Jon nails it as usual.
Recent Comments
- Kimberlee Poppo: I have read a few excellent stuff here. Certainly value bookmarking for... on Beck on Bat Creek
- vasaroti: Do you post your light-filled interpretations of the Bible on conventional religious blogs or... on Phineas
- vasaroti: Yep, situational ethics at its finest. on Phineas
- vasaroti: No religious exemptions? on Vaccination and Taxes
- FO: Are they so impervious? O_O on Vaccination and Taxes
- Custador: True, but she had the good sense to trust people who do know about these things... on Vaccination and Taxes
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
Spot on, as usual!
Yeah I agree. That excuse of a goatee with mustache did not suit him at all. JK
Yeah He does nail it.
They should have a view of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s hit comedy Little Mosque on the Prairie. http://www.cbc.ca/littlemosque/ Great show!
Yes, Jon and his crew hit it on the head as usual. The amazing hypocrisy of xtian America will never cease to baffle (and anger) me.
I don’t want any mosque there and I’m not a Christian. Fuck Islam. (And I don’t care if you call me a bigot; I think Islam is shit.)
Robert, although many of us that follow this site are atheists (including myself), I find your feelings against the mosque disconcerting. Though I find the rituals and supernatural beliefs to be nonsensical and based on poor reasoning, I cannot force my feelings upon others. Everything is about power. There exists a vast range of religious beliefs, all of which are valid within their own perspective. Unfortunately, those perspectives that hold power have the privilege to oppress the remaining perspectives; hence, we all need to advocate for religious freedoms or else your perspective, too, may one day be vilified and silenced.
Alex, I’m not an atheist, but I have to agree with you wholeheartedly. I have to say that not all belief in the supernatural is based on poor reasoning. I’m a scientist who has witnessed full-blown miracles. Yet bigotry of any kind hurts us all. Personally, I’m aghast at the Texas schoolboard decision to change the flavor of schoolbooks a large percentage of the nation is shackled with. We all lose if science gets marginalized by idiotic interpretations of the Bible. And all freedoms become curtailed if the divisiveness of “us versus them” turns this into a war.
In every field I’ve studied, I always learn from those who have a simpler view of the universe. Humility in the face of different points-of-view has allowed me to realize things I might not have seen if I was arrogant about my own knowledge. Mere “tolerance” does not go far enough. I tend to ignore the arrogant religious nut, arrogant skeptic, arrogant whatever. They’re not worth my time. But celebrating other points-of-view as potentially valuable can be cathartic and/or enlightening.
It’s a big universe and there is a lot we don’t know.
Still looking to plug your up and coming “science” book then?
Actually, no, Jabs. But plug a book on a scientist’s take on Genesis? Perhaps. I could plug my astronomy software, but that would be a bit out of its element, here. Plug my papers on geology? Even more out of line. I’ve also published some science fiction, but enough fiction here, right?
If Genesis had any truth to it, what would it look like? I know many a skeptic and many an atheist would not give a hocky puck about it, but that’s okay. But some of the very things one of my college professors harped on about biblical contradictions are the very clues that lead to a solution to a Genesis timeline compatible with those of science. It’s an interesting puzzle with a few surprises.
If you like history, and puzzles, this could be fun. I like making discoveries in “forbidden” areas. Shouldn’t we all be more interested in discovery than to be closed off like Robert is to Islam? It was that type of intolerance that catapulted someone into office in 1930′s Germany.
“It was that type of intolerance that catapulted someone into office in 1930’s Germany.”
No you’re just stupid …
Oh and you’ve written some astronomy software … I write software for security products so what’s your point here?
“… but enough fiction here, right?”
Nope, you seem to be good at that
“But some of the very things one of my college professors harped on about biblical contradictions are the very clues that lead to a solution to a Genesis timeline compatible with those of science.”
Well if you redefine science to making reality agree to the Bible by making shite up, then yes I agree.
So anyway carry on plugging your “science” book and leave real science to people who know what they’re talking about.
. But some of the very things one of my college professors harped on about biblical contradictions are the very clues that lead to a solution to a Genesis timeline compatible with those of science.
It is basically making up stuff, but is no science at all. I heard many of those so called theories and even though they sound nice they all suck big time when tested in reality.
Rod, I worked with scientists. I met many scientists. I developed scientific image processing software for scanners. You are no scientist!
(LOL! I appreciate the Lloyd Bentsen reference!)
Rod I see what you are doing, you are basically spamming this side with links to your site in the hope getting bigger google rankings so you can sell books.
No scientist works like this only snake oil sellers. It means only one thing. You have zero science proof at all. Your book is worthless.
Your personal miracle of getting stuck in a traffic jam that suddenly gives you a free lane for 1 minute happens to me every time I am in a traffic jam when I go to work.
“Rod I see what you are doing, you are basically spamming this side with links to your site in the hope getting bigger google rankings so you can sell books.”
Why you cynic!
Maybe he does not it yet himself LOL
True. It’s 40% ignorance, 40% superstition and 20% poor reasoning.
Allow me to doubt both things. But assuming that was true, then why do you still call yourself a scientist? I mean, if you witnessed a miracle, which by definition is a physically impossible event, what’s the point of studying science, if the invisible magic man can invalidate the laws of physics any moment?
Thanks, Bender. Nice to see we have an expert, here. I think Galileo received the same leeway at his trial, 400 years ago.
By all means. I only had two or three thousand witnesses, but alas, I didn’t take any business cards.
Do you love science, logic and mathematics, Bender? Well, I do. When I was studying electronic engineering in 1976, I came across one device called a “tank circuit” (aka, LC circuit). To the layman, this is a radio tuning circuit. When I read how a capacitor and coil in parallel could be tuned to a specific frequency, suddenly my studies in astronomy came into focus regarding absorption and emission spectra. Suddenly, I realized that I was surrounded by tank circuits — trillions of them! You see each atom is a tank circuit. That kind of epiphany makes science worth it. Have you ever experienced such a thing? It’s for things like that, that I still consider myself a scientist.
Now, Bender, you’ve got to be more exacting than that. This is not a definition of a miracle. A “miracle” is not something that is “physically impossible.” American Heritage says, “An event that appears inexplicable [not 'impossible'] by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin.”
Science deals with the realm of physical continuity. There are no proven discontinuities in space or time — not that can be governed by the physical laws studied by science. Calculus talks of discontinuities, but those are only theoretical constructs. For there to be any “supernatural” realm with sources of creation, it would have to be based on discontinuity rather than continuity. You follow me?
I’m not trying to be mean, but I looked at your website (and your resume posted there) and I have to tell you that you are *not* a scientist. You have no scientific training. You may have some engineering/computer training, but that is not science. So it baffles me that you spend so much time looking to analyze Genesis and science. Especially in light of your comparative and Eastern religions training. Why aren’t you looking to analyze various religions and science, why focus on Genesis? It seems like this focus would make dubious your claims of “looking for higher truths” in the gaps between science and religion if you are unwilling to look to all religions for this project.
I’m just sayin’.
Why shouldn’t you be mean to the idiot … he claims to be a scientist but is clearly not?
It’s hard for me to be mean to fellow Texans. Take John C, for instance.
… call it a weakness or a personal failing.
(LOL!)
I had a look at your site and I can’t say I’m that impressed. The genesis timeline section basically has your drawings with no reasoning as to how you got to the numbers. The ark section is nothing but a plug for your upcoming book.
In solving the culprit behind humanity’s worst disaster, The Noah Mystery, God’s Reason for the Flood documents a world-shattering breakthrough. It is a must read. And, who knows? Perhaps some day soon we will also have proof of Noah’s ark.
You sure have a high opinion of yourself.
Ah. So the “miracles” you witnessed were just things you can’t explain, like a caveman witnessing an eclipse. An much like the caveman, you concluded that what you can’t explain is god. And that’s not poor reasoning at all.
So what you’re saying is that there is no evidence whatsoever of anything “supernatural”, but you believe in it anyway. Yeah, you’re just like Galileo.
Fixed.
God of the gaps is a f*%£ing retarded argument used by f*%£ing retarded people. Don’t expect an respect for it here.
IIRC it’s the same sort of crap he was posting here some months ago … if there’s one thing that annoys me it’s people who claim they are scienticts but clearly aren’t; then again people who so quickly claim they are scientists is much the same as those who quickly claim they are a bit zany …
The first dead give-away that you are not a scientist is when you claim that you are a scientist but fail to produce some maths and numbers in the same message.
I am studying to become a “scientist” but rarely feel the need to produce some “maths and numbers” when I talk about my research. I investigate the function of a nuclear hormone receptor called NHR-67 by looking at the promoter region, specifically it’s DNA and ligand binding domains. Admittedly, to do this I make use of quantitative real-time PCR, which gives me an report sheet of numbers which I compare and analyze. My point is not to say that I don’t use “maths and numbers” but that my use of such things has little to do with my identification as a scientist and only comes to light in one tiny part of my research.
With all respects to Sojourner Truth, I ask you this: Ain’t I a Scientist?
Alex- from one molecular biologist to another…. affirmative.
Alex, have you noted you language :-)
Even though you did not use maths and numbers there is this typical science way of thinking and writing that is unmistakable. :-)
And when I ask you what “quantitative real-time PCR” means. I will get a very precise and clear explanation from you and probably even more details of your research. :-)
LRA, Alex I have a questions for you.
Is molecular biology a fun job? Just curious because when I was young I was thinking about studying bio-technology but decided to go into electronics when I discovered that cutting frogs and other animals open for testing during study.
It’s a lot like baking. One wrong measurement screws up the whole batch. And sometimes you just don’t know why your soufflé fell. Except the screwed up batch costs your lab several hundred dollars.
It’s also a lot like being a surgeon. Except that you use a microscope because those heads are awfully small (I worked in a neuroscience lab because my primary interest is neuroscience).
My dad’s a neurologist. He’s always telling me about the problems his patients have.
I worked as a special education teacher for kids with neurological disorders before I went off to Columbia to study neuroscience. Your dad will appreciate this: I had a student with Angelman Syndrome and a student with Prader-Willi syndrome in the same class…
Yeah, he mostly works with kids too, he’s a pediatric neurologist.
I thought very seriously about becoming a pediatric neurologist… but I’m going to be an academic (professor) instead.
Any idea where you might teach?
I would love to end up teaching at a Texas school– perhaps University of Texas… or even UT Southwestern. But who knows? In academia, you go where the jobs are…
Rob you are desolutional.
Your LC electronics circuity have no relationship whatsoever with emission and absorption lines in the colour spectrum and as an electronics engineer you should know this.
No atoms are on no way a LC electronics circuit equivalent. You cannot change the frequency of the atom and you cannot fine-tune to this universe like changing the radio.
What do you mean that there are no discontinuities in space or time? You call yourself a scientists and does now know about Planck-lenght and Planck time.
Maybe his standards of miracles are set absurdly low. Hitting a 7 10 split in bowling, pitching a Perfect Game, consuming vast qantities of sugars and carbohydrates and not gaining a pound?
“I’m a scientist who has witnessed full-blown miracles. ”
[Citation needed]
With all these scientists on UF, I feel shit I’m just a law student.
You feel like shit. You have no idea. I gave an Islamiat exam in May. I study Islamiat.
Well, as long as you recognize that you’re a bigot…
To me it is just another “My Religion Is Better Then Your Religion” thing.
I’m an atheist as if you couldn’t tell by my name.
To me it is all religious bigotry.
And every atheist who is open about being an atheist knows what I’m talking about.
Then there is that side of me that says, as an American, built it.
Why?
Because this is AMERICA and we have freedom of religion and….freedom FROM religion.
I say build it because it will show the world that we are who we say we are and better then those who have religion that blow people and things up FOR their religion.
You can be who you are in America.
You can’t in other places.
If we don’t build it, then it will only give “fuel” to groups like those Islamic radicals.
Then we can tell them you have nothing to fear from us because you can practice any religion you want to in America, or not.
“You can be who you are in America.
You can’t in other places.”
All other places or just some other places … American isn’t exactly unique in this respect or indeed is the “you can be what you want” entirely true.
“Then we can tell them you have nothing to fear from us because you can practice any religion you want to in America, or not.”
Unless you want to hold political office then you probably want to be Christian.
I’m quite proud that the UK has an openly atheist deputy prime-minister, even if he is a bit of a turd.
Not a fan of the Eton mafia then?
Um… No.
You’re just jealous after you where blackballed from becoming a member of the Bullingdon Club!
That’s Oxford, old boy ;-)
I know but Eton is a good route to that I believe, or being a member of the Royal family of course!
My lady went to Oxford – pretty sure some of the people she knows from there were Bullingdons. Certainly one or two of them would have been prime material for it, anyway!
“Unless you want to hold political office then you probably want to be Christian.”
Yeah. I find it ironic that in a highly religious country such as Brazil (except we’ve about a billion religions coexisting peacefully, and lots of people practice more than one at once), religion has never been an issue for picking/not picking a president. I mean, both the current and previous presidents seem to be more apatheists – they might be religious but it is simply a non-issue, unlike in the US.
Just as well: I suppose if there was a Muslim or someone more obvious (even if a Christian) people would b*tch. The vagaries of having a highly diverse population.
I dislike all religious beliefs, however, some are generally harmless. I probably have bits of superstition, stupid ways of doing things, lack of knowledge in a lot of things, apathy for some things, sentimentality in material things, and as nice, kind, and generous as I try to be, I’m misanthropic and a little unsociable. I think a lot of the culture, if you took away religious beliefs, acts in near-religious ways to the point that it’s hard for me to follow reasoning, other than “everyone else does it,” or “it’s always been this way.” Consider the example when someone sneezes, most people offer a polite response as taught to them as a wee child-type person. What you say when someone sneezes doesn’t even matter, sneezing is normal and your soul isn’t trying to escape and everyone knows it, but we still say something. Those who don’t offer the polite response seems to already have considered this one time and stopped doing it on purpose, but it’s a custom. We have a lot of customs like that and silly as they are to continue, we incorporate those customs into habit and they make no sense, and it’s hard to counter them with reason.
Anyway, as much as I dislike religion, I would not choose to prohibit religious beliefs or expression. It’s not so much that it’s between someone and the god of their choice, and it is partly because I don’t want to alter the Constitution in such a radical way — that’s just reckless, and I think would open it up to a lot of changes we don’t want. Say, for example, we see what a harm religion has been overall and strike that line from the 1st amendment. It’s just chaotic, I think.
Anyway, to do so would also effectively make atheism the state religion. It’s not a religion, but enforcing it would make it one. People would still believe in god, so where does that get us, fewer houses of worship? Fewer radicals? It is thought police. Ideally, the 1st amendment freedom of religious expression and separation of church and state should keep religious practice out of facts, the facts taught in schools, and the facts governing our laws. Ideally that would extend also to news reporting, although by also the 1st amendment, are a free press, not run by the government, and which allows the press to, as in free speech, criticize the government. Religion may be practiced freely and kept from corrupting the business of reality and government. It’s effectively a promise not to infringe on beliefs in a bargain that beliefs not infringe or steer government – not working quite as well.
The hard part of this anti-thought-police is that people run for office or get appointed with thoughts already in their head. If one believes in god, then this is central to the person and can’t be set aside so they can make reality-based decisions that affect all of us. I mean, we can’t force them to set it aside because they have the same rights to freedom of religion that all of us do. We vote for them to represent us. I just think if we did force people to think “the right way,” they would still think what they want to, and we’d also have to define for every possible situation what “the right way” is, and that’s the opposite of freedom.
My idea is that, over time, and with controversial situations, we grow. Christians will begrudgingly have to make room for Muslims, and it’s not going to happen really fast. Fundamental Christianity may grow in direct response as people cling to “the way it ought to be,” or “the way it used to be,” etc., but let any of them come to reason on their own, not without some social pressure or discussion, but not at all by law, and it will hopefully shrink. The most the law can do is allow this mosque as it should.
As far as the “thought police” notion goes, and with regard toward atheism as functioning as a religion within the 1st amendment right to religious expression (but not a religion itself) — atheists don’t build churches that encroach on other people’s feelings like a mosque seems to do, but we gather and communicate on sites like this, there are no thought police to keep us down. I guess that is what I mean analogously — if there were no churches, people would still make things up and believe them, together. One reason we don’t seem to have as much presence and aren’t taken kindly to in the US is people are embarrassed or socially intimidated not to say they are atheists. It keeps us invisible and underestimated in number, and somewhat reinforces negative myths by not creating positive examples. Atheism seems to be just secular science and living until someone pushes against, then to push back, it’s not a religion, it’s not something you just announce to people like it’s your religion.
It is impossible to make atheisms a state-something.
You cannot force people not to believe.
Atheism is like the number zero.
It is a number representing something that is missing.
Actually the word atheism would cease to exist when there is no religion that pushes people into believing. The word atheist only exists because of the interaction with religious people.
Like I said before if the people who live there are Ok with it then it is not a problem. I don’t think the city council should be rubber stamping such requests for X and Y to be built. Besides according to the video it was a Burlington Coat factory (commerical) but now it is going to be a cultural centre with a mosque (commerical? wat?) so was there some re-zoning going on there?
Either way it affects me none as I am not American
You’ve got it all wrong my fellow atheists.
This is America, whether you like it or not, it is a Christian Country – more of a cultural Christian country these days. But nonetheless a Christian country.
If you are a casual student of world history like myself, you cannot ignore the essense of Christianity is about total domination of other religions and peoples throgh much of its existence. When Christianity was fight for the primacy from Europe to the New World, its path are littered with corpses of nonbelivers.
This whole religious tolerance is a much more recent face of Christianity. Christians would tolerate other religions and nonbelievers like a 6′ tall man would a bee sting. If the bee flys too clase to the face, the iron hand smachs down. Just like in modern America, othe rminor religions are allowed to exist if they keep to themselves, don’t rock the boat and don’t try to raise their voice for a place at the table.
Pingback: Sour Apples » Blog Archive » “Ground Zero” Mosque