg Hoyle's original Steady State Theory of cosmology) and plenty of currently untestable ones (eg String Theory).

I see your point; however, with my little smart-arsed comeback to the "theory" nonsense, the point isn't what theories have been debunked, but that the creationists' use of the term is incorrect, in terms of science. It's a starting point for pointing out that they are severely misinformed. Or that's what my more charitable moments permits of me. In my more realistic moments, I believe that people who misrepresent language this way in support of a specious claim are deliberately mendacious.

29. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122524 by Aquaria on February 5, 2008 at 11:52 am

Dr. Simmons gave us the classic and often overused explanation that "evolution is only a theory, not a fact."

Ah, my very favorite creationist tactic. My usual response is, "Germs are a theory, too, but I do hope that doesn't stop you from washing your hands after going to the bathroom."

30. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117835 by Aquaria on January 29, 2008 at 6:59 pm

I don't have to read this book to know it's nonsense. I've been exposed to his drivel for years now through other forums that have taken him apart many times over.

Vox Day's and WND's reputations for bigoted, fact-free screeds proceed them both, so I can rest assured that this will be a vomitous waste of words. This guy works from an extreme Religious Right authoritarian mindset. Always has. Always will. It is rare indeed that he won't support whatever extremist position on his side of the ideological aisle. He always spouts the same rhetoric as the others of his ilk. Do not be fooled by his airs of objectivity. He has none. He is a provocateur for his belief system, plain and simple.

Don't give him the attention. It's what he craves.

31. Houses of the Holy

Comment #25458 by Aquaria on March 13, 2007 at 8:18 am

Oh, and Sunny...

Lighten up. Spelling errors happen, and some people decide to poke a bit of fun at another's expense by using their name, besides. Silly in the latter case, I know, but you do remember that thing about forgiveness, I hope.

32. Houses of the Holy

Comment #25456 by Aquaria on March 13, 2007 at 8:06 am

It's always the same, isn't it?

Back in one of the little towns I lived in, one man came to town and was living in his run-down car when he started his pentecostal church. Within about ten years, he was worth millions, had a super-expensive home, bred prize-winning livestock and all the rest. His congregants were the poorest and most ignorant people around, and that's saying something, for the area (East TX)!

A friend of mine from S Louisiana had a similar con artist in her small hometown. He was fabulously rich, but his people were so desperately poor that they would have been hungry and barely clothed were it not for Catholic Charities (where my friend was a volunteer). Ultimate irony: They bashed the Catholics, every chance they got, even in the handout center. Imagine the ignorance, the arrogance and the presumption of denigrating the very people feeding and clothing you! That's how brainwashed these people were, that they couldn't let go of their indoctrination enough to be humble and grateful!

And y'all want to know mind control? Well, get ready. In San Antonio, there's Cornerstone Church, that city's premier mega-church. One of my son's friends got religion and started attending it. He decided he wanted to go out with a girl he met there.

He had to apply to the church for the privilege. But wait! There's more!

Once he had the approval (not sure how long it took), he couldn't just take her to dinner and a movie. Nope. He had to go on a group date, with five other couples--and chaperones. I kid you not. On date night, the males met at the church, and the chaperone herded them into a van (don't know if it were church-provided). Then they went to each of the homes of the young ladies and collected them. San Antonio isn't a small town. This must have taken forever to accomplish!

Apparently, they went to a church-approved restaurant. What could the requirements for such a thing entail? Have tortillas demonstrated evidence of being instruments of Satan? Was anyplace that served alcohol disqualified? Anyplace too dark off the list, or too...? My brain was hurting mightily by this point of the saga, so I let it slide.

Next, they went to a church-approved movie (trying to imagine what would have qualified). I wish I'd asked at the time how the chaperones positioned themselves to keep an eye on these hot-blooded young lovers, but I have a feeling I know how it worked.

Anyway, they did go to a coffee shop and chatted over coffee. Probably about religion.

Then they took all the young ladies home (no goodnight kiss allowed). Then the guys all went back to the church and went home.

If you can bear this idea of courtship and decide to get married, you again must have he church's permission.

And y'all wonder why these people don't raise a fuss over the minister's stealing from them? If people in this day and age will gladly hand over control to a church of even the right of pursuing a love interest, something that intimate and private a concern, how much control (and more importantly money) do you think they'll hand over as well, without question?