201. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #129935 by MelM on February 19, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Looks like it's not over yet. There's going to be an attempt to get the legislature into the act to get "academic freedom" included.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/florida-the-sta.html#comment-143557

What many may not known is that "scientific theory" was inserted into the standard in a number of places including the "scientific theory" of cells and the "scientific theory" of the earth's evolution. However, there is plenty of material covering the nature of laws and theories. So, while the fundies have stuck some propaganda handles into the standard, there's a remedy for the teachers included right in the standard itself.

202. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #129718 by MelM on February 19, 2008 at 1:54 pm

A comment by PZ: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/hiaasen_will_be_disappointed.php

203. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #129714 by MelM on February 19, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Comment #129673 by rod-the-farmer

ABC news link: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4311046&page=1

Vote by clicking on "Should Schools Teach Evolution" under "Related News" about 2/3 down on the right.

It's now 366 (for) 97 (against)

204. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #129705 by MelM on February 19, 2008 at 1:36 pm

From Feb 12 NCSE update:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/FL/731_evolution_under_siege_in_flori_2_12_2008.asp

The previous set of standards, adopted in 1999, received a grade of F in a
2005 report from the Fordham Foundation, which observed, "The
superficiality of the treatment of evolutionary biology alone justifies the
grade 'F'." Lawrence S. Lerner, a coauthor of the report, evaluated a
previous draft of the new standards, grading it as a high B, and
commenting, "With a little bit of extra effort, Florida could bring that up
to an A." The final draft, released on February 1, 2008, incorporated many
of the suggestions offered by Lerner and other experts who reviewed the
draft. The standards have also received the editorial approval of
newspapers around the state, including, most recently, the Vero Beach
Press-Journal (January 23, 2008).

205. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129158 by MelM on February 18, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Comment #129095 by kintaro_crab

i was just defending against the absolutist statement that we can't learn things from the internet. We need more sources of information, not less.

206. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129081 by MelM on February 18, 2008 at 3:48 pm

We've known about the pandemic of unreason for decades If reason were a virtue and knowledge a value in the U.S., religion would be dead.

I'll read this book looking for where she places the blame. Thus far, nothing I've seen or read about the book tells me that she's looked at the philosophies of education now popular. I'll be pleased if I find what I'm looking for.

For an in-depth analysis of the current mess, I submit this essay by Lisa VanDamme. I've been an admirer of her writing and school for several years. (She's an atheist.)

In this article, she looks at "progressive" education and the "classical education" alternative--both secular and Christian--and finds them all seriously flawed.

The False Promise Classical Education by Lisa VanDamme
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-summer/false-promise-classical-education.asp

On Rousseau, Kant, John Dewey

If formal, reality-oriented, intellectual education is an "imposition" on childhood, it is an imposition that has long since been removed. Dewey's "progressive" method, founded on the rejection of reason, knowledge, and intellectual training--and on the enshrinement of emotional impulse, "experience," and "social adjustment"--has dominated American schools for the past century. The "remote," "musty" subject of history has been replaced by the disintegrated mash of allegedly "relevant" data known as social studies. The "futile," "lofty" attempt to systematically teach abstract principles of science has been replaced by the fun, child-focused "learning-by-doing" method of making collages and finding moths on a wall. The "distant," "antiquated" works of world literature have been replaced with contemporary, hip "boy-makes-good tearjerkers" that appeal to the immediate concerns of the most childish children. Rigorous training of the intellect has been replaced with, in the words of the "progressive" educators, a more "practical," "child-centered," "humane" approach to education.

The practical result of all of this has been legions of ignorant children, unequipped for a successful human life.

Here we can see, among numerous violations of hierarchy, children being given a "basic concept" of atoms in the first grade, "learning" about the charge of protons and electrons in fourth grade, and being introduced to the periodic table in fifth grade. But consider the sequence in which these items of knowledge actually came to be known. The proof of the existence of atoms came in the late 19th century and depended on centuries of scientific knowledge, including Faraday's work with electricity, Avogadro's discoveries about molecules, and Dalton's experiments in chemistry, whose work in turn depended on the many scientists before them. Students are properly taught about atoms only after they have learned the long history of physics that made possible the discovery of atoms, at which time they are able to thoroughly grasp the arguments for their existence.

What Christian classical education provides for students is a fundamental, comprehensive source of ignorance. Its educators take Christian dogma--patently absurd fantasies--as the standard to which everything must be reconciled or thrown out.

207. The argument from oranges

Comment #128687 by MelM on February 17, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Context
I looked at the post again and found that the context for this video is missing. A new pro-evolution science standard has been written for Florida schools and should be voted on at a Feb 19 meeting of the state board of education. There's lots of support for the new standards among newspapers and science people. This fool is speaking at a special meeting:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/FL/731_evolution_under_siege_in_flori_2_12_2008.asp

From NCSE news:
Evolution under siege in Florida
As the Florida state board of education prepared to consider a final draft of a new set of state science standards, Floridians offered their opinions at a last-minute meeting held in Orlando on February 11, 2008. Over eighty speakers addressed the state commissioner of education, Eric Smith, and, via webcast, the board. A video of the entire meeting is available on the department's website. As the Orlando Sentinel (February 12, 2008) reported, "They came from one end of Florida to the other, and with views on evolution as far apart as the 800 miles that separate the Keys from the Panhandle." Observers estimated that there were about twice as many speakers opposing the treatment of evolution in the new standards as there were speakers who applauded it

Debra Walker, an archaeologist who serves on the Monroe County School Board and served on the writing committee, also urged the board to accept the new set of standards without tinkering. According to the Orlando Sentinel, Walker "said the current 'political meltdown over Darwinian theory' was proof that too many people had received a poor-quality science education. She noted that the school districts with some of the lowest science scores on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test were the ones complaining loudest about the new standards. 'Do we want these boards setting science policy in Florida? I think not.'"

208. The argument from oranges

Comment #128398 by MelM on February 16, 2008 at 11:25 pm

Yes; there are two versions.
The second is really more fun. http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/garden_of_eden/gn02_04-06.html

Anyway, they are attempting to wreck science because of a few infantile stories in a holy book. We clearly have some cognitivepathology at work here.

209. The argument from oranges

Comment #128376 by MelM on February 16, 2008 at 9:35 pm

Gen 1:20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Gen 1:24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Bananas
Peanut butter
Oranges

210. The argument from oranges

Comment #128296 by MelM on February 16, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Unfortunately, he didn't bring a bowl of nuts to illustrate his point.

211. The argument from oranges

Comment #128292 by MelM on February 16, 2008 at 5:19 pm

NCSE's Feb 12 report on the situation in Florida. The board's vote will be Feb 19.

The same motivations were on view at the Orlando meeting, along with bizarre claims about science -- the St. Petersburg Times (February 12, 2008) reported that a speaker "held up an orange and said that because of evolution, he now had irrefutable evidence that an orange was 'the first cousin to somebody's pet cat' and 'related to human beings'"

212. The argument from oranges

Comment #128285 by MelM on February 16, 2008 at 5:00 pm

This guy's parent was an orange.

213. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #128258 by MelM on February 16, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Lots of the pious would like Richard to show respect for their bullshit ideas, shut the hell up, and not make waves.

Messing over Dawkins mind
This woman is like most of the nutters: she tried to throw a monkey wrench into very basic ideas that support confidence in the human mind. For the 845th time, religionists know that reason is their enemy and they attempt to undercut it at a basic level. I am soooo happy to see Dawkins spot this attack and stick to his guns fighting back.

Backpeddle, backpeddle, backpeddle!
Isn't it also interesting how often nutters backpeddle away from all the infantile drivel of their religion and become Deists for the duration of a debate. They must be fully aware of the absurdity of "virgin birth", "talking snakes", "life after death", "eating the body of Jesus", and on and on and on. (I'm reading a book by a 13th century Inquisitor who complains about some heritics rejecting the euchaist, "saying that the body of Christ is not present because even if it were the size of a mountain, by now the Christians would have eaten it all")

Disrespect is good
Showing disrespect for the psychopathology of religion is something that is essential to breaking down the group think that gives these folks confidence. Religion doesn't deserve respect anyway. Of course, disrespect is not going to make him any friends among the religious; that's not the point.

Make waves!
Richard is operating at a more fundamental level than politics. (Anyway, religion IS one of the problems of the world (the biggest maybe) and underlies others.) It's important that religion becomes controversial: it's important that people start to think before they jump into a sect, it's important that people hear ideas that conflict with the junk they been indoctrinated with and have never really thought about; it's important that young high school and college age students learn the distinction between faith/dogma and reason/knowledge; it's important that people learn that faith is not a valid form of cognition; it's important that bible fanatics learn something that begins to chip away at their belief in the perfection of the "word"; it's important that everyone understands that atheists are not baby eaters or something. If Dawkins and the other New Atheists can't generate controversy and keep it going, then they will have accomplished very little.


Reason and facts are the foundation of people being able to get along together. Richard doesn't have to accept a 2nd prize on this issue, especially relative to any sort of faithhead.

214. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128036 by MelM on February 15, 2008 at 10:30 pm

The ancient Greeks started the revolution of independent thought in the West. Christianity is the counterrevolution.

Faith is a vice.

215. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127913 by MelM on February 15, 2008 at 5:53 pm

A unique U.S. school with an entirely different approach: VanDamme Academy (K-9). I've been following the school for several years with fascination.

School curriculum page: http://www.vandammeacademy.com/curriculum/default.htm

Science
A proper science curriculum provides students with an understanding of the physical world. At the same time, it teaches them the power of the human mind to discover such knowledge and use it to benefit our lives.

Our approach is unique. We teach the fundamental concepts of physics, biology, and chemistry in their historical order of development. This is the only way they can be truly grasped: the earliest discoveries are the most basic, and later knowledge builds on the foundation they provide.

Our students gain a real understanding of science, and can use their knowledge to explain the world around them.

Writing and Understanding
For the student to write explanations, in complete sentences, about every subject�quot;whether history, literature, grammar, math, or anything else�quot;requires that he have a true understanding of the concepts at hand. But he can often do well on multiple choice, matching, or other rote exercises with no real understanding

Pattern Recognition vs. Real Understanding
Every year, when I give my first test in a grammar or literature class, some new student asks me whether the test will be multiple choice. Every year, I look him in the eye and say “I can assure you that you will never, in any class, under any circumstances, at any point in your education at VanDamme Academy, have a test that is multiple choice.�

216. Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'

Comment #127054 by MelM on February 14, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Look what I found!!

I was trying to see if Ratzinger had anything to say on this (nothing found yet) when I ran across a new book.

A Most Holy War: The Albigensian Crusade and the Battle for Christendom (Pivotal Moments in World History) (Hardcover)
by Mark Gregory Pegg (Author) Jan 28, 2008

217. Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'

Comment #127015 by MelM on February 14, 2008 at 5:01 pm

I sent off a message to Condi Rice. The U.S. State Department will likely whine a little but I don't expect much more than that. I've never in my whole life seen a place so overwhelmed with appeasement cravings and compulsions.

218. Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'

Comment #127006 by MelM on February 14, 2008 at 4:31 pm

I hope Weasel says something to his Saudi pals and Brown should ask the Saudis to stop this anti-Islam action.

219. Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'

Comment #126994 by MelM on February 14, 2008 at 3:48 pm

I finally got to this post; I'm in control but there are tears in my eyes.

220. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #126984 by MelM on February 14, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I don't believe a theist could do the job. Methodological naturalism would have to be upheld but it's incompatible with metaphysical theism. There are other very serious problems as well.

In the first place, claiming that a god exists is irrational and therefore unscientific to begin with. Someone setting up shop as a spokesperson for science while believing in religious bullshit is just gross; it's supporting irrationalism, which, as we are all too aware, is attacking science. Going around with nice stories about Tiktaalik, or some such, while undercutting the very foundation of science is, in my view, concrete bound and short range. And it promotes and gives respect to faith.

Secondly, the premise that a god created or is now or ever has tinkered with the Universe, implies that methodological naturalism is, fundamentally, wrong. If some entities or events were caused by god, then god would indeed be the true (correct, valid) explanation. The fundies can come along and inform us that methodological naturalism is the real problem because it keeps people from finding out the truth and is basically unscientific. Didn't we see a post recently containing something about a respected scientist slipping into some bull about the possibility of god adjusting some quantum parameters or something like that? Just because some are able to survive with this terrible contradiction in their heads doesn't mean they're fit for a public role in defending science.

Finally, a theist is almost certainly going to turn the philosophic science of ethics over to the holy men. If they're given ethics, they will try to take politics, which they are doing right now!! Methodological naturalism will do us no good if research is banned.

A theist Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science is a Komodo dragon lizard in a pretty dress doing a silly dance hot footing between theism and science. Totally, totally gross! Don't give the job of a public lecturer in the temple of science to an advocate of mankind's worst enemy: religion.

221. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126670 by MelM on February 13, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Here is a link to a blog (The Jawa Report)that posted about the U.S Muslim blogger: ("The Jawa Report" blog is not a blog I'm familiar with.) If you decide to go to the nutjob's blog, the "with" at the end of the following quote (at Jawa) will take you there. I am certainly not going to comment on his site. This guy is barking mad and I don't want to give him any identifing info at all. In my case, that would be easy since my email address can't be protected at this time--and even if it was, I don't know how hard or easy it is to trace email addresses.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191229.php

If this isn't an incitement to murder, I don't know what is. Samir Khan, the Charlotte, NC al Qaeda supporter & blogger on Kurt Westergaard and other cartoonists who defied Islamist demands drawing pictures of Mohammed should be illegal, as required by Islamic law. He first shows an image of Westergaard, and then warns:

222. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126668 by MelM on February 13, 2008 at 8:50 pm

"Danish Muhammad cartoon reprinted" BBC Feb 14

Danish newspapers have reprinted one of several caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad which sparked violent protests across the Muslim world in 2005.

223. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #126613 by MelM on February 13, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Which science?
I note this from Simonyi's statement:

The chair is for 'Public Understanding of Science', so the holder will be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field rather than study the public's perception of the same.

The goal is for the public to appreciate the order and beauty of the abstract and natural worlds which is there, hidden, layer-upon-layer. To share the excitement and awe that scientists feel when confronting the greatest of riddles. To have empathy for the scientists who are humbled by the grandeur of it all. Those in the audience who reach the understanding sufficient to reveal the order and beauty in science will also gain greater insight into the connectedness of science and their everyday life.

224. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #126583 by MelM on February 13, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Please, no gap fillers! I posted a comment on this already which I repeat here:

Look for somebody who won't give an inch to religion. I really disagree when some are willing to chase religionists out of the special science departments but point them to the philosophy department. Faith isn't going to get anybody knowledge of anything. Whether it's about atoms, galaxies, epistemology, or ethics, reason must be in charge. Especially, I don't want to see anyone writing and talking to the public saying things like "It might be good theology but it's bad science." Indeed, the best candidate would be one who can advocate for reason as the foundation of all thought--including the special sciences. I think the cause of so much trouble from religion now is the failure to uphold reason. The times are very dangerous; we simply cannot have a major spokesperson for science who's also doing religion.

and, I wrote:

If we don't get a "Professorship in the Public Understanding of REASON" soon, you can kiss the public understanding of science goodbye.

Truely, this is an issue bigger than creationism, bigger than the special sciences, and bigger than atheism. If the world understood and valued reason, religion, with its faith epistemology, would already be only in the history books. Lack of understanding of science is a symptom of a much larger disease

225. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126270 by MelM on February 12, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Comment #126245 by troyreynolds86,

Good point. I too don't understand why people caught in a plot to murder Kurt are going to get off so easily. I think there should be some real risk associated with plotting. Sometimes though, there isn't enough evidence to charge people with anything serious. In this case, I just don't know.

226. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126240 by MelM on February 12, 2008 at 6:52 pm

jaster,

Your comment was civil and interesting. I don't think you deserved the rant you got from LeeLeeOne--I almost hit the "Offensive" button but I've got a serious hatred of "hate speech" rules, so I didn't. Anyway, you were asked about your "contribution to freedom" and you gave your answer. In my view, the whole issue of "Just War Theory" needs to be looked at by the Pentagon and U.S. leadership--I think it's costing soldiers lives and will cost the lives of the rest of us.

Anyway man, your atheist bona fides are ok by me.

227. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126236 by MelM on February 12, 2008 at 6:09 pm

jaster,

Thanks for your contributions: to this discussion and for your service in the Middle East.

I don't have a lot of answers about torture but I'll say this. If bin Laden or any of his known pals were caught, I would not care in the slightest about any long term psychological or physical issues. Leaving them comfy would do nothing for the rights of Americans or our allies--it could even result in the lose of our lives. Not doing what was needed would, in fact, be immoral and a blemish on our record of upholding individual rights. Piss on "love thine enemy".

Iraq and Afghanistan
About Iraq and Afghanistan, I think the U.S. doesn't have a clue about what to do. Iraq and Afghanistan are not the centers of Islamic totalitarianism; Iran and Saudia Arabia are. Iraq and Afghanistan are going to end up with tyranies because that's what they want. I used to think that everybody wanted freedom; after seeing Islam, I don't believe that anymore. Yet, the whole "Forward Strategy of Freedom" is based on such an assumption. Untill we can figure out what to do, I'd rather see the soldiers home. I'm not a pacifist in any way but I really hate altruist wars trying to bring "freedom and democracy" to these pest holes. Another thing that's going to hurt is that I know there are at least some in Iraq that bought into what we were trying to do. If they don't get out, these people will be dead.

Against the "Forward Strategy..."
You might be interested in this article about the "Forward Strategy..."

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-spring/forward-strategy-for-failure.asp

After demolishing the "Forward Strategy...", the authors look into what is required. I include just a brief overview quote:

When foreign aggressors are diligently working to slaughter Americans, our government is obligated to use retaliatory force to eliminate the threat permanently. This is what it must do to completely restore the protection of the individual rights of Americans. Defeating the enemy is necessary to bring about a return to normal lifeâ€"life in which Americans are free to produce and thrive without the perpetual dread of terrorist atrocities.

Making the enemy permanently non-threatening is the objective measure of success in war.

228. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126220 by MelM on February 12, 2008 at 4:22 pm

The reaction? Well, I'm most concerned about the reaction in the Western media and from Western leaders. Remember from before that the appeasers threw around the "bad taste" and "insulting religion" red herrings. I refuse to get into such debates. The issue is freedom of speech and only freedom of speech. In the face of DEATH threats, discussing "bad taste" is ludicrous! And surely, some will advocate that in order to stop muslim anger, we should not puplish such cartoons. Isn't it ironic that people would counsel "submission"?

Maybe it's time to watch again one of Hitchens' best speeches; the one about freedom of speech given at the U. of Toronto.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/03/free_speech_6.html

229. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126215 by MelM on February 12, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Kurt Westergaard's cartoon depicting the prophet wearing a bomb turban with a lit fuse attracted particular attention

"Live free or die" anyone ?

230. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126203 by MelM on February 12, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Comment #125971 by Ole

Several Danish newspapers plan to print the cartoons tomorrow as a protest.

231. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #126145 by MelM on February 12, 2008 at 1:55 pm

If we don't get a "Professorship in the Public Understanding of REASON" soon, you can kiss the public understanding of science goodbye.

Truely, this is an issue bigger than creationism, bigger than the special sciences, and bigger than atheism. If the world understood and valued reason, religion, with its faith epistemology, would already be only in the history books. Lack of understanding of science is a symptom of a much larger disease.

232. Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Comment #126103 by MelM on February 12, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Oh no!! Might the nutters try to get "spiritual ailments" into the science of psychology just as they've tried to get G*d into biology? There's no essential difference; both G*d and demons are inhabitants of the "spirit world" so craved by religionists. Religion does belong in psychology: as a subject for psychopathology.

233. Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Comment #126014 by MelM on February 12, 2008 at 11:35 am

Comment #125736 by NakedCelt,

Thanks. I'd run across the site but forgot about it. It's the old Summers translation but free. And a single volume version of the new translation might be awile in coming; I'm cooking the idea of sending Cambridge U. Press an email promoting such an edition.

234. Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Comment #125711 by MelM on February 11, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Geoff (computer demons) Great link; I hadn't seen it before now although it seems to be all over the web.

I wonder how many demons can reside in a machine with 500 to 750GB of disk space like today's newer PCs? Freaking nutter!!! And a nice subject for those who may want to study the psychopathology of religion. Anyone know of any good books in the field?

This rise in the belief in the age old idea
of "demons" is scary. If you've got Hitchens' book "The Portable Atheist", there is a piece in it by Carl Sagan about demons and witches ("The Demon-Haunted World", p218). It was believed that demons had intercourse with woman and that witches were the result. Sagan's picture of the the enormity of the witch hunts in Europe makes it much worse than I had realized. As it happens, I just started reading Sagan's book, "The Demon-Haunted World" today.

Sagan mentions a witch hunting manual ("Malleus Maleficarum") written about 1487 by Kramer and Sprenger. Sagan says that the book has been "aptly described as one of the most terrifying documents in human history." There is a new translation--the old one doesn't seem to be well regarded--but it's a two volume work for scholars containing both the Latin and English versions. (Cambridge University Press; Bilingual edition (December 18, 2006))
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521859778/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

Even at Amazon.com's reduced price of 216USD, it's pricey and I'd have no use for the Latin text. I'm hoping that the a 1 volume English version will be published for the general reader. The old translation is available and cheap so I may end up getting it just to see what the mentality was like.

The human ability to be terrified by the unseen and unseeable is truely a menace; the most outrageous fantasies are able to penetrate the religious mind and remain stuck there--seemingly beyond the victim's ability of eject them.

235. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125590 by MelM on February 11, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Look for somebody who won't give an inch to religion. I really hate it when some are willing to chase religionists out of the special science departments but point them to the philosophy department. Faith isn't going to get anybody knowledge of anything. Whether it's about atoms, galaxies, epistemology, or ethics, reason must be in charge. Especially, I don't want to see anyone writing and talking to the public saying things like "It might be good theology but it's bad science." Indeed, the best candidate would be one who can advocate for reason as the foundation of all thought--including the special sciences. I think the cause of so much trouble from religion now is the failure to uphold reason. The times are very dangerous; we simply cannot have a major spokesperson for science who's also doing religion.

236. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124971 by MelM on February 10, 2008 at 2:19 pm

What's next? Creating the office of "Imam of Canterbury"?

Here's another recent Condell video of Jan 19 that I don't believe has been posted here yet.
"O dhimmi Canada"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUTFcgE1F7w

237. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123863 by MelM on February 7, 2008 at 7:06 pm

Don't even think about cartooning Mo. That would certainly hurt "social cohesion". Oh yes; Pat Condell will have to be locked up for sure.

Beware of social cohesion. If everybody is glued to everybody else in one cohesive mass, nobody can do any harm because nobody can move.

I've seen people living in tyranies defending the lack of freedom of speech and basing this view on social cohesion.

238. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123695 by MelM on February 7, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Check out this charming photo of the man.
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/77?mediaid=519

239. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123684 by MelM on February 7, 2008 at 2:02 pm

The christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense. Why is man afraid to think?

Tom Paine, The Prospect Papers
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/prospect_papers.html

240. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123289 by MelM on February 6, 2008 at 8:40 pm

I wonder if the Brick Testament counts? I love this version of the bible.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/

And, the Dark Bible version is pretty good also.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm

241. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123280 by MelM on February 6, 2008 at 7:47 pm

The Faith 2.0 website:
http://www.faith20.org/
He said he was a professional christian and he is. I have no problem with being a professional whatever but I had no idea this was going on.

Turns out that this man of science was in a funk 'till he came up with this:

From his blog Feb 5: "But this is what struck me today: God doesn’t just call me to be a worker or a servant, someone who runs around and does things for God. He wants me to do stuff, but that’s not the primary calling on my life. My primary calling is to be his friend, to grow in my intimacy with God."

242. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123254 by MelM on February 6, 2008 at 5:48 pm

Really, I've been lazy and haven't looked hard enough for "scientific reasons." Perhaps, if I look in this book, I'll find the answer:

"The Inquisitor's Guide
A Medieval Manual on Heretics
by Bernard Gui
Translated and Edited by Janet Shirley"
http://www.ravenhallbooks.com/cgi-bin/1905043090.cgi?SID=R6phT9RDyk4AAFraDbA

243. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123246 by MelM on February 6, 2008 at 5:15 pm

(Thanks, JuxtaMonkey) "There are good, solid, historical, scientific reasons for us to believe what we believe"

244. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123228 by MelM on February 6, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Centuries ago, I and some atheist pals were sitting around talking in an Army service club and along came some guy selling religion. I'm a bit fuzzy now but it went like this:

God guy: "Have you studied all knowledge?"
Me: No! I've only studied a little of it.
God guy: Then how do you know that the knowledge of Gods's existence isn't among that knowledge?
Me: If you tell me where I can find such knowledge, I'll be glad to go look it up.

245. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #123093 by MelM on February 6, 2008 at 12:56 pm

It looks like the club will be approved, but...

http://acosmopolitan.blogspot.com/

246. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122496 by MelM on February 5, 2008 at 10:54 am

http://acosmopolitan.blogspot.com/

(bold, mine.) The council has already expressed the reasons behind your proposal's rejection, which amounts to little more than the wording of your club's proposal. ...

Believe me, I do not truly believe that you will be going around harassing religious organizations. If your club's proposal and goals were to be revised to include only the promotion of your own beliefs, instead of the active promotion of living life "without religion", then your club's proposal would pose no problem as I see it.

247. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122186 by MelM on February 4, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Intolerance can be moral
"Intolerance" covers a lot of ground and can easily become a package-deal. Basically, I must, should, and want to respect the rights of others. I don't block or disrupt meetings, make threatening phone calls or emails, throw rocks at peoples houses, scratch up cars or bumper stickers, do physical harm, or harass people. However, this does not mean that I should be respectful and tolerant of bad ideas. In fact, one should be intolerant of bad ideas. If you want to live in a sane and free world, it is important (and moral) to be intolerant of irrational nonsense. This does not mean that it's necessary to shout at every theist (or others) you deal with. If your silence will imply agreement, you can simply say "I don't agree." Books, articles, letters to the editor can all be forms of intolerance. So can an angry email because anger expresses moral condemnation, which is sometimes appropriate. There is a huge difference between thuggery and thought. If the two are confused in people's mind, we'll end up with no freedom of thought.

Disrespect can be just
It's a pet theory of mine that adult religious people are dependent on the respect they continue to get even after confessing belief in infintile myths. They can evade looking silly in their own eyes so long as they believe they don't look silly in the eyes of others. That's why I think that showing disrespect by the New Atheists is both just and a good tactic. Further, Hitchens' use of eloquent anger is often superb; the speech at the U. of Toronto was a polemical masterpiece in many ways.

248. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122132 by MelM on February 4, 2008 at 7:47 pm

al-rawandi,

Please check the link in #41 ( http://acosmopolitan.blogspot.com/ )

... and now some members of the internet freethought community have started writing angry e-mails about that. What does that say about us? I like your enthusiasm but it's getting out of hand and not helping the situation.

249. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122124 by MelM on February 4, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Re: #41

Quote from the latest email from the CC department:

If your club's proposal and goals were to be revised to include only the promotion of your own beliefs, instead of the active promotion of living life "without religion", then your club's proposal would pose no problem as I see it.

250. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122104 by MelM on February 4, 2008 at 5:58 pm

The latest (Feb 4):

http://acosmopolitan.blogspot.com/

The Eye of the Hurricane
Day 3 since my first blog entry on our club getting denied recognition: Havoc