The American Humanist Association unveiled a provocative holiday ad campaign that asks "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake", and will appear on buses in Washington DC. A spokesman for the group explains the reasons:
"... there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion."
For those who argue for more religious freedom in the public square, this should be a welcome addition. After all, it's a very positive message: be good for its own sake, you shouldn't need a reason. Indeed, to many of us, this falls on already practicing ears. Yet that is decidedly not the reaction coming from some religious groups like the American Family Association:
"It's a stupid ad," AFA president Tim Wildmon said. "How do we define 'good' if we don't believe in God? God in his word, the Bible, tells us what's good and bad and right and wrong. If we are each ourselves defining what's good, it's going to be a crazy world."
Earth to Wildmon. Millions of people all over the planet define good and bad and right and wrong just fine without referencing the Bible. That's because we are not just random assemblages of atoms with completely random desires. Human beings have a lot of common ground, with similar abilities and desires: wanting a long life, avoiding pain, and loving our families, are but a few of the literally thousands of cultural universals among human beings. Just like it doesn't take a divine decree for a group of dogs to decide on dog food for dinner, we humans are very capable of coming up with moral codes all on our own.
Take a look at the world around you once in a while, instead of assuming that little fantasy world in your head bears any resemblance to the genuine article. You might notice that the flip side of your argument also has a problem. Those who define "good" according to the Bible are far from harmonious. Despite your claims of an absolute moral code, your moral codes vary enough to cause many a war. Your world is every bit as crazy as ours, if not more so.
But as bad as that reaction was, that's nothing compared to the response of Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian legal group.
"It's the ultimate grinch to say there is no God at a time when millions of people around the world celebrate the birth of Christ," said Mathew Staver, the group's chairman and dean of the Liberty University School of Law. "Certainly, they have the right to believe what they want but this is insulting."
Ah yes, of course. We have a right to express our beliefs, but because they differ with Mr. Staver's, they are insulting. What, might we ask, about the reverse argument? Since millions of Americans do not believe there was ever a birth of a Christ to celebrate, why is not Mr. Staver's view just as insulting? This is yet another question for which people like Staver have no answer. They just pretend those who disagree with them are an insignificant minority, as if that would matter even if it wasn't so ridiculously inaccurate. Their real view is clear: you have the right to your religious views, so long as they don't conflict with ours.
Merry Christmas guys. Be good for goodness' sake. Why do you Christians need more justification? We atheists don't.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Discovery Institute Attempting Scam in Texas Science Standards
The Discovery Institute, with the cooperation of creationists in the Texas Board of Education, led by Don "I didn't come from no monkey" McLeroy, are attempting the same scam in Texas that they attempted previously in Ohio.
The scam goes like this: claim you aren't pushing intelligent design creationism, but instead just want a fair-and-balanced critical analysis of evolution. Then, supply as that critical analysis, all the bogus arguments and misinformation that comprise ID. Be sure to get sympathetic members on whatever board must approve the plan, proclaim them to be scientific experts, and viola! You've got creationism approved for use in the schools. Then recommend a book that follows that plan which was, by complete coincidence, written by the very same people who approved the plan in the first place. Cha CHING!
The DI's Robert Crowther has shamelessly pimped this strategy in an article that would offend readers of 1984 plenty. In Crowther's world, black is white, religion is science, and creationist lackeys are science experts.
"Three of six experts selected by the Texas State Board of Education to review a proposed update of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for science have recommended that the TEKS retain controversial language calling on students to examine the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories in order to strengthen students’ critical thinking skills."
DIspeak to English translation:
"The three creationist shills planted into the TSBE review group to review a proposed update of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for science have implemented their predetermined plan and recommended that the TEKS retain controversial language calling on students to examine the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories in order to insert through stealth, creationist arguments posing as scientific criticism."
DI hack Casey Luskin weighs in with his doublethink:
"Some activist groups are pressuring the State Board to cut that language from the TEKS in order to artificially shield Darwin’s theory from the normal process of scientific inquiry. However, as these three experts point out, examining the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories is a core part of the scientific process, and abandoning such critical analysis merely to satisfy ideological demands of Darwinists harms students by giving them a false view of scientific inquiry."
Again, we translate the DIspeak into English:
"Scientists strongly object to the ideological insertion of creationist pseudoscience into the curriculum, so we'll employ projection as our strategy to win the political battle. We'll paint their objections as attempting to shield evolution from real scientific scrutiny, and of being ideologues themselves, and hope no one can tell the difference."
If you think that is bad, wait for Luskin to shamelessly take projection where no one else has gone with it before:
Luskin noted that despite efforts by Darwin-only activists to inject religion into the discussion of the TEKS for science, the expert reviews of Meyer, Garner, and Seelke all focused on scientific and pedagogical concerns, not religion. "None of the expert reviewers are calling for religion in science classes, and any suggestions to the contrary show just how bankrupt the Darwinists’ arguments are for insulating Darwin’s theory from honest analysis. Whenever Darwinists can’t respond to scientific or educational arguments, they try to change the subject to religion. Students in Texas deserve better."
Again, we translate:
"We will hide the religious underpinnings of our recommendations by speaking only sciency-sounding language. When scientists object to that, we'll accuse them of bringing religion into the discussion, refer to them by a religious-sounding name like 'Darwinists', and hope no one notices."
Make no mistake, this a major scam. Texas has allowed religious pseudoscientists to infiltrate the review process and skew the process to recommend books written by those same people! This will undoubtedly lead to a Dover-style lawsuit, from which the DI folks will run like arsonists from a burning building, and which will end up costing the Texas taxpayer millions of dollars. Indeed, students in Texas do deserve better!
Wesley Elsberry, who was involved in the Dover Trial, summed it up nicely in a retort to Robert Crowther:
"But “intelligent design” isn’t anything in itself, it is simply a collection of objections to evolution that have been made by religious antievolutionists for decades or centuries. “Irreducible complexity”, “specified complexity”, and various “anthropic principle” arguments have explicit expression of the concepts in the work of the Reverend William Paley in “Natural Theology” from 1802. If you want to impress folks in Texas, Rob, tell them that the Discovery Institute has repudiated those arguments entirely and doesn’t want anyone to use them anymore. Teaching children falsehoods, like the arguments made under the “intelligent design” label, has no secular purpose. We’ll wait for your clarification that the Discovery Institute thinks that all the arguments that were made under the “intelligent design” label were wrong and teachers in Texas should not use those as bogus “weaknesses” of evolutionary science.
.
.
Yeah, I didn’t think so.
.
Rob, you must think that the folks in Texas are significantly more stupid than the folks in Ohio who the DI hoodwinked for almost four years. When the Discovery Institute says that they want “weaknesses” taught, they mean the same old arguments that they used to call “intelligent design”."
The scam goes like this: claim you aren't pushing intelligent design creationism, but instead just want a fair-and-balanced critical analysis of evolution. Then, supply as that critical analysis, all the bogus arguments and misinformation that comprise ID. Be sure to get sympathetic members on whatever board must approve the plan, proclaim them to be scientific experts, and viola! You've got creationism approved for use in the schools. Then recommend a book that follows that plan which was, by complete coincidence, written by the very same people who approved the plan in the first place. Cha CHING!
The DI's Robert Crowther has shamelessly pimped this strategy in an article that would offend readers of 1984 plenty. In Crowther's world, black is white, religion is science, and creationist lackeys are science experts.
"Three of six experts selected by the Texas State Board of Education to review a proposed update of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for science have recommended that the TEKS retain controversial language calling on students to examine the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories in order to strengthen students’ critical thinking skills."
DIspeak to English translation:
"The three creationist shills planted into the TSBE review group to review a proposed update of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for science have implemented their predetermined plan and recommended that the TEKS retain controversial language calling on students to examine the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories in order to insert through stealth, creationist arguments posing as scientific criticism."
DI hack Casey Luskin weighs in with his doublethink:
"Some activist groups are pressuring the State Board to cut that language from the TEKS in order to artificially shield Darwin’s theory from the normal process of scientific inquiry. However, as these three experts point out, examining the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories is a core part of the scientific process, and abandoning such critical analysis merely to satisfy ideological demands of Darwinists harms students by giving them a false view of scientific inquiry."
Again, we translate the DIspeak into English:
"Scientists strongly object to the ideological insertion of creationist pseudoscience into the curriculum, so we'll employ projection as our strategy to win the political battle. We'll paint their objections as attempting to shield evolution from real scientific scrutiny, and of being ideologues themselves, and hope no one can tell the difference."
If you think that is bad, wait for Luskin to shamelessly take projection where no one else has gone with it before:
Luskin noted that despite efforts by Darwin-only activists to inject religion into the discussion of the TEKS for science, the expert reviews of Meyer, Garner, and Seelke all focused on scientific and pedagogical concerns, not religion. "None of the expert reviewers are calling for religion in science classes, and any suggestions to the contrary show just how bankrupt the Darwinists’ arguments are for insulating Darwin’s theory from honest analysis. Whenever Darwinists can’t respond to scientific or educational arguments, they try to change the subject to religion. Students in Texas deserve better."
Again, we translate:
"We will hide the religious underpinnings of our recommendations by speaking only sciency-sounding language. When scientists object to that, we'll accuse them of bringing religion into the discussion, refer to them by a religious-sounding name like 'Darwinists', and hope no one notices."
Make no mistake, this a major scam. Texas has allowed religious pseudoscientists to infiltrate the review process and skew the process to recommend books written by those same people! This will undoubtedly lead to a Dover-style lawsuit, from which the DI folks will run like arsonists from a burning building, and which will end up costing the Texas taxpayer millions of dollars. Indeed, students in Texas do deserve better!
Wesley Elsberry, who was involved in the Dover Trial, summed it up nicely in a retort to Robert Crowther:
"But “intelligent design” isn’t anything in itself, it is simply a collection of objections to evolution that have been made by religious antievolutionists for decades or centuries. “Irreducible complexity”, “specified complexity”, and various “anthropic principle” arguments have explicit expression of the concepts in the work of the Reverend William Paley in “Natural Theology” from 1802. If you want to impress folks in Texas, Rob, tell them that the Discovery Institute has repudiated those arguments entirely and doesn’t want anyone to use them anymore. Teaching children falsehoods, like the arguments made under the “intelligent design” label, has no secular purpose. We’ll wait for your clarification that the Discovery Institute thinks that all the arguments that were made under the “intelligent design” label were wrong and teachers in Texas should not use those as bogus “weaknesses” of evolutionary science.
.
.
Yeah, I didn’t think so.
.
Rob, you must think that the folks in Texas are significantly more stupid than the folks in Ohio who the DI hoodwinked for almost four years. When the Discovery Institute says that they want “weaknesses” taught, they mean the same old arguments that they used to call “intelligent design”."
Founder of Dartmouth Review: The Republican Party has Become the Stupid Party
Jeffrey Hart, founder of the Dartmouth Review, and speechwriter for Reagan and Nixon, proclaims the GOPthe 'stupid party':
So here we are in 2008. With its indispensable Southern and, more widely, evangelical base, the Republican Party has become the stupid party.
In the election, the McCain-Palin ticket received the highest percentage of votes in South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia. The Southern Strategy succeeded. It succeeded in facilitating a Democratic landslide. This can not be good for the nation. We need two viable parties.
Sarah Palin is now the heroine of the Republican base. Scary. During the campaign it became obvious that she is completely ignorant on the principal issues. It never became widely known that she is a religious nut: she believes in the imminent End of Days and the “Rapture,” in which the saved will be suddenly wooshed up to heaven—a notion that has no basis in scripture or anything else. She believes she was elected governor because of a laying-on-of-hands by an African clergyman who had run a witch out of town for causing automobile accidents.
This stuff makes William Jennings Bryan look like Martin Heidegger. I think the recent electoral disaster will energize reasonable Republicans to form a caucus with the party. Eisenhower was a prudential, common sense Republican, who loathed extremism and arrogant ignorance. He knew the New Deal could not be repealed. He once said that Senator William Knowland “tested the limits of human stupidity.” Despite Watergate, Nixon was a successful center-right president, and first-rate on foreign policy. Reagan too was a successful center-right president. It is no accident that in the election, Julie Nixon Eisenhower and David Eisenhower supported Obama.
In its embrace of the religious right under George W. Bush, the Republican Party became the stupid party. And committing suicide along with it has been the conservative movement. The party united around god, guns and gays is finished.
Hart rightly sees that the GOP is fighting on the wrong side of history on many issues such as women's rights, abortion, stem cell research, homosexuality, and many others. And in doing so, 'conservatism' has morphed to essentially mean 'ignorant rebellion against social progress'. The GOP is certainly finished as the majority party until it comes up with a way to attract newer voters without antagonizing those it has catered to these last decades. Given the support that Sarah Palin continues to get, that day doesn't look like it will be any time soon.
So here we are in 2008. With its indispensable Southern and, more widely, evangelical base, the Republican Party has become the stupid party.
In the election, the McCain-Palin ticket received the highest percentage of votes in South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia. The Southern Strategy succeeded. It succeeded in facilitating a Democratic landslide. This can not be good for the nation. We need two viable parties.
Sarah Palin is now the heroine of the Republican base. Scary. During the campaign it became obvious that she is completely ignorant on the principal issues. It never became widely known that she is a religious nut: she believes in the imminent End of Days and the “Rapture,” in which the saved will be suddenly wooshed up to heaven—a notion that has no basis in scripture or anything else. She believes she was elected governor because of a laying-on-of-hands by an African clergyman who had run a witch out of town for causing automobile accidents.
This stuff makes William Jennings Bryan look like Martin Heidegger. I think the recent electoral disaster will energize reasonable Republicans to form a caucus with the party. Eisenhower was a prudential, common sense Republican, who loathed extremism and arrogant ignorance. He knew the New Deal could not be repealed. He once said that Senator William Knowland “tested the limits of human stupidity.” Despite Watergate, Nixon was a successful center-right president, and first-rate on foreign policy. Reagan too was a successful center-right president. It is no accident that in the election, Julie Nixon Eisenhower and David Eisenhower supported Obama.
In its embrace of the religious right under George W. Bush, the Republican Party became the stupid party. And committing suicide along with it has been the conservative movement. The party united around god, guns and gays is finished.
Hart rightly sees that the GOP is fighting on the wrong side of history on many issues such as women's rights, abortion, stem cell research, homosexuality, and many others. And in doing so, 'conservatism' has morphed to essentially mean 'ignorant rebellion against social progress'. The GOP is certainly finished as the majority party until it comes up with a way to attract newer voters without antagonizing those it has catered to these last decades. Given the support that Sarah Palin continues to get, that day doesn't look like it will be any time soon.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Suing God? Why Not, Unless He Isn't Real
Ernie Chambers is suing God. His point appears to be that the courts have to be open to all, even those who file completely frivolous suits. My point is something very different.
If God was real, then suing God might be foolish, or even futile, but it isn't frivolous. It would akin to filing a suit against someone who now lives on another planet and is forever beyond our grasp. It seems Chambers' point is only made if we agree that God isn't real. He could have made the same point by suing Santa Claus. Now that's frivolous. But with a real God, we have to consider the following seriously:
"The lawsuit accuses God 'of making and continuing to make terroristic threats of grave harm to innumerable persons, including constituents of Plaintiff who Plaintiff has the duty to represent.' It says God has caused 'fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like.'
The suit also says God has caused 'calamitous catastrophes resulting in the wide-spread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants including innocent babes, infants, children, the aged and infirm without mercy or distinction.'
Chambers also says God "has manifested neither compassion nor remorse, proclaiming that defendant will laugh" when calamity comes."
Well, is God real or isn't he? If he did these things, does he not deserve out criticism and condemnation, or not? If not, why not? Again, the humorous way this is all presented implies that it's all fiction! I agree, but be consistent about it. If we can't take suing God seriously, then why should we take praying or swearing to God seriously?
Let's just not take any of it seriously and see what happens. Where there is a lot of God talk, there tends to be a lot of new things that elicit the God talk in the first place.
If God was real, then suing God might be foolish, or even futile, but it isn't frivolous. It would akin to filing a suit against someone who now lives on another planet and is forever beyond our grasp. It seems Chambers' point is only made if we agree that God isn't real. He could have made the same point by suing Santa Claus. Now that's frivolous. But with a real God, we have to consider the following seriously:
"The lawsuit accuses God 'of making and continuing to make terroristic threats of grave harm to innumerable persons, including constituents of Plaintiff who Plaintiff has the duty to represent.' It says God has caused 'fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like.'
The suit also says God has caused 'calamitous catastrophes resulting in the wide-spread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants including innocent babes, infants, children, the aged and infirm without mercy or distinction.'
Chambers also says God "has manifested neither compassion nor remorse, proclaiming that defendant will laugh" when calamity comes."
Well, is God real or isn't he? If he did these things, does he not deserve out criticism and condemnation, or not? If not, why not? Again, the humorous way this is all presented implies that it's all fiction! I agree, but be consistent about it. If we can't take suing God seriously, then why should we take praying or swearing to God seriously?
Let's just not take any of it seriously and see what happens. Where there is a lot of God talk, there tends to be a lot of new things that elicit the God talk in the first place.
Presidential Music to My Ears
After suffering 8 years of a president who can't say "nuclear" while he's speechifying, hearing Obama in his first press conference rattle off terms like "hypoallergenic" without breaking a sweat was music to my ears. My his presidency be half as pleasing.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Onion on Obama Supporters
If you think conservatives can't be funny, watch this. Howard Stern wasn't the only guy that knew people like that. I imagine they feel like sports fans feel the week after their team wins the championship. Time to get a new hobby.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Guide on Choosing a Specialty for Confused Medical Students
Over on Denialismblog, Mark has a nice article on choosing a medical specialty, including this handy dandy chart:
If that doesn't clarify things, there is always the goo index, to see what specialty matches best with your tolerance for various forms of bodily goo. That would have done it for me right there, as my tolerance is pretty much zero for all goo.
If that doesn't clarify things, there is always the goo index, to see what specialty matches best with your tolerance for various forms of bodily goo. That would have done it for me right there, as my tolerance is pretty much zero for all goo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
