Bill O’Reilly: Creationist

Weird • Views: 5,901

[As Fox News runs the label: “Richard Dawkins - Atheist” over a pre-recorded, heavily edited interview…]

Bill O’Reilly: Atheist. Atheist! You’re an atheist! And a fascist! You atheist!

Richard Dawkins (atheist): But science is working on the problem…

Bill O’Reilly (interrupting): [pictures of Jesus flash on the screen] So you hate Jesus! I believe in creative design! What disturbs me about you guys is that you seem to look down on believers… science has never advanced humanity…

Richard Dawkins (atheist): It’s not fair to teach Jesus in science class…

Bill O’Reilly (shouting): For you to say that you can’t teach creationism in a public school classroom … that is FASCISM, sir!

Richard Dawkins (atheist): Fascism?!

——————————

(OK, I’m paraphrasing, but not by much. Bill O’Reilly wants to teach creationism in public school science classes, and if you’re not down with that … you’re an ATHEIST FASCIST!)

Youtube Video

Jump to bottom

680 comments
1 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:26:18pm

Bill O'Reilly: brain locked idiot

2 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:26:49pm

Proof to support O'reilly for those who haven't seen it yet.

3 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:28:09pm

Dawkins says, "present a better science."

And O'Reilly says, "no".

That's the sum total of the creationist argument right there.

4 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:28:27pm

re: #2 Dar ul Harbarian

Proof to support O'reilly for those who haven't seen it yet.

Give them a month till they work out the bugs, then get the updated model

5 Killgore Trout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:29:43pm

Fascism?
/lol

6 MandyManners  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:30:15pm

How many times did O'Reilly call Dawkins a "fascist"?

7 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:30:16pm

I don't think Jesus had anyting to say about evolution or creation...did he?

8 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:30:54pm

Ok...let's teach creationism...but let's teach all the creation myths from all the worlds cultures and religions...and don't call it science.

9 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:31:16pm

I knew O'Reilly was a blowhard, but now he's more than just that, he's confirmed he is a total and complete idiot in addition to being a total and complete asshole.

10 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:31:17pm

Bill O'Reilly. Approaching Godwin's Law.

Another diminutive mind from Fox New Corporation.

11 Killgore Trout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:31:29pm

Look at the photographic evidence. Jesus was white!
/Fox news viewer

12 jaunte  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:31:40pm

re: #8 BignJames

Fascist-Universalist!

13 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:32:29pm

re: #5 Killgore Trout

Fascism?
/lol

Dawkins haz teh librul fascism!

/

14 Killgore Trout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:32:32pm

re: #11 Killgore Trout

Adam and eve too.

15 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:32:46pm

Ok, I'm cringing.

I'll go get a beer now.

16 MandyManners  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:32:49pm

re: #7 Dar ul Harbarian

I don't think Jesus had anyting to say about evolution or creation...did he?

Christ was at the beginning.

17 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:33:04pm

How many pictures of Jesus did they flash on the screen while Dawkins was talking?

18 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:33:13pm

re: #7 Dar ul Harbarian

I don't think Jesus had anyting to say about evolution or creation...did he?

That all depends on how you read the Bible. There's a psalm that sounds like evolution.

19 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:33:33pm

Time to post this again, as some people go nuts. Here is the Center, and it can hold:

Pope Benedict has referred to the debate between creationists and supporters of evolutionary theory as an "absurdity":

"They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other," the pope said. "This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."
On the other hand, there are certain questions that evolutionary theory can never answer: "Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, 'Where does everything come from?'" Christians, thus, can learn truth from science, but scientists must learn to accept the limits of their own work. No scientific investigation can ever prove that God does not exist, or that He did not create the world, or even that man is only the sum of his physical parts.

Link

Hey O'Reilly are you not Catholic ?

20 Killgore Trout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:33:35pm

re: #13 Gus 802

It's an interesting glimpse into the mindset; Reality that doesn't accommodate them is oppressive.

21 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:33:38pm

re: #12 jaunte

Fascist-Universalist!

Dat's me!

22 MandyManners  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:33:44pm

re: #8 BignJames

Ok...let's teach creationism...but let's teach all the creation myths from all the worlds cultures and religions...and don't call it science.

I'm all for that in a Comparative Religion class.

23 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:33:47pm

No mention of teaching Cthulhu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the classroom? FASCISTS!

24 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:33:58pm

re: #16 MandyManners

Christ was at the beginning.

Hunh?

25 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:33:59pm

man I read the post and Charles had me wondering, but really that's pretty close...the best part about it is that O'Reilly gets zonked and doesn't even know it...Dawkins is smooth and that little smirk is legit...pwnd

26 theheat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:34:00pm

Every time O'Reilly tries to sound knowledgeable, and goes into full-on insufferable prick mode, I always imagine him reduced to begging for sex over the phone, and being sued for it.

And then I laugh my ass off.

27 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:34:35pm

I may not agree with his creationism, but I'd still take O'Reilly over Obama, given the choice.

28 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:35:33pm

re: #26 theheat

Every time O'Reilly tries to sound knowledgeable, and goes into full-on insufferable prick mode, I always imagine him reduced to begging for sex over the phone, and being sued for it.

And then I laugh my ass off.

Strange imagination you have there.

29 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:35:34pm

The science of evolution can neither prove nor disprove the presence of a creator. If faith is so weak it is threatened by science whats the point.

30 MandyManners  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:35:53pm

re: #24 Dar ul Harbarian

Hunh?

Yep.

31 theheat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:36:44pm

re: #28 Dar ul Harbarian

No, just fond memories.

32 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:36:57pm

re: #27 esch

Are you kidding? O'Reilly would be much worse IMHO. At least Obama embodies in his very person a bridge between races.

33 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:36:59pm

re: #27 esch

I may not agree with his creationism, but I'd still take O'Reilly over Obama, given the choice.

what?...in a poker game...wrestling?

34 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:37:02pm

re: #27 esch

I may not agree with his creationism, but I'd still take O'Reilly over Obama, given the choice.


One's out of his depth and the other's an insufferable prick...and they alternate.

35 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:37:30pm

re: #27 esch

I may not agree with his creationism, but I'd still take O'Reilly over Obama, given the choice.

What does that have to do with the price of California potatoes?

36 avanti  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:37:50pm

interesting that Fox used the light skinned European Jesus artwork for impact. Today, Jesus might panic the typical Fox viewer on a airplane.

37 Pawn of the Oppressor  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:37:57pm

Ever since the Carl Sagan remix was posted the other day, I've been watching "Cosmos" on Hulu. Let's just say there is definitely a missing link between a guy like Sagan and a guy like O'Reilly, and it's a pretty big link, too.

38 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:38:06pm

If anyone out there still had any doubts about whether Fox News is promoting the radical Christian right wing, this show will put those doubts to rest.

Utterly pathetic, and stupid beyond belief.

39 MandyManners  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:38:30pm

re: #29 mich-again

The science of evolution can neither prove nor disprove the presence of a creator. If faith is so weak it is threatened by science whats the point.


Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1.

40 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:38:39pm

re: #32 Ojoe

Are you kidding? O'Reilly would be much worse IMHO. At least Obama embodies in his very person a bridge between races.

anybody is a bridge between races if they want to be...BO is just another guy

41 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:39:34pm

re: #27 esch

I may not agree with his creationism, but I'd still take O'Reilly over Obama, given the choice.

Not me.

42 Basho  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:39:43pm

re: #27 esch

wtf is up with your avatar??

43 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:39:47pm

O'Reilly couldn't even get the name "intelligent design" right -- he called it "creative design."

44 jaunte  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:39:47pm

re: #29 mich-again

The science of evolution can neither prove nor disprove the presence of a creator. If faith is so weak it is threatened by science whats the point.

I think this whole to-do on O'Reilly's part is about his internal feelings of insecurity, that he is somehow being mocked by atheists because they don't share his beliefs.

45 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:39:53pm

re: #36 avanti

Here's a black Madonna and CHild for you.

Beautiful, I think.

46 theheat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:40:19pm

re: #43 Charles

Is that like creative dating?

47 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:40:36pm

My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

-Psalm 139:15

48 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:40:50pm

re: #32 Ojoe

Not remotely.

re: #33 albusteve

Poker? Yes.

Wrestling? Yes, if only to guarantee I wouldn't end up in one of Sullivan's wankfests.

Bowling? Obviously.

49 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:40:50pm

re: #40 albusteve

Well biologically he is a bridge anyway.

50 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:41:34pm

re: #42 Basho

wtf is up with your avatar??

I'll second that. What the hell is that supposed to be? A Mexican flag on the White House and Obama wearing a sombrero?

51 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:41:59pm

re: #42 Basho

wtf is up with your avatar??

That's the point. It's messiah-inspired 'art'.

52 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:42:48pm

re: #43 Charles

O'Reilly couldn't even get the name "intelligent design" right -- he called it "creative design."

He used creative license. The liberty artists take when interpreting another artist's work

53 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:43:01pm

re: #50 Charles

I'll second that. What the hell is that supposed to be? A Mexican flag on the White House and Obama wearing a sombrero?

Yeah it sure looks like it.

Somebody a while back posted a link to Obama inspired art.

This was the most insane one, so I had to take it.

54 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:43:10pm

re: #51 esch

That's the point. It's messiah-inspired 'art'.

what the hell is sticking out of that guy's taco?

55 Reginald Perrin  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:43:37pm

Charles you better be careful, you might not want to upset Mr O'Reilly or you may find yourself being stalked by Jessie Waters.

56 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:43:59pm

re: #31 theheat

No, just fond memories.

LOL

O'Reilly could write screenplays for porno movies if he ever loses his day job!

57 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:44:50pm

Actually I think it's a taco he's wearing.

58 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:44:53pm

re: #38 Charles

If anyone out there still had any doubts about whether Fox News is promoting the radical Christian right wing, this show will put those doubts to rest.

Utterly pathetic, and stupid beyond belief.

I still think they are only out to make money and this is just a useful vehicle.

59 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:45:39pm

re: #57 esch

Actually I think it's a taco he's wearing.

not cool...dissin a taco like that

60 justthefacts916  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:45:57pm

Bill O'Reilly's argument is full contradictions. Science reports on concrete evidence. O'Reilly blatantly ignores, or does not know the process, of science. He has no journalistic integrity.

61 Basho  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:46:09pm

re: #53 esch

Yeah it sure looks like it.

Somebody a while back posted a link to Obama inspired art.

This was the most insane one, so I had to take it.

Err... the head of a black and asian women are on the bodies of whites, with the asian women's face painted yellow...

Yeah...

62 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:46:30pm

re: #37 Pawn of the Oppressor

Ever since the Carl Sagan remix was posted the other day, I've been watching "Cosmos" on Hulu. Let's just say there is definitely a missing link between a guy like Sagan and a guy like O'Reilly, and it's a pretty big link, too.

Cosomos is on Hulu? So cool.

63 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:46:31pm

re: #53 esch

It's pretty offensive.

64 John Neverbend  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:46:49pm

re: #53 esch

Yeah it sure looks like it.

Somebody a while back posted a link to Obama inspired art.

This was the most insane one, so I had to take it.

What's with the floating underwear?

65 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:46:53pm

re: #42 Basho

wtf is up with your avatar??

The guy is holding a pair of panties?

66 Jack Burton  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:47:24pm

I cant even watch this video. I'll want to strangle the other ORLY after about 5 seconds based on these comments. Why does Dawkins even bother with this stuff?

67 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:47:56pm

Bill O'Reilly doesn't need the guests to show up in studio, or even by satellite feed for that matter. Whats the point? Fox should just set up cardboard cut-outs of the guests and O'Reilly can rattle off the questions and then answer them all himself.

68 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:48:09pm

re: #7 Dar ul Harbarian

I don't think Jesus had anyting to say about evolution or creation...did he?

No, but he said quite a number of other things that very public Christians don't seem as eager to see government enforce.

69 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:48:12pm

re: #66 ArchangelMichael

Why does Dawkins even bother with this stuff?

He's selling a book?

70 theheat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:48:18pm

re: #65 Spare O'Lake

The white briefs of peace, I think. A dove you wear like underpants.

That's really one foul ugly painting.

71 jaunte  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:48:24pm

re: #63 Sharmuta

It's from this Newsweek blog:
[Link: blog.newsweek.com...]

72 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:48:51pm

re: #11 Killgore Trout

Look at the photographic evidence. Jesus was white!
/Fox news viewer

Jesus did not really look like an Italian art student.

/my mother

73 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:49:13pm

re: #69 Sharmuta

He's selling a book?


Aren't they all?

74 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:49:22pm

re: #63 Sharmuta

It's pretty offensive.

I agree.

re: #66 ArchangelMichael

I cant even watch this video. I'll want to strangle the other ORLY after about 5 seconds based on these comments. Why does Dawkins even bother with this stuff?

Perhaps he feels he must combat this nonsense? I know I would.

75 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:49:32pm

re: #57 esch

Actually I think it's a taco he's wearing.

You need to change your avatar. The woman on the lower right looks like she's in "black face."

76 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:50:04pm

re: #71 jaunte

It's from this Newsweek blog:
[Link: blog.newsweek.com...]

Lovely.

77 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:50:16pm

Ah yes...

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Had to search for that one.

78 jaunte  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:50:43pm

re: #76 Sharmuta

Bizarre.

79 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:50:54pm

re: #77 esch

Ah yes...

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Had to search for that one.

And you thought it would be a good avatar?

80 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:50:59pm

re: #63 Sharmuta

It's pretty offensive.

I don't think it's offensive.
I think it's just...is that a taco on his head?

81 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:51:21pm

re: #80 Dar ul Harbarian

I don't think it's offensive.
I think it's just...is that a taco on his head?

And underwear in his hand.

82 John Neverbend  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:51:44pm

re: #60 justthefacts916

Bill O'Reilly's argument is full contradictions. Science reports on concrete evidence. O'Reilly blatantly ignores, or does not know the process, of science. He has no journalistic integrity.

O'Reilly was very confused. He started off by saying that he "believed" in evolution, but he thought that God was the driver of it all. Then he moved on to support the idea of including ID in the classroom. His arguments were exceedingly weak, and I'm particularly annoyed that there was virtually no discussion of the new book. Mr. Dawkins Atheist said that he'd been warned that O'Reilly would shout at him.

All in all, a rather pointless discussion.

83 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:52:07pm

re: #75 Gus 802

Actually since this is satire of O SUPPORTERS, it's fair game in my book.

84 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:52:22pm

re: #36 avanti

interesting that Fox used the light skinned European Jesus artwork for impact. Today, Jesus might panic the typical Fox viewer on a airplane.

True story. I am sitting next to a Middle Eastern-looking young man on an international flight. He is making occasional eye contact with another, similar-looking young man. I am feeling slightly nervous.

Young man next to me pulls out siddur and starts to say the tfilat ha-derech. I smile at him.

85 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:53:10pm

Oh, well. Nothing new. I've often seen, and I think said, that O'Reilly was an intelligent bigoted Catholic, which presumably is an oxymoronic statement (I love that word).

86 What, me worry?  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:53:11pm

re: #63 Sharmuta

It's pretty offensive.

Yeesh, let me count the ways!

87 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:53:11pm

re: #82 John Neverbend

O'Reilly was very confused. He started off by saying that he "believed" in evolution, but he thought that God was the driver of it all. Then he moved on to support the idea of including ID in the classroom. His arguments were exceedingly weak, and I'm particularly annoyed that there was virtually no discussion of the new book. Mr. Dawkins Atheist said that he'd been warned that O'Reilly would shout at him.

All in all, a rather pointless discussion.

Not pointless at all. It was aimed at the Fox News audience, who will now be reinforced in their view that the ATHEISTS are FASCISTS who want to take over America.

88 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:53:13pm

Bill O'Reilly and the No spin Nose Pin Zone.

BBL

89 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:53:15pm

re: #43 Charles

O'Reilly couldn't even get the name "intelligent design" right -- he called it "creative design."

No, that's a course in interior decorating.

90 John Neverbend  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:53:40pm

re: #84 SanFranciscoZionist

True story. I am sitting next to a Middle Eastern-looking young man on an international flight. He is making occasional eye contact with another, similar-looking young man. I am feeling slightly nervous.

Young man next to me pulls out siddur and starts to say the tfilat ha-derech. I smile at him.

Phew, a happy ending. Shabbat shalom, by the way. My wife and son will return happy tonight from Yankee Stadium.

91 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:53:53pm

re: #81 Sharmuta

And underwear in his hand.

No!
I get it now!
That is the dove of Peace!

92 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:53:57pm

Bill O'Reilly, a very smart man revelling in his own ignorance. Astonishing.

93 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:54:06pm

re: #79 Sharmuta

And you thought it would be a good avatar?

Sure, why not? It's meant to make a point about the level of insane cultish hero worship going on these days. And, it's funny.

I'm not a racist. My kids are multiracial. Any racism is in the intent of the original 'artist' and the viewer.

94 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:54:26pm

re: #45 Ojoe

Here's a black Madonna and CHild for you.

Beautiful, I think.

Ah, that is very lovely. In Ireland they ring the Angelus on TV at six o'clock. They vary the image of the Virgin on the screen, using icons from all over the world. It's very nice.

95 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:54:28pm

re: #83 esch

Actually since this is satire of O SUPPORTERS, it's fair game in my book.

Did it occur to you that there might be Latin visitors to LGF? How do you think they'll feel when they see your avatar?

96 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:54:40pm

re: #91 Dar ul Harbarian

No!
I get it now!
That is the dove of Peace!

the Brief of Peace?

97 John Neverbend  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:55:01pm

re: #87 Charles

Not pointless at all. It was aimed at the Fox News audience, who will now be reinforced in their view that the ATHEISTS are FASCISTS who want to take over America.

Even British atheists who are just here for 2 weeks to promote a book? Oh dear. Maybe, just maybe, some of them will read the book (in seekrit, of course).

98 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:55:31pm

re: #87 Charles

Fox news is playing with fire in a most irresponsible way.

How will all this meanness work out in even the near future?

Badly I fear, and for all of us.

99 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:55:36pm

re: #50 Charles

I'll second that. What the hell is that supposed to be? A Mexican flag on the White House and Obama wearing a sombrero?

It's from the terrible Obama artwork site. That's my very favorite one. I can't figure out what the hell it's about, but it's brilliant.

Good bad taste, esch!

100 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:55:51pm

re: #87 Charles

Not pointless at all. It was aimed at the Fox News audience, who will now be reinforced in their view that the ATHEISTS are FASCISTS who want to take over America.

Exactly! This smear angers me to no end.

101 jaunte  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:56:00pm

re: #92 The Shadow Do

But Charles is right about the imagery: Dawkins with 'Atheist' superimposed,
images of Dawkins vs. images of Jesus. The cartoonish visual opposition carries a message.

102 brennk2  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:56:02pm

Goodness. The sanctimony of so many posts and threads lately. Are we really in some sort of holier-than-thou contest? Yeah much of the far right is pretty out there lately but it wasn’t that long ago (2007?) that some had this site in that category. Why not just let the silliness go unremarked. Notice I said silliness. There are certainly some issues that need calling out. I don’t think this is one (imo).

103 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:56:28pm

re: #94 SanFranciscoZionist

There is quite enough love for all if we would just ask for it.

104 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:56:30pm

re: #63 Sharmuta

It's pretty offensive.

Is it? I thought it was just purely insane.

105 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:56:56pm

re: #102 brennk2

So why not start your own blog? Then you can ignore things like this to your heart's content.

106 MandyManners  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:57:00pm

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

107 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:57:23pm

re: #92 The Shadow Do

Bill O'Reilly, a very smart man revelling in his own ignorance. Astonishing.

He obviously has never done any reading on the subject and made it plain to see he is completely ignorant on the subject. But who needs facts when you have a point to make.

108 John Neverbend  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:57:32pm

re: #94 SanFranciscoZionist

Ah, that is very lovely. In Ireland they ring the Angelus on TV at six o'clock. They vary the image of the Virgin on the screen, using icons from all over the world. It's very nice.

I remember once travelling in a taxi in Dublin around noon. I heard bells ringing, and I thought it must be tolling 12 times. It tolled some other number of times then repeated. I asked the driver what was going on and he said, "Arr, dat's de Angelus."

109 Ben Hur  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:57:37pm

That was un-friggin-believable.

110 brennk2  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:57:42pm

re: #105 Charles

Because there is much here that I enjoy.

111 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:58:21pm

The nuts are showing up in several threads tonight.

112 Jack Burton  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:58:36pm

re: #69 Sharmuta

He's selling a book?

To ORLYs audience? Good luck with that one.

113 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:58:37pm

re: #102 brennk2

Not holier-than-thou. I think these posts and comments are practical. I think some are making an effort to keep things on an even keel. I've read enough history to see where excess passions lead, and I do not want to go there.

114 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:58:37pm

re: #104 SanFranciscoZionist

Is it? I thought it was just purely insane.

The President hanging out on the White House lawn with people in their underwear. If it was President Bush- I would be just as offended.

115 Basho  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:58:47pm

re: #83 esch

Actually since this is satire of O SUPPORTERS, it's fair game in my book.

It makes fun of Obama's diverse following by mixing body parts from different races and making them hold tacos and panties?

116 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:58:53pm

re: #102 brennk2

Goodness. The sanctimony of so many posts and threads lately. Are we really in some sort of holier-than-thou contest? Yeah much of the far right is pretty out there lately but it wasn’t that long ago (2007?) that some had this site in that category. Why not just let the silliness go unremarked. Notice I said silliness. There are certainly some issues that need calling out. I don’t think this is one (imo).

Ignore the 'silliness'?! That's what you think is going on now, 'silliness'?! This is far beyond 'silliness'!

117 MandyManners  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:59:22pm

re: #106 MandyManners

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

Matthew 11:28.

118 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:59:47pm

re: #95 Charles

Did it occur to you that there might be Latin visitors to LGF? How do you think they'll feel when they see your avatar?

Esch, people are making pretty good points, although I personally think it's a very funny painting. Would you care to switch to the one where the blue rivers are breaking out all over Obama's face, and he has the earth as a third eye? Or perhaps the one where he's wearing a white jumpsuit open to the waist, and is wading among roses in a sunset sea?

119 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:59:51pm

re: #98 Ojoe

Fox news is playing with fire in a most irresponsible way.

How will all this meanness work out in even the near future?

Badly I fear, and for all of us.

How so?

120 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 7:59:59pm

re: #102 brennk2

Goodness. The sanctimony of so many posts and threads lately. Are we really in some sort of holier-than-thou contest? Yeah much of the far right is pretty out there lately but it wasn’t that long ago (2007?) that some had this site in that category. Why not just let the silliness go unremarked. Notice I said silliness. There are certainly some issues that need calling out. I don’t think this is one (imo).

OK. So now we know what you think, even though you can't explain why.

What do you want? Respect?

121 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:00:16pm

re: #110 brennk2

Because there is much here that I enjoy.

OK. Well then, you should be aware that I'll post whatever I like at LGF, and you don't get to decide.

122 John Neverbend  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:00:20pm

re: #116 Varek Raith

Ignore the 'silliness'?! That's what you think is going on now, 'silliness'?! This is far beyond 'silliness'!

Your avatar is Kosh.

123 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:00:22pm

re: #119 Dar ul Harbarian

Riots for one.

124 Ben Hur  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:00:48pm

re: #117 MandyManners

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Ben Hur 4:20

125 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:01:02pm

re: #107 mich-again

He obviously has never done any reading on the subject and made it plain to see he is completely ignorant on the subject. But who needs facts when you have a point to make.

just another stooge for the company...a year ago he was probably totally clueless or ambivalent at best...the show must go on

126 brennk2  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:01:12pm

re: #116 Varek Raith

I don't fear O'Reilly. Maybe I should but most of this stuff is just for ratings. I doubt he even believes half of what he spouts. That's why I think it might be best to ignore at least some of it.

127 Basho  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:01:16pm

I didn't know this at first, but Dawkins is a real human being, with emotions and such:
[Link: www.independent.co.uk...]

Seriously though, that gives some background to Dawkins the person and not the professor or activist.

128 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:01:28pm

re: #114 Sharmuta

The President hanging out on the White House lawn with people in their underwear. If it was President Bush- I would be just as offended.

But there are giant tacos...OK. I take your point.

129 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:01:53pm

re: #95 Charles

It appears to me to be done in the style of a lot of Mexican/South American art. The juxtaposition of the style and the amateurish political content with the wacky combination of visual elements is what makes for good satire. It's just plain a funny piece.

As far as offending anyone goes, I'm not overly concerned. It appears to have been done by a Latino artist. I could dig up a reference and they could go ask them.

130 brennk2  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:01:59pm

re: #121 Charles

No offensive intended. Just my opinion. Post away!

131 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:02:03pm

re: #126 brennk2

I don't fear O'Reilly. Maybe I should but most of this stuff is just for ratings. I doubt he even believes half of what he spouts. That's why I think it might be best to ignore at least some of it.

When you start your own blog you can ignore whatever you like. If you keep trying to tell me what I should or shouldn't post, you won't have an account much longer.

132 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:02:16pm

re: #122 John Neverbend

Your avatar is Kosh.

Why, yes it is. Is that a problem?

133 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:02:17pm

re: #122 John Neverbend

Your avatar is Kosh.

Does Kosh know?

134 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:02:33pm

re: #106 MandyManners

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

Science education?

135 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:03:08pm

re: #129 esch

As far as offending anyone goes, I'm not overly concerned. It appears to have been done by a Latino artist. I could dig up a reference and they could go ask them.

OK, so you don't care if you offend Latin visitors to my website. Care to tell me why I should let you continue to post here, then?

136 John Neverbend  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:03:42pm

re: #133 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Does Kosh know?

Not sure. I think he may be off for Shabbat, so we won't know until tomorrow evening.

137 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:03:50pm

Danger Will Robinson!!

138 Basho  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:03:54pm

re: #127 Basho

I didn't know this at first, but Dawkins is a real human being, with emotions and such:
[Link: www.independent.co.uk...]

Seriously though, that gives some background to Dawkins the person and not the professor or activist.

"An old headmaster at his school, called Sanderson, had been enormously enthusiastic about natural history. "And his spirit lived on there. My old biology teacher Ioan Thomas had come to the school specifically because of it. There was one time he came into class and asked: 'What animal feeds on hydra?' We didn't know. He went right around the whole class asking. Everybody was guessing, and then, finally, we said, 'Sir, Sir, what animal does?' And he waited and waited, and then he said, 'I don't know. And I don't think Mr Coulson does either.' He burst into the next room, got Mr Coulson and dragged him out by the arm, and he didn't know either! It was a wonderful lesson, I never forgot it and neither did anyone else: it's OK to not know the answer." "

139 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:04:06pm

re: #123 Ojoe

Riots for one.

I don't see it happening. Not over creationism, anyway.

Maybe if unemployment and inflation get out of hand.

140 John Neverbend  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:04:30pm

re: #132 Varek Raith

Why, yes it is. Is that a problem?

No, not at all. There's another lizard called Kosh's Shadow.

141 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:05:15pm

re: #140 John Neverbend

No, not at all. There's another lizard called Kosh's Shadow.

Only one possible solution.

THUNDERDOME!

142 brennk2  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:05:30pm

re: #131 Charles

I beleive I will gracefully withdraw from this conversation for the evening. I really wasn't trying to tell you your business and don't want to make matters worse.

143 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:05:34pm

re: #101 jaunte

But Charles is right about the imagery: Dawkins with 'Atheist' superimposed,
images of Dawkins vs. images of Jesus. The cartoonish visual opposition carries a message.

Odd to see the pundits aping themselves, as it were.
Cartoonish indeed.

144 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:05:50pm

re: #140 John Neverbend

No, not at all. There's another lizard called Kosh's Shadow.

Oh, gotcha. We are all Kosh. B5's my favorite SciFi.

145 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:06:30pm

re: #138 Basho


As long as you'll admit you don't know...and don't try to blow smoke up everyones asses.

146 Fyodor Baggins Dostoevsky  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:06:34pm

I'm much more willing to hear Republican/conservative viewpoints when I see they at least accept reality (like evolution). That's why I've been coming here every day for the past few weeks and mostly lurking. I'm fascinated. You guys are great. Please take over the Republican party.

147 dmjboose  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:06:41pm

This was a quite tame interview. Dawkins was a much clearer speaker and oreilly made a fool of himself. I didn't notice him calling dawkins a "ATHEIST FASCIST" though. He did day that silencing opinions in a public school is fascism. This is probably my biggest problem with public schools. Matters of politics permeate the whole place rather than carting about what the kids think. If my kids were at a public school and they were taught about evolution (I would hope they were) I wouldn't mind if they discussed what all the talk about intelligent design was. After all I would like my kid to be educated, and if that requires learning about non-science in science class that's ok. I would pretty much demand that the teacher be able to explain why intelligent design isn't science or be labeled incompetent, but that's another matter altogether.

/rant

148 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:06:59pm

re: #142 brennk2

I beleive I will gracefully withdraw from this conversation for the evening. I really wasn't trying to tell you your business and don't want to make matters worse.

Tip for next time- try not calling your host sanctimonious.

149 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:07:00pm

My computer's power supply is so damn noisey.

I think this could be the "Ring around the collar" or "Dish washer spots" of the twenty-first century.

150 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:07:17pm

I don't care about the underwear per se...I have to agree with Charles tho...the buffoonery is probably offensive to Hispanics, or certainly could be

151 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:07:44pm

re: #135 Charles

OK, so you don't care if you offend Latin visitors to my website. Care to tell me why I should let you continue to post here, then?

If it offends you Charles, I'll change it. Easy enough.

152 MandyManners  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:08:29pm

re: #134 Naso Tang

Science education?

Don't be a twit. I pay about $19,000.00 per annum for The Kid.

153 jaunte  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:08:32pm

re: #147 dmjboose

I wouldn't mind if they discussed what all the talk about intelligent design was. After all I would like my kid to be educated, and if that requires learning about non-science in science class that's ok.


The problem with this approach is that it could easily lead to 'alternative views' taking up all of the class hours devoted to the subject of evolution.

154 Basho  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:08:50pm

re: #145 BignJames

As long as you'll admit you don't know...and don't try to blow smoke up everyones asses.

Are you talking about Dawkins or in general?

155 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:08:52pm

re: #149 Dar ul Harbarian

My computer's power supply is so damn noisey.


How noisy is it?

156 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:09:10pm

re: #151 esch

If it offends you Charles, I'll change it. Easy enough.

Probably shouldn't replace it with one of those weird paintings of Obama naked on a robotic unicorn, either.

157 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:09:52pm

re: #147 dmjboose

If my kids were at a public school and they were taught about evolution (I would hope they were) I wouldn't mind if they discussed what all the talk about intelligent design was. After all I would like my kid to be educated, and if that requires learning about non-science in science class that's ok. I would pretty much demand that the teacher be able to explain why intelligent design isn't science or be labeled incompetent, but that's another matter altogether.

/rant

You haven't thought a great deal about the consequences of this, have you?

Unless of course you have been reading the primer on the subject from the Disco Institute?/

158 TheMatrix31  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:09:56pm

Good thing no green footballs visit the site :-/

159 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:10:14pm

re: #147 dmjboose

This was a quite tame interview. Dawkins was a much clearer speaker and oreilly made a fool of himself. I didn't notice him calling dawkins a "ATHEIST FASCIST" though. He did day that silencing opinions in a public school is fascism. This is probably my biggest problem with public schools. Matters of politics permeate the whole place rather than carting about what the kids think. If my kids were at a public school and they were taught about evolution (I would hope they were) I wouldn't mind if they discussed what all the talk about intelligent design was. After all I would like my kid to be educated, and if that requires learning about non-science in science class that's ok. I would pretty much demand that the teacher be able to explain why intelligent design isn't science or be labeled incompetent, but that's another matter altogether.

/rant

NO. Creationism does not belong in science classrooms.

160 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:10:27pm

re: #126 brennk2

I don't fear O'Reilly. Maybe I should but most of this stuff is just for ratings. I doubt he even believes half of what he spouts. That's why I think it might be best to ignore at least some of it.

Why would you doubt his sincerity? He called the man a fascist. This is not something one does casually. O'Reilley is officially a nut now.

161 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:10:27pm

re: #154 Basho

Are you talking about Dawkins or in general?

In general...generally.

162 Basho  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:10:30pm

re: #147 dmjboose

After all I would like my kid to be educated, and if that requires learning about non-science in science class that's ok. I would pretty much demand that the teacher be able to explain why intelligent design isn't science or be labeled incompetent, but that's another matter altogether.

/rant

Learning about nonsense is not education. People believe nonsense naturally.

163 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:10:53pm

re: #156 SanFranciscoZionist

Probably shouldn't replace it with one of those weird paintings of Obama naked on a robotic unicorn, either.

...I don't think I want to know...Lol.

re: #153 jaunte

The problem with this approach is that it could easily lead to 'alternative views' taking up all of the class hours devoted to the subject of evolution.

Beer volcanoes! Stripper Factories! I like that one!

164 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:11:22pm

re: #155 BignJames

My computer's power supply is so damn noisey.

How noisy is it?

It's so noisy, all the teenagers in the neighborhood think I've started a garage band.

165 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:11:25pm

re: #156 SanFranciscoZionist

Probably shouldn't replace it with one of those weird paintings of Obama naked on a robotic unicorn, either.

GMTA

166 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:11:57pm

re: #157 Naso Tang

You haven't thought a great deal about the consequences of this, have you?

Unless of course you have been reading the primer on the subject from the Disco Institute?/

I'm giving this one the benefit of the doubt for now ... but that sure sounded like a Discovery Institute talking point to me, too.

167 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:12:44pm

re: #152 MandyManners

Don't be a twit. I pay about $19,000.00 per annum for The Kid.

Hoo boy. Wait till he/she gets to college and studies Philosophy of Science.

168 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:12:46pm

re: #164 Dar ul Harbarian

It's so noisy, all the teenagers in the neighborhood think I've started a garage band.


That's noisy.

169 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:12:55pm

re: #164 Dar ul Harbarian

It's so noisy, all the teenagers in the neighborhood think I've started a garage band.

see if you can tweek it to do a respectable 'Sympathy For the Devil'...just try

170 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:13:14pm

re: #11 Killgore Trout

Look at the photographic evidence. Jesus was white!
/Fox news viewer

re: #14 Killgore Trout

Adam and eve too.

You made me laugh out loud!


re: #17 Charles

How many pictures of Jesus did they flash on the screen while Dawkins was talking?

I keep wondering where they find these pictures.

171 What, me worry?  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:13:15pm

re: #124 Ben Hur

Ben Hur 4:20

lol yer funny.

172 Dar ul Harb  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:14:29pm

I think esch's avatar was plagiarized from the album art for Talking Heads' Little Creatures.

/well, it is in a "primitive folk" style, and does have some underwear in it

173 Fyodor Baggins Dostoevsky  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:15:10pm

I have relatives that think God put all these fossils in the earth to test our faith. How can you reason with that? Evidence is meaningless.

174 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:15:13pm

re: #169 albusteve

see if you can tweek it to do a respectable 'Sympathy For the Devil'...just try


From a garage band?...hoo boy.

175 Racer X  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:15:17pm

Oh man. I'm in big trouble. I'm working on an important work document on another screen. I had two versions open so on one I did a "select all" then I hit "delete". The whole room disappeared. And the house. I'm here in a dark void typing on a computer floating in space. I can't see my hands.

How do I undo?

HELP!

176 John Neverbend  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:15:19pm

re: #144 Varek Raith

Oh, gotcha. We are all Kosh. B5's my favorite SciFi.

It had its moments, I must admit. I think it could have ended at least one season earlier.

177 Cato the Elder  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:16:28pm

re: #87 Charles

Not pointless at all. It was aimed at the Fox News audience, who will now be reinforced in their view that the ATHEISTS are FASCISTS who want to take over America.

Just like Glenn Beck said.

178 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:16:37pm

re: #175 Racer X

Oh man. I'm in big trouble. I'm working on an important work document on another screen. I had two versions open so on one I did a "select all" then I hit "delete". The whole room disappeared. And the house. I'm here in a dark void typing on a computer floating in space. I can't see my hands.

How do I undo?

HELP!

ctrl v

179 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:16:43pm

re: #174 BignJames

From a garage band?...hoo boy.

Louie Louie?

180 John Neverbend  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:17:02pm

re: #173 Fyodor Baggins Dostoevsky

I have relatives that think God put all these fossils in the earth to test our faith. How can you reason with that? Evidence is meaningless.

It gets worse, so you should just stop trying to reason with them, particularly as they're family. You can't reason with family.

181 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:17:25pm

re: #175 Racer X

Oh man. I'm in big trouble. I'm working on an important work document on another screen. I had two versions open so on one I did a "select all" then I hit "delete". The whole room disappeared. And the house. I'm here in a dark void typing on a computer floating in space. I can't see my hands.

How do I undo?

HELP!


Stay away from the light.

182 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:17:27pm

re: #176 John Neverbend

It had its moments, I must admit. I think it could have ended at least one season earlier.

Yeah, I think it was actually supposed to end at season 4. Season 5 was...meh.
re: #175 Racer X

Oh man. I'm in big trouble. I'm working on an important work document on another screen. I had two versions open so on one I did a "select all" then I hit "delete". The whole room disappeared. And the house. I'm here in a dark void typing on a computer floating in space. I can't see my hands.

How do I undo?

HELP!

Control+Z.

183 Racer X  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:17:55pm

re: #173 Fyodor Baggins Dostoevsky

I have relatives that think God put all these fossils in the earth to test our faith. How can you reason with that? Evidence is meaningless.

Yeah I've heard that one too. My response was God is all powerful. He has no need to be deceitful. He simply created everything a long time ago, and set evolution in motion.

184 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:17:56pm

re: #87 Charles

Not pointless at all. It was aimed at the Fox News audience, who will now be reinforced in their view that the ATHEISTS are FASCISTS who want to take over America.

Yes, and O'Reilly's sort of coverage is a huge disservice in that it fails miserably in clarifying the issues for religious people who, like I was when you first started posting about this, are confused by the terms "creationism" and "intelligent design". Which by the way, you started "covering" this before the folks like O'Reilly etc. had decided this was a big enough issue that needed the coverage it's getting now.

185 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:17:59pm

re: #173 Fyodor Baggins Dostoevsky

I have relatives that think God put all these fossils in the earth to test our faith. How can you reason with that? Evidence is meaningless.

I was reading about a paleontologist with some family members like that. He took them on a dig with him, and they left the site believing the fossils were not planted. For some people- it takes a lot to get them out of that thinking, and most won't have someone who will bother to take the time.

186 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:18:24pm

re: #173 Fyodor Baggins Dostoevsky

I have relatives that think God put all these fossils in the earth to test our faith. How can you reason with that? Evidence is meaningless.

I just knew it! God is one tricky SOB. Can't trust the bastard. Not at all.

187 Basho  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:18:44pm

re: #173 Fyodor Baggins Dostoevsky

I have relatives that think God put all these fossils in the earth to test our faith. How can you reason with that? Evidence is meaningless.

Comedian Bill Hicks had a great response to that..

-God put those their to test our faith
-I think God put you here to test my faith.

188 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:19:25pm

re: #179 albusteve

Louie Louie?


Gloria.

189 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:19:35pm

Creationism does have a place in the high school curriculum. Introduction to Mythology.

190 Racer X  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:19:43pm

re: #186 The Shadow Do

I just knew it! God is one tricky SOB. Can't trust the bastard. Not at all.

LOL!

Exactly. Why would God deceive?

191 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:20:29pm

re: #188 BignJames

Gloria.

You're always on the run now!

192 sngnsgt  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:20:32pm

re: #187 Basho

Comedian Bill Hicks had a great response to that..

-God put those their to test our faith
-I think God put you here to test my faith.

Ba-dum-bum!

193 dugmartsch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:20:50pm

re: #104 SanFranciscoZionist

Agreed.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The guy has a taco on his head. He's not mexican. Does he even like Mexico?

Obviously charles is the arbiter since its his site but i dunno I don't think the person who made it had any racist intent.

194 Political Atheist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:21:08pm

re: #175 Racer X

Ctrl Alt Z?

CS4 joke

195 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:21:20pm

Ahhh...took me a while to get to the bottom of the thread. Very entertaining!

196 oh_dude  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:21:37pm

Lately I've been telling people that I believe in Creationism, just to piss them off.

For toppers, I also tell them that I believe that Elvis faked his own death.

197 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:21:47pm

re: #184 reine.de.tout

Yes, and O'Reilly's sort of coverage is a huge disservice in that it fails miserably in clarifying the issues for religious people who, like I was when you first started posting about this, are confused by the terms "creationism" and "intelligent design". Which by the way, you started "covering" this before the folks like O'Reilly etc. had decided this was a big enough issue that needed the coverage it's getting now.

O'Reilly, Beck etc live in another world...big money, big ratings...these guys are superstar hucksters feeding off the gullible masses...nothing new except the subject and the scope of the scam

198 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:22:04pm

re: #195 NJDhockeyfan

But the bottom will keep dropping.

Good night all.

199 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:22:06pm

re: #170 reine.de.tout

I keep wondering where they find these pictures.

There are a really staggering number of pictures of Jesus out there. Some of them are better than others.

200 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:23:04pm

re: #196 oh_dude

Lately I've been telling people that I believe in Creationism, just to piss them off.

For toppers, I also tell them that I believe that Elvis faked his own death.

Elvis & Jim Morrison work at a pizza place in Ft Lauderdale, didn't you hear?

201 Fyodor Baggins Dostoevsky  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:23:04pm

That Bill Hicks response is perfect. However, I love my family so I'll refrain from using it on them.

202 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:23:04pm

re: #188 BignJames

Gloria.

excellent...

96 Tears

203 swamprat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:23:17pm

Dylan says god is a gamer

Well, the deputy walks on hard nails and the preacher rides a mount
But nothing really matters much, it's "doom" alone that counts
And the one-eyed undertaker, he blows a futile horn.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

204 dmjboose  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:23:33pm

whew. When charles says "NO" you know you've hit a nerve. Sorry about that. I had two points in my last post.

1. This was a relatively tame interview for oreilly

2. Kids should be told what all the hubub is about intelligent design SO THAT they can be told that it isn't science. If you ban discussion of this fact, then our kids are going to have no ability to distinguish the real thing from BS.

Side notes -

1. I'm an atheist, not even agnostic.
2. I hate the discovery institute.
3. I generally oppose anyone that mentions teaching intelligent design in schools because they really want to teach it as if it is science.
4. I wrote my original post from my phone, which was clearly a mistake. I'm on the laptop now for further discussion.

205 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:23:43pm

Robert Stacy McCain is really spewing the hatred at me tonight.

Sharmuta gets a nasty little cameo role in McCain's hate fantasy too.

206 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:23:56pm

re: #193 dugmartsch

Agreed.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The guy has a taco on his head. He's not mexican. Does he even like Mexico?

Obviously charles is the arbiter since its his site but i dunno I don't think the person who made it had any racist intent.

It is stupid and offensive. Does not belong.

207 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:24:03pm

re: #199 SanFranciscoZionist

There are a really staggering number of pictures of Jesus out there. Some of them are better than others.



This is my favorite. O'Reilly should have used it.

208 Fyodor Baggins Dostoevsky  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:24:05pm

re: #203 swamprat

Just listend to Blood on the Tracks today. One of my favorite albums ever.

209 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:24:57pm

re: #202 albusteve

excellent...

96 Tears

Ah yes...? and the Mysterians...who were they?

210 Basho  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:25:01pm

Managed to catch bits and pieces of Darwin's Darkest Hour on PBS. I didn't know Galapagos Tortoises had different shell patterns dependent on the island they inhabit. Simply fascinating.

And the creationists during his time seemed to be light years more reasonable and intelligent than those Fox News morons...

211 wee fury  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:25:18pm

O'Reilly can be rude, crude, somewhat lewd, and opinionated. And, he is an interrupter.

212 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:25:19pm

re: #205 Charles

Robert Stacy McCain is really spewing the hatred at me tonight.

Sharmuta gets a nasty little cameo role in McCain's hate fantasy too.

What a dipshit he is.

213 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:25:20pm

re: #189 mich-again

Creationism does have a place in the high school curriculum. Introduction to Mythology.

We have a religion class! The kids do Old Testament Freshmen year, the Gospels in Sophomore year...meanwhile, the science teachers teach SCIENCE.

214 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:25:31pm

re: #208 Fyodor Baggins Dostoevsky

Just listend to Blood on the Tracks today. One of my favorite albums ever.

one of THE best ever...always goes on the road with me...his masterpiece

215 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:26:23pm

re: #199 SanFranciscoZionist

Michalengelo's last pieta
A favorite of mine.

Goodnight again.

216 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:26:31pm

re: #53 esch

You mean to tell us you couldn't find one single dignified painting ofObama with a pancake on his head?

217 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:26:49pm

re: #213 SanFranciscoZionist

We have a religion class! The kids do Old Testament Freshmen year, the Gospels in Sophomore year...meanwhile, the science teachers teach SCIENCE.

That's exactly what happens at my daughter's school.
They even have a study unit on the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Islam, Paganism, probably a few others.

218 Cato the Elder  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:26:50pm

re: #205 Charles

Robert Stacy McCain is really spewing the hatred at me tonight.

Sharmuta gets a nasty little cameo role in McCain's hate fantasy too.

And here I thought he was driving down to Charleston to teach those newspaper liberals a lesson...

219 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:27:20pm

re: #209 BignJames

Ah yes...? and the Mysterians...who were they?

I'm not allowed to tell you...
those were the good old days

Wipeout!

220 Racer X  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:27:28pm

Yesterday I was at my local COSTCO buying a large bag of Purina dog chow for my loyal pet, Biscuit, the Wonder Dog and was in the checkout line when a woman behind me asked if I had a dog.

What did she think I had, an elephant? So since I'm retired and
have little to do, on impulse I told her that no, I didn't have a dog, I was starting the Purina Diet again. I added that I probably shouldn't, because I ended up in the hospital last time, but that I'd lost 50 pounds before I awakened in an intensive care ward with tubes coming out of most of my orifices and IV's in both arms.

I told her that it was essentially a perfect diet and that the way that it works is to load your pants pockets with Purina nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry. The food is nutritionally complete so it works well and I was going to try it again.

(I have to mention here that practically everyone in line was now enthralled with my story.)

Horrified, she asked if I ended up in intensive care because the
dog food poisoned me. I told her no, I stepped off a curb to sniff an Irish Setter's butt and a car hit us both.

I thought the guy behind her was going to have a heart attack he was laughing so hard.

Costco won't let me shop there anymore.

221 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:27:29pm

re: #205 Charles


Who is this Charles Foster Johnson he speaks of? Never hoid of him.

222 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:27:53pm

re: #216 WindUpBird

You mean to tell us you couldn't find one single dignified painting ofObama with a pancake on his head?

404 not found

223 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:28:16pm

re: #207 Dar ul Harbarian


This is my favorite. O'Reilly should have used it.

"Jesus didn't come to earth to give us the willies! He came to help us out!"

224 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:28:30pm

re: #216 WindUpBird

You mean to tell us you couldn't find one single dignified painting ofObama with a pancake on his head?

Apparently not.

Not Found
The requested URL /_2b_SPCr78uQ/SaTgqVmpl5I/AAAHxQ/SHKX6Kd-C-w/s1600-h/barack_obama_pancake_head.jpg was not found on this server.

225 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:29:11pm

re: #205 Charles

Robert Stacy McCain is really spewing the hatred at me tonight.

Sharmuta gets a nasty little cameo role in McCain's hate fantasy too.

Right. And the dimwit McCain has as part of his title, "LGF's rage vs. the cheerful laugher [sic] of conservatives."

Cheerful "laugher" is bad enough. The idea that the far-right wing response to the Nobel Peace Prize is anything approaching cheerful laughter is laughable itself.

226 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:29:18pm

I wouldn't be surprised if Robert Stacy McCain has been in touch with his neo-Nazi friends about me.

227 dugmartsch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:29:58pm

re: #187 Basho

Love that bit from bill hicks.
"I'm a prankster god. hahaha I am killing me."

"Did you believe in dinosaurs?"
"Well yeah there were fossils everywhere and..."
BOOOM screams sent to hell
"it seemed so plausible! ahhh"


Youtube Video
228 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:29:58pm

re: #193 dugmartsch

Agreed.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The guy has a taco on his head. He's not mexican. Does he even like Mexico?

Obviously charles is the arbiter since its his site but i dunno I don't think the person who made it had any racist intent.

Agreed on all points. I have to say, though, that I do see it a bit differently out of context. When it was mixed in with all the other stuff, the blue Obamas, and the unicorn-riding Obamas and whatnot, it was just hysterical. But if I just saw it on this site, I might be offended myself.

Pity. I like the giant tacos and the underwear.

229 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:30:15pm

re: #222 NJDhockeyfan

404 not found

Durnit! Guess it won't link. Ah well. :D

230 dmjboose  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:30:18pm

re: #217 reine.de.tout

That's exactly what happens at my daughter's school.
They even have a study unit on the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Islam, Paganism, probably a few others.

woah. I never encountered a religion class until college.

231 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:30:32pm

re: #205 Charles

Robert Stacy McCain is really spewing the hatred at me tonight.

Sharmuta gets a nasty little cameo role in McCain's hate fantasy too.

What douchebaggery.

232 Basho  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:31:06pm

re: #227 dugmartsch

ROFL thanks for the video!

233 Dar ul Harb  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:31:31pm

That's not a pancake, it's a seal.

234 peterb  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:31:33pm

Let's have a "Hear, Hear!" for Richard Dawkins, who regularly walks into the lions' den and speaks truth to Stupid. The guy has balls of steel.

235 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:31:36pm

re: #230 dmjboose

woah. I never encountered a religion class until college.

Catholic School.

236 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:31:50pm

re: #228 SanFranciscoZionist

Agreed on all points. I have to say, though, that I do see it a bit differently out of context. When it was mixed in with all the other stuff, the blue Obamas, and the unicorn-riding Obamas and whatnot, it was just hysterical. But if I just saw it on this site, I might be offended myself.

Pity. I like the giant tacos and the underwear.

That was really the point SFZ. I threw something else up for now.

237 oh_dude  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:31:56pm

re: #200 NJDhockeyfan

HA HA! I heard the brownies are pretty good too.

238 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:32:04pm

re: #220 Racer X

I love it!!...Went to the cafeteria at work on the graveyard shift...asked the counter lady for a BLT..."Would you like lettuce and tomato on that?"...she asked..."Sure"...I said..."put some bacon on it too."...I added.

239 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:32:16pm

re: #233 Dar ul Harb

That's not a pancake, it's a seal.

Sorry, 404 again.

240 Political Atheist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:32:20pm

re: #231 Sharmuta

Looks like hate speech instead of imitation as the sincerest form of flattery these shrill days.
\.

241 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:32:40pm

re: #230 dmjboose

woah. I never encountered a religion class until college.

And science is taught as science. The science teacher may NOT teach religion; the religion teacher may NOT teach science.

Each subject is too important on its own to be "watered down" with the other.

242 Dar ul Harb  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:33:38pm

re: #233 Dar ul Harb

That's not a pancake, it's a seal.

Gotta admit, it does look the same, though.

d'oh!

/404 Not Found

243 Reginald Perrin  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:33:42pm

re: #200 NJDhockeyfan

Elvis & Jim Morrison work at a pizza place in Ft Lauderdale, didn't you hear?

That is not true, the lizard king was fired for exposing himself to customers, so now Elvis is working alone.

244 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:33:57pm

Picked up 2 packs of Space Wolves today and so far, they're a bitch to paint. The joys of a new modeling project

245 sngnsgt  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:33:59pm

re: #239 Varek Raith

Like this?

Obama Pancake Head

246 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:34:17pm

re: #215 Ojoe

Michalengelo's last pieta
A favorite of mine.

Goodnight again.

That's striking, and I love the way he screws with size and perspective. But my favorite Michelangelo will always be this one.

247 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:34:25pm

Check out what Vlaams Belang supporter 'jeppo' (James Pillman) is up to at Loonwatch:

[Link: www.loonwatch.com...]

248 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:34:34pm

re: #243 Reginald Perrin

That is not true, the lizard king was fired for exposing himself to customers, so now Elvis is working alone.

No, Black Kennedy is working with him now.

/Bubba-hotep

249 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:34:53pm

re: #245 sngnsgt

Like this?

Obama Pancake Head

Lol, that one worked. Thanks.

250 dmjboose  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:35:20pm

re: #235 reine.de.tout

Catholic School.

so...not public. It would be hard to move the subject matter to a religion class when you don't have those in public school. I for one would not be cool with someone demanding that anyone take a religion class. That would almost be worse than the english classes I had to endure, which often became my teachers' soap boxes for some reason. I can't imagine a religion class doing that.

251 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:35:23pm

re: #197 albusteve

O'Reilly, Beck etc live in another world...big money, big ratings...these guys are superstar hucksters feeding off the gullible masses...nothing new except the subject and the scope of the scam

Yup, just "looking out for the folks". Same old, same old.

I have no idea why the public of any particualr political perspective purchases any of the putrid, perfidous, ever-present, pedantic, Pyrrhic punditry that is so prevalent, at present.

252 dmjboose  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:35:55pm

whoopsie forgot the /sarc

253 jaunte  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:36:46pm

re: #251 The Shadow Do

Possibly popular puerility?

254 Henchman Ghazi-808  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:36:48pm

Major Fail Bill.

Regards,
The last remnants of your credibility

255 Dar ul Harb  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:36:57pm

Try that halo again.

/curses blogspot

256 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:37:25pm

re: #245 sngnsgt

Like this?

Obama Pancake Head

Was there a whole school of oddball art portraying Presidents Bush and Clinton and such like this, or is this just part of the special craziness Obama seems to find in people's souls?

257 sngnsgt  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:37:52pm

re: #255 Dar ul Harb

LOL!

258 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:38:23pm

re: #248 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

No, Black Kennedy is working with him now.

/Bubba-hotep

"It's Lyndon Johnson! He's come for me!"

"Uh, Jack, I think President Johnson's been dead a while."

"That wouldn't stop Lyndon!"

259 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:38:29pm

re: #173 Fyodor Baggins Dostoevsky

I have relatives that think God put all these fossils in the earth to test our faith. How can you reason with that? Evidence is meaningless.

Use a sarc "/" until you are reasonably confident of being understood.

260 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:38:36pm

re: #250 dmjboose

so...not public. It would be hard to move the subject matter to a religion class when you don't have those in public school. I for one would not be cool with someone demanding that anyone take a religion class. That would almost be worse than the english classes I had to endure, which often became my teachers' soap boxes for some reason. I can't imagine a religion class doing that.

Interesting.
But you are cool with someone using science class time to teach creationism? You are OK with a topic as important as one's faith beliefs being taught by a public school science teacher, instead of a parent or someone qualified to teach about that particular faith? Which faith should be taught in the science class?

261 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:38:50pm

re: #245 sngnsgt

Like this?

Obama Pancake Head

It shoulda been a waffle.

262 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:38:51pm

re: #247 Charles

Check out what Vlaams Belang supporter 'jeppo' (James Pillman) is up to at Loonwatch:

[Link: www.loonwatch.com...]

That Jeppo is off his rocker. I swear he spends almost every day looking for a blog to comment on LGF about something or another. Every single day, 24/7 almost. Talk about obsessed. If I'm not mistaken many of these deranged LGF flouncers have been at it for almost 2 years. Could you imagine going for 2 years being obsessed or angry about anything short of a bad personal relationship or health issues? I'm willing to be that they'll exceed 2 years and carry on like this for the next 10 years.

263 peterb  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:39:01pm

Following up to myself, here is a link to the uncut video of Dawkins debating evolution vs. Intelligent Design with Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America.

The video is in 7 parts, and I have to warn you, it may kill you. It's beyond stupidity: it's a mixture of deliberate know-nothingism and pure political venality. It's depressing, but THIS is what science and, more generally, those of us who support values derived from the Enlightenment, are up against.

Youtube Video
264 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:39:40pm

re: #262 Gus 802

I'm willing to be bet that they'll exceed 2 years and carry on like this for the next 10 years.

Oops.

265 Dar ul Harb  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:40:09pm

re: #257 sngnsgt

LOL!

Hey, don't laugh, man. He's a Nobel Laureate.™

(I don't think he was campaigning for the halo, either.)

266 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:41:11pm

re: #253 jaunte

Possibly popular puerility?

pusillanimous pap, in particular.

267 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:41:53pm

re: #204 dmjboose

whew. When charles says "NO" you know you've hit a nerve. Sorry about that. I had two points in my last post.

1. This was a relatively tame interview for oreilly

2. Kids should be told what all the hubub is about intelligent design SO THAT they can be told that it isn't science. If you ban discussion of this fact, then our kids are going to have no ability to distinguish the real thing from BS.

Side notes -

1. I'm an atheist, not even agnostic.
2. I hate the discovery institute.
3. I generally oppose anyone that mentions teaching intelligent design in schools because they really want to teach it as if it is science.
4. I wrote my original post from my phone, which was clearly a mistake. I'm on the laptop now for further discussion.

OK. Just now seeing this post of yours. My re: #260 reine.de.tout obviously written from a misunderstanding.

268 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:42:25pm

re: #247 Charles

Check out what Vlaams Belang supporter 'jeppo' (James Pillman) is up to at Loonwatch:

[Link: www.loonwatch.com...]

W.T.F. Is that super-projection, or somesuch? Loon, indeed.

269 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:43:48pm

re: #260 reine.de.tout

Interesting.
But you are cool with someone using science class time to teach creationism? You are OK with a topic as important as one's faith beliefs being taught by a public school science teacher, instead of a parent or someone qualified to teach about that particular faith? Which faith should be taught in the science class?

half the kids in school can't add 2+2 and it's gonna get worse...creationistas cannot be reasoned with, they will have to be shutdown through the courts and they know it...they are organized and juiced...if the courts fail to reason then we just have to live with the consequence...meanwhile the tide rolls on via Bill O'Reilly

270 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:45:21pm

re: #234 peterb

Let's have a "Hear, Hear!" for Richard Dawkins, who regularly walks into the lions' den and speaks truth to Stupid. The guy has balls of steel.

Yeah, but he writes better than he speaks. Too much of this "giving rope to the opponent". The problem is he seems to think the audience is able to understand what he means if he says it politely enough.

271 Dar ul Harb  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:46:24pm

Contemporary artist Shepard Fairey, who arguably infringed a copyrighted photo in his HOPE poster during the campaign, apparently thought that halo photo was too good not to copy, too.

/you're no Andy Warhol

272 Dancing along the light of day  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:46:45pm

re: #247 Charles

I really like the name of the site
"Loonwatch"
It's so appropriate!

273 Reginald Perrin  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:47:10pm

re: #247 Charles
That is hilarious, Jeppo is barking up the wrong tree.
One of Martinez's minions recently accused me of being eight different posters at Think Progress. Why do I get blamed for things I didn't have anything to do with?

I wish I would get credit for the ones that I did, like the time I used a derivative of Martinez's old nickname to pi$$ off Bill O'Reiily enough to get him to send a stalker to follow Amanda Terkel across state lines. One of these days I think I should post all those now redacted comments and give Billo a heart attack.

274 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:47:11pm

re: #226 Charles

I wouldn't be surprised if Robert Stacy McCain has been in touch with his neo-Nazi friends about me.

Oh he's one of theirs. Look back at the thread at Stormfront when he was fired from Human Events. No link, but search "SPLC cackles: editorial purge at Human Events". Here's one post..

Let the polarization continue apace! Now that Sam Francis has passed on, perhaps these worthy writers will find a new and more hospitable home with racially conscious folk like us, just like Sam did. This is exactly how we shall find our voice. This sort of irrational purge actually serves to strengthen our movement.

And then Mr. Paul Fromm himself shows up and drops this gem of a post..

Speak up, guys and girls. Let's not just count our wounded, but let's go out and inflict a few casualties of our own.

NO SURRENDER!!!

So I'm guessing they're still reading what their little buddy writes.

275 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:47:22pm

hysteria rules the airwaves...the truth based on fact is boring...pundits, TV and movie stars have an agenda and they steer policy...we are baked amigos

276 Cato the Elder  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:47:29pm

re: #270 Naso Tang

Yeah, but he writes better than he speaks. Too much of this "giving rope to the opponent". The problem is he seems to think the audience is able to understand what he means if he says it politely enough.

Also, Americans like O'Reilly don't get polite British putdowns. Dawkins could take a few lessons in verbal pugilism from Chris Hitchens.

277 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:48:51pm

re: #251 The Shadow Do

Yup, just "looking out for the folks". Same old, same old.

I have no idea why the public of any particualr political perspective purchases any of the putrid, perfidous, ever-present, pedantic, Pyrrhic punditry that is so prevalent, at present.

Pent-up pea-brained political passions at primetime

278 CmdrGuard  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:48:55pm

I watched the video and felt the paraphrasing was a bit over the top... until I saw the pictures of jesus flashed before the screen. Then I had to chuckle.

Pretty spot on there Charles; pithy as O'reilly might say.

279 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:49:31pm

re: #270 Naso Tang

Yeah, but he writes better than he speaks. Too much of this "giving rope to the opponent". The problem is he seems to think the audience is able to understand what he means if he says it politely enough.

I don't agree that there is a problem with his delivery. His reasoned responses in the face of being called a fascist will be appreciated by many whereas a more strident response would be easily dismissed.

280 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:49:43pm

re: #270 Naso Tang

Yeah, but he writes better than he speaks. Too much of this "giving rope to the opponent". The problem is he seems to think the audience is able to understand what he means if he says it politely enough.

That segment was heavily edited. You can see the cuts in the clip I posted.

281 Dar ul Harb  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:50:57pm

A little bit more on the Shepard Fairey copyright infringement issue (scroll to the bottom of the post for a mouseover comparison of the AP photo with Fairey's poster --shades of the throbbing memo!).

282 jaunte  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:51:03pm

re: #278 CmdrGuard

Bill O'Reilly is not exactly subtle with his audience.
Image: AlexLudovico.jpg

283 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:51:05pm

re: #277 Dar ul Harbarian

Pent-up pea-brained political passions at primetime

Precisely, pard.

284 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:51:44pm

re: #204 dmjboose

2. Kids should be told what all the hubub is about intelligent design SO THAT they can be told that it isn't science. If you ban discussion of this fact, then our kids are going to have no ability to distinguish the real thing from BS.

Wrong. The point is that if you discuss it at all, what you are discussing, (refuting) is what they have learned at home, which amounts to school telling them that their parents are (insert word here).

Remember, this is school, not college with assumed adults.

Do you get that?

285 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:51:59pm

re: #280 Charles

That segment was heavily edited. You can see the cuts in the clip I posted.

I would love to see the unedited version of that segment. Even with the edits, O'Reilly got smashed.

286 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:52:09pm

re: #280 Charles

That segment was heavily edited. You can see the cuts in the clip I posted.

yes, easily...seems like a critical indictment of O'Reilly's position...supposedly his juicers will never know the difference...he cannot face his opponents honestly

287 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:52:31pm

Ha! Dawkins destroyed him.

288 dentate  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:53:48pm

re: #276 Cato the Elder

Also, Americans like O'Reilly don't get polite British putdowns. Dawkins could take a few lessons in verbal pugilism from Chris Hitchens.

I miss Stephen Jay Gould. There was a man who could write AND speak on this stuff. He was spellbinding, and knew the creationists' arguments better than they did. Among his many books, Rocks of Ages was not his best, but did a very good job of setting science and religion into their proper places.

289 dmjboose  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:54:59pm

re: #260 reine.de.tout

Interesting.
But you are cool with someone using science class time to teach creationism? You are OK with a topic as important as one's faith beliefs being taught by a public school science teacher, instead of a parent or someone qualified to teach about that particular faith? Which faith should be taught in the science class?

You are serioiusly missing my point. My point is that intelligent design/creationism should be discussed in classrooms as a way to talk about the distinction between science and non-science, because intelligent design/creationism is NOT science. That way, children can be ready to face a world where people will constantly try to claim that things are science when they aren't. The science teach isn't the correct person to talk about a particular faith, unless they are talking about evaluating the scientific evidence associated with a given faith. Since there really isn't any strong evidence for intelligent design/creationism, and there are mountains and mountains of evidence that evolution is correct, their task isn't even that hard.

Note that I am not at all advocating that intelligent design/creationism be taught as a viable competing theory with evolution. It isn't. Nor am I saying that science teachers should suddenly spend a whole lot of time learning about faith. They don't need to. I'm saying that a science teacher should be able to teach a kid how to evaluate the scientific evidence that they have been presented, even when it has to do with religion.

290 metrolibertarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:55:02pm

What the hell was O'Reilly getting at by saying you can't mention brilliant men who believe in a higher power in science class? I seem to recall learning about Isaac Newton quite a bit in the physics classes I took in college.

291 dmjboose  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:56:06pm

re: #267 reine.de.tout

and I see your post right as I posted my own reply. Ah well.

292 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:56:12pm

Israel gives Iran a Christmas deadline. No more fucking around.

Iran's ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaee, sent a letter of protest to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moonin which he wrote that "there is no explanation for Israel's continuing threats against Tehran".

He was referring to an interview given by former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh to the Sunday Times in which he said that if Iran were not further sanctioned by this Christmas Israel would attack the country.

Sneh told the paper that if Israel were forced to attack the Islamic Republic on its own it would do so, remarks the Iranian ambassador deemed "irresponsible".

293 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:56:45pm

re: #279 The Shadow Do

I don't agree that there is a problem with his delivery. His reasoned responses in the face of being called a fascist will be appreciated by many whereas a more strident response would be easily dismissed.

Any response will be dismissed by the converted but the fascist comment could have been responded to better than with a raised eyebrow. I can't write his script, but your assumption that strident is the answer is not what I meant.

294 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:57:09pm

re: #287 Bagua

Ha! Dawkins destroyed him.

Yeah, but what is your IQ?

295 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:57:38pm

re: #294 Naso Tang

Yeah, but what is your IQ?

167? :P

296 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:58:33pm

re: #294 Naso Tang

What do you mean?

297 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:58:48pm

re: #275 albusteve

hysteria rules the airwaves...the truth based on fact is boring...pundits, TV and movie stars have an agenda and they steer policy...we are baked amigos

Cable News has picked up on the Morning Zoo format from radio.

298 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 8:58:49pm

re: #289 dmjboose

You are serioiusly missing my point. My point is that intelligent design/creationism should be discussed in classrooms as a way to talk about the distinction between science and non-science, because intelligent design/creationism is NOT science. That way, children can be ready to face a world where people will constantly try to claim that things are science when they aren't. The science teach isn't the correct person to talk about a particular faith, unless they are talking about evaluating the scientific evidence associated with a given faith. Since there really isn't any strong evidence for intelligent design/creationism, and there are mountains and mountains of evidence that evolution is correct, their task isn't even that hard.

Note that I am not at all advocating that intelligent design/creationism be taught as a viable competing theory with evolution. It isn't. Nor am I saying that science teachers should suddenly spend a whole lot of time learning about faith. They don't need to. I'm saying that a science teacher should be able to teach a kid how to evaluate the scientific evidence that they have been presented, even when it has to do with religion.

no it should not...tax exempt churches are the venue for that

299 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:00:56pm

re: #297 mich-again

Cable News has picked up on the Morning Zoo format from radio.

I wonder if there is any profit in there?...ya think?

300 dmjboose  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:01:49pm

re: #284 Naso Tang

Wrong. The point is that if you discuss it at all, what you are discussing, (refuting) is what they have learned at home, which amounts to school telling them that their parents are (insert word here).

Remember, this is school, not college with assumed adults.

Do you get that?

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with it. I am merely asking the science teacher to point out that what they are learning at home isn't science. It will never be science. If there is a religion taught at home that says that the earth is flat, gravity isn't real, and entropy of the universe is reversed on a regular basis, then I would expect the science teacher to explain why they are wrong scientifically. If they want to ignore the scientific evidence and rely on faith anyway, that's their business, but they may not claim that they are working within a scientific framework when they come to their conclusions.

I agree that this is not college, but I have found that the more you expect young people to act like adults the more they rise to your expectations. Parents, not as much.

301 Dar ul Harb  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:02:35pm

re: #288 dentate

I was fortunate enough to attend a lecture by Stephen Jay Gould, and I have an autographed copy of Bully For Brontosaurus that he was kind enough to inscribe for me after I sent it along with a copy of Winston Churchill's alternate history story "If Lee Had Not Won At The Battle Of Gettysburg" (from this collection).

302 funky chicken  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:02:58pm

re: #77 esch

Ah yes...

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Had to search for that one.

OK, that painting is insane, and gave me a really good laugh. It looks like something that a nut would carry at a tea party thing or something. The underwear is ... awesome.

I have to say that a lot of the pics on that website look like they were done by middle schoolers and high schoolers, and many of them are quite good for that age (I have a budding middle school artist and have attended shows, etc). I have to say that kids' work shouldn't be mocked like that.

But the tacos and undies, well, really funny.

303 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:03:12pm

re: #293 Naso Tang

Any response will be dismissed by the converted but the fascist comment could have been responded to better than with a raised eyebrow. I can't write his script, but your assumption that strident is the answer is not what I meant.

I think leaving the comment to rot in the sun without further attention was the right move on Dawkin's part. It's stink is self evident and he didn't need to roll around in it.

Then again, at that point is where one of the edits took place.

304 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:04:14pm

re: #300 dmjboose

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with it. I am merely asking the science teacher to point out that what they are learning at home isn't science. It will never be science. If there is a religion taught at home that says that the earth is flat, gravity isn't real, and entropy of the universe is reversed on a regular basis, then I would expect the science teacher to explain why they are wrong scientifically. If they want to ignore the scientific evidence and rely on faith anyway, that's their business, but they may not claim that they are working within a scientific framework when they come to their conclusions.

I agree that this is not college, but I have found that the more you expect young people to act like adults the more they rise to your expectations. Parents, not as much.

what's to discuss with regard to creationism?...in taxpayer funded public schools...schools are not churches...why you gotta be so windy?

305 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:05:07pm

re: #300 dmjboose

I am merely asking the science teacher to point out that what they are learning at home isn't science. It will never be science. If there is a religion taught at home that says that the earth is flat, gravity isn't real, and entropy of the universe is reversed on a regular basis, then I would expect the science teacher to explain why they are wrong scientifically.

Can't agree with that.

The science teacher teaches science. If the student challenges something taught in class then the teacher should merely state that doesn't agree with generally accepted scientific principles, which are what are will be taught in the class, and the student should address it with their parents. Leave it at that.

306 Dar ul Harb  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:05:07pm

re: #301 Dar ul Harb

Here's the Churchill story, in case anyone's interested.

307 Political Atheist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:05:39pm

re: #304 albusteve

Agreed.
Science in science class, bible in bible class. Clear 'nuff?
Just my opinion.

308 dmjboose  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:06:11pm

re: #298 albusteve

please explain why you think a science teacher shouldn't be allowed to discuss the scientific merits of a particular theory? Especially when that view is regularly (especially by the discovery institute) stated as a scientific theory.

309 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:06:17pm

re: #289 dmjboose

You are serioiusly missing my point. My point is that intelligent design/creationism should be discussed in classrooms as a way to talk about the distinction between science and non-science, because intelligent design/creationism is NOT science.

There is no need for that. There have been plenty of people here, mostly no longer here, who dishonestly make that argument, as you would know if you had spent much time reading here in the past 4 or 5 years you have been registered.

University is one thing, but school is another. School is to teach what is known and how it is known. What is not known follows automatically. It is not necessary to explain how the likely proponents of fantasy theories are fools, since those same people are more likely than not the parents of the children in question.

If you don't get that you are either a troll or a fool. Take your pick.

310 swamprat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:06:44pm

re: #292 NJDhockeyfan

Israel gives Iran a Christmas deadline. No more fucking around.

Went to my nephews' apartment. We chatted and then he said he had to make a call. He called someone and asked where he was and how long he expected to avoid paying his share of the rent. A moment passed and I heard my beloved nephew say; "I want you to understand this and hear me clearly";
"GET YOUR SHIT, AND GET OUT!"

I laughed my ass off. He looked at me and said,
"What's so funny?"

"You forgot to wish him a Merry Christmas. It's Christmas Eve!"

Blank look, then he laughed.

311 Pawn of the Oppressor  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:07:16pm

I think I'll pick up some Dawkins as soon as I have extra money for books again.

As for what eats the hydra? For some reason, the first critter that comes to mind is the "water boatman", but I don't know if that's right. I'll have to go look it up.

312 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:08:09pm

re: #300 dmjboose

I think I'm wasting time with you.

313 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:08:41pm

re: #305 esch

Can't agree with that.

The science teacher teaches science. If the student challenges something taught in class then the teacher should merely state that doesn't agree with generally accepted scientific principles, which are what are will be taught in the class, and the student should address it with their parents. Leave it at that.

the onus is NOT on the public school sciences to disprove every crackpot theory that comes down the pike...if parents want their children to believe the world is flat or 6000k years old that's not my problem...too fucking bad, let the parents deal with the difference between science and fable

314 metrolibertarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:09:24pm

re: #308 dmjboose

Because there is no scientific merit to the ID theory. If a theory is unfalsifiable, it's not scientific. It's just that simple.

315 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:10:03pm

Dawkins was brilliant in that clip. O'Reilly didn't even understand the put-downs enough to get riled up and got scolded just for talking louder.

316 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:10:36pm

re: #289 dmjboose

You are serioiusly missing my point. My point is that intelligent design/creationism should be discussed in classrooms as a way to talk about the distinction between science and non-science, because intelligent design/creationism is NOT science. That way, children can be ready to face a world where people will constantly try to claim that things are science when they aren't. The science teach isn't the correct person to talk about a particular faith, unless they are talking about evaluating the scientific evidence associated with a given faith. Since there really isn't any strong evidence for intelligent design/creationism, and there are mountains and mountains of evidence that evolution is correct, their task isn't even that hard.

Note that I am not at all advocating that intelligent design/creationism be taught as a viable competing theory with evolution. It isn't. Nor am I saying that science teachers should suddenly spend a whole lot of time learning about faith. They don't need to. I'm saying that a science teacher should be able to teach a kid how to evaluate the scientific evidence that they have been presented, even when it has to do with religion.

Yes, I did miss your point; I should seriously learn to keep my hands off the keyboard until I'm totally caught up with the thread.

But I think you are still wrong that creationism/intelligent design should be taught as a "what not to believe" sort of thing. I don't think any time should be spent on it at all, in a science class. Schools should teach what is - not prove what is not. Schools are having a hard enough time now teaching evolution and science without parents getting upset about it. Throw into the mix a teacher actually saying, what you learn at home is not scientifically based - all hell will break loose. These folks won't hear that one is science and one is faith-based belief - they don't understand it now.

Just teach the science as clearly and stringently as possible; and the smart kids will figure it out.

317 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:10:54pm

re: #289 dmjboose

My point is that intelligent design/creationism should be discussed in classrooms as a way to talk about the distinction between science and non-science, because intelligent design/creationism is NOT science.

I can see your point there. The primary aim of high school IMHO is to teach young adults how to learn. If a science teacher spent some class time teaching students how to discern what science is and why creationism is NOT science, but rather religion, it will pay more dividends than ignoring the topic altogether, especially if a kid has creationist parents who are warning him to not believe anything the teacher says about evolution. Kids have a natural tendency to doubt anything their parents tell them and if rational logic and a calm voice answers the questions they have, the lesson will take root. I'm OK with a science teacher using creationism as an example of how to separate science from non-science.

318 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:11:00pm

re: #308 dmjboose

please explain why you think a science teacher shouldn't be allowed to discuss the scientific merits of a particular theory? Especially when that view is regularly (especially by the discovery institute) stated as a scientific theory.

you kook...you are starting to piss me off and I'm a very reasonable guy...there s no scientific merit to creationism...the DI has no cred in the scientific community...they are dysfunctional wannabees

319 jaunte  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:11:14pm

Dawkins again:

More than 40 per cent of Americans deny that humans evolved from other animals, and think that we — and by implication all of life — were created by God within the last 10,000 years. The figure is not quite so high in Britain, but it is still worryingly large. And it should be as worrying to the churches as it is to scientists. This book is necessary. I shall be using the name “historydeniers” for those people who deny evolution: who believe the world’s age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years, and who believe humans walked with dinosaurs.

To repeat, they constitute more than 40 per cent of the American population. The equivalent figure is higher in some countries, lower in others, but 40 per cent is a good average and I shall from time to time refer to the history-deniers as the “40percenters”. [Link: entertainment.timesonline.co.uk...]

320 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:11:34pm

re: #308 dmjboose

please explain why you think a science teacher shouldn't be allowed to discuss the scientific merits of a particular theory? Especially when that view is regularly (especially by the discovery institute) stated as a scientific theory.

Mask slipping perhaps? ID is not science!

321 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:12:11pm

re: #313 albusteve

the onus is NOT on the public school sciences to disprove every crackpot theory that comes down the pike...if parents want their children to believe the world is flat or 6000k years old that's not my problem...too fucking bad, let the parents deal with the difference between science and fable

Agreed.

But they do need to have a boilerplate response to these as they WILL come up in class. Otherwise it leaves room for grandstanding and preventing the active teaching of science.

Wait for organized efforts to filibuster classes with every faith-based theory under the sun.

322 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:13:34pm

re: #308 dmjboose

please explain why you think a science teacher shouldn't be allowed to discuss the scientific merits of a particular theory? Especially when that view is regularly (especially by the discovery institute) stated as a scientific theory.

Obvious troll is obvious.

323 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:13:46pm

re: #321 esch

Agreed.

But they do need to have a boilerplate response to these as they WILL come up in class. Otherwise it leaves room for grandstanding and preventing the active teaching of science.

Wait for organized efforts to filibuster classes with every faith-based theory under the sun.

see you in court then...even so a court ruling does not change reality

324 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:14:02pm

I am kind of wondering how this whole topic came to full boil of late. Natural selection was taught in HS back in the dark ages when I was there and without all this idiotic controversy. Why these giant societal backwards steps at this point in time? Is this progress? I don't think so. Cripes.

325 swamprat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:14:44pm

Dawkins thinks an awful lot of himself. O'Reilly suffers from the same conceit, but with far less justification.

326 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:14:59pm

re: #292 NJDhockeyfan

Israel gives Iran a Christmas deadline. No more fucking around.

I don't think the statements of a former deputy defense minister in an interview can be considered Policy.

Lot's more time for fucking around.

327 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:15:13pm

re: #308 dmjboose

please explain why you think a science teacher shouldn't be allowed to discuss the scientific merits of a particular theory? Especially when that view is regularly (especially by the discovery institute) stated as a scientific theory.

You are now officially classified as an asshole. Just by me of course, but dings will be accepted.

328 bosforus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:15:22pm

I've been called a lot of things in my life but I never imagined I'd be called an atheist fascist.

329 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:15:33pm

re: #291 dmjboose

and I see your post right as I posted my own reply. Ah well.

It happens.
:-)

330 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:16:16pm

re: #328 bosforus

I've been called a lot of things in my life but I never imagined I'd be called an atheist fascist.

Led a sheltered life have you?

331 avanti  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:16:23pm

re: #308 dmjboose

please explain why you think a science teacher shouldn't be allowed to discuss the scientific merits of a particular theory? Especially when that view is regularly (especially by the discovery institute) stated as a scientific theory.

If you can provide scientific proof that some imaginary being designed the universe, I'd agree with you, but not everything we don't understand is magic. Science seeks the explanation, faith does not need it.

332 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:16:35pm

re: #308 dmjboose

please explain why you think a science teacher shouldn't be allowed to discuss the scientific merits of a particular theory? Especially when that view is regularly (especially by the discovery institute) stated as a scientific theory.

The DI is lying. They've put forward their ideas again, and again and every time they've been shot down.

333 SpaceJesus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:17:16pm

re: #308 dmjboose

please explain why you think a science teacher shouldn't be allowed to discuss the scientific merits of a particular theory? Especially when that view is regularly (especially by the discovery institute) stated as a scientific theory.

why hello there

334 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:17:38pm

re: #308 dmjboose

please explain why you think a science teacher shouldn't be allowed to discuss the scientific merits of a particular theory? Especially when that view is regularly (especially by the discovery institute) stated as a scientific theory.

What are the scientific merits of a discovery institute theory, anyways? What is their stated hypothesis and how is it tested? Is it falsifiable?

335 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:17:44pm

re: #308 dmjboose

please explain why you think a science teacher shouldn't be allowed to discuss the scientific merits of a particular theory? Especially when that view is regularly (especially by the discovery institute) stated as a scientific theory.

"Intelligent design" is not a scientific theory. Full stop.

Intelligent design is creationism dressed up in a cheap pseudo-scientific suit.

And now you're citing the Discovery Institute. Imagine my surprise.

336 bosforus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:18:02pm

re: #330 Naso Tang

Led a sheltered life have you?

No. I've just never been called an atheist fascist.

337 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:18:16pm

re: #315 Bagua

Dawkins was brilliant in that clip. O'Reilly didn't even understand the put-downs enough to get riled up and got scolded just for talking louder.

I disagree. Dawkins was OK, but I still think he is too arrogant/insulting of a spokesperson to win any converts.

Why didn't he simply ask the question what scientific proof could be presented in a science class supporting the belief in god?

338 Political Atheist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:18:19pm

Why I embraced my religious classes and time learning about evolution etc.

I'm a fortunate man. I got to study comparative religion and martial arts at a Buddhist temple near L.A. Ten years. The religious studies focused on the common elements of five religions. The martial arts classes taught a kind of philosophy and a lot of discipline. I embraced those things for those things.

While I did those things I also worked and lived a day to day. At school I learned all about evolution etc. After graduation I readily read and watched science, like the recent pre human bones breakthrough and todays moon impact.

Why did I embrace each? They each enlightened me. Each and all of the above. Tao and Darwin taught me important things. Arguments about cosmology can distract from the enlightenment opportunities. "Each lesson in its place" seems to be an answer to much of the above.

339 dmjboose  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:18:20pm

re: #305 esch

Can't agree with that.

The science teacher teaches science. If the student challenges something taught in class then the teacher should merely state that doesn't agree with generally accepted scientific principles, which are what are will be taught in the class, and the student should address it with their parents. Leave it at that.

I think I'm still not getting my point across. First let me address your comment. The reason why I can't accept your approach is that it turns science into a consensus-based process, which it is not. It is an evidence-based enterprise.

Now, onto what I've been trying to get at. All scientific claims must be followed up with evidence or else they are not scientific claims. The child who believes the world is flat can keep believing the world is flat. Be my guest. But science class is about teaching the kids to two things: what science has already found out and how to go about thinking scientifically. If you respond to any crazy belief as "well that's what you believe and that's ok," then you're not teaching the kids how to tell science from non-science. If you tell them "It's ok to believe that as long as you understand that it isn't a scientific belief," then you're teaching them what science is about.

Sorry about the long-windedness, but I'm having trouble getting my point across.

340 Lightspeed  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:18:22pm

I watch O'Reilly, but he's all about ego and ratings. He does some good stuff, but also does a lot of things that make me cringe. He tries to come off as some neutral, "fair and balanced," common-sense guy, but it is really just a show. He was clearly out of his intellectual depth with Dawkins. To try and make up for it, he edits and presses home ridiculous arguments ("Ha! Science can't explain creation, but my religion can, so I win!"), not even realizing what an ass he is making of himself in the process. For crying out loud, "facism?" WTF?!! Duh, Bill not teaching material that is NOT SCIENCE in a science classroom is not facism, it's common f'ing sense. Worse, Bill is advocating teaching religious ideas in a science classroom. I never thought he was that dumb.

Hey, let's extend his logic to all aspects of education. Surely mathmatics is inspired by God. Shouldn't we start referring to mathmatical infiinty as "God" or "Lord" or somesuch? What about civics? Our founding fathers all consulted God when writing the Constitution and as a result we live in a country governed by His Holy Word. Language is a gift from God. Let us teach all of our Children how each letter of the alphabet was formed by the breath of an angel and which words are a glory to God and those that are vile constructs of Satan.

Blechh. Teach your own children what you want, but let's teach actual science in science classes.

341 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:18:37pm

re: #308 dmjboose

please explain why you think a science teacher shouldn't be allowed to discuss the scientific merits of a particular theory? Especially when that view is regularly (especially by the discovery institute) stated as a scientific theory.

You want to lay down that "scientific theory" for examination. Or is that not necessary?

342 Dancing along the light of day  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:19:34pm

re: #308 dmjboose

Because it's not science!

343 Reginald Perrin  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:20:01pm

re: #333 SpaceJesus

Only 223 more updings and your negative karma will be below one thousand.
Do you want to go on another mission from Dog?

344 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:20:13pm

re: #338 Rightwingconspirator

"Each lesson in its place"

I like that. That's very Tao.

345 bosforus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:20:56pm

re: #342 Floral Giraffe

Because it's not science!

Ha ha. Anything "science-y" about it already has a name. Evolution.

346 swamprat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:21:05pm

re: #333 SpaceJesus

Didn't know you were an O'Reilly fan.

347 SpaceJesus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:21:16pm

re: #343 Reginald Perrin

Only 223 more updings and your negative karma will be below one thousand.
Do you want to go on another mission from Dog?

i will do everything and anything within my power to keep that from ever happening. you can email me again, but im stepping out soon.

348 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:22:13pm

re: #321 esch

Agreed.

But they do need to have a boilerplate response to these as they WILL come up in class. Otherwise it leaves room for grandstanding and preventing the active teaching of science.

Wait for organized efforts to filibuster classes with every faith-based theory under the sun.

The science teachers would not need a "boiler plate" or curriculum, if a student brought up something like ID they would just dismiss it and tell the student that science dealt with the natural word, not religion or mythology.

Students ask ridiculous questions all the time in class and try to outwit or upset the teacher. They are educators and know how to cover their material and conduct their class.

349 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:22:15pm

re: #344 Sharmuta

I like that. That's very Tao.

Or anal...depends on your pov.

350 avanti  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:22:39pm

re: #334 Sharmuta

What are the scientific merits of a discovery institute theory, anyways? What is their stated hypothesis and how is it tested? Is it falsifiable?

Lots of stuff in the Bible are stories designed to reinforce faith, many quite beautiful, if not factual. Should we teach that all the worlds languages started when God got pissed about the Tower of Babel for example ?

351 Political Atheist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:23:00pm

re: #344 Sharmuta

Thx

352 jaunte  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:23:07pm

"You'd be surprised how many people violate this simple principle every day of their lives and try to fit square pegs into round holes, ignoring the clear reality that Things Are As They Are."
-- the Tao of Pooh

353 lastlaugh  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:23:09pm

As science progresses more and more O'Reilly's "God of the Gap" continues to look less and less omnipotent. I do find it a bit odd that a self-proclaimed "culture warrior" doesn't offer up any logic or reasoning for picking the morality culture that he's gone to war for.

354 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:24:04pm

re: #335 Charles

"Intelligent design" is not a scientific theory. Full stop.

Exactly. I think the first step in teaching science should be defining clearly what a scientific theory is and what it isn't.

355 swamprat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:24:07pm

re: #347 SpaceJesus

i will do everything and anything within my power to keep that from ever happening. you can email me again, but im stepping out soon.

We will miss you. Never change!

356 Dancing along the light of day  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:24:48pm

re: #347 SpaceJesus

i will do everything and anything within my power to keep that from ever happening. you can email me again, but im stepping out soon.

Quick, Ding him while he's still looking!
C'mon, you KNOW you want to!
;)

357 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:25:04pm

re: #350 avanti

Lots of stuff in the Bible are stories designed to reinforce faith, many quite beautiful, if not factual. Should we teach that all the worlds languages started when God got pissed about the Tower of Babel for example ?

Funny- the Biblical literalists don't seem to have quiet the same issue with linguistics education as they do with science. Although- they are coming for history next, so you never know. This might be in a fundamentalist lesson plan somewhere right now.

358 bosforus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:25:09pm

re: #354 mich-again

Exactly. I think the first step in teaching science should be defining clearly what a scientific theory is and what it isn't.

Is the scientific method not taught in schools anymore?

359 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:25:12pm

re: #355 swamprat

We will miss you. Never change!

some will miss SpaceJesus.
Others wish we could pay China to take him off our hands.

360 Political Atheist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:25:54pm

re: #354 mich-again

Yes the basic essential critical thinking has got to come up early. therwise a person can not even sort the data.

361 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:25:59pm

re: #358 bosforus

Is the scientific method not taught in schools anymore?

Not much of anything is taught in schools anymore.

362 Reginald Perrin  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:26:02pm

re: #347 SpaceJesus

You will have mail tomorrow morning...woof, woof

363 swamprat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:26:08pm

re: #359 reine.de.tout

some will miss SpaceJesus.
Others wish we could pay China to take him off our hands.


There are some things money can't buy.

364 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:26:13pm

re: #339 dmjboose

I do understand your point.

I disagree that a science classroom is an appropriate place for that, as it would turn into aggressively debunking all belief systems. Teach the kids scientific principles and let them work it out for themselves if there's a conflict. Acknowledge the conflict, but clearly lay out the position held by evidence based science.

Basically, once you start where do you stop?

365 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:26:19pm

re: #356 Floral Giraffe

Quick, Ding him while he's still looking!
C'mon, you KNOW you want to!
;)

Hiya, FloGir!
Saw your greeting on the previous thread but you'd already left.

366 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:26:42pm

re: #337 BryanS

I disagree. Dawkins was OK, but I still think he is too arrogant/insulting of a spokesperson to win any converts.

Why didn't he simply ask the question what scientific proof could be presented in a science class supporting the belief in god?

That's funny, I thought it was O'Reilly that was arrogant and insulting, Dawkins had to smile at some of the ridiculous interrogation.

Then when the Jesus pictures came up I thought it was to make O'Reilly look ridiculous and wondered if it was a spoof.

367 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:27:01pm

re: #336 bosforus

No. I've just never been called an atheist fascist.

There's a code word for it. Copyright by O'Reilly. it is caller "SP" (secular progressive, on the remote chance that anyone would ask what it means)

368 Political Atheist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:27:18pm

re: #361 BryanS

Public schools. Uh Public Option schools perhaps? Or is that too harsh a term...

369 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:27:32pm

This is what the extremists are now using my spinoff links feature for:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

It makes me want to shut it down entirely. There's a whole clique of people who do nothing but post this garbage - they never comment and never make an appearance in a regular thread.

370 Dancing along the light of day  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:27:44pm

re: #365 reine.de.tout

{{Reine}}
I'm bouncing around tonight!
How are you & the Roi?

371 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:27:57pm

Hmmm. The avatars of some posters are no longer showing up for me.
Using Firefox v3.5.3. I'm gonna try clearing the cache.

372 dmjboose  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:27:57pm

re: #318 albusteve

you kook...you are starting to piss me off and I'm a very reasonable guy...there s no scientific merit to creationism...the DI has no cred in the scientific community...they are dysfunctional wannabees

Sorry for my phrasing. I honestly didn't mean to piss you off. I actually like the people here. I agree everything you said above. I just want to get that point across to kids. That intelligent design and the DI have no scientific credibility. It's important for kids to learn to think for themselves about what is science and what isn't. Otherwise they'll just believe whoever acts like they have authority, like the DI. Again, sorry if I offended you.

373 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:28:22pm

re: #364 esch

I do understand your point.

I disagree that a science classroom is an appropriate place for that, as it would turn into aggressively debunking all belief systems. Teach the kids scientific principles and let them work it out for themselves if there's a conflict. Acknowledge the conflict, but clearly lay out the position held by evidence based science.

Basically, once you start where do you stop?

Hmmm...maybe that's the kind of religion that should be taught in science class--the debunking thereof :/)

374 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:28:26pm

re: #370 Floral Giraffe

{{Reine}}
I'm bouncing around tonight!
How are you & the Roi?

{flo}
We're doing just fine, thanks!
And yes, I can see you're bouncing around LOL like you usually are!

375 Dancing along the light of day  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:29:28pm

re: #369 Charles

Sort of like the old parachat lounge?
Hard to moderate...

376 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:29:40pm

re: #373 BryanS

Hmmm...maybe that's the kind of religion that should be taught in science class--the debunking thereof :/)

Well, yes.

But do it through teaching scientific principles and critical thinking. Don't go after one or more particular belief system, which seems to be the point here.

377 bosforus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:29:46pm

re: #367 Naso Tang

The thing is, I have a religious personal life, hence, no one's ventured to call me an atheist. But my beliefs are my beliefs. I don't need or want them to be taught in school. I guess in O'Reilly's eyes that makes me an atheist fascist. Who knew?

378 Political Atheist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:29:59pm

re: #369 Charles

Oh man. No good deed goes unpunished.

379 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:30:42pm

re: #369 Charles

Don't delete the feature, Charles. Just downding those doofuses and if the keep it up, boot a couple of 'em.

380 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:31:05pm

re: #347 SpaceJesus

i will do everything and anything within my power to keep that from ever happening. you can email me again, but im stepping out soon.

SpaceJesus,

I up ding thee as a subversive act.

381 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:31:33pm

re: #366 Bagua

That's funny, I thought it was O'Reilly that was arrogant and insulting, Dawkins had to smile at some of the ridiculous interrogation.

Then when the Jesus pictures came up I thought it was to make O'Reilly look ridiculous and wondered if it was a spoof.

O'Reilly is a bombastic boob. But Dawkins keeps resorting to calling people's faith silly/mythical/etc. No matter how much I may think it's true, calling someone stupid is no way to win them over.

382 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:31:57pm

re: #369 Charles

This is what the extremists are now using my spinoff links feature for:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

It makes me want to shut it down entirely. There's a whole clique of people who do nothing but post this garbage - they never comment and never make an appearance in a regular thread.

er - I'm sure you also saw the one following that

383 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:32:02pm

re: #372 dmjboose

Sorry for my phrasing. I honestly didn't mean to piss you off. I actually like the people here. I agree everything you said above. I just want to get that point across to kids. That intelligent design and the DI have no scientific credibility. It's important for kids to learn to think for themselves about what is science and what isn't. Otherwise they'll just believe whoever acts like they have authority, like the DI. Again, sorry if I offended you.


no problem...post whatever you want

384 bosforus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:32:24pm

re: #379 Dark_Falcon

Perhaps the thread regulars could post more relevant spinoff links as well as downdinging the idiots.

385 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:32:27pm

re: #380 Bagua

SpaceJesus,

I up ding thee as a subversive act.

I do too
Well, and because he's often quite funny.

386 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:33:02pm

re: #347 SpaceJesus

i will do everything and anything within my power to keep that from ever happening. you can email me again, but im stepping out soon.

What did I miss? Why? I've been doing technical analysis on stock charts lately and you look close to a breakout based on my super sekrit formula.

I was about to bet a bundle of karma on it. Hell, I'd even sell you some for cash.

387 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:33:12pm

re: #368 Rightwingconspirator

Public schools. Uh Public Option schools perhaps? Or is that too harsh a term...

Problem with the public schools is the unions that protect jobs over promoting competence. Too bad really.

388 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:33:12pm

re: #382 reine.de.tout

er - I'm sure you also saw the one following that

Yes, I saw it. They're both gone and the people who posted them are blocked. Not only extremists, but illiterate extremists.

389 jaunte  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:33:37pm

Goodnight all.

"Do you know chimpanzees are still having babies?
Why don't they make another human?"
-- Kent Hovind

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
-- Charles Darwin

390 dmjboose  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:34:00pm

re: #335 Charles

My apologies Charles. My snark is clearly backfiring. I agree with everything you said, except the part about me citing the DI. I was using the DI as an example of people who constantly spout pseudo-scientific garbage as if it's really science. I'm proposing discussing this garbage for the purpose of explaining that it isn't science so that kids who are likely to hear more garbage in their lifetime will be able to tell the difference.

391 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:34:04pm

re: #379 Dark_Falcon

Don't delete the feature, Charles. Just downding those doofuses and if the keep it up, boot a couple of 'em.

Boot 'em.
It's possible to start an entire discussin thread with those links. And the way those are written . . . those wouldn't be LGF-quality discussions.

392 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:34:10pm

re: #385 reine.de.tout

I do too
Well, and because he's often quite funny.


In a Cosmo Kramer kind of way?

393 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:34:22pm

re: #381 BryanS

O'Reilly is a bombastic boob. But Dawkins keeps resorting to calling people's faith silly/mythical/etc. No matter how much I may think it's true, calling someone stupid is no way to win them over.

I didn't hear him call anyone's faith silly. What he did was demonstrate that O'Reilly's assertions were silly, and he did it in a very dignified manner considering the attacks.

394 bosforus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:34:38pm

re: #372 dmjboose

It's important for kids to learn to think for themselves about what is science and what isn't.


I gotta disagree with that. There is no "is and isn't science". There is a definition of science which need not be tampered with. Basically, anything that can be validated through the scientific method should be called science. Anything that can't, shouldn't.

395 wee fury  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:34:59pm

re: #369 Charles

We could use the report button on suspicious links.

396 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:35:10pm

re: #381 BryanS

O'Reilly is a bombastic boob. But Dawkins keeps resorting to calling people's faith silly/mythical/etc. No matter how much I may think it's true, calling someone stupid is no way to win them over.

On its face, faith is silly, mystical etc, no? This is your test as a believer is it not?

397 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:35:49pm

re: #391 reine.de.tout

Boot 'em.
It's possible to start an entire discussin thread with those links. And the way those are written . . . those wouldn't be LGF-quality discussions.

agreed

398 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:36:11pm

re: #389 jaunte

Goodnight all.

"Do you know chimpanzees are still having babies?
Why don't they make another human?"
-- Kent Hovind

That quote is both funny and sad.

Oh, and avatars work again after clearing FF cache.

399 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:36:25pm

re: #395 wee fury

We could use the report button on suspicious links.

I really wish people would do that.

400 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:36:54pm

re: #372 dmjboose

Again, sorry if I offended you.

Answer the answers you get, and you don't have to apologize for sounding stupid.

401 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:37:21pm

re: #391 reine.de.tout

Boot 'em.
It's possible to start an entire discussin thread with those links. And the way those are written . . . those wouldn't be LGF-quality discussions.

Quite Concur.

402 bosforus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:37:25pm

re: #394 bosforus

There is no "is and isn't science"


I should clear up that line. There is no "deciding for yourself what is and isn't science".

403 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:37:34pm

re: #358 bosforus

Is the scientific method not taught in schools anymore?

What it is is taught. (helped out with lots of science projects with my kids over the last 10 years or so) But I think maybe some discussion of what it isn't might be helpful too. I can see the point of ignoring the anti-science agenda altogether in the classroom, but it might be useful to use it as an example of how to discern real science from anti-science.

Then again, if the school opens the door for any discussion on the topic there will be some number of teachers who will go off the script and push their own personal anti-science agenda in that discussion. But then, those same teachers probably go off the script and do just that already without formal approval from the district.

404 avanti  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:37:58pm

re: #390 dmjboose

My apologies Charles. My snark is clearly backfiring. I agree with everything you said, except the part about me citing the DI. I was using the DI as an example of people who constantly spout pseudo-scientific garbage as if it's really science. I'm proposing discussing this garbage for the purpose of explaining that it isn't science so that kids who are likely to hear more garbage in their lifetime will be able to tell the difference.

Than you'd have another issue. If you talked about the weakness of the literal Bible in science class, then you are messing with private faith.

405 dentate  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:38:22pm

re: #306 Dar ul Harb

Here's the Churchill story, in case anyone's interested.

Wow. Dated, and interesting to see how Churchill thought, especially with the put-down of racial equality. Would get him banned from LGF for sure, but an interesting read in historical conquest, since we know what came shortly after in the real world.

406 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:38:47pm

re: #402 bosforus

I should clear up that line. There is no "deciding for yourself what is and isn't science".

We got it first time./

407 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:39:11pm

re: #396 The Shadow Do

On its face, faith is silly, mystical etc, no? This is your test as a believer is it not?

I think the fundamental questions faith is used to approximate answers for, aren't. The trappings, traditions, taboos, etc that accrete around belief systems usually are pretty silly.

Happens every time.

408 bosforus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:39:14pm

re: #403 mich-again

Good points. It's a dilly of a pickle but I would really like to see America up our science scores.

409 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:39:31pm

re: #404 avanti

Than you'd have another issue. If you talked about the weakness of the literal Bible in science class, then you are messing with private faith.

Yes, I tried to say this earlier but you did it better. Can't be done, opens up a whole brand new can of worms. And shouldn't be done.

410 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:39:48pm

re: #407 esch

I think the fundamental questions faith is used to approximate answers for, aren't. The trappings, traditions, taboos, etc that accrete around belief systems usually are pretty silly.

Happens every time.

Much nicer avatar. ;)

411 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:40:56pm

re: #404 avanti

Than you'd have another issue. If you talked about the weakness of the literal Bible in science class, then you are messing with private faith.

I would think any competent science teacher would know how to deal with a question like: "Maybe it was Martians that created life on earth?" He wouldn't need a syllabus on sci-fi or the paranormal in order to educate his students.

412 Dar ul Harb  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:41:28pm

re: #405 dentate

Wow. Dated, and interesting to see how Churchill thought, especially with the put-down of racial equality. Would get him banned from LGF for sure, but an interesting read in historical conquest, since we know what came shortly after in the real world.

Remember though, that Churchill's viewpoint character is from a world in which the Confederacy won, speculating about what would had happened if history had turned out the way it did in our timeline (or a timeline like ours). The viewpoint character doesn't necessarily reflect Churchill's views on the subject.

413 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:41:35pm

re: #393 Bagua

I didn't hear him call anyone's faith silly. What he did was demonstrate that O'Reilly's assertions were silly, and he did it in a very dignified manner considering the attacks.

He referred to religion as superstition--so no, he didn't use the precise words I cited.

414 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:41:53pm

re: #403 mich-again

What it is is taught. (helped out with lots of science projects with my kids over the last 10 years or so) But I think maybe some discussion of what it isn't might be helpful too. I can see the point of ignoring the anti-science agenda altogether in the classroom, but it might be useful to use it as an example of how to discern real science from anti-science.

Then again, if the school opens the door for any discussion on the topic there will be some number of teachers who will go off the script and push their own personal anti-science agenda in that discussion. But then, those same teachers probably go off the script and do just that already without formal approval from the district.

definately...it's one thing to establish a framework, so to speak, on a blog...out in the field is a whole 'nother story...this is a serious and growing problem that will take years to sort out if it can be...the fuckers are everywhere!...the schools, the courts, the Senate...booga booga!

415 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:42:16pm

re: #396 The Shadow Do

On its face, faith is silly, mystical etc, no? This is your test as a believer is it not?

Not sure I understand the question.

416 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:43:19pm

re: #410 Gus 802

Ah, you like that? Good.

Gotta know I don't go out of my way to offend people. But because of my situation I don't have much of a facility or predilection for worrying about whether I'm going to.

417 dentate  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:43:35pm

re: #405 dentate

Wow. Dated, and interesting to see how Churchill thought, especially with the put-down of racial equality. Would get him banned from LGF for sure, but an interesting read in historical conquest context, since we know what came shortly after in the real world.

(Freud is alive and well ;-))

418 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:44:03pm

re: #416 esch

Ah, you like that? Good.

Gotta know I don't go out of my way to offend people. But because of my situation I don't have much of a facility or predilection for worrying about whether I'm going to.

When I click your avatar, I still see the previous one for some reason.

419 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:44:47pm

re: #418 reine.de.tout

once the cache is cleared, you'll see it

420 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:45:04pm

re: #296 Bagua

What do you mean?

Subtlety is lost on you at this hour is it? :)

I was suggesting you were smarter than the average O'Reilly viewer.

421 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:45:17pm

re: #418 reine.de.tout

When I click your avatar, I still see the previous one for some reason.

Clearing your browser's cache should fix that.

422 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:45:26pm

re: #413 BryanS

He referred to religion as superstition--so no, he didn't use the precise words I cited.

Of course, Religion is superstition in the context of a scientific theory, practice and education. As is belief in the Tooth Fairy as a cause of money being found under the pillow.

423 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:46:51pm

I can tell the kids are back in the house. Every light is on, the TV was on with no one watching it and the cold water pitcher was put back in the fridge empty.

424 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:48:05pm

re: #303 Dar ul Harbarian

I think leaving the comment to rot in the sun without further attention was the right move on Dawkin's part. It's stink is self evident and he didn't need to roll around in it.

Then again, at that point is where one of the edits took place.

I don't know about this editing stuff, but how can anyone like Dawkins agree to allow it? Was this clip the broadcast show or just some YouTube post?

425 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:48:16pm

re: #420 Naso Tang

Subtlety is lost on you at this hour is it? :)

I was suggesting you were smarter than the average O'Reilly viewer.

Dear god it is true, I am an idiot.

426 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:48:39pm

re: #422 Bagua

Of course, Religion is superstition in the context of a scientific theory, practice and education. As is belief in the Tooth Fairy as a cause of money being found under the pillow.

I agree that faith is a superstition. But, one should know one's audience. Since Dawkins has the high profile he does, when he calls faith a superstition--on O'Reilly's show with lots of "culture warriors", no less, he loses his audience. On the whole, Dawkins was more tame than usual.

427 little boomer  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:48:56pm

Of course atheism is the belief there is no God.

428 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:48:57pm

re: #424 Naso Tang

I don't know about this editing stuff, but how can anyone like Dawkins agree to allow it? Was this clip the broadcast show or just some YouTube post?

That's how it was shown tonight on Fox. I watched it earlier.

429 sagehen  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:49:03pm

re: #230 dmjboose

woah. I never encountered a religion class until college.

I went to public school; we didn't have a religion class as such, but in history class we were taught as much Bible and Koran as was needed to explain the movement of armies and renaming of cities and building things with flying buttresses (you'd think high school would be old enough not to giggle at those, but you'd be wrong).

430 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:49:32pm

re: #423 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I can tell the kids are back in the house. Every light is on, the TV was on with no one watching it and the cold water pitcher was put back in the fridge empty.

I could add quite a few items to that list, and that is only with one, not so much a kid anymore.

431 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:49:41pm

re: #427 little boomer

Of course atheism is the belief there is no God.

And baldness is a hairstyle.

432 dmjboose  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:49:42pm

re: #394 bosforus

I gotta disagree with that. There is no "is and isn't science". There is a definition of science which need not be tampered with. Basically, anything that can be validated through the scientific method should be called science. Anything that can't, shouldn't.

I don't understand where the disagreement is.

433 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:50:02pm

I smell something gamey.

434 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:50:20pm

re: #427 little boomer

Of course atheism is the belief there is no God.

No.

435 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:50:36pm

re: #430 Naso Tang

I could add quite a few items to that list, and that is only with one, not so much a kid anymore.

There was more. This was just in the space of walking into the kitchen to get a glass of water.

436 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:50:38pm

re: #433 esch

I smell something gamey.

Shall I fire up the grill?

437 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:50:54pm

re: #433 esch

I smell something gamey.

buttocks?

438 little boomer  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:50:55pm

Yes.

439 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:52:25pm

re: #436 Dark_Falcon

Shall I fire up the grill?

Wait.

It might just be my boy's socks. He leaves them lying around.

440 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:52:34pm

re: #413 BryanS

He referred to religion as superstition--so no, he didn't use the precise words I cited.

Dawkins is minimally critical of Christianity (or religion) in this case. He did not refer to religion as superstition in the video although I'm sure he has in the past. His point was generally speaking "why must you (O'Reilly) turn to Christianity for the things that science cannot describe." He also made no statement similar to "silly/mythical/etc." regarding religion in this video. Dawkins was essentially sidetracked into O'Reilly's pathetic presentation utilizing Biblical imagery and defensive language as well as over stating Dawkins identification as an atheist. The point of this book tour is not about atheism but "the evidence for evolution.

441 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:52:46pm

re: #414 albusteve

this is a serious and growing problem that will take years to sort out if it can be...the fuckers are everywhere!...the schools, the courts, the Senate...booga booga!

I think it might be helpful in the big picture to reinforce to students the fact that the science doesn't aim to deny the existence of "God". Take off the suit of armor and learn.

442 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:52:47pm

re: #438 little boomer

Yes.

I disagree

443 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:52:59pm

re: #437 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

buttocks?

Yes ple...

ON second thought nevermind.

444 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:53:10pm

re: #435 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

There was more. This was just in the space of walking into the kitchen to get a glass of water.

our house was total chaos for a few years...and you know, I'd go back there and do it again in a NY second..I learned alot back then

445 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:53:12pm

re: #377 bosforus

The thing is, I have a religious personal life, hence, no one's ventured to call me an atheist. But my beliefs are my beliefs. I don't need or want them to be taught in school. I guess in O'Reilly's eyes that makes me an atheist fascist. Who knew?

Sorry if I offended. I was thinking more personally.

446 little boomer  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:53:42pm

re: #442 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Fine. Then what is atheism?

447 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:54:23pm

re: #427 little boomer

Of course atheism is the belief there is no God.

Absence of a belief in deity.

448 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:55:19pm

re: #441 mich-again

I think it might be helpful in the big picture to reinforce to students the fact that the science doesn't aim to deny the existence of "God". Take off the suit of armor and learn.

yes, it has to be that way...there is no acceptable alternative...so much depends on parents and the childs attitude to allow that deal to be cut

449 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:55:23pm

I tried atheism. Couldn't stick with it.

450 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:56:03pm

re: #440 Gus 802

Dawkins is minimally critical of Christianity (or religion) in this case. He did not refer to religion as superstition in the video although I'm sure he has in the past. His point was generally speaking "why must you (O'Reilly) turn to Christianity for the things that science cannot describe." He also made no statement similar to "silly/mythical/etc." regarding religion in this video. Dawkins was essentially sidetracked into O'Reilly's pathetic presentation utilizing Biblical imagery and defensive language as well as over stating Dawkins identification as an atheist. The point of this book tour is not about atheism but "the evidence for evolution.

Listen to the video again. He specifically referred to religion as superstition--right at the end.

I wondered about the editing. Did O'Reilly leave out discussion relevant to the purpose of the book and the purpose of Dawkins coming on the show--that is, to discuss the evidence for evolution?

451 funky chicken  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:57:14pm

C'mon Charles. I think this is funny: [Link: www.rollcall.com...]

Or kinda sad, or both.

452 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:57:15pm

re: #447 BignJames

re: #427 little boomer

Of course atheism is the belief there is no God.

Absence of a belief in deity.

I think both definitions are correct but there is a large difference between them. One is a lack of faith in a creator, the other is faith in the lack of a creator. Not a slight difference.

453 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:57:24pm

re: #449 esch

I tried atheism. Couldn't stick with it.

No? Was is just too logical/factual/real?

454 swamprat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:57:27pm

re: #446 little boomer

Fine. Then what is atheism?

Wrong question;
"What is: "a belief there is no god"?

455 little boomer  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:57:45pm

re: #447 BignJames

Nice answer. One Dictionary sez:
a⋅the⋅ism
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

(My bold)

456 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:57:58pm

Watching MST3k, one of the Hercules movies.

"Today is dedicated to Uranus."

"Gee, I'm flattered"

I love that show.

457 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:58:05pm

re: #449 esch

I tried atheism. Couldn't stick with it.

Then you never had it.

458 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:58:45pm

re: #450 BryanS

Listen to the video again. He specifically referred to religion as superstition--right at the end.

I wondered about the editing. Did O'Reilly leave out discussion relevant to the purpose of the book and the purpose of Dawkins coming on the show--that is, to discuss the evidence for evolution?

I don't think that is appropriate...you don't have to go out of your way to insult people with semantics...until they force the issue, I guess

459 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 9:59:17pm

re: #450 BryanS

Listen to the video again. He specifically referred to religion as superstition--right at the end.

I wondered about the editing. Did O'Reilly leave out discussion relevant to the purpose of the book and the purpose of Dawkins coming on the show--that is, to discuss the evidence for evolution?

Ah, so he does. Well, I happen to agree with him but it's a list and he says regarding explaining scientific events to not rely on superstition, holy books, authority, or revelation.

460 little boomer  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:00:24pm

Of course, I assume evolution is correct, though I don't care if it's correct, but hey, I'll take their word for it.

461 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:00:32pm

re: #456 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Watching MST3k, one of the Hercules movies.

"Today is dedicated to Uranus."

"Gee, I'm flattered"

I love that show.

"He triiied to kill me with a forklift, huzzah!"

462 avanti  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:00:50pm

re: #426 BryanS

I agree that faith is a superstition. But, one should know one's audience. Since Dawkins has the high profile he does, when he calls faith a superstition--on O'Reilly's show with lots of "culture warriors", no less, he loses his audience. On the whole, Dawkins was more tame than usual.

You have to be careful when you discuss matters of faith and show some respect for honest beliefs that you may not understand. For example, a atheist friend and I were having a nice discussion with a very religious friend when he said "Jesus is the adult Santa Claus" and that ended the discussion. Dawkins makes the same mistake to a lesser degree.

463 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:00:57pm

re: #453 BryanS

No? Was is just too logical/factual/real?

No. I'm pretty much agnostic on the creator question.

I got stuck on the more existentialist parts, especially the 'consciousness is an illusion, life is nothing but an ongoing chemical reaction and ultimately pointless' aspects. Didn't resonate with me.

464 swamprat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:01:05pm

re: #457 Naso Tang

Then you never had it.

Once faith you lack, you never go back?

465 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:01:11pm

re: #426 BryanS

I agree that faith is a superstition. But, one should know one's audience. Since Dawkins has the high profile he does, when he calls faith a superstition--on O'Reilly's show with lots of "culture warriors", no less, he loses his audience. On the whole, Dawkins was more tame than usual.

I don't see Dawkins as trying to pander to any audience. And he did not "call Religion superstition." He gave a group of things that science is not based upon, including "holy books" which was perfectly respectful, though I thought he was remiss for not including Garden Gnomes, as they are said to have influence as well.

466 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:01:49pm

re: #452 mich-again

I think both definitions are correct but there is a large difference between them. One is a lack of faith in a creator, the other is faith in the lack of a creator. Not a slight difference.

Semantics can be very interesting can it not? Where the hell is Buzzsaw when we need enlightenment in this area?

Not a slight difference I agree, but neither do I agree that that is the last word.

467 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:01:53pm

re: #461 Varek Raith

"He triiied to kill me with a forklift, huzzah!"

WATCH OUT FOR SNAKES!

468 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:02:14pm

re: #457 Naso Tang

Possibly.

469 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:02:26pm

If you don't believe in God, then you must believe in Not God.

That thinking drives me nuts.

If one is not convinced that God exists it is because the evidence is insufficient. Plain and simple.

Origin of species is very evident though it does not explain the origin of life. That will be the work of some other scientist at some point.

470 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:03:29pm

re: #448 albusteve

Its what Jefferson meant when he wrote..

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
471 dmjboose  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:03:44pm

re: #469 The Shadow Do

here here!

472 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:03:54pm

re: #460 little boomer

Of course, I assume evolution is correct, though I don't care if it's correct, but hey, I'll take their word for it.

You don't have to take anyone's word for it. You can look into the evidence for yourself. It's both extensive and fascinating.

473 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:04:13pm

re: #459 Gus 802

Ah, so he does. Well, I happen to agree with him but it's a list and he says regarding explaining scientific events to not rely on superstition, holy books, authority, or revelation.

Dawkins uses terminology insulting to people with religious beliefs all the time. I think he was rather constrained more than usual this time, especially in the face of the obnoxious stupidity and fascism ad hominem from O'Reilly. I just think it's unfortunate that Dawkins is the face of atheism. It's great to have him on the side of defending evolution, but he shouldn't put himself up as a spokesperson. He's just not good at PR for his cause.

474 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:04:31pm

re: #459 Gus 802

Ah, so he does. Well, I happen to agree with him but it's a list and he says regarding explaining scientific events to not rely on superstition, holy books, authority, or revelation.

If one was told that roofing nails, broken bottles and pot holes could all flat your tires would you consider them all similar in nature?

475 Ray in TX  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:04:48pm

Late to the thread, but I would like to point out that O'Reilly consistently shows more deference to Dawkins than he does to other guests. It's not a lot of deference, but more than usual.

My best guess is that it's due to the British accent and nothing more.

476 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:05:56pm

re: #475 Ray in TX

Late to the thread, but I would like to point out that O'Reilly consistently shows more deference to Dawkins than he does to other guests. It's not a lot of deference, but more than usual.

My best guess is that it's due to the British accent and nothing more.

That was deference in that clip?...

477 dmjboose  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:06:32pm

re: #476 Varek Raith

relatively speeking, yes

478 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:07:26pm

re: #474 Bagua

If one was told that roofing nails, broken bottles and pot holes could all flat your tires would you consider them all similar in nature?

No. And when Dawkins uses the word superstition it could include any form of superstitions. There are some that believe that the "intelligent designer" was an extraterrestrial. Small minority of course. Yet that is still a superstitious belief.

479 Ray in TX  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:07:45pm

re: #473 BryanS

Dawkins uses terminology insulting to people with religious beliefs all the time. I think he was rather constrained more than usual this time, especially in the face of the obnoxious stupidity and fascism ad hominem from O'Reilly. I just think it's unfortunate that Dawkins is the face of atheism. It's great to have him on the side of defending evolution, but he shouldn't put himself up as a spokesperson. He's just not good at PR for his cause.

I think Dawkins is great PR for atheists. Anyone more constrained would just be steamrolled over by the far more incredibly obnoxious spokespersons of theology. Dawkins gives back what he takes and he emboldens other atheists to not be so deferential.

480 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:07:55pm

re: #475 Ray in TX

It's a bit more than that, Ray. Richard Dawkins is a hard man to debate. He's witty, knows his material very well, and is quick on his feet. O'Reilly did not want an all-out fight because such an event would have only resulted in him looking like a belligerent fool.

481 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:08:08pm

re: #463 esch

No. I'm pretty much agnostic on the creator question.

I got stuck on the more existentialist parts, especially the 'consciousness is an illusion, life is nothing but an ongoing chemical reaction and ultimately pointless' aspects. Didn't resonate with me.

See, I would just marvel at the idea that these chemical reactions can cause me to have a consciousness. Pretty awesome and inspiring thing right there, if you were to ask me.

482 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:08:10pm

re: #473 BryanS

Dawkins uses terminology insulting to people with religious beliefs all the time. I think he was rather constrained more than usual this time, especially in the face of the obnoxious stupidity and fascism ad hominem from O'Reilly. I just think it's unfortunate that Dawkins is the face of atheism. It's great to have him on the side of defending evolution, but he shouldn't put himself up as a spokesperson. He's just not good at PR for his cause.

It wasn't Ad hominem, it was fatuous.

483 swamprat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:08:58pm

re: #476 Varek Raith
For O'reilly, yes. His ego is so big it has a separate dressing room.


Thankyou. Try the veal.
484 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:09:11pm

re: #475 Ray in TX

Late to the thread, but I would like to point out that O'Reilly consistently shows more deference to Dawkins than he does to other guests. It's not a lot of deference, but more than usual.

My best guess is that it's due to the British accent and nothing more.

How many guests does he tar as fascist? This is deference?

485 Ray in TX  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:09:12pm

re: #476 Varek Raith

That was deference in that clip?...

Did you see that Dawkins was given time t connect several sentences into a complete response? It's very difficult to do when O'Reilly disagrees with you.

486 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:09:51pm

re: #480 Dark_Falcon

It's a bit more than that, Ray. Richard Dawkins is a hard man to debate. He's witty, knows his material very well, and is quick on his feet. O'Reilly did not want an all-out fight because such an event would have only resulted in him looking like a belligerent fool.

in that regard he failed miserably anyway

487 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:10:05pm

re: #464 swamprat

Once faith you lack, you never go back?

Semantics again. Why would you use the word "lack" as if it is something missing, meaning the assumption that it is simply not recognized yet exists (on faith)? Circular (recursive) argument?

More mundanely answered however, of course people can change their opinions and can even have flawed opinion about what their opinions are, or were.

488 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:10:31pm

re: #480 Dark_Falcon

It's a bit more than that, Ray. Richard Dawkins is a hard man to debate. He's witty, knows his material very well, and is quick on his feet. O'Reilly did not want an all-out fight because such an event would have only resulted in him looking like a belligerent fool.

Exactly, O'Reilly does not want to get too embarrassed and know he is punching above his weight.

489 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:10:40pm

re: #481 BryanS

See, I would just marvel at the idea that these chemical reactions can cause me to have a consciousness. Pretty awesome and inspiring thing right there, if you were to ask me.

I can respect that.

490 little boomer  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:10:41pm

re: #472 Sharmuta

Sure I've read this and that, but it's not the focus of my life and I haven't dug up fossils myself-so I 'll rely on the experts, though I'm not emotionally tied up in it.

491 Ray in TX  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:10:56pm

re: #480 Dark_Falcon

It's a bit more than that, Ray. Richard Dawkins is a hard man to debate. He's witty, knows his material very well, and is quick on his feet. O'Reilly did not want an all-out fight because such an event would have only resulted in him looking like a belligerent fool.

That could have been it. I watch Dawkins and am generally impressed with his quick rebuttals. His knows his stuff. Your assessment is probably more accurate.

492 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:12:21pm

re: #474 Bagua

If one was told that roofing nails, broken bottles and pot holes could all flat your tires would you consider them all similar in nature?

"superstition, holy books, authority, or revelation."

Three of the four clearly refer to religion. Your assertion that the one thing was not meant to refer to religion when the other three clearly do is pretty weak. Besides, Dawkins routinely refers to religion as superstition in other talks. Just go Youtubing once and listen to clips of his speeches.

493 swamprat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:12:39pm

re: #487 Naso Tang

Because "lack" rhymes with back".

no other reason

494 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:13:22pm

re: #473 BryanS

Dawkins uses terminology insulting to people with religious beliefs all the time. I think he was rather constrained more than usual this time, especially in the face of the obnoxious stupidity and fascism ad hominem from O'Reilly. I just think it's unfortunate that Dawkins is the face of atheism. It's great to have him on the side of defending evolution, but he shouldn't put himself up as a spokesperson. He's just not good at PR for his cause.

Have you ever noticed that people like Bill O'Reilly also use terminology that's deadly insulting to atheists like Richard Dawkins? Or do you think this only goes one way?

495 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:13:53pm

re: #473 BryanS

Dawkins uses terminology insulting to people with religious beliefs all the time. I think he was rather constrained more than usual this time, especially in the face of the obnoxious stupidity and fascism ad hominem from O'Reilly. I just think it's unfortunate that Dawkins is the face of atheism. It's great to have him on the side of defending evolution, but he shouldn't put himself up as a spokesperson. He's just not good at PR for his cause.

O'Reilly uses terminology insulting to people without religious beliefs all the time. Get used to the contradictions. That's life.

496 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:15:33pm

re: #479 Ray in TX

I think Dawkins is great PR for atheists. Anyone more constrained would just be steamrolled over by the far more incredibly obnoxious spokespersons of theology. Dawkins gives back what he takes and he emboldens other atheists to not be so deferential.

That part I agree with. That's especially important due to atheists' concerns being routinely ignored as important or legitimate. But he's more affective in the role of rallying his own side. For his advancing the issue and for his rallying the troops, he's a net plus to the atheist cause I think.

497 Bob Dillon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:16:13pm

re: #481 BryanS

See, I would just marvel at the idea that these chemical reactions can cause me to have a consciousness. Pretty awesome and inspiring thing right there, if you were to ask me.

We are part of a universe. Something caused that universe to be. Call it whatever you want.

We have the ability to experience our own consciousness and reflect back on it - consciousness of consciousness - nothing more ... nothing less. Very awesome.

Belief systems rise and expand from there - I like to keep it simple. Something caused the universe to be. Call it whatever you want.

498 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:16:21pm

re: #480

Dark_Falcon

O'Reilly did not want an all-out fight because such an event would have only resulted in him looking like a belligerent fool.

Did not work. He did end up looking like the belligerent fool that he is. This little back and forth is the bottom of the hole he began digging with his steady promotion of his pal Beck. O'Reilly is officially a fool's fool now.

499 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:16:28pm

Even theologically speaking O'Reilly misses the mark. What does Jesus have to do with Genesis "The Creation" and "Man in the Garden of Eden" have to do with creationism? I don't even the ID people refer to Jesus having anything to do with a creationist idea.

500 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:16:38pm

re: #492 BryanS

"superstition, holy books, authority, or revelation."

Three of the four clearly refer to religion. Your assertion that the one thing was not meant to refer to religion when the other three clearly do is pretty weak. Besides, Dawkins routinely refers to religion as superstition in other talks. Just go Youtubing once and listen to clips of his speeches.

Three out of four clearly refer to religion so they are all relating to religion? Ok, I had a three cheese pizza with mushrooms, so clearly mushrooms are dairy and come from cows. Yes, I see my mistake.

501 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:16:50pm

re: #493 swamprat

Because "lack" rhymes with back".

no other reason

Oh crap, you wasted my philosophizing with that??

502 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:17:41pm

Pardon my choppy grammar.

503 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:17:53pm

re: #501 Naso Tang

Crap and that rhymes. Yes?

504 swamprat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:18:48pm

re: #501 Naso Tang


You've no black friends, obviously.

505 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:18:57pm

re: #503 Naso Tang

Crap and that rhymes. Yes?

Half rhyme.

506 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:19:32pm

re: #494 Charles

Have you ever noticed that people like Bill O'Reilly also use terminology that's deadly insulting to atheists like Richard Dawkins? Or do you think this only goes one way?

Nope--it goes both ways. Does O'Reilly represent how one should behave? I don't think that's a great way to win the debate. It's a great way to get people who already agree with you to listen to you.

507 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:19:41pm

re: #499 Gus 802

Even theologically speaking O'Reilly misses the mark. What does Jesus have to do with Genesis "The Creation" and "Man in the Garden of Eden" have to do with creationism? I don't even the ID people refer to Jesus having anything to do with a creationist idea.

That's what I was wondering when they flashed the Jesus pictures, do Christian's believe Jesus caused evolution? It made O'Reilly look ridiculous.

508 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:19:49pm

re: #499 Gus 802

Even theologically speaking O'Reilly misses the mark. What does Jesus have to do with Genesis "The Creation" and "Man in the Garden of Eden" have to do with creationism? I don't even the ID people refer to Jesus having anything to do with a creationist idea.

he's a boob, all over the place touching the typical talking points...he may seem like one thing to his viewers, but something entirely different to the rest of us...full of holes

509 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:19:54pm

re: #488 Bagua

Exactly, O'Reilly does not want to get too embarrassed and know he is punching above his weight.

That's about right. When debating, O'Reilly sometimes relies on his aggression to throw an adversary off their game, and he can be quite intimidating. Richard Dawkins, however, debates in the best British tradition; i.e. He quietly refuses to be intimidated. He stayed focused and built his case. By the needs of his profession, Richard Dawkins is a disciplined man and it shows in how he argues,

510 wee fury  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:21:01pm

re: #499 Gus 802

Even theologically speaking O'Reilly misses the mark. What does Jesus have to do with Genesis "The Creation" and "Man in the Garden of Eden" have to do with creationism? I don't even the ID people refer to Jesus having anything to do with a creationist idea.

He was asleep and missed that lecture from Sister Immaculata.

511 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:21:30pm

re: #504 swamprat

Me no bite.

512 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:22:07pm

re: #500 Bagua

Three out of four clearly refer to religion so they are all relating to religion? Ok, I had a three cheese pizza with mushrooms, so clearly mushrooms are dairy and come from cows. Yes, I see my mistake.

You do understand the purpose of literary style, no? I'm no English language expert, but yes, when you have a list of similar items, you infer from the rules of style that they are all similar.

513 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:22:55pm

re: #506 BryanS

Nope--it goes both ways. Does O'Reilly represent how one should behave? I don't think that's a great way to win the debate. It's a great way to get people who already agree with you to listen to you.

From what I've seen, the religious people who Dawkins debates indulge in much more hateful rhetoric toward atheists than Dawkins has ever used toward believers. It's very common for believers to say that atheists are responsible for communism, Nazism, and the complete degeneration of modern society. And then they often let the atheists know that they are doomed to burn forever in eternal torment.

What has Dawkins ever said that could possibly compare to that? Nothing. It's not even remotely comparable.

514 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:23:18pm

re: #499 Gus 802

What does Jesus have to do with Genesis "The Creation" and "Man in the Garden of Eden" have to do with creationism?

Original Sin. There was no need for Jesus to sacrifice himself without a sin to absolve. Therefore Genesis must be literal, or the foundation of the faith is irrelevant. Or, so their thinking goes.

515 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:24:03pm

Welp, Dan Riehl's crazed fantasies about the murdered census worker appear to have hit the GOP, and someone is using it to frighten people about all census workers.


Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) On Census Takers: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

"It is paramount that the American people have confidence, and the people who are going to go door-to-door next April 10 and conduct a census, and what is concerning we have suddenly about 1800 people that have actually got a criminal background. Nearly 750 people have salacious backgrounds such as child molestation, rape. You even have some people convicted of manslaughter that have been brought into the process. I give credit to the Census Bureau for actually conducting background checks and doing fingerprinting and working with the FBI, but what is not acceptable is that tens of thousands of these were done improperly, so we do not know the background of these people."

Youtube Video
516 Racer X  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:24:12pm

LCROSS Centaur Impact Flash

This mid-infrared image was taken in the last minutes of the LCROSS flight mission to the Moon. The small white spot (enlarged in the insets) seen within the dark shadow of lunar crater walls is the initial flash created by the impact of a spent Centaur upper stage rocket.

Traveling at 1.5 miles per second, the Centaur rocket hit the lunar surface yesterday at 4:31am UT, followed a few minutes later by the shepherding LCROSS spacecraft. Earthbound observatories have reported capturing both impacts. But before crashing into the lunar surface itself, the LCROSS spacecraft's instrumentation successfully recorded close-up the details of the rocket stage impact, the resulting crater, and debris cloud.

In the coming weeks, data from the challenging mission will be used to search for signs of water in the lunar material blasted from the surface.

517 albusteve  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:24:45pm

rock on brothers and sisters...
don't take no wooden nickles at the taco stand of life

518 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:26:06pm

re: #509 Dark_Falcon

That's about right. When debating, O'Reilly sometimes relies on his aggression to throw an adversary off their game, and he can be quite intimidating. Richard Dawkins, however, debates in the best British tradition; i.e. He quietly refuses to be intimidated. He stayed focused and built his case. By the needs of his profession, Richard Dawkins is a disciplined man and it shows in how he argues,

Indeed, I find anger and righteous indignation more a trait of the believer than a trait of a professional scientist.

When he got angry I knew he wasn't a master.

519 swamprat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:26:31pm

re: #511 Naso Tang

Me no bite.

Google for "you never go back"
discern the most common application
Sorry, I thought you would get it right away. Did not mean to drag this out.

520 little boomer  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:26:59pm

re: #514 Sharmuta

Original Sin. There was no need for Jesus to sacrifice himself without a sin to absolve. Therefore Genesis must be literal, or the foundation of the faith is irrelevant. Or, so their thinking goes.

If Genesis must be literal, how come the Pope says it's OK to believe in evolution? Catholicism is a pretty big chunk of Christianity.

521 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:27:10pm

re: #514 Sharmuta

Original Sin. There was no need for Jesus to sacrifice himself without a sin to absolve. Therefore Genesis must be literal, or the foundation of the faith is irrelevant. Or, so their thinking goes.

OK, so that would be an institutionally confined logical progression. However, a creationist idea could stand alone without a concept of original sin. I suppose that could work the other way in which a concept of original sin can stand alone without creationism. I'm speaking theoretically.

Don't mind me. I'm just postulating these ideas as non-believer.

522 Bob Dillon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:27:23pm

re: #516 Racer X

Oh Yeah - let's git it on! Times a wasting.

523 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:27:45pm

re: #513 Charles

From what I've seen, the religious people who Dawkins debates indulge in much more hateful rhetoric toward atheists than Dawkins has ever used toward believers. It's very common for believers to say that atheists are responsible for communism, Nazism, and the complete degeneration of modern society. And then they often let the atheists know that they are doomed to burn forever in eternal torment.

What has Dawkins ever said that could possibly compare to that? Nothing. It's not even remotely comparable.

Agreed. But what is the point of debating if it's not to persuade your adversary. If the point is not to persuade, then all one's doing is venting. I think Dawkins was pretty self restrained when O'Reilly called him a fascist. Now that was insulting and obnoxious. Dawkins' non-answer was probably all he could think of doing. Maybe a better response could have focused on O'Reilly's over the top insult, and drawn the comparison to the common anti-atheist rhetoric you refer to.

524 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:28:31pm

re: #519 swamprat

Google for "you never go back"
discern the most common application
Sorry, I thought you would get it right away. Did not mean to drag this out.

You thought I would get it right away? You sweet talking flatterer you...

525 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:28:38pm

re: #520 little boomer

If Genesis must be literal, how come the Pope says it's OK to believe in evolution? Catholicism is a pretty big chunk of Christianity.

The Catholic Church doesn't subscribe to literalism.

526 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:28:51pm

re: #513 Charles

He quite clearly stated that Dawkin's position was fascism, what famous fascists do we know? An English man would be especially insulted as their country was attacked by fascists and things got quite desperate during the war.

527 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:29:12pm

re: #514 Sharmuta

Original Sin. There was no need for Jesus to sacrifice himself without a sin to absolve. Therefore Genesis must be literal, or the foundation of the faith is irrelevant. Or, so their thinking goes.

Heh...literal belief in Genesis, now there's a belief ripe for dissecting with science.

528 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:30:37pm

re: #520 little boomer

If Genesis must be literal, how come the Pope says it's OK to believe in evolution? Catholicism is a pretty big chunk of Christianity.

Pope's got his shit together.

529 Bob Dillon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:31:02pm

re: #518 Bagua

Indeed, I find anger and righteous indignation more a trait of the believer than a trait of a professional scientist.

When he got angry I knew he wasn't a master.

Masters still experience anger - they just don't express it onto others.

There are more appropriate ways to correct another.

530 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:31:20pm

re: #526 Bagua

He quite clearly stated that Dawkin's position was fascism, what famous fascists do we know? An English man would be especially insulted as their country was attacked by fascists and things got quite desperate during the war.

He did lift his eyebrows quite noticeably at that point, but he didn't seem to realize that he was not faced by an Englishman./

531 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:31:52pm

re: #528 The Shadow Do

Pope's got his shit together.

This part.

532 little boomer  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:32:18pm

re: #525 Sharmuta

The Catholic Church doesn't subscribe to literalism.

Exactly, Genesis is not accurate, but true. (Tree of knowledge=we know right from wrong, but sin anyways. passing the buck=Adam blames Eve, Eve blames snake etc.)

533 rikzilla  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:32:31pm

Creationism belongs in a science classroom like Holocaust denial belongs in a history classroom.

Teach the controversy my ass.

534 Achilles Tang  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:32:42pm

Well lizards, been more fun than some. Gotta go. Goodnight.

535 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:33:04pm

re: #534 Naso Tang

Well lizards, been more fun than some. Gotta go. Goodnight.

Good night, NT.

536 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:33:28pm

re: #529 Bobibutu

Masters still experience anger - they just don't express it onto others.

There are more appropriate ways to correct another.

Of course, it is implied the "Master" revealed himself as phony by an outburst.

537 wee fury  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:33:37pm

A good debate is civil. O'Reilly was not.

538 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:33:39pm

re: #523 BryanS

Agreed. But what is the point of debating if it's not to persuade your adversary. If the point is not to persuade, then all one's doing is venting. I think Dawkins was pretty self restrained when O'Reilly called him a fascist. Now that was insulting and obnoxious. Dawkins' non-answer was probably all he could think of doing. Maybe a better response could have focused on O'Reilly's over the top insult, and drawn the comparison to the common anti-atheist rhetoric you refer to.

But again -- why is this deference only supposed to go one way? I always see people complaining about Dawkins' rudeness toward the poor believers -- but never complaining about the "burn in hell" comments, or the accusations of fascism, or the idea that atheism is destroying society, or any number of other extremely hateful and intolerant ideas that are constantly espoused by believers.

Why is it that believers are supposed to have such tender feelings that atheists and agnostics have to walk on eggshells and avoid offending them, because they might lash out? If someone's faith is strong and certain, why are they so threatened when someone like Richard Dawkins challenges it?

539 Bob Dillon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:36:21pm

re: #536 Bagua

Of course, it is implied the "Master" revealed himself as phony by an outburst.

Absolutely

540 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:36:44pm

re: #532 little boomer

Exactly, Genesis is not accurate, but true. (Tree of knowledge=we know right from wrong, but sin anyways. passing the buck=Adam blames Eve, Eve blames snake etc.)


I think the Garden of Eden story is a metaphor about mans discovery of agriculture...and all that ensued.

541 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:37:27pm

re: #540 BignJames

I think the Garden of Eden story is a metaphor about mans discovery of agriculture...and all that ensued.

Explain.

542 The Shadow Do  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:37:50pm

When I give up being an agnostic, I will become a Catholic. I can be both depraved and respected that way - but not ignorant at least.

Yes, I am being a bit snyde. If I wanted to be a truly moral human being I would be Jewish.

Guess I'll settle for being a lost soul for now.

543 Bob Dillon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:38:13pm

re: #538 Charles

Challenging belief systems is the core of controversy.

544 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:38:18pm

re: #538 Charles

But again -- why is this deference only supposed to go one way? I always see people complaining about Dawkins' rudeness toward the poor believers -- but never complaining about the "burn in hell" comments, or the accusations of fascism, or the idea that atheism is destroying society, or any number of other extremely hateful and intolerant ideas that are constantly espoused by believers.

Why is it that believers are supposed to have such tender feelings that atheists and agnostic have to walk on eggshells and avoid offending them, because they might lash out? If someone's faith is strong and certain, why are they so threatened when someone like Richard Dawkins challenges it?

Both are wrong and both do nothing to convince the other they are wrong. Does "burn in hell" convince you to believe? The problem as I see it is that as you say, insulting the atheist is acceptable to many, but insulting the religious is not. The solution is to push that point, not to indulge in similar behavior.

545 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:38:55pm

re: #538 Charles


If you don't have the correct religious belief...you burn in hell, too.

546 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:39:19pm

re: #538 Charles

But again -- why is this deference only supposed to go one way? I always see people complaining about Dawkins' rudeness toward the poor believers -- but never complaining about the "burn in hell" comments, or the accusations of fascism, or the idea that atheism is destroying society, or any number of other extremely hateful and intolerant ideas that are constantly espoused by believers.

Why is it that believers are supposed to have such tender feelings that atheists and agnostic have to walk on eggshells and avoid offending them, because they might lash out? If someone's faith is strong and certain, why are they so threatened when someone like Richard Dawkins challenges it?

The 'I expect you to respect my belief that you will suffer for all eternity' theme really irks me. Sorry, but I just can't respect that line of belief.

547 mich-again  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:39:26pm

re: #525 Sharmuta

The Catholic Church doesn't subscribe to literalism.

I have read it several times and I think Pope Benedict XVI's "Faith, Reason and the University" is the best speech on this subject. A snip..

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably ... is contrary to God's nature.
548 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:39:37pm

re: #492 BryanS

"superstition, holy books, authority, or revelation."

Three of the four clearly refer to religion. Your assertion that the one thing was not meant to refer to religion when the other three clearly do is pretty weak. Besides, Dawkins routinely refers to religion as superstition in other talks. Just go Youtubing once and listen to clips of his speeches.

I don't need to go Youtubing I'm commenting on the video I just now watched. It sounds like you were watching Dawkins through a filter.

549 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:39:45pm

re: #545 BignJames

If you don't have the correct religious belief...you burn in hell, too.

Hear THAT. I've gotten plenty of that over the years.

550 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:40:34pm

re: #543 Bobibutu

Challenging belief systems is the core of controversy.

Ahh, but to many who are religious, simply disagreeing with them insults them. That is intolerance and is unacceptable.

551 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:40:53pm

re: #538 Charles

But again -- why is this deference only supposed to go one way? I always see people complaining about Dawkins' rudeness toward the poor believers -- but never complaining about the "burn in hell" comments, or the accusations of fascism, or the idea that atheism is destroying society, or any number of other extremely hateful and intolerant ideas that are constantly espoused by believers.

Why is it that believers are supposed to have such tender feelings that atheists and agnostics have to walk on eggshells and avoid offending them, because they might lash out? If someone's faith is strong and certain, why are they so threatened when someone like Richard Dawkins challenges it?

Believers who propagate these notions, and treat atheists in this way, have nothing but contempt and hatred for atheists. They genuinely do not feel that they owe atheists any respect, while shrieking that they are owed more respect, deference, whatever. They appear incapable of noticing the double standard they're applying, but that isn't the full story. They don't believe it is a double standard-- they believe they are justified in treating the atheist this way. And at the same time they project onto the atheist their own ideology, in the sense that they are convinced the atheist must feel the scorn and contempt for believers that they are guilty of feeling towards atheists. They hate and fear atheists. *

* Before people jump on me, please note my first sentence. I am not speaking of all believers, but the ones who act like O'Reilly.

552 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:41:14pm

Hey Early Morning Lizards!

A drive-by post before retiring for the evening (morning) and a short, funny video (also posted in the spin-offs).

weet dreams all!

553 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:41:34pm

re: #548 Bagua

I don't need to go Youtubing I'm commenting on the video I just now watched. It sounds like you were watching Dawkins through a filter.

Yes, the filter of...Dawkins :)

554 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:42:42pm

re: #544 BryanS

Both are wrong and both do nothing to convince the other they are wrong. Does "burn in hell" convince you to believe? The problem as I see it is that as you say, insulting the atheist is acceptable to many, but insulting the religious is not. The solution is to push that point, not to indulge in similar behavior.

When people start talking like that, they're not really talking to the person they're debating, They're trying to blacken the person's reputation and cause their words to be ignored as the fruits of the poisonous tree.

555 Bob Dillon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:42:50pm

re: #542 The Shadow Do

When I give up being an agnostic, I will become a Catholic. I can be both depraved and respected that way - but not ignorant at least.

Yes, I am being a bit snyde. If I wanted to be a truly moral human being I would be Jewish.

Guess I'll settle for being a lost soul for now.

A seeker and free thinker might be better.

556 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:43:23pm

re: #541 Dark_Falcon

Explain.


Before agriculture, life was tribal...hunter/gatherer etc...with the discovery of agriculture...civilisations developed...cities...states...taxes...kings...armies...wars etc...no more carefree life of the hunter/gatherer.

557 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:43:58pm

re: #308 dmjboose

please explain why you think a science teacher shouldn't be allowed to discuss the scientific merits of a particular theory? Especially when that view is regularly (especially by the discovery institute) stated as a scientific theory.

You're trying to move this into 'allowed'. There's no allowed or disallowed--but if science teachers spent all their time explaining what's wrong with various discredited semi-scientific ideas out there, they'd have no time for the life cycle of the frog.

558 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:44:08pm

re: #550 BryanS

Ahh, but to many who are religious, simply disagreeing with them insults them. That is intolerance and is unacceptable.



Right, that is why Dawkins is correcting their ignorance.

559 little boomer  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:44:54pm

re: #544 BryanS

I respect your view, but I work in "higher ed" where the typical Bolshevik Atheist Professor looks down on any believer as a redneck fool. They believe that there is no God so that those with a PHD can be looked upon as nature's highest achievement. It's a form of narcissism.

560 lostlakehiker  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:46:54pm

O'Reilly is smart enough that there's no way he's thought about evolution and concluded the evidence isn't there. Now he can believe that evidence means nothing, and that the world was created to look exactly as if evolution were true. Or, more likely, he can believe he'll get better ratings if he bangs away at Dawkins and calls him a fascist.

How can somebody be a fascist for insisting that the State ought not to have the power to use science class to instill its favorite religion in the heads of the little darlings?

How can a devoutly religious creationist not understand that once that power is in the hands of the State, who can say how it will be used? That's the kind of "evolution" we can all see playing out over such a short time scale that one life can span it.

561 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:47:36pm

re: #559 little boomer

Huh?

562 Bob Dillon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:48:17pm

re: #556 BignJames

Before agriculture, life was tribal...hunter/gatherer etc...with the discovery of agriculture...civilisations developed...cities...states...taxes...kings...armi es...wars etc...no more carefree life of the hunter/gatherer.

Read somewhere recently (DNA research) - we are all here from ~ 600 breading individuals that survived extinction - pretty close.

563 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:48:35pm

re: #538 Charles

Speaking for myself, the only kinds of athiests I find off-putting are the ones who give me that 'You're not stupid enough to believe in some invisible guy up in the sky' schtick when I mention I'm Catholic...granted this hasn't happened lately (mostly in High School or college). But when it did they were pretty abrasive about it.

Left me scratching my head when it does happen. I don't go around beating everyone over the head with my faith...made me wonder why these particular athiests thought it was OK to do the same with their beliefs. Part of it probably had something to do with teen-age or 20-something bravado, I imagine.

/Turns out some of the Baptists and Mormons I've encountered aren't exactly down with the Catholic Church, either.

564 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:48:36pm

re: #559 little boomer

I respect your view, but I work in "higher ed" where the typical Bolshevik Atheist Professor looks down on any believer as a redneck fool. They believe that there is no God so that those with a PHD can be looked upon as nature's highest achievement. It's a form of narcissism.

Yes but it's pretty easy to puncture those bubbles. Just challenge them on a subject outside of their fantastically narrow specialty.

565 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:48:46pm

re: #559 little boomer

There are indeed atheists of that stripe. They're assholes in the same mode as obnoxious creationists.

566 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:49:03pm

re: #559 little boomer

I respect your view, but I work in "higher ed" where the typical Bolshevik Atheist Professor looks down on any believer as a redneck fool. They believe that there is no God so that those with a PHD can be looked upon as nature's highest achievement. It's a form of narcissism.

Many professors do believe they are god! So are you suggesting the solution is for students who hav religious beliefs to insult their professors? Would be fun to watch, but I wouldn't advise any students to do that :)

567 Ziggy Standard  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:49:06pm

re: #551 iceweasel

Believers who propagate these notions, and treat atheists in this way, have nothing but contempt and hatred for atheists. They genuinely do not feel that they owe atheists any respect, while shrieking that they are owed more respect, deference, whatever. They appear incapable of noticing the double standard they're applying, but that isn't the full story. They don't believe it is a double standard-- they believe they are justified in treating the atheist this way. And at the same time they project onto the atheist their own ideology, in the sense that they are convinced the atheist must feel the scorn and contempt for believers that they are guilty of feeling towards atheists. They hate and fear atheists. *

* Before people jump on me, please note my first sentence. I am not speaking of all believers, but the ones who act like O'Reilly.

Spot-on analysis ice-ski :) The projection and hypocrisy of the touchy religious types described is something to behold. Favourited.

568 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:49:35pm

re: #545 BignJames

If you don't have the correct religious belief...you burn in hell, too.

Which reminds me of signs I saw posted along I-15 driving North out of San Diego up to Corona yesterday, for a 1 mile stretch, counted at least 4 signs saying "Embrace Jesus or Burn in Hell."

569 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:50:01pm

re: #358 bosforus

Is the scientific method not taught in schools anymore?

Well, in the Catholic middle school I used to work at, I prefaced a comment about the story we were reading with "this is my theory". When I asked for questions, one child raised a hand and pointed out that actually, that was a hypothesis.

Our science teacher was awesome.

570 freetoken  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:51:03pm

re: #568 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Which reminds me of signs I saw posted along I-15 driving North out of San Diego up to Corona yesterday, for a 1 mile stretch, counted at least 4 signs saying "Embrace Jesus or Burn in Hell Riverside County."

FTFY.

571 little boomer  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:51:17pm

re: #565 Dark_Falcon

There are indeed atheists of that stripe. They're assholes in the same mode as obnoxious creationists.

Precisely, the joke is that they don't see it!

572 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:51:38pm

re: #564 esch

Yes but it's pretty easy to puncture those bubbles. Just challenge them on a subject outside of their fantastically narrow specialty.

Have you handily out debated many Professors then?

573 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:52:07pm

re: #387 BryanS

Problem with the public schools is the unions that protect jobs over promoting competence. Too bad really.

Get rid of the unions, and you might find out different.

574 Bob Dillon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:52:22pm

re: #569 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, in the Catholic middle school I used to work at, I prefaced a comment about the story we were reading with "this is my theory". When I asked for questions, one child raised a hand and pointed out that actually, that was a hypothesis.

Our science teacher was awesome.

Beliefs are like opinions - we all have one.

575 swamprat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:53:23pm

re: #560 lostlakehiker

I doubt he cares.
I doubly doubt he thinks "fascism" means "not teaching the controversy".
I DON'T doubt he thinks pandering to his audience will increase his ratings.
Yelling, and trying to make the other guy look like a fool, puts money in O'Reilly's pocket. And after all that is the most important thing.

576 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:53:24pm

re: #569 SanFranciscoZionist


Heh...what a smartass.

577 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:54:38pm

re: #396 The Shadow Do

On its face, faith is silly, mystical etc, no? This is your test as a believer is it not?

'Credo quia absurdum est' is one approach. But I am unaware of any solid theology or longstanding Western religious tradition that says you should use your faith as a shield between you and and scientific fact.

578 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:54:43pm

re: #574 Bobibutu

Beliefs are like opinions - we all have one.

And it is the job of educators to challenge those beliefs, just as it is the task of scientist to identify and avoid allowing their beliefs to cloud their judgement and word.

579 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:54:58pm

re: #572 Bagua

A couple over the years. The main thing is to get them outside of their comfort zone. My main point was to get them to admit they didn't know everything and knew little about competing in the real work world. It also helps if you're not their student at the time.

580 lostlakehiker  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:55:57pm

re: #354 mich-again

Exactly. I think the first step in teaching science should be defining clearly what a scientific theory is and what it isn't.

No. The first step in teaching science should be a cool example of what science is. Case in point: Harvard (or another Ivy) video of first physics lesson. They measure the time it takes a ball to hit the floor from distance X and distance 2X, and observe that the time ratio is about 1.4. A good fit with a seat-of-pants calculation based on units, that suggests a ratio of square-root-of 2. They also test whether a volunteer in the audience is farther from head to toe when prone than when standing...(yes, by about 1 cm.), and so forth.

A good example is a better way to get started on a definition, when talking to students, than a convoluted many-layers-deep-in-ideas "definition".

581 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:56:19pm

re: #573 SanFranciscoZionist

Get rid of the unions, and you might find out different.

You saying that on the whole, teachers' unions do not promote protecting jobs over competence? That has not been my experience.

582 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:57:23pm

re: #579 esch

A couple over the years. The main thing is to get them outside of their comfort zone. My main point was to get them to admit they didn't know everything and knew little about competing in the real work world. It also helps if you're not their student at the time.

I imagine their main thing was actually to get you out of their zone and get on with their work.

583 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:57:47pm

re: #429 sagehen

I went to public school; we didn't have a religion class as such, but in history class we were taught as much Bible and Koran as was needed to explain the movement of armies and renaming of cities and building things with flying buttresses (you'd think high school would be old enough not to giggle at those, but you'd be wrong).

Oh, you would SO be wrong. The mere mention of the word 'Uranus' can bring a high school classroom to a halt.

584 swamprat  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:58:00pm

Religious tolerance is one of our most important values.

Frightenly, just as I typed that, I heard a mockingbird copying a rattlesnake.

585 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:59:23pm

re: #582 Bagua

I imagine their main thing was actually to get you out of their zone and get on with their work.

Well they were social occasions so I might have caught them off their guard.

586 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:59:28pm

re: #583 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh, you would SO be wrong. The mere mention of the word 'Uranus' can bring a high school classroom to a halt.

*Giggle* You said Uranus

587 little boomer  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:59:40pm

re: #583 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh, you would SO be wrong. The mere mention of the word 'Uranus' can bring a high school classroom to a halt.

Lake Titicaca.

588 BignJames  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 10:59:57pm

re: #568 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Which reminds me of signs I saw posted along I-15 driving North out of San Diego up to Corona yesterday, for a 1 mile stretch, counted at least 4 signs saying "Embrace Jesus or Burn in Hell."


I don't mean to dis Baptists...since I am a lapsed Baptist...(drink...listen to music...have danced)...but one of the main tenants of the faith is to not judge others...apparently lots of Baptists have a hearing problem.

589 Bob Dillon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:00:10pm

re: #550 BryanS

Ahh, but to many who are religious, simply disagreeing with them insults them. That is intolerance and is unacceptable.

Ignorance is, and always will be with us.

Our truth laboratory is our selves and our own experiences into our personal research into consciousness.

590 Bob Dillon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:01:11pm

re: #578 Bagua

And it is the job of educators to challenge those beliefs, just as it is the task of scientist to identify and avoid allowing their beliefs to cloud their judgement and word.

There in lies the challenge.

591 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:01:15pm

re: #584 swamprat

Religious tolerance is one of our most important values.

Frightenly, just as I typed that, I heard a mockingbird copying a rattlesnake.

Should be. Now if the holy rollers could be convinced of that, we'd all get along swell.

592 lostlakehiker  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:01:27pm

re: #559 little boomer

I respect your view, but I work in "higher ed" where the typical Bolshevik Atheist Professor looks down on any believer as a redneck fool. They believe that there is no God so that those with a PHD can be looked upon as nature's highest achievement. It's a form of narcissism.

Oh puhleeze. PhD's recognize that captains of industry and war, artists of all stripes (that is, those who exhibit genuine artistry, not hacks), inventors, statesmen (as opposed to politicians who care only for gaining and exploiting office), and others, are at least their equals in native gifts.

As to believers being redneck fools, well, a couple of looks at the exam scores will disabuse the PhD of that notion. Believers can believe curious things. They can be wrong. But that doesn't make them fools. It just makes them wrong on that topic.

593 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:01:39pm

re: #583 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh, you would SO be wrong. The mere mention of the word 'Uranus' can bring a high school classroom to a halt.

Fry: “As long as you don’t make me smell Uranus.”

Leela: “I don’t get it.”

Professor: “I’m sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed that planet in 2620 to stop that stupid joke once and for all.”

Fry: “Oh. What’s it called now?”

Professor: “Urectum.”
/couldn't resist. :)

594 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:01:40pm

re: #469 The Shadow Do

If you don't believe in God, then you must believe in Not God.

That thinking drives me nuts.

If one is not convinced that God exists it is because the evidence is insufficient. Plain and simple.

Origin of species is very evident though it does not explain the origin of life. That will be the work of some other scientist at some point.

Even better: "you can choose between God, and Darwin. If you believe in the one, you cannot believe in the other. "

Trying to explain to people that I don't worship Charles Darwin has occasionally been a tiring task. I believe IN God. I believe that Charles Darwin was by and large correct about his scientific theories. Totally different relationship.

595 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:02:05pm

re: #583 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh, you would SO be wrong. The mere mention of the word 'Uranus' can bring a high school classroom to a halt.

Do not watch "Hercules and the Captive Women" then.

"This stone is consecrated with the Blood of Uranus!"

596 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:02:17pm

re: #585 esch

Well they were social occasions so I might have caught them off their guard.

So just to be clear, when you say we should be respectfully of religion when explaining evolution, do you mean Jesus, Buddha, Shiva, Mohamed or some wooden object?

597 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:03:29pm

re: #593 Varek Raith

Maybe my fav Futurama gag.

I was going to do it but I figured someone else would beat me to it.

598 Jack Burton  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:03:49pm

re: #583 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh, you would SO be wrong. The mere mention of the word 'Uranus' can bring a high school classroom to a halt.

That's why astronomers will rename the planet Urectum in 2620.

599 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:03:59pm

re: #594 SanFranciscoZionist

Even better: "you can choose between God, and Darwin. If you believe in the one, you cannot believe in the other. "

Trying to explain to people that I don't worship Charles Darwin has occasionally been a tiring task. I believe IN God. I believe that Charles Darwin was by and large correct about his scientific theories. Totally different relationship.

I've always been troubled by the word Darwinist.

600 Jack Burton  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:04:54pm

re: #599 Gus 802

I've always been troubled by the word Darwinist.

That word is always a red flag to me that the person uttering it is a kook to some degree.

601 Bob Dillon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:05:27pm

re: #580 lostlakehiker

No. The first step in teaching science should be a cool example of what science is. Case in point: Harvard (or another Ivy) video of first physics lesson. They measure the time it takes a ball to hit the floor from distance X and distance 2X, and observe that the time ratio is about 1.4. A good fit with a seat-of-pants calculation based on units, that suggests a ratio of square-root-of 2. They also test whether a volunteer in the audience is farther from head to toe when prone than when standing...(yes, by about 1 cm.), and so forth.

A good example is a better way to get started on a definition, when talking to students, than a convoluted many-layers-deep-in-ideas "definition".

There is a great engineering lab at Cal Berkeley that does just that ... position a dropping target and fire a projectile at it - when the projectile hits the target is variable depending on the velocity one sends it at. Whatever.

602 little boomer  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:06:19pm

re: #592 lostlakehiker

Oh puhleeze. PhD's recognize that captains of industry and war, artists of all stripes (that is, those who exhibit genuine artistry, not hacks), inventors, statesmen (as opposed to politicians who care only for gaining and exploiting office), and others, are at least their equals in native gifts.

As to believers being redneck fools, well, a couple of looks at the exam scores will disabuse the PhD of that notion. Believers can believe curious things. They can be wrong. But that doesn't make them fools. It just makes them wrong on that topic.

You should be right, but you evidently don't eat lunch with this crowd.

603 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:06:38pm

re: #515 iceweasel

Welp, Dan Riehl's crazed fantasies about the murdered census worker appear to have hit the GOP, and someone is using it to frighten people about all census workers.


Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) On Census Takers: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

[Video]

What do these guys want? That we not take a census? Don't we HAVE to take a census?

604 esch  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:07:05pm

re: #596 Bagua

I said acknowledge the conflict without delving into it, and focus on science. Not respect. Respect implies discussion and compromise. Definitely not what we want to do in class.

605 Kragar  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:07:35pm

OK, peeps, no more cracks about Uranus.

/RIMshot

606 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:08:06pm

re: #518 Bagua

Indeed, I find anger and righteous indignation more a trait of the believer than a trait of a professional scientist.

When he got angry I knew he wasn't a master.

Real believers aren't angry. They just believe.

607 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:08:07pm

re: #600 ArchangelMichael

That word is always a red flag to me that the person uttering it is a kook to some degree.

Seems all encompassing. As if thought they're projecting those that adhere to the scientific theories of Darwin as though they are following a religion. You don't here people referred to as Einsteinists. There may be people that could be classified as "Darwinists" but I assume they are few and probably outside of the scientific field. As Dawkins points out, evolutionary theory is not limited to Darwin's theories alone.

608 Jack Burton  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:08:15pm

re: #605 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

OK, peeps, no more cracks about Uranus.

/RIMshot

Just one more. Uranus is a good source of Methane.

609 freetoken  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:08:41pm

re: #599 Gus 802

I've always been troubled by the word Darwinist.

Hey, it's an analog of "Warmist" that gets tossed around quite a bit in the denial-o-sphere.

610 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:09:00pm

re: #599 Gus 802

I've always been troubled by the word Darwinist.

Yes, I preferred to be refered to as a Darwinition myself.

611 little boomer  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:09:07pm

lights out.

612 Jack Burton  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:09:32pm

re: #607 Gus 802

Seems all encompassing. As if thought they're projecting those that adhere to the scientific theories of Darwin as though they are following a religion. You don't here people referred to as Einsteinists. There may be people that could be classified as "Darwinists" but I assume they are few and probably outside of the scientific field. As Dawkins points out, evolutionary theory is not limited to Darwin's theories alone.

I've heard some extreme YECs refer to "Relativists" and they weren't talking about moral relativism at the time.

613 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:09:54pm

re: #609 freetoken

Hey, it's an analog of "Warmist" that gets tossed around quite a bit in the denial-o-sphere.

That's a new one for me. I suppose another might be abortionists.

614 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:11:36pm

re: #612 ArchangelMichael

I've heard some extreme YECs refer to "Relativists" and they weren't talking about moral relativism at the time.

I've argued with that type in the past. Let's just say banging my head on a brick wall would've been considerably less painful.

615 Jack Burton  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:11:40pm

re: #613 Gus 802

That's a new one for me. I suppose another might be abortionists.

Technically medicine is a field of study so an -ist suffix on someone who works in that field is reasonable. Abortioners or Abortioneers doesn't quite sound right.

616 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:12:07pm

re: #612 ArchangelMichael

I've heard some extreme YECs refer to "Relativists" and they weren't talking about moral relativism at the time.

I know what it is. It seems as though people are ascribing a singularity on people. Thus they become "one thing" or or identified upon one ideology or belief or expertise. People are more than just one thing.

617 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:12:54pm

re: #547 mich-again

It's a very good speech. I do feel that it's not perfectly historically honest, but very good.

618 Bob Dillon  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:12:58pm

re: #608 ArchangelMichael

Just one more. Uranus is a good source of Methane.

Is that what that stuff is - thanks.

619 Gus  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:12:59pm

re: #615 ArchangelMichael

Technically medicine is a field of study so an -ist suffix on someone who works in that field is reasonable. Abortioners or Abortioneers doesn't quite sound right.

Abortioneers. That's funny. Not making light of the subject but that does have a pirate feel to it. Argh.

620 austin_blue  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:13:16pm

re: #311 Pawn of the Oppressor

I think I'll pick up some Dawkins as soon as I have extra money for books again.

As for what eats the hydra? For some reason, the first critter that comes to mind is the "water boatman", but I don't know if that's right. I'll have to go look it up.

Pawn- These things are socialist, I know, but you should check out these things called public libraries. They actually let you *borrow* books- for free!

;-)

621 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:14:34pm

re: #609 freetoken

Hey, it's an analog of "Warmist" that gets tossed around quite a bit in the denial-o-sphere.

It is a term for some-one who has gone beyond science into the realm of beliefs. There are always those in any discipline. An example might be someone who was certain humans evolved from monkeys.

622 Jack Burton  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:15:30pm

re: #621 Bagua

It is a term for some-one who has gone beyond science into the realm of beliefs. There are always those in any discipline. An example might be someone who was certain humans evolved from monkeys.

Directly?

623 Bagua  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:17:46pm

re: #622 ArchangelMichael

Directly?

Right, didn't they just find a likely common ancestor suggesting monkeys were a different branch rather than a predecessor?

624 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:19:32pm

re: #581 BryanS

You saying that on the whole, teachers' unions do not promote protecting jobs over competence? That has not been my experience.

I've worked in both union and non-union settings. By and large, I think the danger of the unions protecting incompetent teachers is not our biggest problem with the schools.

I'm also not too impressed with the kind of thinking that tends to come out of administrators who dream of getting rid of the unions.

A profession which pays a barely middle-class salary and yet assumes that any good professional will work countless unpaid overtime hours cannot exist without some kind of collective bargaining power. It might be possible to operate without the unions, but not in our current structure.

625 Jack Burton  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:19:52pm

re: #623 Bagua

Right, didn't they just find a likely common ancestor suggesting monkeys were a different branch rather than a predecessor?

Yeah but I always thought that was the assumption anyway as "monkeys" are something that exist today, and surely didn't in anything close to current form 22 million years ago or whenever the split was.

626 Eclectic Infidel  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:24:18pm

Disclaimer: I know that jerks like O'Reilly do not speak for all conservatives.

That said, it is jerks like Bill O'Reilly who give the entire conservative crowd a VERY bad rap in the public eye.

Part of me doesn't really care how conservatives are received but the other half knows that a rational balance is needed to stave off potential nuttiness from the left. O'Reilly isn't helping anyone with this bully antics.

627 Eclectic Infidel  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:25:29pm

re: #626 eclectic infidel

Late night correction:

reads: "...this bully antics."

should read "...HIS bully antics."

628 austin_blue  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:27:18pm

re: #559 little boomer

I respect your view, but I work in "higher ed" where the typical Bolshevik Atheist Professor looks down on any believer as a redneck fool. They believe that there is no God so that those with a PHD can be looked upon as nature's highest achievement. It's a form of narcissism.

What do you do, clean classrooms?

629 BryanS  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:27:44pm

re: #624 SanFranciscoZionist

I've worked in both union and non-union settings. By and large, I think the danger of the unions protecting incompetent teachers is not our biggest problem with the schools.

I'm also not too impressed with the kind of thinking that tends to come out of administrators who dream of getting rid of the unions.

A profession which pays a barely middle-class salary and yet assumes that any good professional will work countless unpaid overtime hours cannot exist without some kind of collective bargaining power. It might be possible to operate without the unions, but not in our current structure.


That part I agree with. It is extraordinarily difficult to get rid of incompetent teachers.

Had a science teacher in highschool who was laughably incompetent--so much so that even other teachers had a hard time biting their tongues about this person's incompetence. For twenty years his job was safe. It took him bending a student over his knee and spanking them in front of class to finally get the guy fired. Teachers that do not know the subject they are teaching are supposed to just get more 'training' not be fired. Unions also stand in the way of merit based pay for truly talented and dedicated teachers.

630 austin_blue  Fri, Oct 9, 2009 11:28:48pm

re: #626 eclectic infidel

Disclaimer: I know that jerks like O'Reilly do not speak for all conservatives.

That said, it is jerks like Bill O'Reilly who give the entire conservative crowd a VERY bad rap in the public eye.

Part of me doesn't really care how conservatives are received but the other half knows that a rational balance is needed to stave off potential nuttiness from the left. O'Reilly isn't helping anyone with this bully antics.

He is also alienating the center.

631 Mickey Blumental  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 12:52:43am

People think that Bill and Glenn are idiots, but they're nothing but. They just know their audience and what kind of crap they want their heroes to say. They're the Michael Moores of the right.

632 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 3:44:09am

re: #579 esch

A couple over the years. The main thing is to get them outside of their comfort zone. My main point was to get them to admit they didn't know everything and knew little about competing in the real work world. It also helps if you're not their student at the time.

Ah, the common wingnut canard that academia somehow isn't the 'real' work world, as if professors don't have 'real' jobs or face any pressure.

Rubbish.

633 aagcobb  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 3:45:59am

re: #66 ArchangelMichael

I cant even watch this video. I'll want to strangle the other ORLY after about 5 seconds based on these comments. Why does Dawkins even bother with this stuff?

He's on a book promotion tour. Dawkins appeared on Colbert recently, who basically acted the same way O'Reilly did, only for laughs.

634 Tungsten  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 5:42:13am

I think I am fine with what Bill is saying so long as every Preist, Rabbi etc. teaches evolution as part of their "Sunday school".

635 kirkspencer  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 5:56:08am

re: #173 Fyodor Baggins Dostoevsky

I have relatives that think God put all these fossils in the earth to test our faith. How can you reason with that? Evidence is meaningless.

I have met people with a similar idea, though they say it's Satan, not God, who put in all the fossils. They aren't there to test our faith, they're there to destroy it.

As you said, for these people evidence on the subject is meaningless.

636 hellosnackbar  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:15:27am

I occasionally watch the motley "stars" of Fox news when I'm feeling a little masochistic.
What I don't understand is that the likes of O'Reilly,Hannity and the idiot supreme Beck are actually popular??
Why is this?
After several hours they seem to me(a non American)as clowns in a televised circus of the insane!
America is full of people with sound reasoning and common sense(our much loved host Charles being a prime example);yet blow hard bums like the above
are popular??
As a customer of Rupert Murdoch(circa $150 per month for Sky television) I
am appalled at some of the "tabloid television" News Corp puts out; yet I'm grateful for his HD channel Sky Arts(just recorded Danial Barenboim's Beethoven concertos in 5.1 sound and David Gilmore at the Albert Hall)
Still business is business; just like Prof Dawkins promoting his truly excellent
"Greatest Show On Earth"on idiot television.
Finally I'm grateful for the pithy remark(paraphrased);that atheism is a religion as "baldness" is a hairstyle.(should upding that one).
I'm resolved to spend more time reading LGF as a source of received wisdom and fun(ubiquity is sadly denied to me).

637 Nemesis6  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:19:57am

Adam is facepalming at 4:51 in the video, and guess who's talking.

638 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:54:00am

Benny Hinn Ministries doesn’t publish its finances, but one report estimated it takes in $100 million a year. Hinn says only that the ministry pays him more than half a million dollars a year — but that income doesn’t include money from the sales of his books and his other private business ventures.

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

somehow I think I know what Pat Condell would say about this guy...but to deny him entry into England?...what are they afraid of?

639 Interested and concerned CDN  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:56:31am

"(OK, I’m paraphrasing, but not by much. Bill O’Reilly wants to teach creationism in public school science classes, and if you’re not down with that ... you’re an ATHEIST FASCIST!)"

Not what I got out of that.

Yes, O'Reilly can be a tool because he gets pointed in debate near his blind spots of ignorance but you do him a disservice with an over indulgent synopsis of that interview.

/have little idea what intelligent design is but I do know that it IS something geneticists are getting closer to and that dog breeders do...to this day.

640 aagcobb  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:18:39am

re: #630 austin_blue

He is also alienating the center.

It might well be a boon to the GOP if the "Fairness Doctrine" actually was reinstated. Right now there are countless hours on cable news and talk radio stations of wingnut blowhards reinforcing the base and alienating eveyone else. Republican officials can't even be mildly critical of Limbaugh without having to back down and apologize. Thats why I'm convinced that the Fairness Doctrine won't be reinstated-Obama wants Limbaugh to be the face of the GOP.

641 lostlakehiker  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:27:11am

re: #602 little boomer

You should be right, but you evidently don't eat lunch with this crowd.

Oh, but I do. Now I'll grant that the climate of opinion varies from place to place, and department to department, but from where I sit, the post you refer to is not so much opinion as reporting.

642 zelnaga  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:47:32am

If God were the answer to every question, there'd be no need to look for answers. If forensic science can't explain an unsolved murder should detectives turn to God or should they try to get creative and look for more evidence? And if you're going to go with the former, it seems hypocritical to assume a God of the gaps for every other science.

643 wrenchwench  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:53:29am

re: #639 Interested and concerned CDN

/have little idea what intelligent design is but I do know that it IS something geneticists are getting closer to and that dog breeders do...to this day.

Emphasis added. You are so far from correct it made me laugh. If you would like to know more, read this. If you don't want to read that, please let me know when you plan to comment on intelligent design again. I can always use the laugh.

644 BARACK THE VOTE  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:12:14am

re: #638 albusteve

Benny Hinn Ministries doesn’t publish its finances, but one report estimated it takes in $100 million a year. Hinn says only that the ministry pays him more than half a million dollars a year — but that income doesn’t include money from the sales of his books and his other private business ventures.

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

somehow I think I know what Pat Condell would say about this guy...but to deny him entry into England?...what are they afraid of?

Hinn failed to comply with the new guidelines for UK entry. If you're a 'religious worker' you need a letter of sponsership from a church. He didn't have it.
The law is meant to combat extremism .

A Border Agency spokesman said: “Under the UK’s tough new points-based system, religious workers must obtain a valid certificate of sponsorship prior to arriving in the UK. These rules are designed to make sure that a legitimate sponsor is linked to each application to enter the UK for work purposes.

[Link: www.timesonline.co.uk...]

“These rules are applied objectively and clearly set out for travellers. People who arrive without the required documentation can be refused entry to the UK.”

It was red tape. Hinn should have had the letter and did not.

645 WaveriderCA  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:46:22am

Culturally there is a problem in the United States. Most people don't seem to understand how the scientific process works let alone understand science and technology. Tech and Science don't seem to get younger people that excited. When I was graduating with my BS in Chemsitry it was in a sports arena and of the thousands of people graduating there were a small 5 of us getting that particular degree and approximately the same give or take a few with physics as well not enough to even get a gratuity slapped on a bill in some restaurants. Not the case with biology and biochemistry which there were probably hundreds. The main thing is that it's the math, and alot of people don't want to do math (at least thats what many of them told me) but want to play with science. It's disturbing and unfortunately I think alot of people in the scientific community do a great job at making science seem dense and inaccessable.

646 Interested and concerned CDN  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:03:12am

re: #643 wrenchwench

You are a little off in your criticism my friend. My wording could have been better. Intelligent design means little to me other than what the two words matched up literally mean from a scientific standpoint.

Please consider these two things:
1. Humulin
2. be careful about attacking so quickly, just because I don't completely condemn Mr. O'Reilly as a person doesn't mean I am not on your side of this issue.
k?
k.
Cheers mate

647 Bbungle  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:17:31am

What if - what if there really is a God?
/I haven't ruled it out.

648 claire  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:18:23am

#206 The Shadow Do

It's stupid and offensive. Does not belong.


Maybe, maybe not. If you've been to a modern art exhibit lately political commentary like this is widely accepted, and I'll tell you why in a second. This looks a lot like a folk collage, in parade form, representations of which are fairly common in the southwest, in mural form and mosaic form, and even carved wood (altarpiece form.) The elements are simutaneously rich in religious imagery, both Catholic and Aztec, possibly even Brazilian (Pagan/Catholic samba underwear?) but fairly derivative of stereotypical modern-day fast food society cultural elements. The God Obama has risen in a full grown human form from the halfshell (the taco shell, ha!) to be a savior. We've seen that meme throughout the ages. The food elements are offerings to the deity and represent the abundance of life. (Think Day of the Dead celebrations with imagery of breads, fruit, baked goods.) Archetypal representations of the good girl (Catholic) and the bad girl (prostitute), the celebration and appreciation of Hispanic family life. The tension between the two in everyday life- ying and yang, good and evil, fairly predictable content for modern art. The Mexican flag on the whitehouse says that Obama's rise is both a triumph of the ever-increasing power of the underdog and to remind everybody that this country was built (from the hispanic point of view, they got him elected) on the labors of the underclasses, hence the pyramidal form of the players on the right.
I'm actually surprised there aren't more religious symbols. The red roses swirling around Obama emerging from the water (baptism, white horse/mother/virgin birth) in another painting there are clearly signs of the Virgin of Guadelupe. What else? The underpants as someone mentioned, the dove of peace, is Obama holding the cajones, the machismo, the essence of hispanic maleness as a gift to the world. The halo of the sun glowing around his head has denoted God for a thousand years. The deity has emerged fully grown in human form to bring food, clothing, abundance and peace to the world.

/that's the thing about art. There are no absolutes. No such thing as good art or bad art, or art you must like, or art you must hate. You cannot declare that to be a sophisticate that you must like Ruscha, and you must loathe this guy (whomever he may be.) Nobody can tell you what it means or doesn't mean-not even the artist has that authority. It's meaning is a reflection of the viewer, period. So many layers of irony can be contained in the message it is impossible to be deterministic about it- and strangely enough when art has started a conversation it's done it's job!

649 doubter4444  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:29:53am

re: #559 little boomer

I respect your view, but I work in "higher ed" where the typical Bolshevik Atheist Professor looks down on any believer as a redneck fool. They believe that there is no God so that those with a PHD can be looked upon as nature's highest achievement. It's a form of narcissism.

You are completely full of horse shit, and this comment would be funny if it were not pathetic. (or had a sarc tag, is it missing?)

How do you get off calling ALL "Higher Ed" profs "Bolshevik Atheist Professors"?
I went to school in Salt Lake and there are many good teachers and educators that would be offended by that sweeping generalization.
The sanctity of your post reeks of ignorance, condescension and faux righteousness.
You work in Higher Ed?
In what food services? Was some professor mean to little old you?

650 Interested and concerned CDN  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:43:58am

re: #647 Bbungle

As the great Douglas Adams noted, and I paraphrase here me thinks:

God himself said 'without faith I am nothing'.

So...once you rule it in, there is none.

I think that cork trees is a real life Babel Fish...too damn useful to be an accident or product of evolution...it proves there is no god.

note to self: Someone will read this the wrong way.

651 wrenchwench  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 12:18:49pm

re: #646 Interested and concerned CDN

You are a little off in your criticism my friend. My wording could have been better. Intelligent design means little to me other than what the two words matched up literally mean from a scientific standpoint.

Please consider these two things:
1. Humulin
2. be careful about attacking so quickly, just because I don't completely condemn Mr. O'Reilly as a person doesn't mean I am not on your side of this issue.
k?
k.
Cheers mate

You did not even click on the link, did you. If you want to discuss what "intelligent design" means to you, I suggest you invent a new term for it. The phrase already has a meaning on the rest of the planet. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it before using it.

I made no comment about O'Reilly. I don't care what you think of him.

652 Interested and concerned CDN  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 2:41:41pm

re: #651 wrenchwench

You're serious? Then please don't care what I think of ID...despite that I am on your side. Yes I clicked the link...not much new to me, you thought I knew little of...not that I also thought little of, not that I knew little of because I thought little of. No, I will use the term as I see fit. Now, in the aforementioned sentence, you can apply both..to you.

keeeripes mate... give me a heads up to any party you're attending.

653 kelley b  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 3:25:40pm

Put the great big paintbrush away. I am a Zoologist. I see creative design compatible with science and the theory of Evolution. You folks throw the word 'creationist' around like it is a dirty ignorant slur. Please, grow up and stop this silliness. And, yes, I discuss both in my courses. Remember Evolution is a THEORY-not fact.

654 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 3:43:49pm

re: #653 kelley b

Heh! A "zoologist," eh? Who doesn't know the scientific meaning of the word "theory?"

How'd you miss that one in Zoology 101?

655 Ray in TX  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 3:47:27pm

re: #653 kelley b

Put the great big paintbrush away. I am a Zoologist. I see creative design compatible with science and the theory of Evolution. You folks throw the word 'creationist' around like it is a dirty ignorant slur.

I would consider it a slur if it was used against me. It is intended as a condemnation of ignorance. If that is how you are interpreting it, then at least we're on the same page.

That you confuse theory and fact leads me to question your degree of scientific education.

656 claire  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 3:49:48pm

re: #653 kelley b

Once, again, it comes down to definitions. If you do not believe that evolution is the way life has developed, that it was poofed into existence fully formed , or that the earth is 6000 years old, then you are a creationist. If you do not believe either of the above, then you are not.

The crux is this discussion is always that you can think what you want, but the religious aspects of "creation" should not be taught as science or as an alternative to science IN SCIENCE CLASS. Teach your children this in Sunday school, or give them books to read at home, or let them take a philosophy or comparative religion class.

Also, if you are really a scientist, you should know better than to say evolution is just a theory. I suspect your involvement in Zoology is limited to teaching others how to shovel elephant poo.

657 Ray in TX  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 3:52:05pm

re: #647 Bbungle

What if - what if there really is a God?
/I haven't ruled it out.

Nobody should rule it out completely. However, there are certain interpretations of "God" that are clearly ruled out by the preponderance of physical evidence.

If there is a god, I am pretty sure that we are ignorant of its nature and intentions. In fact, I think the evidence suggests that our existence is likely just an accidental byproduct of the created universe, and it may see us as little more than a curiosity -- kind of like a tiny mole on the ass of his creation.

If it exists, of course.

658 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 3:54:44pm

re: #657 Ray in TX

We exist so god can have something to laugh at.

659 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 3:57:04pm

re: #647 Bbungle

What if - what if there really is a God?
/I haven't ruled it out.

This debate isn't about God vs. No God. It's about science and religion being two separate aspects of knowledge. You can have both God and evolution. It's not an either/or choice. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

660 wrenchwench  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 5:00:59pm

re: #652 Interested and concerned CDN

OK, I finally found an appropriate response.

661 interested and concerned CDN  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 5:14:38pm

re: #660 wrenchwench

As have I

662 kelley b  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 5:18:40pm

Charles,
BS Zoology, l969. I have taught Biology. How about you? One wonders if you Do understand the definition of a theory. In my lectures, one is taught the theory of evolution. One will also be exposed to the theory of Intelligent Design. To be educated, one must be to exposed to a myriad of ideas. Not just ideas that are considered politically correct today.
You are very quick to jump up and down with a pan full of sarcasm, dear.
Oh, Claire, I have never worked in a Zoo. How about you?

663 Ray in TX  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 5:24:24pm

re: #662 kelley b

Charles,
BS Zoology, l969. I have taught Biology. How about you? One wonders if you Do understand the definition of a theory.

It's clear that you do not.

664 petepistolas  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 5:33:45pm

As a chemical engineer and a practicing Catholic, I've never had an issue believing in both evolution and a Creator. It is much harder having faith in a personal God and I've had my crises of faith over the years, but I still have my reasons to believe. The problem I have with Richard Dawkins is that he simply has no respect for people who believe both in science and religion. He actually breaks it down to rationalism vs. superstition. In "The God Delusion" Dawkins actually calls Pope John Paul II a hypocrite because the pope endorsed Darwinism. Bottom line, according to Dawkins you can't believe in evolution and other aspects of science and be religious or spiritual.

665 kelley b  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 5:36:50pm

Ray,
"A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be found to be incorrect."
That is why we say the Theory of Evolution not The LAW of Evolution.

666 wrenchwench  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 5:41:54pm

re: #661 interested and concerned CDN

LOL

667 aagcobb  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 5:45:57pm

re: #662 kelley b

Charles,
BS Zoology, l969. I have taught Biology. How about you? One wonders if you Do understand the definition of a theory. In my lectures, one is taught the theory of evolution. One will also be exposed to the theory of Intelligent Design. To be educated, one must be to exposed to a myriad of ideas. Not just ideas that are considered politically correct today.
You are very quick to jump up and down with a pan full of sarcasm, dear.
Oh, Claire, I have never worked in a Zoo. How about you?

I wonder how you could understand the meaning of the term theory since there is no theory of intelligent design.

668 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:12:48pm

re: #653 kelley b

Put the great big paintbrush away. I am a Zoologist. I see creative design compatible with science and the theory of Evolution. You folks throw the word 'creationist' around like it is a dirty ignorant slur. Please, grow up and stop this silliness. And, yes, I discuss both in my courses. Remember Evolution is a THEORY-not fact.

Forgive my snarkiness but, I'm the Head of Cabbage. Do you 'believe' in Intelligent Falling as well? Since you must also think that the THEORY of gravity is, well, you know where I'm going with this...

As to you teaching both in your courses (which I don't believe, btw), whose version of creation do you teach?

One last thing that seems to never sink in; ID/Creationism IS NOT SCIENCE!

669 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:33:21pm

re: #662 kelley b

Charles,
BS Zoology, l969. I have taught Biology. How about you? One wonders if you Do understand the definition of a theory. In my lectures, one is taught the theory of evolution. One will also be exposed to the theory of Intelligent Design.

Dude. What's up with the random capitalization?

And doubling down on your misunderstanding of the word "theory?"

That's just sad.

670 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:51:48pm

re: #664 petepistolas

The problem I have with Richard Dawkins is that he simply has no respect for people who believe both in science and religion. He actually breaks it down to rationalism vs. superstition. In "The God Delusion" Dawkins actually calls Pope John Paul II a hypocrite because the pope endorsed Darwinism.

That's a lie. I've read the book.

Please cite the passage where Dawkins wrote that.

671 petepistolas  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:09:55pm

Charles, please refrain from calling me a liar. I am currently reading the book myself. You can refer to the top of page 92, the chapter entitled "the God Hypothesis". Dawkings quotes Michael Ruse and states...
"When John Paul II wrote a letter endorsing Darwinsim, Richard Dawkins response was that the pope was a hypocrite, that he could not be genuine about science and that Dawkins himself simply preferred an honest fundamentalist".

672 Claire  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:17:57pm

re: #662 kelley b

I'm fairly sure Zoologists that teach at the uni level are required to have PhD's, but regardless, even first year biology students learn that a theory in science is not a simple guess but converges on fact due to the overwhelming evidence.

So lemme guess, your syllabus for evolution is a couple of hundred pages and maybe one paragraph for I.D.

Students, I would like to introduce to you the Theory of Intelligent Design. People smarter than you have decided that the universe is too complex to be an accident and they have written a few books that are easily discounted, and prove nothing, and conclude that more experiments need to be done. Take my word for it O.K., since I am a part-time pastor you can trust me, even though there's no evidence for it, I just "know", O.K.? So, now that you know that God directed it all, be sure and not get pregnant and murder and stuff, O.K.? The end. 5 minutes max.

673 perdiem  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:19:36pm

On another website on the same topic:

I don’t have the time to read all that has been posted on this thread, but let me make the following points clear.

1. I enthusiastically visit this site daily.

2. I had 12 years of catholic education. My grandfather was a lecture on televised masses. My Uncle is a deacon. and two of my aunts and eucharistic ministers.

3. I have a PhD in evolutionary biology

4. I teach at a public high school.

5. I am a US Navy veteran.

Now this will get allahpundit’s panties in a bunch, but there is no way in which I would ever consider teaching a creationist viewpoint in my classroom.

why, you might ask? It is because I teach Science, not religion, or belief.

Evolution by natural selection is the only theory that has withstood blistering attacks over the past 150 years. The biggest problem in this debate is the deliberate misrepresentation of what the word “theory” actually means.

Let me do what I do best and educate. A theory is an explanation of a phenomenom that is supported by the work of many other scientists. It is not a guess. It is not a hypothesis. It is the best explanation based upon current scientific research. The moment a better explanation comes along, it will be discredited.

However, this is not the case with Darwin’s theory. It just becomes more and more strongly supported by the scientific research.

Creationism, in any form, cannot withstand even the most bssic scientific scrutiny and therefore has absolutely no place in a sciecne (always biology) classroom.

Rejection of this most robust of scientific theories will only continue to hinder the progress of the republican party. when we realize that our true base is fiscal conservatism, we can overcome this. Until we stop allowing social conservative to dictact the direction of this party, we will be soundly defeated my the worst the liberals can throw out there.

Dr.G

674 petepistolas  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:22:44pm

re: #673 perdiem

Amen...

675 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:33:46pm

re: #671 petepistolas

Charles, please refrain from calling me a liar. I am currently reading the book myself. You can refer to the top of page 92, the chapter entitled "the God Hypothesis". Dawkings quotes Michael Ruse and states...
"When John Paul II wrote a letter endorsing Darwinsim, Richard Dawkins response was that the pope was a hypocrite, that he could not be genuine about science and that Dawkins himself simply preferred an honest fundamentalist".

That's a quote from an article in Playboy magazine, and those are NOT Dawkins's words.

Yes, lie is the right word for what you're trying to do here.

676 [deleted]  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:46:56pm
677 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:57:39pm

re: #676 petepistolas

And with that, I bid you a not-so-fond adieu.

678 BARACK THE VOTE  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 8:55:57am

re: #662 kelley b

Charles,
BS Zoology, l969. I have taught Biology. ...

In my lectures, one is taught the theory of evolution. One will also be exposed to the theory of Intelligent Design.

But you clearly have not taught it at the university level, because you lack the credentials to do so. Your BS ain't enough, so to speak.

And I suspect your description of your lectures' contents, (curiously enough in the present tense) explains why you have taught biology, as opposed to currently teaching biology.

679 Yashmak  Mon, Oct 12, 2009 7:48:06am

Charles,
I'm glad you clarified that the conversation you quote between O'Reilly and Dawkins was paraphrased.

I kind of thought so. . .but the truly sad statement about the more extreme 'conservatives' these days, is that until you stated that it was indeed paraphrased, I couldn't be sure.

680 Yashmak  Mon, Oct 12, 2009 7:53:36am

re: #662 kelley b

To be educated, one must be to exposed to a myriad of ideas.

To be educated about science, one must be exposed to a myriad of scientific ideas, not theological ideas. One must be exposed to ideas supported by scientific evidence, not by belief in the absence of such evidence. You seem to misunderstand the whole point of science education. What you're describing sounds more like a description of a philosopy course than a science curriculum.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
A Water War Is Brewing Between the U.S. And Mexico. Here’s Why A water dispute between the United States and Mexico that goes back decades is turning increasingly urgent in Texas communities that rely on the Rio Grande. Their leaders are now demanding the Mexican government either share water or face ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 84 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Harper’s Magazine: Slippery Slope - How Private Equity Shapes a Ski Town …Big Sky stands apart for other reasons. The obvious distinction is the Yellowstone Club, a private resort hidden in the mountains above the community that Justin Farrell, a professor of sociology at Yale and the author of Billionaire Wilderness, ...
teleskiguy
2 days ago
Views: 293 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2