April 9, 2006
Penn and Teller Creationism
Scary and sad. It is amazing how absolutely ignorant ID supporters are when it comes to science.
Thanks to 386sx who posted the link to this video on Pharyngula.
And thanks again to God is for Suckers, who originally linked me and to Pharyngula for adding me later, as well as everyone else who linked my site. I set a record (for me) of over 2500 hits here yesterday.
And yes, some people who discovered my site yesterday were very upset by my views on Islam. If you are one of them: educate yourself. You are just as much out to lunch about Radical Islam, as Fundies are when it comes to evolution.
The far Left really pisses me off. There is no excuse for strapping on suicide bombs and murdering civilians. Not only is Islam famous for the suicide bomb, they celebrate it. The far Left makes excuses for these actions. Check out some of the videos on my sidebar, you need to wake up. I suggest watching the Wafa Sultan video and the "3 Palestinian former terrorists" video for starters. Take it as a dare. Or don't watch it and keep your head in the sand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks for these posts. Definitely made my day.
ReplyDeleteMy pleasure. I notice your blogrolled me, I reciprocated.
ReplyDeleteDuane, you must have missed the Middle East celebration parties for 9/11.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't invited, but I saw them on TV.
The real celebration parties were in the Israeli government. In a crime, one of the first things police investigators ask themselves is "Who benefits?"
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to see how any Arab countries or groups could benefit. The only obvious ones who benefitted are the Bush Administration and Israel.
bernarda, your rhetoric doesn't work here. Stick to Al Jazeera message boards.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it you Paliphiles have to make up crap all the time?
Duane, thanks. Youtube is down at this moment so a lot of the videos are disabled. 95% of the time Youtube is working.
I shouldn't say all, but even after the Gaza pullout for example 56% of Palestinians still support suicide bombings. That is a sick culture.
I dig your blog. I've added you to my blogroll. I hope that's okay. I'd love it if you'd add me to your blogroll.
ReplyDeleteThanks Donna, too bad most of the videos are down right now. Dang You Tube. Anyways, it is my policy, I get blogrolled, you get blogrolled.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I feel bad for creationists. They really try so hard, and wish with every fiber of their being that they are right, but alas they're wrong. Can you imagine: Building big, huge websites and writing these long books about an entirely fictitious phenomenon? Truly, ID has about as much scientific merit as the geocentric universe model. Nevertheless, these poor people waste years of their lives crafting the fine details of a fairy tale. So sad.
ReplyDeleteIf you suppose that faith is believing something to a degree of certainty exceeding that warranted by the available evidence, then, news for you buddy, you are to the left of the "far left."
ReplyDeleteAnd that's a good thing.
Sorry Anon but because one is in your "religious or spirtiual left," doesn't mean one has to be on the left when it comes to every issue.
ReplyDeleteI believe in the death penalty, I am a hardliner in the War on Terror.
See, the thing is that I'm a realist firster. I look around and make observations based on reality. Take Iran for instance, I look at the facts. Their culture is one of hate and death.
They are building nukes. It needs to be prevented because a crazy middle eastern regime is not allowed to have nukes as far as I'm concerned. I believe in deterrance too. All the middle eastern crazy countries have to learn they can't build nukes.
Negotiation doesn't work with the terrorist mentality. Reform is needed badly in the middle east, and it is happening slowly, however until their culture radically changes, no nukes.
I am therefore all for a pre emptive strike. Does this still make me a Lefty?
Wow. The thread at Pharyngula shows that atheists are no more rational than the religious. But since they are convinced that they have Reason on their side, then anyone who disagrees must have an agenda.
ReplyDeleteEvil is not dependent on belief or non-belief. It can and has occured anywhere, from radical Islam to radical Communism. The mentality that the supposedly "rational" atheists there exhibit is just as dogmatic as any religion.
To Elder:
ReplyDeleteJust what do you mean by "evil"?
That is basically an empty word. I suggest that you read Nietzche on the subject. Notably "Beyond Good and Evil" and "Geneology of Morals".
He quite clearly demonstrates that "evil" is a purely religious concept. It has nothing to do with the real world.
With all due respect to your interpretation of Nietzche, I will continue to regard genocidal mass murderers and child rapists as evil. And in my humble opinion, anyone who disagrees with that statement is, by definition, immoral.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you believe that you are somehow evolved way beyond simple morality, but Nietzche himself was no fan of moral relativism. He may have had a different interpretation of the word "evil" as I am using it, but I believe he saw the value of an independent moral system. But I am far from an expert.
Morality is completely relative, but most things fall in a gray area and no two people have the exact same morality when it comes to every issue.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are some things which are immoral to everyone (by everyone I mean anyone who isn't insane)
Child rape is a great example. Even child rapists I believe know it is immoral. Those who don't, are clearly insane (to the point of being out of touch with reality), of course every child rapist is insane, but from what I've seen, most know they are immoral, and feel remorse.
However, issues like abortion and capital punishment clearly shows that morality is relative.
My post was about the origin of the idea of "evil". According to Nietzsche, it is a historical development of religious superstition. Elder doesn't seem to understand that. He should first read the Nietzsche books before he continues.
ReplyDeleteSo Elder regards something as "evil". He /She hasn't defined what that means.
Why do you tell everyone what they should do? Nobody wants to be like you. You've obviously been polluted by your environment and teachings that have warped you.
ReplyDeleteEvil is an act of pedophelia. It has nothing to do with religion, whatever Nietzsche or anyone else says, Bernarda.
Even in the animal kingdom when chimps kill babies of other invasive tribes, you can see that this is viewed by them as an evil act. Apes know when they are evil.
How do you define "evil"?
ReplyDeleteNietzsche, as I said, did give a definition. Go read "Beyond Good and Evil" before ranting on about things you have never even considered before.
You have to be the most irrational atheist I have ever encountered. At least you have good links, otherwise your site would be worthless.
Don't come here Bernanda then. There are over a million blogs out there. Go pollute someone elses with your nonsense.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to read anything you suggest.
Is raping a child an evil act Bershithead, yes or no? And if so, why?
You still haven't defined what you mean by "evil". For a professed atheist, I find it amazing that you so glibly accept what is a purely religious concept.
ReplyDeleteI asked you a question, do you think raping a child is evil? Yes or no?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "evil"?
ReplyDeleteEvil: The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
ReplyDeleteDo you think raping a child can ever be morally acceptable?
For an atheist, it is strange that you rely on theological conceptions like "wickedness". As I patiently explained to you a long time ago, Nietzsche in "Beyond Good and Evil" explained the religious--theological--origins of the concept of evil or wickedness. In fact it is in our time, a particularity of Christianity.
ReplyDeleteNow another question. What do you mean by "morally" bad or wrong. Is it impossible for you to speak in clear language?
You still didn't answer the question retard. Are you completely thick or on medication. Is raping a child an evil act? yes or no. Is it morally acceptable? If you don't understand it, ask an 8 year old to explain it to you.
ReplyDeleteIt must be a joke that a self-professed atheist like Bacon constantly refers to purely religious concepts and terms. Terms such as "evil", "wickedness", "morally".
ReplyDeleteHe must be a closet godophile.
To make things simple for this simpleton, just ask a simple question.
"Do you believe that raping a child is wrong?"
The answer is yes.
You don't need all of Bacon's religious mumbo-jumbo terminology.
I gave Bacon every chance to discover the question himself, but he couldn't get it.
Given the evidence Bacon himself has provided, I suggest that he change his site name to "ignoramousatheistjew".
I have never before encountered an atheist or a Jew as dense as him.
Bernardarama
ReplyDeleteDo you deny that there are right and wrong actions?
You don't judging from your above statements. So callign something wicked or even evil is just a colorful way of saying "Nukluk done bad ju ju".
There is nothing wrong with using colorful language to describe something.
I say god damn it all the fucking time.
It's a word, an expression. It does not say anything about my belief (or rather disbelief) in a diety.
Benana has the imagination of a Palestinian.
ReplyDeleteHe needs to be spoonfed simple terms. I'm talking over his head.
He talks about my intelligence, he is obviously lacking big time in this area.
I'm with you on radical Islam, AJ. I also hate it when people come on our blog and say we never criticize Islam, only Xianity. That's horseshit. Hell, we republished the Mohammed cartoons in our Flickr account!
ReplyDeleteI notice you are a realist Sean. Most of my stuff is geared towards Western religion idiocy and beliefs, but I also deal with the physical threat that Radical Islam is dangling out there right now. The Christian Right threat isn't physical but mental.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't help but notice your complete dismissal of Intelligent Design. If you've been doing any sort of research, or at least some quest for some kind truth--Christian or not, then you will indeed notice that ID doesn't necessarily clash with science, but answers questions that science itself cannot respond to. Don't get me wrong, I am not a fundamentalist, nor do I endorse ID. But, I am intrigued by the concept. As a simple example of science and ID, consider the Big Bang Theory. As a general consensus, most astrologists and astonomers accept the Big Bang Theory as the origins of the universe. This theory does not necessarily refute Christian diety, but in fact supports it. Albert Einstein, as you obviously know, discovered the theory of relativity, and this theory revealed the "truth" of the expanding universe. But as the scientific atmosphere of the time pressured him to show that the universe was static, Einstein incorporated his infamouse fudge factor (which he later called the biggest blunder of his life) to show that the universe is indeed static. Eventaully, being the genius that Einstein is, he removed the fudge factor and accepted the implications of the expanding universe. Logically, if the uiniverse is expanding, then there must be a point of singularity--and thus the birth of the Big Bang. But this does not conflict with ID. Think about the religious implications of the Big Bang. Everything in nature has a cause and effect. Indeed, the Big Bang is an effect. The only thing that can cause it would be an uncaused cause--IE the infinite Christian God, which has no beginning or end (therefore, it has no cause). Obviously, there are other scientific data that support ID (like the irreducible complexity and the cambrian explosion, which clearly defies evolution by natural selection). Just food for though. Tell me what you think.
ReplyDeleteI just want to set some ideas straight, and will not follow through with your reply. Just check out for yourself.
ReplyDelete1] I did read some ID and it does sound exciting. I was also watching the outcome of the court case Dover High School, in US, where, the Christians in the school board, required the school science syllabus to teach ID. The parents of some children objected. The case went to court and early this year, the lower court ruled that teaching ID is unconstitutional. In other words, ID is not science.
2] The Director of the Vatican Observatory, a Roman Catholic priest [Jesuit] cosmologist, also came out and said ID belittles God. Of course, needless to say creation science belittles God. I say needless to say, though he did refer to both ID and creation science, because, in USA, the US Supreme Court about 19 years ago, settled the issue whether creation science is science. Edwards v Aguillard , US Supreme Ct settled the issue that teaching creation science in American schools is unconstitutional and that creation science is not science.
3] I think you mean cosmologists and astronomers rather than astrologists and astronomers. Check out meaning of astrology.
4] Incidentally, the Jesuit priest who said ID and creation science belittles God is a cosmologist/astronomer and belongs to many of the mainstream astronomical societies in USA, and he heads an astronomical observatory in Tucson, Arizona. Part of the Vatican Observatory as there is another, older one, in Rome, Italy. If you go to their website, you will find their professional credentials listed, and if you see S.J. after their name, it means Society of Jesus that they have had about 9-10 years priesthood training in the Catholic Church.
5] I am told Albert Einstein did his calculations which revealed that either the universe was expanding or contracting, and he could not believe it. It was the Hubble telescope that provided the evidence that the universe was expanding and so Einstein had to accept his calculations. A Roman Catholic priest, a Jesuit, Lemaitre used the two information and etc, and built the BBT. Since then it is said, evidence have been obtained to prove the BBT with the biggest evidence in 1965, background radiation from the universe.
[1] to [5] continued/=
ReplyDelete[6] If you look for "Catholic Online" "Text of talk by Vatican Observatory director on "Science Does Not Need God. Or does it? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution", you will get the bird's eye view of how stars are born and die, etc... This text clearly says ID belittles God.
I am not a Christian, but it is good to know how Christian scientists on the cutting edge view science. I am a Theravada Buddhist and would welcome the day when circumstances permit and encourage meditation monks in forests to engage in science the way Catholic priests have done and still do. I respect the Jesuit scientists view point.
Signing off,
G [ again the third easy button!]
...Theravada Buddhist, I never would have guessed. I am taken aback, however as you are the first buddhist I've ever met so engaged in the dialogue between religion and science. Most of my buddhist acquaintances are more involved in enlightenment more so than anything else. But back to your points... In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the plaintiffs successfully blurred the lines between ID and Creationism. There is a fundamental (excuse the pun, =]) difference between the two; and as "impressive" as the judical system is in the US, it is incredibly short of perfection. And as I understand the case, it isn't so much as ID violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as it is more the concept of the slippery slope. And in terms of the Jesuit priests you have mentioned, there are different camps within the Catholic Church regarding ID. Just as the controversial issue in the 17th century (if I'm not mistaken about the date)--geocentric theory was proved incorrect with the heliocentric theory--the Chuch was divided on that issue as well. Many of the priests and bishops did support the Copernicus' theory whereas the some of the other literalist within the same Church disagreed. Only after Copernicus disrespected the Church did the Church officially excommunicate him. And with my wreckless confusion between cosmology and astology, my mistake. And yes, the Hubble Telescope did reveal the red shift, but it did, nonetheless, along with the theory of relativity birthed the BBT. It's theological implications are still imcredibly important in relation to ID. And finally, I will look at "Scienc Does Not Need God. or Does it? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution." However, I have also read other text by Theological Scholars, specifically When Science Meets Religion by Ian G. Barbour (a physicist and theologian). This text does suggest that ID (one of the many issues the text discusses) supports the concept of an infinite diety--Christian or otherwise. Certain chapters of this text outlines certain concepts of ID, like how God, through carefully crafted laws, creates design. Just as that mathematical game, Chaos Theory, through chance and time there is design only though carefully crafted laws.
ReplyDeleteThese blogs are intriguing and I will continue to visit and engage in dialogue with you and other readers. Unfortunately, I don't have a blog of my own.
-Vince
excuse me. The mathemethical game is called Chaos Game. Not Chaos Theory.
ReplyDelete-Vince
Vince,
ReplyDelete1] What will become of America with the diminishing numbers attending Christian Church because of affluence, and science? America is the confluence of Greco-Roman and Christian ideas, from across the Atlantic, to North America, spanning some 2,500 years of history. When one leg, which provided the spiritual worldview, Christianity is under assault, what will replace it? And without its replacement, is atheism, a suitable alternative? My email is umbrage48@yahoo.com
2] Can America be viable and tenacious without the spiritual discipline? What happens to American psyche when one of the three major influences as aforementioned is forcible removed or gradually eroded?
I choose "G" for Geese which fly over the river where I stay. They flap their wings more because of the weight compared to other birds.
Signing as
G
Vince, can a philosophy worked on the understanding of BBT and origin of the universe, be a viable second to Christianity, if Christianity fails to provide the spiritual nourishment and if atheism is an inappropriate candidate. I think atheism as it is generally seen is an inappropriate candidate. Even Albert Einstein had some sense of panentheism with the 'pan' and 'en' added to the 'theism' about the universe and beyond.
ReplyDeletepan + en + theism = panentheism
pan + theism = pantheism
theism
G
G,
ReplyDeleteI'm not exactly worried about America with its diminishing numbers attending a Christian Church for a couple of reasons. First is Europe. A large part of their history has some relation with the Catholic Church. And today, when compared to their religious history, a dismal proportion of their population even practices their own religion, whatever it may be. But they're doing all right over there. Secondly, in terms of Christianity under assualt, it's not something new. Christians were persecuted in its early years, then there was the schism with Martin Luther, and then the controversy with the Copernicus. Bottom line is that the Chuch is one of the oldest (if not the oldest) institutions in the world--the only reason why I see this is true is that there may be some divine intervention, at the very least. But, if athiesm should replace Christianity in America, then I have no problem. Just because one doesn't believe in a diety doesn't mean that one is immoral. The really important aspect of a person that I emphasize is just spirituality. I don't believe that there is a religion on Earth that is THE religion, one that is right on. I believe that each has some truth, therefore, everyone may benefit through dialogue--a big reason why I am here.
And for your second point. First, I find it hard to believe that America will ever lack a spiritual discipline. Our roots lie with the Puritans, one of the more rigged sects of Christianity--but even they weren't perfect. If I understand my history correctly, about 40% of Puritan brides walked to the altar pregnant--this just goes back to my idea that no single religion has it down. But back to your point, America will always be viable and tenacious even without spiritual discipline. As long as the population and its leaders strongly believe in the free world and human rights (and of course other ideals in regards to the environment and animal rights). And if the American psyche should change, then so be it. As long as we remain idealistic and help one another. (I'm incredibly liberal, but I'm not communist either; even though, communism, in its purest form, is most Christian.)
And as for your last point, I dont understand why science and religion need to clash. The Catholic Church does recognize science. But, I do have a strong faith for this reason. After dissecting everything, one is left with a feeling of emptiness, or otherwise not fullfilled enough (that feeling of "is this all there is to the world?"). For example, as a scientist, you can dissect me and examine my brain, my heart, everything. But, you will never know who I am, what I believe in, how I think, how I act, etc. And in my point of view, knowing how the molecules in my body move is far less important than getting to know my personality. And this "personality" as I have so compared my point, is what religion may bring. Not necessarily to answer our purpose in the universe, but to give a sense of fulfullment. Some claim, and with validity, that there are those that use religion as a crutch. And, if used in a negative way, then yes, religion is humanity's crutch. But if religion is used in a proper way, then our world can only become better.
Vince