Piss-funny (via Pharyngula)
Monday, August 28, 2006
Sunday, August 27, 2006
"Whenever I talk about the growing power of the evangelical right with friends, they always ask the same question: What can we do? Usually I reply with a joke: Keep a bag packed and your passport current."
Just in time for the annual "War on Christmas," Salon reporter Michelle Goldberg takes us inside the world of Christian Nationalism.
And a commenter at Sketchgirl's blog takes us inside the brain of a Christian Nationalist.
Just in time for the annual "War on Christmas," Salon reporter Michelle Goldberg takes us inside the world of Christian Nationalism.
And a commenter at Sketchgirl's blog takes us inside the brain of a Christian Nationalist.Saturday, August 26, 2006
Due to teaching prac obligations I'll be posting less frequently for a while.
Meanwhile:
Father of the year? (Dispatches from the Culture Wars)
Fisking Paul Kelly on the "History Wars" (Bruce)
"Science is dead," says religious fundamentalist. (Blogs for Bush)
A scientist responds (Pharyngula)
Thursday, August 17, 2006
"What happens when the same number of people pray for something as pray against it? How does God decide whose prayer to answer? Does the total number of people praying for or against something matter? How about the righteousness of the supplicants? Are positive prayers answered more frequently than negative ones? Does God take the positive ones and Satan the negative? Does the intensity of the praying have any effect on the outcome? Does the length of time one devotes to praying have any effect on the frequency with which one's prayers are answered? Do the words and phrases used in the prayer — either positive or negative — have any bearing on the success rate? Does the nature of the thing or things prayed for have any bearing on the prayer's success rate — either positive or negative prayers? Why or why not??"
Robert A. Baker, "Prayer Wars" Skeptical Briefs (http://www.csicop.org/sb/9709/baker.html, Septmber 1997).Via Pharyngula.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
On ABC Radio National's Counterpoint, Bettina Arndt has a column complaining about (drum roll, please) ABC bias. While the import of that previous sentence sinks in, let's go straight to the nub of her whinge. According to Arndt, the ABC is biased because of the following:
Tune into ABC news or their major current affairs programs you'll hear the endless drum roll of stories banging on about aboriginal issues, the environment, or their latest obsession - banning junk food - plus feminist priorities like domestic violence and sexual abuse.(They also bang on about federal politics, conflict in the Middle East, trade and other economic issues, education and other public policy issues, and so on and so forth--but let's not allow the facts to get in the way of good strawman.) The bias lies in the notion that these are issues that are of greater concern to ABC newsroom and current affairs journalists than they are to The Australian People. (*cough* ad populum fallacy *cough*.) Arndt reckons that the ABC should cover issues closer to the heart of the man in the street. (It should model itself on John Howard, in other words, and be "for all of us.") Like unwed mothers in defacto relationships. Most of these, according to Ardnt, are in relationships so unstable that they invariably end up becoming single mothers. The sluts. And let's not forget unwed dads. Like Pat Rafter. Why didn't the ABC raise the completely impartial and objective question "about whether this unmarried father was really displaying values we want young people to emulate?" Bias, that's why.
And you know what? She's right. I took a look around the ABC website, and there's heaps of stuff they cover that would obviously be of absolutely no concern whatsoever to The Australian People. Take The Science Show, for instance. Science! Bo-ring. The Book Show? Who reads books? Bush Telegraph? How un-Australian can you get? The Religion Report? For what does it profit a man to listen to "The Religion Report," if he should lose on the share market? Big Ideas? Instead of getting "ideas," how about getting a job?
Need we imagine the kinds of stories The 7.30 Report should cover in future, if the ABC is to rid itself of this charge of bias?
And need we lose sight of the curious happenstance that Ardnt's accusation of "ABC bias" appears on Counterpoint, a programme that--unlike other ABC topical issues programmes, from Insiders to Late Night Live, which canvass a range of views--contains nary an opinion from outside the Right of the political spectrum? Ardnt owes me an irony detection meter.
"Idiot of the Week" clearly must go to a troll by the moniker of "Annie" who has been hanging out at a blog by the name of Pooflingers Anonymous, to the lasting delight of the blog owner and his regular contributors. I'll let "Annie's" initial post speak for itself; her subsequent posts are merely variations on a theme.
i get so angry reading blogs like this. atheist should not be considered american citizens. they have no moral compass and refuse to accept our creator!!!I know what you're thinking: "Annie" is obviously some smart-arse caricaturing a Christian fundamentalist. Sadly, it doesn't seem so: I don't think a mere prankster would have "Annie's" stamina. It even gets to the stage where the blog owner opens a post especially for the purpose of "roasting" his new-found troll. Can you feel the love?
you should be PROUD to be AMERICAN and not living in a country like europe or china not having the same freedoms like we do. we are the most advanced country and best country in the WORLD and its because we are the only TRUE CHRISTIAN NATION left in the world.
JESUS CHRIST IN HEAVEN please take this man to your heart and show him that his sinful life is NOT NEEDED and he can live in LOVE and show RESPECT to the nation that allows him to write garbage like this.
a REAL american is a CHRISTIAN american,if it does not suit you,perhaps you should try living in EUROPE and see how much freedom you get there.
God Bless America
This is how you treat trolls, folks. Let them bloviate to their hearts' content, knowing that every utterance merely provides more sauce for the amusement of the regular visitors. Like when Annie proceeds to hold forth on the "rleigion of evolution (sic)," speaking in impassioned defence of Kent Hovind--the Young Earth Creationist (a.k.a. "Dr. Dino"*) who is so batshit crazy that even the regular YEC nutjobs won't touch him with a ten-foot pole--well, that just brings the house down. "Defend Hovind some more please. That's my favorite." begs one fellow contributor. And does she ever oblige!
if the world was 4 BILLION years old we would have MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE PEOPLE in the world.& c. & c. And no amount of reasoned argument, counter-evidence or helpful nudging in the direction of authoritative sources will move her. If you needed further convincing that explicit instruction in critical thinking needs to occupy a central place in any school curriculum (and is even more deserving of a place in the curriculum than history), look no further.
if we came from apes, WHY ARE THE APES STILL HERE? you say we come from homo erectus if i remember,so, why are THEY dead? BUNK ON YOU!!!
the world is CREATED,so clearly there is a CREATOR! the universe is PERFECT for us to live in, if it was any different, if the moon was closer, if the radioation stronger we would be DEAD. its perfectly made for us to live here, CANT YOU SEE THIS? its like you moving into a apartment and then say "gosh,how did this room evolve here i wonder? wow,that sink almost look designed for me to use, NO,i cant believe that, it must have come out of ACCIDENT".
no atheist has EVER proven that GOD does not exist. FUNNY, its ALMOST like he DOES exist eh?
Last word goes to Annie:
I AM A TROLL SPREADING THE LOVE OF GOD !!!(*Five Public Opinions accepts no responsibility for any loss of brain matter incurred as a consequence of opening this link.)
Tuesday, August 8, 2006
Remember the Wedge Document?
Finally, the evilutionists have countered with a vast global conspiracy of their own: the "anti-Wedge Document."
Via Panda's Thumb.
Finally, the evilutionists have countered with a vast global conspiracy of their own: the "anti-Wedge Document."
Via Panda's Thumb.
Monday, August 7, 2006
Via Dispatches From the Culture Wars, Media Matters has investigated the footnotes to Ann Coulter's latest tome Godless, concluding that she:
Godless, Coulter's war on secular democracy, is particularly notorious for its attack on September 11 widows who dared to be critical of President Bush: "And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy. . . ." Reason editor and fellow conservative Cathy Young takes her to task here.
routinely misrepresented the information of her sources, as well as omitted inconvenient information within those same sources that refuted her claims. Coulter relied upon secondary sources to support many of her claims, as well as unreliable or outdated information.The gory details of each falsehood and misrepresentation can be found in the same article. It all makes for a good laugh. Proof positive that running off at the mouth, at high volume, and with one's foot buried somewhere deep within, gets you very far in the US. The science website Talk Reason explores some of the blind alleys into which Coulter's polemic is led by her reliance upon secondary sources.In addition to demonstrating her poor scholarship, this analysis also made clear Coulter's lack of respect for her readers, who she clearly assumed would believe anything she wrote, as long as there was a citation attached to it.
Godless, Coulter's war on secular democracy, is particularly notorious for its attack on September 11 widows who dared to be critical of President Bush: "And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy. . . ." Reason editor and fellow conservative Cathy Young takes her to task here.
Saturday, August 5, 2006
BeepBeepIt'sMe has posted a link to a BBC Morality Test. (And, sucker that I am for these online quiz things, I took it.) The test is largely based upon the work of psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, particularly his famous "Heinz Dilemma." Here's how I fared:
ASK DR. GEOFF
The Naturalistic Fallacy
"It's not that atheists can't display morality or moral actions. It's that a belief in morality is inconsistent with atheism. If we are just atoms bouncing around morality is just an illusion. [. . .] Atheists who say otherwise, like yourself, have the impossible task of explaining how meaningful objective morality (or even meaning) can be derived from atoms bouncing around."
Begging the Question
"You want to say "hey, atheists can be moral and theists can act bad." No one said otherwise. But when you uphold morality you are stealing from theism. I would argue that is because God has implanting things in you that you can't avoid. The general knowledge of right and wrong is one of them and they point to His existance."
(In other words: "Morality comes from God. How do we know God exists? Because we have morality.")
Straw Man
"There have been some atheists you have tried to maintain that they think morality is subjective. I doubt most of them really believe that, but they are at least trying to be intellectually consistent with their atheism."
Argumentum ad nauseam
"I would postulate that God existed prior to all those ancient tribes, so if all those ancient tribes who had no belief in God also had beliefs in right and wrong it has no bearing on my argument. They would be presupposing theism without knowing it, just like you."
Non sequitur
"I could give you evidence of God's existance (the Resurrection, the fine-tuning of the physical laws of the universe, etc., etc.), but I would rather show you all the things you are already presupposing which require theism."
Thankyou, Dr. Geoff. Tune in next time for "Ask Dr. Geoff."
Your score [39 out of 44 as I recall] puts you in the highest category of social reasoning. You will see ethical and moral values as important to the needs of society and will appeal to basic rights or values. You might say "Honesty is a standard which everyone should accept" or "Life is sacred."BeepBeepIt'sMe (who fared much the same) is quite forthcoming about her atheism, and the responses she tends to receive from certain quarters of the 'sphere as a result of her frankness seems to bear out my own theory that, as a rule, non-atheists tend to find atheists more confronting than theists who simpl observe a different belief system. So I suppose you could say she was asking for trouble when in the same post she asserted the following:
Conformity to ethical norms is important to you, in terms of a responsibility, obligation or commitment for all individuals, although you may be willing to consider exceptions in some particular circumstances. You are likely to suggest that with entitlement or privilege comes responsibility.
You will appeal to considerations of responsible character or integrity in others, preferring a consistent or standard practice of behaviour in order to avoid damage to social institutions such as the legal system.
However, you will want to see an adjusted case-by-case application of standards for the sake of fairness to all people. Lastly, you are very likely to appeal to standards of individual or personal conscience, as well as of honour, dignity or integrity.
The point of doing a test like this can be expressed in a variety of ways.Let's just say that it was inevitable that a theist would take umbrage. And the subsequent sermon doubles as a case study in muddle-headed thinking. Let's just call it . . .
The most obvious result of this test is this ~ Neither religious belief nor the lack of it, ensures morality.
In other words, one is neither moral nor immoral because of a religious belief nor moral or immoral because of the lack of a religious belief.
Neither religious belief nor the lack of it, guarantees morality.
ASK DR. GEOFF"It's not that atheists can't display morality or moral actions. It's that a belief in morality is inconsistent with atheism. If we are just atoms bouncing around morality is just an illusion. [. . .] Atheists who say otherwise, like yourself, have the impossible task of explaining how meaningful objective morality (or even meaning) can be derived from atoms bouncing around."
Begging the Question"You want to say "hey, atheists can be moral and theists can act bad." No one said otherwise. But when you uphold morality you are stealing from theism. I would argue that is because God has implanting things in you that you can't avoid. The general knowledge of right and wrong is one of them and they point to His existance."
(In other words: "Morality comes from God. How do we know God exists? Because we have morality.")
Straw Man"There have been some atheists you have tried to maintain that they think morality is subjective. I doubt most of them really believe that, but they are at least trying to be intellectually consistent with their atheism."
Argumentum ad nauseam"I would postulate that God existed prior to all those ancient tribes, so if all those ancient tribes who had no belief in God also had beliefs in right and wrong it has no bearing on my argument. They would be presupposing theism without knowing it, just like you."
Non sequitur"I could give you evidence of God's existance (the Resurrection, the fine-tuning of the physical laws of the universe, etc., etc.), but I would rather show you all the things you are already presupposing which require theism."
Thankyou, Dr. Geoff. Tune in next time for "Ask Dr. Geoff."
("Hmmmm. No sir: I don't like it.")
Thursday, August 3, 2006
From Bruce's Rave and Rant:
Cleaners in Canberra have been doing battle with DB Reef, the local arm of
German Banking giant Deutsche Bank. In the face of the new Federal Industrial
Relations Laws (aka "No-Choices") , Deutsche Bank, through the local DB Reef,
has refused to guarantee equitable working conditions and pay.
Yet again, thanks to big business and the Howard Government, more
Australian workers have the sword of Damocles hanging above their head; promises
of affluence for the aspirational distracting people from just how insecure the
wellbeing of Australians is.
Not everyone is fooled of course, and you can join in with the Canberra
Cleaners and the LHMU and sending a message to Deutsche Bank. All you have to do is click here and follow the instructions. For a bit more background, check the
archive of Clean Start News here.
Wednesday, August 2, 2006
Does anyone happen to know the last time a rational thought-process transpired in the Bible-believing communities of the United States? In Ohio, they're builidng a Creation Science Museum. In southern Delaware, they're running The Jew out of town. In proposed South Dakota legislation, neither rape nor incest will be reason enough to allow an abortion. In Kansas last November, the state board of education voted to change the definition of science in order to accommodate theological explanations (though thankfully that seems set to change).
And in that very same state, the good, decent Christian townsfolk of Meade are doing their utmost to run a local restauranteur out of business. His crime? Flying a flag. No--not that flag:
Unfortunately, the good folk of Meade didn't see it that way. The local newspaper, Knight says, tried to put him out of business; and the local radio station threatened to stop running ads for the restaurant if the flag wasn't removed. A local pastor likened it to hanging women's panties on a flagpole. "When Knight jokingly said he might consider that – the preacher said he would have him arrested."
Sadly, the bigots appear to be getting their way. Knight's business is suffering. "The folks in Meade who've boycotted say it's too offensive for them to eat there." I guess they're scared of getting The Gay. But here's the best part:
And in that very same state, the good, decent Christian townsfolk of Meade are doing their utmost to run a local restauranteur out of business. His crime? Flying a flag. No--not that flag:
“It's a rainbow flag - to some people it means friendship, to some people it means gay pride," says Knight. But for Knight, it was just a souvenir from his 12-year-old son.The son had purchased the flag on a visit to Dorothy's House, a Wizard of Oz museum in the nearby town of Liberal (the irony!!). "The flag reminded the boy of 'somewhere over the rainbow.'"
Unfortunately, the good folk of Meade didn't see it that way. The local newspaper, Knight says, tried to put him out of business; and the local radio station threatened to stop running ads for the restaurant if the flag wasn't removed. A local pastor likened it to hanging women's panties on a flagpole. "When Knight jokingly said he might consider that – the preacher said he would have him arrested."
Sadly, the bigots appear to be getting their way. Knight's business is suffering. "The folks in Meade who've boycotted say it's too offensive for them to eat there." I guess they're scared of getting The Gay. But here's the best part:
Local resident, Keith Klassen says the flag is a slap in the face to the conservative community of Meade. “To me it's just like running up a Nazi flag in a Jewish neighborhood. I can't walk into that establishment with that flag flying because to me that's saying that I support what the flag stands for and I don't," says Klassen.The Knights aren't taking this lying down, however. In a letter to supporters they declared that "our rainbow flag was hung outside of our hotel because we dearly miss our son. It signified to us that he is just over the rainbow and as soon as we can we will all be together again." And now some in-bred hillbilly fuck has cut the flag down. Moreover:
Before we bought the Lakeway Hotel a gay couple looked at it and the same good christians that want my son's rainbow flag down told the bank, 'if you sell to those gays, we'll all pull our accounts.' They'll never be happy, and their hunger for control will never subside. Never!!! They change scripture to suit their purpose. They are spreading ignorance and bigotry one child at a time. Not my son.Nevertheless, the flag will fly again, Knight assures us, as soon as he can obtain a replacement:
Our new Rainbow flag will serve a different purpose, it will stand for the very thing that THEY (the schalooses) wanted it to stand for. Gay Rights, Gay Pride, Human Rights, Equality of the Sexes, Equality of the Races, Diversity, Unity, Peace, The International Co-operative Alliance's, The Inca banner, The Flag of Cusco, Peru, The Wizard of OZ, God's Gift to Mankind, and everything else that the homophobic, bigoted, ignorant ... people of the world fear.Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Pharyngula and Pandagon.
Tuesday, August 1, 2006
While those in the reality-based community waste everybody's time with their egg-headed insistence on "science" and "evidence" and "critical thinking" and such, Ken Ham and his fellow creationists are getting things done in the service of our children's edjumacation.PETERSBURG, Ky. - Like most natural history museums, this one has exhibits showing dinosaurs roaming the earth. Except here, the giant reptiles share the forest with Adam and Eve.You see, the atheist communist homosexual baby-killing evilutionist Darwinists have this "scientific method" thingamajig all wrong. They seem to think that science is about explaining phenomena via a process of observation, research and experiment. But that just gets things all topsy-turvy. That's putting the cart (science) before the horse (Scripture).That, of course, is contradicted by science, but that’s the point of the $25 million Creation Museum rising fast in rural Kentucky.
Its inspiration is the Bible — the literal interpretation that contends God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them just a few thousand years ago.
“If the Bible is the word of God, and its history really is true, that’s our presupposition or axiom, and we are starting there,” museum founder Ken Ham said during recent tour of the sleek and modern facility, which is due to open next year.
Real scientists know that you just can't do that. Real scientists know that the answers are already laid out for us in the Bible--and it is the scientist's job to look for evidence that seems to fit. They have their "Occam's Razor;" we have our "Jesus's Razor:" "God said it. I believe it. That settles it!" And isn't that much simpler than the methodological naturalist way of doing things? Phillip Johnson says it is. And he's smart: he's a law professor, so he knows what he's talking about.
Take a tour of the Creation Museum here. No Child will be Left Behind!
On the eastern shores of the Dniester River in Eastern Europe lies a little country that you're not likely to find in many atlases. Officially, its status as an independent state is recognised by nobody, and it is internationally regarded (when it is regarded at all) as a separatist enclave in the former Soviet republic of Moldova. However, it has its own President, its own currency and its own national anthem.Transnistria seceded from Moldova right at the end of the Soviet era. When Moldova itself declared independence in 1992, it attempted to resume control of Transnistria. Then all hell broke loose. Transnistrian militiamen, with the support of Russian volunteers and Cossacks, along with the "unofficial" support of the Russian 14th Army, were eventually able to repel a 25- to 35-thousand-strong Moldavan force after a conflict estimated to have killed 1000 and wounded 3000. (By the way, the Russian 14th Army was under the leadership of former Russian Presidential candidate Alexander Lebed.) The subsequent ceasefire continues to this day.
Since then, Transnistria has become notorious (though I use that term advisedly: I've never heard of the place, and I consider myself a dab hand at the "People & Places" questions in Trivial Pursuit) as a haven for smuggling, people-trafficking and corruption. It is also claimed to have a dodgy human rights record. According to freelance journalist Patti McCracken, Transnistrian President Igor Smirnov runs a "mafia-style" authoritarian regime with his son Vladimir, with whom he also controls the Sheriff consortium which operates petrol stations, supermarkets, and a range of retail goods (including cigarettes). Furthermore:
Vladimir also directs customs, the inflow and outflow of goods, which includes a sizable weapons industry. There are an estimated 50,000 weapons and 40,000 tons of ammunition warehoused in Transnistria, supposedly watched over by 2,500 Russian troops. And the Washington Post reports that several large factories in the region are still covertly manufacturing arms. [. . .]More ominously, these weapons may include "dirty bombs." CNN reported back in 2003 the disappearance of "38 Soviet-era missiles modified to carry radioactive material," alleging that they were being "sold on the black market to terrorists." In 2005, an arms dealer in Bender, Transnistria, offered to sell three Alazan rockets equipped with radioactive warheads to a (London) Times reporter posing as the representative of an Algerian militant group.
Many believe that a good number of those weapons are being passed along to terrorists via Vladimir's porous borders.
Transnistria. I know: it sounds made-up. Like something out of a Bond film, or perhaps Austin Powers. I wonder how many other little-known not-quite states there are out there.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
