NoGodBlog.com

I'll have a beer in his honor. And maybe reread Voyage of the Beagle

I'm attending a Darwin Day lecture at our local botanical garden's education center given by a local history professor. Should be fun.

Suck it jesus!

LONG LIVE DARWIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A great day to commemorate a great man as well as to commemorate all the scientists alive, the ones killed by the religious tribes, groups, sects, and ignorant people, and the ones who gave their life for the well being of humanity and nature.
I will be attending a small presentation in aerodynamics put together by some very young and enthusiastic model airplane designers.

Happy b-day Darwin!

In other news, the Feb 10 protests against Scientology were massive successes. 100 cities worldwide, with over 10,000 protesters.

This is one giant step towards getting rid of their tax exempt status and making their "religion" unprofitable. Bravo anon and the Scientology victims that came out to tell the cult to get the hell out.

General overview of the protests:
http://www.xenu.net/news/20080210-picket_signs.html

Happy D Day. The other d day.

Darwin Day expresses gratitude for the enormous benefits that scientific knowledge, acquired through human curiosity and ingenuity, has contributed to the advancement of humanity.

http://www.darwinday.org/

I wonder what happened to the "curiosity" aspect? Why do atheists insist on limiting one's curiosity on how things work?

One things for certain...Darwin DID NOT have a closed mind...

Phreedum,

Oh, so forcing yourself to believe in cosmic Jewish zombies that we can telepathically communicate with is an example of curiosity?????

That is Phreedums point - if we reject his beliefs that are unsuppoted by ANY evidence, then we are displaying a lack of curiosity!!! Errr, can I recommend a good dictionary?? Websters perhaps?

Phreedum,

I realise that your God-belief is very significantly correlated to lower IQ and less education, but even a halfwit should realise that Darwins theory of natural selection offers so much more than "Gawd did it".

Why don't you simply reject science as the work of the devil?? It would be much easier for you, and completely consistent with your beliefs also.

phreedum,
Science is grounded in human curiosity about the universe whereas religion effectivley puts a stop to inquiry because it should be enough for us to know that "god did it".
It is so achingly obvious that you have zero scientific understanding or any sort of sophisticated world view. Stick with the comforting fairy tales mate since reality is just too bright and scary for you to face.

Once again Phreeky ponders why his fanciful imagination (well actually he doesn't have one but is borrowing from a tired old book) can not substitute for science.

Thank-you all for proving my point...

You've proven the point that if an individual believes differently from the current "main stream" scientific community, that their views are somehow unworthy of exploration...

Read the headlines from the mid-1800's. This is exactly what Darwin faced in his time...it's this "closed minded" and "bigotted" approach to new ideas that has stiffled science...

It's this fanaticism towards religion that impeads education within the USA...

Which is more important to you...protecting the myth and forcing children to stay in failing inner city schools?

Or allowing them to enroll in PROVEN private schools within their community even if those schools are religious in nature...

AA has proven over and over again that they would support the myth at the expense of quality education...

"You've proven the point that if an individual believes differently from the current "main stream" scientific community, that their views are somehow unworthy of exploration..."

I don't think that at all. If an individual is willing to put forward some evidence for their theories, the scientific community is more than willing to investigate. Science isn't static. It grows and changes with new evidence. The key point is that science can admit when it was wrong based on new evidence, whereas religion is static.

I really wonder how much exposure phreedm has had regarding science and how advancement is handled, because he spouts off the most inane ignorance. When you publish a paper the results must be verifiable and repeatable, or else it's void. If the hypothesis is not testable, then it doesn't fall into the scope of science really... you wouldn't enter a contest for say a classical cellist solo and expect to win playing a jazz improv on a trumpet, they're just not the same thing.

Ignore phreedm. He's the worst kind of ignorant person: willfully ignorant.

Happy Darwin Day!

leave phreeky alone....dont you know that ID has scientifically proven the link between superstition and science by inserting god in front of evolution.....golly gee

Read the headlines from the mid-1800's. This is exactly what Darwin faced in his time...it's this "closed minded" and "bigotted" approach to new ideas that has stiffled science...

Just curious, but what, precisely, about Intelligent Design do you consider 'new'? Bio-chemical memory in slime-molds, however, is a great deal more interesting than reading about the latest DI idiocy.

Consider:

[Aaron G] Filler “questions and rejects the reigning scientific orthodoxy, and show[s] how humans and apes may have had a common upright ancestor — an ‘upright ape’....”

Are you laughing yet? The truth is christians and Muslims have a common upright ancestor, an idiot.

The myth (christianity) is very fearful of becoming totally irrelevant, so much so that the followers of the christian myth will embrace the foundation of evolution in order to keep the myth of christianity alive.

It is possible that there could be something more disgusting than christianity but what it would be I don't know.

Rna2Dna, where is that blockquote from?

You've proven the point that if an individual believes differently from the current "main stream" scientific community, that their views are somehow unworthy of exploration...

Show us some evidence for your beliefs and I'm sure the scientific community would be the first to investigate and accept your extraordinary claims. To this point, however, there is zero evidence for god which is why the scientists are just not interested.

FlyingWeasel,
http://www.scibooks.org/recentlyreceived01.html

Phreakshow, phreakshow. What are we to do with a clueless moran who does not even understand how completely clueless it is?

I wonder what happened to the "curiosity" aspect? Why do atheists insist on limiting one's curiosity on how things work?

How are atheists imposing limits on scientific inquiry into how things work?

Why do the religiously insane insist on imposing their unprovable occult superstitions on scientific inquiry?

You've proven the point that if an individual believes differently from the current "main stream" scientific community, that their views are somehow unworthy of exploration...

Wrong again. If that individual can quantify their 'belief' into something verifiable, measurable, and able to stand up to scientific examination, then their views are most certainly worthy of consideration.

Why can't the religiously insane accept that their 'beliefs' have been scrutinized by science, and found lacking in any ability to be tested?

Which is more important to you...protecting the myth and forcing children to stay in failing inner city schools?

Or allowing them to enroll in PROVEN private schools within their community even if those schools are religious in nature...

AA has proven over and over again that they would support the myth at the expense of quality education...

Which is more important to you...advancing myth and superstition by forcing children to attend schools that force children to endure their pagan nonsense?

Or allowing them to enroll in PROVEN schools within their community even if those schools are not religious in nature...

Theocratic fundamentalists has proven over and over again that they would support myth and brainwash america's children at the expense of quality education...

Phreakshow's too easy. It spews the same old tired occult nonsense ove and over again? What's that definition of insanity I'm thinking of again?

Oh yeah - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Phreedm,

You've proven the point that if an individual believes differently from the current "main stream" scientific community, that their views are somehow unworthy of exploration...

Wrong.

If a positive claim has more evidence against it than for it or cannot be tested then it is unworthy of being accepted.

You've mis-used "exploration". No idea is unworthy of exploration, even horrible ideas like genocide. But exploration does not equal acceptance. I would venture to say that it almost never leads to acceptance unless one is prone to jumping to conclusions.

We believe in evolution because it is both testable and has more evidence for it than against it.

Is there an alternate theory that can also fit both those criteria? If so, then it is worthy of acceptance if it stands up to evolution. If not, then any other idea is worthy of exploration, but not yet worthy of acceptance.

The reason Christianity doesn't fit that bill is because it has evidence against it. One small example: Prayer is a cornerstone of the religion and hasn't been shown to work when tested.

It's this fanaticism towards religion that impeads education within the USA...

For the record, I agree. If people were to worship their deities in private all the issues pertaining to religion in schools would fade away and we could get on with addressing the rest of what's holding education back.

As an aside, for a guy who speaks out about education in the US so much, it's pretty sad to see you misspell "impedes". I went to public schools all the way through college, I wonder why I don't need a spell checker very often?

Which is more important to you...protecting the myth and forcing children to stay in failing inner city schools? Or allowing them to enroll in PROVEN private schools within their community even if those schools are religious in nature...

You didn't actually define the myth (so much for unambiguous communication), but I think I know what you're talking about.

Here's my theory: Private school test scores are strongly skewed higher due to the fact that they don't accept poorly performing students. This helps them increase their average by cutting out the bottom of the scale. It does not necessarily mean they provide a higher quality education. They may just be dealing with students more interested in learning than what a private school has to put up with.

Sending more kids to private schools will either point this out (if they continue to accept only above average students), or will make their averages converge much more closely with public schools (if they have to start accepting all students).

You want to fix the education problem? Convince kids that learning is important. They'll figure it out themselves if they can be convinced that it's worth their while, I did.

Is your unstated theory better than mine?

AA has proven over and over again that they would support the myth at the expense of quality education...

Is this the same unstated myth as above? I've never seen AA speak out against vouchers for secular private schools, I think you're trying to slander the organization with baseless lies.

Also, please stop abusing the ellipsis. When you abuse it, all it stands for is all the unspoken thoughts that are missing from your posts.

Comment from: alexatheist

Show us some evidence for your beliefs and I'm sure the scientific community would be the first to investigate and accept your extraordinary claims.

You missed the point. Science should be immune to anyone's religious beliefs or non-religous beliefs...

Would you disagree with that statement?

Science is pure...ANY idea should be allowed to be explored and either proven or debunked...

Would you disagree with that statement?

Comment from: (: tom :)

Why can't the religiously insane accept that their 'beliefs' have been scrutinized by science, and found lacking in any ability to be tested?

Such as...?

Phreeky really wrote this

Read the headlines from the mid-1800's. This is exactly what Darwin faced in his time...it's this "closed minded" and "bigotted" approach to new ideas that has stiffled science...

He's not a scientist so how would he know? He doesn't even have a decent science education. Once again he pleads for his imagination to replace actual science.

Science is pure...ANY idea should be allowed to be explored and either proven or debunked...

Substitute ANY with ANY TESTABLE and pea brain might get somebody here to agree with him. But just that one little word destroys all of Phreeky's hopes to substitute science with fantasies. IF A HYPOTHESIS IS NOT TESTABLE IT'S NOT EVEN WRONG. WHICH MEANS THAT IT IS WORSE THAN WRONG FOR EVEN A HYPOTHESES TESTED AND SHOWN TO BE WRONG IS OF VALUE.

A nice Baked Christian Chop for Darwin Day dinner.

Ummmm, those lambs are tasty.

Later on will be non-christian (never acquired a taste for blood) wine.

Comment from: alatham

Well you may not need spell check but you certainly can't follow the discussion...

You've proven the point that if an individual believes differently from the current "main stream" scientific community, that their views are somehow unworthy of exploration...

Wrong.

If a positive claim has more evidence against it than for it or cannot be tested then it is unworthy of being accepted.

Let me simplify it for the college grad...

Should a scientist be allowed to explore any and all theories...?

Comment from: alatham

One small example: Prayer is a cornerstone of the religion and hasn't been shown to work when tested.

Are you really so closed minded?
(wait...of course you are)

How about Lubbock Texas...?

Do you simply dismiss everything you try simply because a test comes up empty? Is it any wonder that the world is filled with more failures then those who are successful?

Perhaps your testing method is wrong...the "unbelieving" scientific community looked at Edison's unsuccessful experiments as failures...he didn't...

Why are you so quick to seize upon failure? If I had to guess...you're a liberal...but lets leave politics out of it...

Is your imagination hindered by your lack of belief? Or is anything possible in your world?

I'll ask again...should a child stuck in a failing public school, not be allowed to escape even if that means going to a private school?

It's clear that AA would rather support the myth instead of the child...

Do you...?

Poor phreedm... too lazy to do any work on his own... hiding in his cloak of ignorance...

Sad...

Should a scientist be allowed to explore any and all theories...?

yes.

and the scientific community should be free to reject said theories if they cannot hold up to scientific scrutiny without having every single deluded "true-beleiver" call it persecution.

I'll ask again...should a child stuck in a failing public school, not be allowed to escape even if that means going to a private school?

yes, but that should not come at the expense of funding for the failing public schools you're so fond of talking about. no one is keeping someone from homeschooling their kids or sending them to private school, but that should not come at the expense of funding for a comprehensive public education system.

Poor phreedm... too lazy to do any work on his own... hiding in his cloak of ignorance...We call it his brain.

Poor phreedm... too lazy to do any work on his own... hiding in his cloak of ignorance...

We call it his brain.

Phreedum,

The prayer study had the statistical power to detect if prayer works or not (it was found not to work).

Of course Gawd probably knew this, so in his infinite wisdom, he skewed the results in order to test the true believers faith (kinda like fossils).

I'm starting to think you are an atheist having a bit of fun with us all...no one can be that willfully ignorant.

Come on Phreedum...fess up.

I just wanna know if Danger is your middle name

Should a scientist be allowed to explore any and all theories...?

There's dumb, and then there's brain-dead. The above statement represents the latter.

Anyone want to give me a research grant to study Invisible Pink Unicorns in their natural habitat?

Comment from: phreedm [Member]

Comment from: (: tom :)br /> Why can't the religiously insane accept that their 'beliefs' have been scrutinized by science, and found lacking in any ability to be tested?

Such as...?

Um - such as the one we're talking about in this comments thread, moran.

The one that is the underpinning of ID - the belief that there is an intelligent designer behind everything.

Got any proof? Or even some way of testing the potential scientific hypothesis ID proposes?

Maybe the religiously insane can start asking for alchemy courses to be re-introduced to the science curriculum next. Or the translation of those speaking in tongues into the literature curriculum. How about creative accounting for tax-free churches in the financial section?

Phreedm,

First, if you have something to say, say it. I can't follow your insinuations and your unspoken thoughts. If you don't communicate properly, you'll never convince anyone.

Should a scientist be allowed to explore any and all theories...?

Mentally, yes. Verbally, yes. Logically, yes. Experimentally, no.

If an experiment is unethical, then it shouldn't be run. In all other cases, ideas and theories should be explained in detail, explored with the mind, and tested where appropriate.

I already explained this, but you seem to have missed that "explore" has many different definitions.

Are you really so closed minded?
How about Lubbock Texas...?

The only thing I know about Lubbock is that they see a lot of UFOs there. What exactly are you talking about?

Do you simply dismiss everything you try simply because a test comes up empty?

If I run an experiment and the test doesn't pan out, then I think about why it didn't pan out. If I can come up with a better way of testing, then I run another test. If I cannot come up with a better test then I start thinking of ways to prove that my theory is wrong. I also explain my theory to anyone who will listen if it's a good idea to do so (in the invention business sometimes it's important to keep ideas to yourself). I do not jump to any conclusions without also recognizing that I may be wrong.

I don't open my eyes, fail to see a ghost and immediately come to the conclusion that they don't exist. It's taken a long time to looking and a repeated, consistent lack of evidence to come to the conclusion that they probably don't exist. But I cannot make the positive claim that they don't exist.

Is it any wonder that the world is filled with more failures then those who are successful?

There's a nice joke here about there being more theists than atheists in the world, but I'll let you figure it out on your own.

For the record, I wouldn't really know what it's like to be a failure. My approach to life has panned out quite well. Maybe I'm just lucky though.

Perhaps your testing method is wrong...the "unbelieving" scientific community looked at Edison's unsuccessful experiments as failures...he didn't...

Yes, and once Edison devised better ways of testing his theories he started to convince people.

Never again forget that it's up to the one making the claim to come up with the evidence. You forget this all the time.

Why are you so quick to seize upon failure? If I had to guess...you're a liberal...but lets leave politics out of it...

Why are you so quick to make judgments about me? I've already explained my conclusion making progress up above, your description of it does not fit. You would have done well to ask me about it first.

There are plenty of prayer experiments that have shown it to have no statistical effect. I am not basing my skepticism on a jump to conclusions. If you can provide some studies that show it's effectiveness, then I would like to examine them.

For the record, I'm socially very liberal, fiscally slightly liberal.

Is your imagination hindered by your lack of belief? Or is anything possible in your world?

My imagination is quite active (I'm a musician and toy inventor, remember?). Imagination is my well-being.

I, like every other developed human being on this planet, also have no lack of belief. It is you who has an abundance of irrational beliefs.

Everyone likely has irrational beliefs. We pick them up all our lives, but mostly when we're young. It's important to constantly explore one's own beliefs and determine which of them are irrational. At that point, the right thing to do is to either justify the belief with evidence or accept some level of ignorance. The wrong thing to do is to continue to hold to it steadfastly.

If you want to point out any irrational beliefs I seem to hold, I'll be glad to either defend them or denounce them.

The failure to defend one's beliefs effectively against another potential belief is the core of closed mindedness. Since you've blindly accused me of having a closed mind (once of the few things that I'll actually take offense to), prove it. Provide evidence that your beliefs explain the world around us better than mine and I'll listen to what you have to say.

To answer your other question, if anything were possible in our world, I would believe in the power of prayer as explained in the Bible. Since nobody can move mountains with only the power of prayer, or give amputees their limbs back, or any number of other things, it's pretty clear that the Bible is wrong as far as prayer is concerned.

I'll ask again...should a child stuck in a failing public school, not be allowed to escape even if that means going to a private school?

It's clear that AA would rather support the myth instead of the child...

I'll ask again, what myth?

No child is stuck in failing public schools. They always have the option to either be home schooled or go to a private school. But you are asking about funding for private schools.

Private schools should be run like private businesses. If they can't get enough grants to make their tuition low enough then that's their own fault.

The other option is to take money away from public schools and give it to private schools. If you do that, the whole system will fail and then the private schools will become the new public schools. But the new public schools will be able to teach whatever they want with no oversight.

I am not willing to accept that as a viable option unless you can convince me that the following idea is wrong: A quality of a school is determined by it's students.

If you shift uncaring students to new schools they'll still be just as uninterested. I have no doubt that there are flaws in the public school system, but I believe that the factor with the most weight is the student body. Even if I'm wrong, it would still be much easier to fix the flaws in the public school system than it would be to start an entirely new system from scratch.

Also, why do you persist in attacking AA for their stated stance against religion intermingling with government? It should be obvious that AA doesn't want the government paying for people to push their religious beliefs on people. To the best of my knowledge they have nothing to say about vouchers for private secular schools (not coincidentally the highest rated schools in the country).

From where I stand, you give the impression of being more interested in pushing religious dogma on children than giving them the education they need to survive in an increasingly secular world. I hope I'm wrong.

Great, I managed to bold my grammar error.

That should read: The quality of a school is determined by it's students.

Actually, that should read: The quality of a school is determined by its students (its, not it's)

Sorry, that's one of my pet peeves, and I just couldn't help myself :)

alatham,

I truly admire your dedication and patience in dealing with the phreekster's inane arguments. More power to you.

Thanks Tarma. You're totally right about the apostrophe. Replacing "it's" with "it is" points that out perfectly. So that's two bolded grammar errors. Eep.

I wish I didn't have to write so much when I respond to him, but I feel like I'm forced into being long-winded in order to explain every little detail. In the past I've suffered from him harping on about tiny details that weren't fully explained (like my original explanation for why all ideas are worthy of exploration that he either missed or misunderstood).

I'm a lot more patient than the average person, but if this weren't a public forum even I would have stopped responding to Phreedm months ago. Since it's public though, I don't want people who stumble onto these topics to think we don't have any answers to his bizarre complaints. If a person who was already prone to jumping to conclusions were to come here, it would only take a few of his unanswered posts to convince them that we have no counter arguments.

Unfortunately for we atheists, it seems to take 10 times as much effort to come up with a decent argument as it does to come up with a poor one.

It's much easier to rely on logical fallacies and unspoken arguments, but I've never been afraid of critical thinking or unambiguous communication.

alatham,

So that's two bolded grammar errors. Eep.

Twee!


2 (original) + 1 (correction time) = Twee

;)

And:

Sure they are out to convice people, it is the necessary evil they do to get the money, that is, the people won't generally give the money if they are not conviced.

I'm just saying :)

Oops, that last part should be in the pissy Pope topic.

I just wanna know if Danger is your middle name

One of my favorite bands: Danger is My Middle Name. Take a listen at: http://tinyurl.com/yuqsq6

My approach to life has panned out quite well. Maybe I'm just lucky though.

AND your public school education. I went to public schools, and they were great. Students and teachers were kind, caring people. I learned a lot there, good old Ambridge High.

phreedm, your comment about public education misses the point. We have lots of well-working models of public education in other countries we can turn too if we want to improve our system. There is no need to turn it over to the religions. Hammas and other religious-based charity groups also do good work in various fields, from education to health care. The Soviets had great schools too. In other words, even though religious schools typically outperform public schools in the USA, the side effects are worse than the cure.

Besides, who would get the extra cash to go to religious schools? Everyone? In the long run, only the religions (a lucky subset which would likely include primarily Christian schools) would profit. If Uncle Sam gives out the money for everyone to attend private schools, he will have just transformed public education from a secular to non-secular system.

Instead of giving extra money to the small Catholic school in the ghetto right across from the crumbling public school, why not just give it to the crumbling school?

Voucher programs are like ID, gay issues and abortion. They do not exist for their own sake, but merely as back-alley methods to spread Christianity into secular realms and mix politics with religion in sneaky ways.